Northern Ireland: Legacy of the Past
Hilary Benn Excerpts(4 days, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), who chairs the Select Committee with such distinction, on securing the debate. I thank the members of the Select Committee who have come today, including those who I know have made a very special effort to be present. The Government have published their response to the report. I will not rehearse all those arguments and details today, but I will do my best, in the limited time I have, to respond to many of the points that have been made.
As we have heard, not least from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), the legacy of the troubles still affects the lives of many people in Northern Ireland. We need to get this right. We know how we got here: the previous piece of legislation, whatever its intentions, did not work, and that is why we have the troubles Bill before us. I am confident that the provisions contained in the Bill will bring about the necessary reform to the commission. I think it is fair to say that it had a reasonably positive response from victims and survivors and others in Northern Ireland, although there is still a deep lack of trust in what has happened.
We undoubtedly owe our Operation Banner veterans an enormous debt. I will be clear: there will be no rewriting of history. The Bill is not going to change the way in which people view the troubles. As we have hard, terrorists were responsible for the vast majority of deaths. There was always an alternative, and there never was—never will be—any equivalent between our brave armed forces and those who set out to kill their fellow citizens.
The Bill includes strong safeguards for veterans that were not in the legacy Act. They have been introduced to try to ensure that veterans have fair treatment, but I am, with the Secretary of State for Defence and the Armed Forces Minister, looking at what more we can do to build greater confidence. The House will see the result of those considerations in Committee, and the date will be set in the normal way. I have to be frank in this debate, however, that we are not going to accept any proposals that seek to reintroduce the immunity provisions. The Government disagree with immunity as a matter of principle and there is no support in Northern Ireland. Equally, there is no question of anyone who followed the rules being prosecuted.
To respond to the points raised, on funding, as I said to the Select Committee, there will need to be further discussions as the caseload of the commission unfolds. The victims and survivors advisory group has a very specific role. I made it clear that I am looking to ensure veteran representation on it. I agree with what Joe McVey said about the nature of some of our debate, but I think we have had a more balanced debate this afternoon.
On close family members, which was raised by the Chair of the Select Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray), we have to strike a balance. Clearly, if there are no close family members, other family members—for example, grandchildren—can bring cases, but the House needs to think about what happens if one family member says, “I want it investigated,” and another says, “I do not.”
On the appointment of judges, the point was made that Ministers appoint judges to public inquiries and I do not hear people saying, “That means the judges are not independent,” but of course the holder of this office will take advice from judicial experts. On disclosure, which was raised by the Chair of the Select Committee and the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), we are making two changes: there will be a duty to conduct a balancing exercise and to give reasons where possible, and it will be open to anyone to judicially review.
On the point about the Irish commitments that many Members have raised, the Irish Government have said that once our legislation is in place, they will give the fullest possible co-operation to the legacy commission. They had already established by the end of December the Garda Síochána unit and it will pursue potential investigative opportunities. I was in Dublin to discuss that earlier this month. The Irish Government have now published the legislation to enable witness evidence to be given to the Omagh inquiry. I take the point about the separation, but I think that shows good faith because I have no doubt in my mind that the legislation to give effect to that fullest possible co-operation will appear soon.
I have great respect for the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis). I do not think I have ever insulted anyone in any debate about legacy, and I respect the point that he advances. However, with respect, there are no vexatious prosecutions—please can we not use that phrase? If we go down that road, it says something about independent prosecutors that I think is not justified by the evidence. I would draw to his attention and that of the House the protected disclosure arrangements under the Independent Commission on Information Retrieval that the troubles Bill will introduce, which were negotiated by the last Government under the Stormont House agreement.
My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) made a powerful point about investigations that were shut down. I say to the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) that the protections were designed for veterans—that is why they are in the legislation—but they apply to all, mostly for the reasons that the right hon. Member for New Forest East set out: we have to treat people fairly under the law.
On sexual crimes, the Bill will deal with the gap that the legacy Act created, because there will be no alleged sexual offences that occurred during the period of the troubles that cannot be investigated, and that is extremely important. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch, who serves on the Select Committee, that this is probably our last best chance to get this right. No Member of the House shows more clearly the effect that the troubles have had on individuals and families than the hon. Member for Strangford. I agree with the hon. Member for Wimbledon that victims need to feel heard.
I say to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), for whom I also have enormous respect, that it is not a case of reopening old wounds. The wounds have never healed, which is why so many people are still searching for answers. I agree that attitudes towards the ICRIR are beginning to change; the growing caseload is a sign of that. I would, however, suggest that the fact that there will be further changes to the way it works—I took the decision not to abolish it, because I have confidence in Sir Declan, as the hon. Gentleman does—gives people greater confidence in coming forward, because that is what this is all about.
Given the wide range of views held by so many people, it will not be possible—let us be honest—to give everybody everything they are looking for. As I have said before, if dealing with legacy were easy, we would not be sitting here this afternoon debating it; it would have been done a long time ago. It is the unfinished business of the Good Friday agreement, and we have to find a balance.
I pledge to the House that I will continue listening to everyone who has views to express, including the Select Committee, because every single one of us is only too conscious of the passage of time. For families, time is running out and they still do not have the answers. That is why the Government are determined to sort this out and build the trust that has been so absent for victims, survivors, those who serve and wider society in Northern Ireland. We really must make every effort we can to get this right, above all for the families who have waited far too long for answers.
Patrick Finucane Inquiry
Hilary Benn Excerpts(2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
On 11 September 2024, I announced the establishment of an independent statutory inquiry into the murder of Patrick Finucane in February 1989, under the Inquiries Act 2005. This decision was in response to the 2019 judgment of the Supreme Court, which found that the previous investigations into the murder had been insufficient to enable the state to discharge its obligations under article 2 of the European convention on human rights.
Today, the Government have published the terms of reference for the Patrick Finucane inquiry. This follows the appointment of the right hon. Sir Gary Hickinbottom as Chair of the Patrick Finucane inquiry and the Baroness O’Loan and Francesca Del Mese as assessors to the inquiry, which I announced on 13 June 2025.
The terms of reference have been developed following formal consultation with Sir Gary, as required by the Inquiries Act. Sir Gary, in turn, consulted the family of Patrick Finucane who provided very helpful feedback and observations. I would like to thank Sir Gary and the Finucane family for their engagement and feedback throughout the process.
Patrick Finucane was brutally murdered in his home in Belfast in front of his wife, Geraldine (who was also wounded), and his three children. This was a barbaric and heinous crime. I commend the tireless campaign of Mrs Finucane and her family over the course of 37 years in seeking answers about the brutal murder of their loved one, and I am pleased that the inquiry will now finally be able to get under way.
I am satisfied that the terms of reference, as set out below, will enable the state to discharge its obligations under article 2 of the ECHR.
I have placed a copy of the terms of reference in the Library of the House.
The Patrick Finucane inquiry is now formally established. Its terms of reference are attached.
Attachments can be viewed online at: http://www. parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2026-03-09/HCWS1387
[HCWS1387]
Oral Answers to Questions
Hilary Benn Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
The Government are supporting Northern Ireland through the four city deals, the local innovation partnerships fund, an enhanced investment zone and greater economic stability. Economic activity in Northern Ireland increased by 2.9% over the year to quarter 3, and it has the lowest unemployment in the UK.
Joe Robertson
The Government are giving a 50% reduction to the emissions trading scheme levy on ferries crossing between Northern Ireland and Great Britain in an apparent effort not to negatively impact the economy there. Scottish islands are getting a 100% reduction, yet the Isle of Wight is getting no reduction. What economic assessment has been done to arrive at those figures, or are they simply plucked out of thin air?
Hilary Benn
The figures are based on the assessment that there are particular requirements for the Scottish islands in terms of services, access to essential care and so on. That is why that exemption has been applied for Scotland. The impact of this measure on trade between GB and Northern Ireland will be very small in light of the overall costs of moving goods and transportation.
Blake Stephenson
While the rise in the agricultural property relief threshold to £2.5 million is a welcome step for farmers, does the Minister recognise the broader economic concern shared by the Ulster Farmers Union that inflation and steadily rising asset values will over time pull more family farms into inheritance tax liability, even when their real wealth and income may not increase?
Hilary Benn
As the hon. Member will be aware, the Government announced that the allowance for 100% rate relief will be increased from £1 million to £2.5 million. That means that a couple will now be able to pass on up to £5 million tax-free between them, on top of the existing allowances such as the nil-rate band. The president of the Ulster Farmers Union, William Irwin, welcomed the changes. In fact, he said:
“We are in a better position today than we were yesterday”.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South and Mid Down) (SDLP)
The local growth fund was a UK Government policy that had been working to support some people outside of the labour market into decent work, helping to address Northern Ireland’s low productivity rates. The UK Government have changed that policy and the capital revenue split in a way that works for the Treasury, but not for organisations in Northern Ireland. Funded groups are being directed to PEACEPLUS, but its funding criteria does not work for most. Why are voluntary and community sector groups being asked to distort Special EU Programmes Body rules, rather than UK Government policy adapting to local needs?
Hilary Benn
I met the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action and CO3 last week to talk about this matter. It is a difficult situation because of how capital and resources have been allocated through the local growth fund. Of the £12 million of available resource funding, we agreed with the Executive that £3 million would go to Go Succeed at their request, and £9 million would go to economic inactivity programmes. We are exploring other potential sources of funding, of which PEACEPLUS is one. Another source is the Northern Ireland Executive’s record settlement. They had £9 million yesterday in additional Barnett consequentials. They could choose to invest some money in these programmes.
Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that Northern Ireland, like Scotland and Wales, shares the benefits of a united United Kingdom and its collective spending power, generating jobs and opportunities across the four countries of the United Kingdom?
Hilary Benn
I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. All parts of the United Kingdom derive strength and benefit from being part of that Union. We can see in the figures I quoted a moment ago the benefit being obtained in Northern Ireland in terms of how the economy is doing.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
The Windsor framework was meant to give Northern Ireland the best of both worlds: unfettered access to the UK internal market and barrier-free access to the EU. Not so, according to a recent survey conducted by the Federation of Small Businesses, which reports that more than half those trading between Great Britain and Northern Ireland are having difficulties, with over a third having stopped trading altogether. The figures are stark. Fewer than one in six Northern Ireland businesses say that they benefit from dual market access, while nearly 80% rate Government support as poor or very poor. Will the Secretary of State commit himself to a specific time-bound plan to make dual market access work, or does he accept that Northern Ireland got the worst of both worlds?
Hilary Benn
I do not accept that Northern Ireland has the worst of both worlds. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the issue facing small businesses, highlighted by the FSB report and others, including Lord Murphy’s independent report. As he will have noticed, in the Budget the Chancellor announced a £16.6 million package which will include a comprehensive one-stop-shop regulatory support service to help precisely those businesses to trade more between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
The autumn Budget provided Northern Ireland with an additional £370 million, on top of the record spending review settlement, and will assist families with the cost of living by cutting energy bills, lifting the two-child benefit limit and raising the minimum wage.
Sean Woodcock
The Government’s child poverty strategy aims to lift over 550,000 children out of poverty by 2030. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the impact of the abolition of the two-child benefit cap for families in Northern Ireland?
Hilary Benn
The lifting of the two-child benefit cap in Northern Ireland will help more than 17,000 children and more than 48,000 people in Northern Ireland households. We are also increasing the national minimum wage, which will benefit 170,000 people, and increasing the state pension will benefit 330,000 pensioners in Northern Ireland.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Cancer is a thief and a home-wrecker. Sadly, Northern Ireland has the worst cancer outcomes across the UK. I recently lifted the lid on breast cancer referrals, with red-flag appointments taking in excess of 14 weeks. Although the autumn Budget has been helpful, can the Minister confirm whether conversations are happening with the Treasury to ask for transformational money to help us transform our health service, so that cancer wait times and medical pathways can be improved once and for all?
Hilary Benn
Like the whole House, I share the hon. Member’s wish to improve cancer treatment and cancer waiting times for those who are currently waiting too long. There is the public services transformation fund, and the first phase of projects was funded last year. Decisions are about to be taken on the second phase of funding, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick) mentioned, there also needs to be reform of the way in which the health service works. We are seeing progress under Mike Nesbitt’s leadership, and we need to see more.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
The increase in national insurance contributions is having a devastating impact on the hospitality sector in Northern Ireland, with over a quarter of businesses reporting losses and a further 20% only breaking even. How is the Northern Ireland Executive expected to achieve their target of doubling tourism in the next 10 years if the Chancellor of the Exchequer is putting pubs, restaurants and hotels out of business?
Hilary Benn
The increase in national insurance was a decision that the Government took to deal with the inheritance left by the last Government. [Interruption.] That is a fact, and no one can argue that it is not the case. We needed to put the economy on a stable footing. The fact that the Northern Ireland economy is growing, and that Northern Ireland has the lowest unemployment in the United Kingdom, is a sign of the fundamental strength of the economy in Northern Ireland.
Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
There are currently six republican paramilitaries facing prosecution for troubles-related killings. The legacy commission is already investigating a number of IRA atrocities, including the M62 coach bombing, the Guildford pub bombing and the Warrenpoint massacre. Under the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, the commission will benefit from information sharing by the Irish authorities.
David Davis
Some 2,058 people died at the hands of republican paramilitaries during the troubles—2,058—but despite that fact, only 19 IRA members are currently in prison. The Secretary of State laughably claims there was no amnesty under the Good Friday agreement, and he gives us only the few he has just mentioned. Can he tell the House how many prosecutions of IRA members he expects to arise under his troubles Bill, and how many families of people murdered by the IRA will find out what happened to their relatives?
Hilary Benn
The answer to the right hon. Member’s first question is that it will depend, as he well knows, on the evidence in any individual case, and that decision will be taken by public prosecutors in the normal way. On his second question, he will be aware that between 25,000 and 35,000 paramilitaries were imprisoned during the troubles for a range of offences, including murder, and the purpose of the reform is to ensure that more families are able to find answers to the questions, which they are still asking, about what happened to their loved ones.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
On the subject of troubles-era violence, this week my Committee published a unanimous report calling on the Government to formally name agent Stakeknife. The Government have said that the Supreme Court judgment in the Thompson case has implications for their decision, but lead officers have said it does not. What is preventing the Government from naming Stakeknife, and when do they plan to do so?
Hilary Benn
I have, of course, seen the report that the Select Committee has published. There are ongoing civil proceedings and the Government, as I indicated previously, are still considering the implications of the Supreme Court’s Thompson judgment for this decision. I have promised the House that I will return when the Government have reached a decision on the request made by Sir Iain Livingstone, and I intend to honour that promise.
David Davis
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In view of the inadequate response that I received from the Secretary of State on Question 7, I give notice that I intend to raise this matter on the Adjournment.
Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Act 2022
Hilary Benn Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
I wish to provide an update to the House regarding the Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Act 2022.
The New Decade, New Approach deal, which was instrumental to the restoration of the Northern Ireland Executive in 2020 (after a three-year absence) included an agreed legislative framework for progressing identity and language commitments: the Act.
The Act received Royal Assent in December 2022. Specific provisions in sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Act were commenced in May 2023, establishing the following roles: (1) director of the office for identity and cultural expression; (2) Irish language commissioner; and (3) commissioner for the Ulster Scots and Ulster British tradition.
I warmly welcome the Northern Ireland Executive’s decision in October 2025 to appoint Pol Deeds as the Irish language commissioner; Lee Reynolds as the commissioner for the Ulster Scots and Ulster British Tradition; and Dr Katy Radford as the director of the office of identity and cultural expression.
In order that they may now carry out their duties, I am today commencing further provisions in sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Act, following a request from the Executive Office.
Provisions being commenced in section 1 relate to the principles of national and cultural identity to which public authorities must have due regard, as well as the functions and responsibilities of the director of the office of identity and cultural expression.
Provisions being commenced in section 2 outline the functions and responsibilities of the Irish language commissioner in developing and promoting best practice standards in relation to the Irish language.
Finally, provisions in section 3 relate to the functions and responsibilities of the commissioner for Ulster Scots and the Ulster British tradition in promoting the language, arts and literature associated with Ulster Scots, as well as developing and promoting guidance in relation to Ulster Scots.
In commencing these provisions, we are continuing to ensure respect and tolerance for all of Northern Ireland’s diverse identities, cultures, languages and traditions.
[HCWS1282]
Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation
Hilary Benn Excerpts(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
I beg to move,
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.
As every one of us knows, Northern Ireland continues to live with the legacy of the troubles. Over 3,500 people lost their lives during that period of brutal violence, including almost 2,000 civilians and over 1,000 people who were killed while bravely serving the state. We owe them, and always will, a huge debt of gratitude. Ninety per cent of all those who lost their lives were killed by paramilitaries. Each person was someone’s father, brother, sister, mother or child; each one a tragic loss of life.
In 1998, the people of Northern Ireland chose to leave this legacy of violence behind them when they voted for the Good Friday agreement, but for too many families of the victims, questions remain as to why their loved ones died and at whose hands. There have been many efforts to address the legacy of the troubles since, including the Stormont House agreement, reached between the last Government and the Irish Government in 2014, and, most recently, the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023.
It is now beyond doubt that that last attempt—the legacy Act—whatever its intentions, fundamentally failed. It failed because it has been found in many respects to be incompatible with our human rights obligations; the legislation simply did not work on its own terms. But even more importantly, it failed because it did not command any support in Northern Ireland among victims and survivors or the political parties.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I commend the Secretary of State for the careful and thoughtful work that he has done to bring the House to this place today. Does he agree that, with this remedial order, he is doing the right thing for victims? That means ordinary people, including veterans and the wider armed forces community, all of whom were injured or lost loved ones. They are the people we have in our minds today. It was the Conservatives’ bad legislation that led us to have to pass a remedial order, for only the 11th time since the second world war. Does he agree that—
Hilary Benn
I agree with my hon. Friend that the legacy Act needed dealing with. Any Government that came into office in summer 2024 would have to be doing what we are doing.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
It is worth bringing to the House’s attention again the fact that the legacy Act, whatever its legality or otherwise, was predicated on our membership of the European convention on human rights. Does the Secretary of State agree, and will he reflect on the fact, that there was an appeal against the supposed illegality of the Act at the time of the general election by the previous Government, and this Government decided to ditch it?
Hilary Benn
That is indeed a wholly accurate description of the sequence of events, because this Government do not agree with immunity as a matter of principle—I will go on to advance the argument a little later—but the Act was also, as the right hon. Gentleman points out, found to be incompatible with our obligations as a nation because we continue to be signatories to the European convention on human rights.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I am extremely grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way; he is an immensely courteous Member of this House and always has been. He will be aware, however, that there is a live legal case by the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement, and that the very Human Rights Act he cited says that this kind of order ought not to be moved—indeed, it would be ultra vires—while a case is proceeding. How does he feel about that, and will he explain to the House why we are debating this at all given all that I have said?
Hilary Benn
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that point. If he will bear with me, I will come very directly to precisely that point a little later in my speech.
It is the Government’s view that there is both a legal necessity and an imperative for us to act, and this remedial order is the first step in that process. The remedial order will remove two key effects of the provisions of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 that were found by the courts in the Dillon case to be incompatible with our human rights obligations.
One of the main reasons for the failure of the legacy Act was its attempt to grant immunity, including to terrorists who murdered, in cold blood, soldiers and civilians in Northern Ireland and in towns and cities across England. In fairness, it probably seemed reassuring to veterans, and it was almost certainly reassuring to terrorists who had committed those acts, but it was a false promise that protected no one. It was never commenced, which is a very important fact. It was rejected by the courts as being incompatible with our legal obligations and, as a result, it was never implemented. No one ever got immunity, and while it may remain on the statute book, in practice it does not exist.
Nevertheless, while the Act has not been commenced, for many families any uncertainty about their loved ones’ killers being granted immunity has been a deterrent to coming forward to seek answers from the independent commission. There has also been opposition from some who served in Northern Ireland, because immunity undermines the rule of law that they were seeking to uphold.
David Crabbe, an Ulster Defence Regiment veteran who sits on the victims and survivors forum, said of immunity:
“The vast majority of veterans living in Northern Ireland did not want or feel as if they needed this protection. It was viewed as a perversion of the law, that went against the ethos of what those who served stood for, and what their role was in preserving law and order.”
And it was not only a false promise; it created a false equivalence between veterans on the one hand and terrorists on the other, and it still technically sits on the statute book today.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
May I remind the Secretary of State—I know that he knows it, as he has heard it from me and others many times before—that there is nothing about creating a false equivalence between the two? Everybody is equal before the law. If anything created a false equivalence, it was the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, which said that no matter how many murders a paramilitary had committed, and no matter how many illegal acts, if any, a soldier had committed, neither of them would ever serve more than two years of a sentence. That equivalence is there. It is not moral equivalence; it is equivalence before the law, and the 2023 Act did not initiate it.
Hilary Benn
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right when he describes the provisions of the 1998 legislation, but as he knows, that policy, along with the rest of the Good Friday agreement, was supported by just over 70% of the people of Northern Ireland in the referendum. It was a very bitter pill to swallow for many people in Northern Ireland, but it was a price to be paid for peace.
The point I am making in relation to this remedial order is that the last Government chose to legislate to give immunity to veterans and to terrorists on the same basis. The noble Lord Dodds said of the legacy Bill—which, by the way, he described as “rotten”—that it
“basically elevates terrorists and perpetrators of violence above their victims. That is fundamentally wrong.”
That is why we are bringing forward this remedial order to remove those provisions on immunity that have done so much damage to trust in Northern Ireland. Doing so will provide clarity and certainty ahead of the wider, significant reforms contained in the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill.
The remedial order will also remove the bar on troubles-related civil cases that stripped UK citizens of their right to seek redress. Section 43 of the 2023 Act left some 800 troubles-related civil cases involving the Ministry of Defence untouched.
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend may shortly be coming on to this, but civil cases have been raised as a concern given the potential for lawfare, notwithstanding that people like Gerry Adams are also subject to civil action in the coming months. Will he outline what he expects in terms of civil cases against those who served in our military or security services?
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.
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.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
As the Secretary of State well knows, the Blair Government handed out hundreds of so-called letters of comfort to alleged IRA paramilitaries following their release from prison. John Downey, the alleged Hyde Park bomber, produced such a letter during his trial at the Old Bailey, whereupon the trial was immediately abandoned. Our Northern Ireland veterans have no such letters of comfort. Does the Secretary of State agree that that letter of comfort let John Downey off on that particular occasion?
Hilary Benn
As I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is well aware, in that case Mr Downey was issued with a letter of comfort wrongly. The letter said, “We’re not seeking you for anything,” when clearly the state was seeking him for something because he had been charged with the Hyde Park bombing. As I recall, the judge said, “Well, I’m afraid this is an abuse of process,” and stopped the case. However, the letter that Mr Downey received did not give him immunity, because he is currently—this is a matter of public record—awaiting trial, charged with the murder of two soldiers in, I think, 1972. That proves what many have said, including former Prime Ministers, the chief constable and judges, which is that the letters of comfort—the on-the-run letters—never did, and do not now, grant anybody immunity.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman changes the subject, from what the letter of comfort was given for to what it was not given for, which does not prove anything about the letter of comfort. What is the case is that the judge said at the time that he could not rule on the case because the state had made a promise to Mr Downey, and that prevented the case. We also have the Queen’s grant of mercy, which is an amnesty, and people were released early, which is another form of amnesty. For the Secretary of State to say that the Good Friday agreement did not involve amnesties is simply in defiance of the facts.
Hilary Benn
If we are going to get on to the facts, the early release scheme was part of the Good Friday agreement, and the people of Northern Ireland voted for that agreement knowing what it involved. The royal prerogative of mercy was granted, but it never gave pardons and the convictions of those who received it were never quashed. It was put in place to allow for those individuals who, for technical reasons, could not be eligible for the early release scheme—that is the history of that. On the letters of comfort, the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), who is very learned in these matters, has not challenged the basic argument that I have put, which is that the fact that Mr Downey is currently awaiting prosecution proves that the letter he received did not give him immunity from prosecution.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
On that point, will the Secretary of State give way?
Hilary Benn
I will make some progress.
We cannot and should not allow the victims of the troubles to be denied redress through the courts. That is our view of principle, although I recognise that the leader of the Democratic Unionist party, the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), takes a different view.
I will now turn to the argument that the House should delay the approval of the remedial order, which we heard advanced in the House before Christmas. Section 10(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 allows a remedial order to be made on two grounds: first, if there has been declaration of incompatibility in relation to a provision of legislation and an appeal against the declaration has been “determined or abandoned”—the word “abandoned” is really important here—and secondly, if there are “compelling reasons” to do so.
The High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland clearly made a declaration of incompatibility in relation to immunity, and in July 2024 the newly elected Government abandoned these aspects of our appeal. The Government are therefore clear that the issue of incompatibility for the immunity and civil claims provisions are no longer part of the appeal now before the Supreme Court.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
The Secretary of State needs to go back to what the High Court judgment said in the Dillon case. If he looks at paragraph 710, he will see that the basis of ruling that immunity was unlawful was not just in respect of the ECHR, but also in respect of article 2 of the Windsor framework. That aspect, which is wholly intertwined with this question, is the subject of an appeal presently before the High Court. How can it be that a challenge that caused the High Court to decree that something was non-applicable was based upon the applicability of article 2 of the Windsor framework, and there is an appeal on that point? How is that not something that rules this order out under section 10?
Hilary Benn
It does not rule it out under section 10 for this reason: there are two parts to the court’s ruling in relation to immunity. The first part was that the court found immunity to be incompatible with our international human rights obligations. The Government withdrew an appeal against that finding. That finding remains because the appeal was abandoned by the Government, and that gives the Government the right to proceed with the remedial order. The second part of the judgment was that, in addition to finding the immunity provisions incompatible with the ECHR, the court decided to strike them down under article 2 of the Windsor framework. The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite correct that the Government are continuing with the appeal in that respect, because there is a genuine argument, which the Government have advanced, as to whether article 2 is being interpreted in the right way, because it seems like rather an expansive interpretation.
The fact that the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement was granted permission to intervene in relation to the interpretation of article 2 of the Windsor framework—that is what the court allowed it to come in and talk about—and the fact that the court is considering the question of the interpretation of article 2, do not and cannot alter the fundamental legal reality that immunity has been found to be incompatible with the European convention.
Several hon. Members rose—
Hilary Benn
I will give way to the two Members I have seen standing, and then I will bring my remarks to a close so that others can contribute.
Jim Allister
May I refer the Secretary of State to what paragraph 710(ii) of the Dillon judgment says? It says:
“Pursuant to section 7A of the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018 article 2 of the Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol/Windsor Framework has primacy over these provisions thereby rendering them of no force and effect. These provisions should therefore be disapplied”,
because of article 2. Article 2 is before the Supreme Court, so it is inextricably linked to section 10.
Hilary Benn
With great respect, I disagree. In answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman’s first intervention, I tried to explain that he is right in what he reads out in relation to article 2; it is the subject of a continuing appeal. However, the declaration of incompatibility under the ECHR remains, because the court ruled both of those things. It is not at issue in the appeal, and that gives the Government the ability to bring forward an order under section 10. I will give way to the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), but then I will bring my remarks to a close.
Lincoln Jopp
This is all getting quite technical, so I want to come back to the fundamentals of justice. If the Secretary of State were able to, would he like to give immunity to our veterans?
Hilary Benn
I am of the view that I listen. I quoted what David Crabbe said earlier, and he was opposed to immunity. The Government have listened to what the veterans commissioners and many others have said, which is, “We do not want immunity, and we are not calling for immunity; we want fairness under the law.” I have made it clear to the House that the Government do not agree with immunity as a matter of principle. When our brave soldiers put on the King’s uniform, they are upholding the law and operating underneath it. As Ben Wallace, the distinguished former Defence Secretary, said, “We abide by the rule of law; that is what makes us better than the terrorists.”
Section 10 of the Human Rights Act also requires that I have “compelling reasons” to proceed. Although the Government have indeed introduced primary legislation, we are clear that these repeals need to happen as quickly as possible. Why? Because we need to provide clarity on immunity to build trust among victims, survivors and, indeed, veterans in the independent commission, because while immunity remains on the statute book, it will be harder for them to obtain the confidence of some victims and survivors.
Hilary Benn
I will continue.
I have tried to cover the point that some have argued, particularly in the other place, that we should delay the remedial order until the Supreme Court ruling in the Dillon judgment. It is really easy to ask the Government to wait, but I think it is much harder to ask families who have endured unimaginable suffering at the hands of paramilitary violence, including forces families, to continue to wait while time marches on. As we know, many of them are elderly and have been waiting a very long time for answers.
In my view, and in the Government’s view, we should make these repeals as early as possible through the remedial order so that we have a legal framework that is fair, just and compliant with human rights. I have described it as a downpayment on trust ahead of the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, and I will do so again. That is why I am firmly of the view that the Government have compelling reasons for proceeding with this order. Even more importantly, this is also the view of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, to which I am grateful for its diligent consideration of this matter.
Jim Shannon
On the point of trust, just so that we get it on record, is there any guarantee that the Republic of Ireland will withdraw the inter-state case if this legislation passes?
Hilary Benn
The basis of the Republic of Ireland’s inter-state case, which is a matter for the Republic of Ireland—[Interruption.] Just let me answer the question; I will do my best to respond. The basis of the inter-state case was that the last Government’s legacy Act was incompatible with the European convention on human rights. It is correct in advancing that argument, because the courts in Northern Ireland have found the last Government’s legacy Act to be incompatible in a number of respects. The Government’s job is to ensure that the legislation is made compatible, so that everyone in Northern Ireland can have confidence in the framework that we are trying to put in place, with as much support as possible. At that moment, there will be no basis for the inter-state case any more. What the Irish Government do with that case is a matter for them, but it will have no basis and it will not be able to go anywhere, because the House of Commons and the other place will have remedied the incompatibilities.
I am grateful to the Joint Committee on Human Rights for its diligent consideration of this matter.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Sir Desmond Swayne
I just ask the Secretary of State to acknowledge that the Committee’s opinion was not unanimous.
Hilary Benn
I was not about to advance the argument that it was a unanimous decision, but many a piece of legislation and many a report of a Committee throughout the history of this House has been passed on a majority vote. That is how we reach decisions, and the JCHR could not have been clearer in its second report: recognising the
“unique and delicate circumstances surrounding Northern Ireland legacy matters…the Government has”
sufficiently
“compelling reasons to proceed by way of remedial order”.
The Committee has recommended that this order be approved by both Houses of Parliament, and I urge the House to heed that recommendation by voting for the order tonight.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Hilary Benn
We have had a very full and wide-ranging debate in which many different contributions have been made, demonstrating once again just how difficult it is to deal with legacy—I think that is a truth around which we can all rally. If it were easy, it would have been dealt with a very long time ago, but its difficulty does not mean that we should not attempt to deal with it.
The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) made his case. I gently say that I was slightly disappointed when he suggested at the end that the Government are doing this for reasons that are, in some way, hidden or unknown, or that may only be discovered in the years to come. I hope he would accept that the Government’s reasons are very clear.
First, the order will deal with the failure of the previous Government’s legacy Act, for the reasons that I tried to set out in my opening remarks: failure legally and failure because it gained no consent from people in Northern Ireland.
Stuart Anderson
The Secretary of State said there is no consensus in Northern Ireland. Having listened to tonight’s speeches, does he believe his approach has achieved that?
Hilary Benn
I have listened very carefully to every single contribution, and I think it is fair to say that the majority of people speaking in this debate do not agree with immunity. They might not all vote for the remedial order tonight, but they do not agree with immunity, and that is the Government’s position. I respect those who take a different view, but I think it is a failed policy—it does not exist. We are charged with taking away something that does not exist, was never enacted and was found incompatible by the courts.
Alex Burghart
The right hon. Gentleman is generous in giving way. Does he accept that conditional immunity, which is all that was in the legacy Act, is the very foundation of all the legislation passed after 1998? For the Labour party now to pretend that it is in some way morally abhorrent is utterly inconsistent.
Hilary Benn
What I am saying is that the Government do not agree with the conditional immunity contained in the legacy Act. The word “conditional” is always used as if it does not necessarily guarantee that immunity will be granted, but I urge Members who think that to go and read the legislation passed by the last Government.
If someone comes forward, whoever they are, and gives a full and truthful account that persuades the commission that it is a full and truthful account of what they did which would have been a criminal offence, the legislation does not say, “Well, you can make your mind up and decide whether to grant it or not.” The legislation passed by the last Government said that the commission must grant immunity. In those circumstances, it does not sound very conditional to me.
Several hon. Members rose—
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”.
Hilary Benn
I am not going to give way because I want to respond to the other points raised.
What the commission set out is what is known as a protected disclosure—a protected disclosure that the previous Government agreed to when they reached the Stormont House agreement and came up with the idea of the information recovery body. That is part of the troubles Bill that we have published, but there is a world of difference between a protected disclosure and immunity from prosecution.
It has been suggested that this is about relitigating who won, but the answer to that question is already crystal clear: peace won. Peace won in Northern Ireland because of the Good Friday agreement. This is not about placating anyone; it is about seeking to do the right thing. It is not about dredging up the past.
Hilary Benn
No, it is not about dredging up the past. Like many right hon. and hon. Members, I have met far too many people—the families of victims—who live with the past every single day, and have done for the past 20, 30, 40 or 50 years. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) laid bare the pain, the sorrow and the heartache that the loss of loved ones has caused to so many people across Northern Ireland. That pain, sorrow and heartache is as powerful today as it was, I suspect, on the day that they first heard the news of the death of their loved ones.
The Government are seeking to put in place a system in which more people can have confidence—because there was not widespread confidence in the previous Government’s legacy Act on the part of victims, survivors, political parties and others in Northern Ireland—so that, where it is possible, answers can be found. You only have to look at the figures for prosecutions to see that they are diminishing rapidly. There are nine cases that are currently live and, by the way, seven of them relate to paramilitaries and one relates to the Army. When it is said that these measures are only about the armed forces, that is not correct because that is not what the evidence shows currently; there are nine live cases, seven of which relate to paramilitaries.
We will return to the troubles Bill in Committee, and I hope that the House will be able to come together to fashion a system that more people can have confidence in, so that the people we have met and heard from, who are still tortured by the fact that they have not had answers as to what happened to their loved ones, may have the chance to find those answers. It is in that spirit that I ask the House to support this remedial order.
Question put,
Oral Answers to Questions
Hilary Benn Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)
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.
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 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)
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
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?
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)
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)
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
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)
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.
Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation
Hilary Benn Excerpts(3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to make a statement on the draft Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 (Remedial) Order 2025.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. This remedial order is a clear signal of the Government’s commitment to legislation that can command support across Northern Ireland. Its purpose is clear: to formally remove some of the provisions in the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 that were found by the courts in Dillon to be incompatible with our human rights obligations. Specifically, this means removing the provisions on immunity from prosecution and the bar on troubles-related civil cases. Although the immunity provisions never commenced, it is essential that we formally remove them from the statute book.
It is the Government’s belief that there are compelling reasons for proceeding with this order, and this is a view shared by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which in its report on 9 December agreed that the Government have such reasons and recommended that Parliament approve the order. The Committee stated that
“in these exceptional and unusual circumstances…the Government has sufficiently compelling reasons to proceed by way of remedial order.”
I want to set out what the Government believe those reasons to be. First, we must provide clarity on immunity and remove the bar on civil claims as quickly as possible. This is essential for all involved—victims, survivors and veterans—and is a prerequisite for building trust. Secondly, providing this clarity is vital to enable the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery to continue its work. It is my view that while immunity, a key plank of the 2023 legacy Act, remains on the statute book, it will be difficult for the ICRIR to obtain the confidence of all victims and survivors.
As the JCHR rightly noted, the legacy of the past continues to have a profound and lasting impact, and we know that families and political parties were vehemently opposed to the immunity provisions. While the repeal of immunity is only one aspect of reforming the arrangements put in place by the 2023 Act, I am confident that its repeal will result in a greater confidence for referrals to be made. Given that many individuals are elderly, they cannot keep on waiting. It is the Government’s view that these changes should therefore be made through the remedial order as soon as possible.
The Government have a clear mandate, compelling reasons and a procedural basis which the JCHR has endorsed, and the House will have an opportunity to debate the order in the new year.
Alex Burghart
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question, which I have asked because I think there is a very real danger that the Government may be about to break the law. It is very important that the House is aware that the Joint Committee on Human Rights was not in possession of all the facts when it wrote its report. [Interruption.]
Last year, the High Court in Belfast found parts of the legacy Act to be incompatible with the European convention on human rights. At the time of the election, the Conservative Government were appealing that highly disputable decision. The incoming Labour Government, for reasons they have never disclosed, chose to drop that appeal, and have subsequently laid a draft remedial order to amend the legislation.
The problem is that earlier this year the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement was granted permission to intervene in the case before the Supreme Court. On 15 October, Lord Wolfson KC, acting for the movement, did just that and made written and oral submissions that the Court is now considering. Consequently, it is entirely possible that the declarations of incompatibility relied on by the Secretary of State to lay the remedial order will be quashed. The case is very much live. That is very important, because under section 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 a Government have the authority to use a remedial order only unless and until all appeals in relation to declarations of incompatibility have been “determined or abandoned”. That test is not met.
If the Government decide to push ahead with their remedial order, not only will they be acting ultra vires, but they will be setting a terrible precedent that will mean that future Governments may use remedial orders in ways they were never intended to be used. To avoid that, all the Government need to do is commit to not pushing their remedial order to a vote until the Supreme Court has finally ruled. Will the Secretary of State make that commitment?
Hilary Benn
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the point he has raised, but the argument he puts is not correct. The appeal was abandoned by the Government in July 2024—he says for reasons that have never been disclosed, but the Government have been absolutely clear from the beginning that we disagree with immunity, and that we are committed to repeal and replace the legacy Act. Section 10 of the Human Rights Act gives a Secretary of State the ability to make a remedial order when a declaration of incompatibility has been made and any appeal
“has been determined or abandoned”.
It has been abandoned by the Government.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that the ongoing Supreme Court appeal in Dillon means that the conditions have not been met, and therefore that we might lack the vires to lay the order. I do not agree with his assessment and have made the position clear to him in the correspondence we have had—I think an exchange of two emails and two letters. I can confirm to the House that in July 2024 the Government formally abandoned their appeal concerning the declaration of incompatibility relating to immunity from prosecution. That declaration was not part of the appeal that is now before the Supreme Court, and the fact that the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement was granted permission to intervene does not alter that legal reality.
Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)
Last month, the House debated the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, and we heard many moving contributions about the devastating loss experienced by families, including military families, many of whom are still seeking answers. Does the Secretary of State agree that the voices of those the Government’s legislation is for should be at the forefront of our minds when we debate it and every time we debate it?
Hilary Benn
I do agree with my hon. Friend. It seems that the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) and the Conservative party remain wedded to immunity. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) says, as he does in all these debates, “Conditional immunity.” I think the last time we debated it, I reminded him that the previous Government’s legislation said that the commission must give immunity—must give immunity—if the conditions for giving immunity are met, which are, quite clearly—[Interruption.] Opposition Members have not reminded themselves of what their legislation said. All that was required was for somebody to come forward and say what they had done, and if what they had done was an offence, the commission must grant them immunity.
I say to those on the Opposition Front Bench that at some point they need to recognise that that provision for immunity for terrorists—because the last Government said, “We wish to give immunity to terrorists”—had no support in Northern Ireland. I am sorry that they do not recognise that. As I have said on many occasions, we cannot make progress in dealing with the problem of legacy when the provision in the current legislation, which we are committed to repealing and replacing, has no support in the place that suffered more than anywhere else during the troubles.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. You had exactly one minute and you have gone over. My apologies—I call the Secretary of State.
Hilary Benn
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he says and for his support for what we are seeking to do in the remedial order. I acknowledge the responsibility that the Government have. These are quite unusual circumstances. The reason why we are debating this matter is because the Joint Committee on Human Rights has acknowledged the unusual circumstances and, despite having made other comments in its report, which we will all have read, has come to the conclusion that it gives its approval to the order and recommends that the House support it. I welcome what the Joint Committee on Human Rights has said.
I will point out one other thing. I acknowledge that the Government did take a bit of time between the report on 28 February and producing the revised draft remedial order on 14 October. That was because we listened to the representations that had been made, particularly by the Opposition, on the subject of interim custody orders in respect of sections 46 and 47, and in relation to the Supreme Court judgment in 2020. After reflecting on that, we found what we think is an alternative way of achieving the same objective, which is to be found in clauses 89 and 90 of the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, which is currently before the House.
I simply point out that the previous Government tried for two and a half years to find a way of dealing with the Supreme Court judgment in the Adams case and were not able to do so, and eventually accepted the amendments moved in the other place, which became sections 46 and 47. It was acknowledging the arguments that had been made that led the Government to amend the remedial order, which we then put before the House on 14 October.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
The Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a member, published our second report on the Northern Ireland remedial order on 9 December. The Standing Orders of both Houses require the JCHR to scrutinise all remedial orders. The Committee concluded that the vires of the order were satisfied and that all statutory requirements were fulfilled. However, the Committee also felt that, under the circumstances, it was appropriate only because the Government gave compelling reasons as to why it would have to come forward in this way, with a Bill progressing through the House and a Supreme Court case ongoing. Does the Secretary of State agree that although the circumstances and the timing are not ideal, this is the best way forward?
Hilary Benn
I do agree. Although the circumstances are unusual, the Government believe we have a compelling case, and the JCHR has agreed with the Government’s assessment.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
A lot of very complex legal arguments have been alluded to today, but I think what concerns the public—and what concerns me—is the state of mind of our veterans, some of them quite elderly, who sought only to serve their country decades ago. The Secretary of State is a very moderate, clever and reasonable person. Given that there is, in reality, no chance of a successful prosecution, and that people would be horrified if there was one, what comfort can the Secretary of State give to our veterans?
Hilary Benn
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we have only to look at the figures to see that the prospect of any prosecution in any case is increasingly remote, because of the passage of time and the difficulty of obtaining evidence. The Government, having listened very carefully to the representations made by veterans, have set out in legislation the protections—this will return to the House when we consider the Bill in Committee—including protection from repeated investigation, the right to stay at home and to seek anonymity, protection in old age, protection from cold calling, and the right to be heard. I hope that when veterans get a chance to see the protections in the legislation and precisely how they will work, they will be reassured that the Government are looking out for their interests.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
It is always important for Northern Ireland to be discussed on the Floor of the House—we are, after all, one United Kingdom—so I thank the shadow Secretary of State for securing the urgent question. We must never forget the people of Northern Ireland. Can my right hon. Friend say what recent engagement he has had with victims, survivors and the organisations representing them as part of his work to address the legacy of the past?
Hilary Benn
I have had many such meetings. I have met the Victims and Survivors Forum, for example, twice in the recent past to explain the legislation that the Government have published. There is a great lack of trust on the part of victims and survivors in Northern Ireland, who feel they have been let down many times before, and trust undermined is very hard to rebuild. They are taking account of the legislation the Government have passed. It will not surprise the House if I say that I believe it provides a foundation for moving forward, but it is really important, as my hon. Friend says, that the voices of people in Northern Ireland are heard, and heard loudly.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
On 12 November, I raised with the Prime Minister the alarming statement from nine former generals who attacked the Government’s approach on lawfare against our armed forces, which they said would erode trust in the justice system and is a threat to national security. Can the Secretary of State confirm whether the Prime Minister has met with those nine former generals and whether that has changed his approach to attacking veterans?
Hilary Benn
I do not accept the characterisation that the hon. Member puts before the House. The Government are not engaging in lawfare against veterans.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
That’s what the generals said.
Hilary Benn
Well, I have read that letter and many others, and I refute the suggestion that the Government are engaging in lawfare. We have met a very large number of veterans organisations—I myself have met the SAS Regimental Association and others, and Ministers in the Ministry of Defence have met others—and we are listening. When the troubles Bill reaches Committee stage, the House will see the results of our considerations. The Government are absolutely determined to ensure the proper protections, in recognition of the hugely important and dangerous role that those who served in Operation Banner performed in trying to keep the people of Northern Ireland, and indeed the United Kingdom, safe.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
As a member of the JCHR, I am concerned that the shadow Northern Ireland Secretary may have inadvertently misled the House when he suggested that our Committee did not discharge our roles seriously and consider all the evidence in this case when we produced our report.
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.
Several hon. Members rose—
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has already confirmed that under the legacy Act the immunity provisions were never commenced, so it is important to say that nobody was ever granted immunity under those provisions. Sticking with the subject of immunity, the three Veterans Commissioners for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales have all said that they are calling not for immunity under the law but for fairness under the law. Does the Secretary of State agree?
Hilary Benn
I agree with that statement completely, which is why I must confess my disappointment that the Opposition are still clinging to the notion of immunity, including immunity for terrorists. The Veterans Commissioners are quite right; they want fairness, and that is what the Government are determined to deliver.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I simply say to the Secretary of State that it does seem like ridiculous haste when the Bill is going through the House right now. Surely to do this when he knows for a fact that there is already an appeal going on does, as has already been said, become abusive of the real purpose of a remedial order. I suggest to him that all the stuff about people being let off and the whole point about immunity is not the issue. The issue today is whether the Government are misusing their powers to rush something through that they could have dealt with through the passage of the Bill.
Hilary Benn
I will make two points to the right hon. Gentleman, who served with such distinction in Northern Ireland. First, as we have just heard, immunity was never commenced. It was declared incompatible, and it was struck down under article 2. Secondly, I reject again the suggestion that the Government are somehow abusing the process. If that was an argument, one might have expected the Joint Committee on Human Rights to have agreed with it, but it did not. The Committee heard all the points that have been put and concluded that in these particular circumstances it was right to proceed, and that is why it recommends that the House should support the remedial order.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
This week’s exhibition in the Upper Waiting Hall is a memorial quilt produced my members of the South East Fermanagh Foundation. It is a very moving way to remember the innocent victims of terrorism. The dates on the quilt panels remind us of how long the families have been fighting for justice. Can I ask the Secretary of State what message he wants to send out to every person who has produced one of the quilt panels for SEFF and to all the other families?
Hilary Benn
On Monday night I met the families who had come over for the unveiling of the quilts. I would urge all Members who have not yet had a chance to go up to the Upper Waiting Hall and have a look to do so, because the story that the quilts tell is profoundly moving and a reminder of the continuing search for justice that so many people in Northern Ireland are going through. I would say that those quilts are an argument for what we are trying to do to secure legislation that can help find those answers for all the people who are remembered on the quilts.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
Regarding the accusation that the Secretary of State is rushing this through, he will be conscious of an Irish Government who are not rushing anything through with regard to support. Yesterday the Justice Minister in the Republic of Ireland received permission from the Government to draft priority legislation to enable state bodies to give oral evidence to the Omagh inquiry. That was only because the Omagh families are taking legal action. What engagement has the Secretary of State had with the Irish Government about bringing forward legislation that matches what he is bringing forward in this place? Can I also ask him who he is dealing with at the minute? It used to be the Tánaiste, Simon Harris, who has now been promoted. Is it the Justice Minister, who is bringing this forward, or is it the new Foreign Affairs Minister?
Hilary Benn
I have many meetings with Irish Ministers and discussions with the Tánaiste and the Taoiseach. My most recent meeting was with Helen McEntee, who has just taken over from Simon Harris at the Foreign Affairs Ministry. I very much welcome the fact that the Irish Government have announced that they are preparing to draft the legislation, as Simon Harris had committed to do while standing next to me, in time for the next hearings of the Omagh bombing inquiry. That is evidence that the Irish Government intend to fulfil the commitments they made in the joint framework.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I commend the Secretary of State for the care that he is taking to work as fast possible for the victims, survivors and veterans families, who need to hear answers, while making sure that this is legally correct. I echo the comments about the South East Fermanagh Foundation quilts, which remind us of the need to get those answers for families. Can he confirm that he is as concerned as I am that the Opposition are just interested in making political points rather than really building peace, which is what we need to do together as Members of the House? Will he confirm that the remedial order removes what would have been immunity for terrorists?
Hilary Benn
I think that all Members of the House have a shared commitment to trying to ensure that the peace that Northern Ireland has enjoyed since the signing of the Good Friday agreement is maintained—I think all of us do. We have a difference of view in some respects about the right way of seeking to do that, and I am always willing to be challenged on the arguments that I put on behalf of the Government and to challenge the arguments that I hear from the Opposition Front Benches. In the end, we know that we have to deal with this, because the last bit of legislation, whatever its intentions, failed to achieve its purpose. It did not command support in Northern Ireland, and that is why we have to make progress.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
May I ask the Secretary of State to clarify whether his earlier remarks mean what I think they do, which is that even if it had not been for the guidance of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Government would have wanted anyway to have repealed the legislation of the legacy Act? It is a political decision. Given that he said that he did not believe that there would be convictions at the end of the process, does that not mean that there will be several, if not many, trials? If no one is convicted at the end of the process, how does that help anyone? How does that avoid just torturing the people put through a trial?
Hilary Benn
If I may, I will correct what I think is the interpretation that the right hon. Member has put on what I had said. I made it clear a moment ago that had the Joint Committee on Human Rights reached a different conclusion about the appropriateness of the remedial order, the Government would of course have respected that. I also made it clear in my earlier comments that the Government came into office committed to get rid of immunity—we have been quite clear about that from the start—and the remedial order will seek to give effect to that.
We have discussed prosecutions of veterans. If one looks at the figures, one sees that there has been one successful prosecution of a veteran since the signing of the Good Friday agreement. The point I was making, if one looks at the figures—[Interruption.] Well, there are currently nine live cases before the courts relating to the troubles; seven of them relate to paramilitaries, and six of those relate to the Provisional IRA. I have heard the argument from Opposition Members that, “Oh, none of the paramilitaries are getting prosecuted.” That is not the case. It is really important that we have these debates on the basis of facts.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
The Secretary of State does not need me to tell him that he and the Government are struggling to command veteran support for his Bill. In order to address that deficit of support, should he not consider an amendment to clause 3 to have the Veterans Commissioner for Northern Ireland serve on the legacy commission? Would that not be a token of making good on his affirmation that this is about capturing the confidence of veterans and not pursuing lawfare against them?
Hilary Benn
As I have indicated, I reject the suggestion that the Government are in any way engaging in lawfare against veterans, in the same way that I reject any suggestion that there are such things as politically motivated or vexatious prosecutions. [Interruption.] I hear “Oh, come on” from the Opposition Front Bench; I have heard that from Opposition Members in previous debates on these questions. There will no doubt be a number of amendments and suggestions made when we come to detailed consideration of the Bill, and we will consider them at that time.
Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and Tavistock) (Con)
I wonder whether the Secretary of State can assist me with this problem. The Supreme Court is at the moment seized of the issue as to the lawfulness of the declaration of incompatibility. The fact that the Government have withdrawn their appeal does not prevent the Supreme Court from ruling on it. Let us suppose that the Supreme Court rules that the declaration of incompatibility is void. The legal position is that the declaration of incompatibility would then be void, and therefore the basis on which the Secretary of State is proceeding with the order would be removed. Surely it would be prudent to wait to see if the Supreme Court rules on it. Otherwise, we will be proceeding with an unlawful order. I ask in the spirit of genuine curiosity and inquiry, not political partisanship. It would bring the entire process into disrepute if he is in fact acting on an unlawful basis.
Hilary Benn
Once again, I do not accept that the Government are acting on an unlawful basis. Given the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s distinguished legal credentials and experience, I say to him that I note he encourages me to speculate on a potential outcome—[Interruption.] Well, he does. The Government have to deal with the position as we find it. I have already set out to the House why the Government are absolutely clear in our view that, because the appeal was withdrawn, we are able to make use of section 10 of the Human Rights Act in order to remove conditional immunity.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
Yesterday, Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Knighton highlighted the need to recruit people to our armed forces to protect this nation. How does the Secretary of State expect to do that when those who served gallantly in Northern Ireland face prosecution? Why would young men and women join our armed forces with the risk of that happening to them? What message does that send to those young people?
Hilary Benn
I meet many young people in my constituency and on other duties who are keen to come to serve the nation in the armed forces. I am not aware of any figures that suggest there has been a decline in recruitment. If the hon. Member has seen them, perhaps she could draw them to my attention. Trying to deal with the past correctly, particularly given the threats we face in the modern world, should not affect the willingness of young people and others to come forward and serve the nation, as people have done over the centuries.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State has spoken of additional protections in his legislation. Why does he think that Operation Banner veterans, some of whom I represent, remain unconvinced and troubled? Why does he think that the Irish Prime Minister believes there are no additional protections? While he is about it, can he do something to reassure veterans who are feeling very unhappy about this situation, perhaps along the lines of saying categorically that no former terrorists or members of proscribed organisations will serve on the legacy commission?
Hilary Benn
I have already made it clear to the House that as long as I am in this post I have no intention of appointing those who have engaged in paramilitary activity to any of the posts contained in the Bill. On the protections, we all have a responsibility to explain and point out that they are in the draft legislation in clauses 30, 31, 36, 91, 84, 54, 56, 69 and 8. They are real, tangible protections, and they respond directly to the concerns that veterans have raised with the Government. We have introduced them because of our determination to ensure that veterans are treated properly.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
Secretary of State, the official Opposition are saying to hold off the remedial order until the Supreme Court judgment. Have you sought any legal advice on that? Can you share it with the House?
Alex Easton
I apologise. Has the Secretary of State sought any legal advice on the issue, and can he share it with the House? Will he also update us on making sure that the Irish Government produce all legal papers on their role, on the IRA and on the involvement of the Garda Síochána?
Hilary Benn
As the hon. Gentleman will be well aware, there is a long-standing tradition that the Government do not reveal the legal advice they receive. All Governments receive legal advice, but we do not share it, because that is part of the business of government. I have already made reference to the Irish Government’s announcement in respect of legislation to enable witnesses to give evidence to the Omagh bombing inquiry, which I welcome.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Will the Secretary confirm whether the remedial order will have to be voted on in the other place?
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Despite what the Secretary of State continues to say in the House, the prosecution of elderly veterans has been vexatious. In the Soldier F trial, the judge agreed with the submissions of the defence that the threshold to prosecute was far from being reached; political interference brought that matter to court. If the Secretary of State cannot even accept that there have been vexatious prosecutions, how will he ensure that the remedial order will give a clear distinction between the bomber who presents him or herself as a victim and the ordinary man, woman or child who was murdered or maimed by the actions of terrorists?
Hilary Benn
There is the clearest distinction between the two groups of people that the hon. Member refers to, and I have made that clear from the Dispatch Box on a number of occasions. There is absolutely no equivalence between those who sought to protect the public and those who committed the most appalling terrorist atrocities. I have respectfully to disagree with the hon. Member, because if she is arguing that prosecutions have been vexatious, she is saying that our independent prosecutors are working on a basis that is outwith their task, which is, in all cases, to look at the evidence and to ask whether there is a reasonable prospect of conviction and whether it is in the public interest to prosecute. If we undermine the independence of independent prosecutors—the separation between the Government and the court system—we are sunk as a nation. That is why I am so firm in saying that there is no such thing as a vexatious prosecution.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Notwithstanding the fact that the Secretary of State has said that the chances of a successful prosecution are very limited indeed, the punishment is in the process of investigation and trial in the first place. Will the Secretary of State look sympathetically at appropriate amendments to the Bill to make sure that the bar is raised very high, so that it is almost impossible for one of our brave veterans to be prosecuted in our courts?
Hilary Benn
As I have said to the House before, I will, of course, look carefully at all the amendments tabled when we come to debate the Bill in Committee and on Report. The test for prosecutions, as I indicated in answer to the previous question, is the same now, and will be the same in future, as it has been for the last 30, 50 or 70 years—those who have greater legal experience can tell the House how long that has been the case. It will not change, because it depends on the evidence. We are setting out in the Bill that to reinvestigate things the commission has to be of the view that it is essential to do so. That word “essential” is a very high bar.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
For the final question, I call Jim Shannon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Kenova report was clear in proving that there was no evidence of state collusion or machinations. Yet the republican drum still bangs to cover the sound of the voices of the innocents calling for justice and to be heard. How will the Secretary of State respond to the lack of protection for the service personnel and the perpetual and deliberate focus on them, and will he look at the 2,057 murders carried out by republicans and the 1,027 loyalist murders that have not received any justice at all? Will there be yet another whitewash over the blood of the innocents that has been shed and the impact that that still has on all those families throughout the Province?
Hilary Benn
I have the greatest respect for the hon. Gentleman. I think that he, I and, I hope, the whole House share the desire to enable answers for all those families who are living with the pain of not knowing what happened to their loved ones. The Kenova report has made an important contribution to seeking to uncover the truth. In drafting the legislation, we have drawn on a number of the lessons of Kenova, including that of the victims and survivors advisory panel, because many people said that that was one of the great things about the way Kenova went about its job. It is in the draft Bill that the House will consider again shortly.
Paul Thompson: Supreme Court Judgment
Hilary Benn Excerpts(3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
I would like to make a statement to the House regarding the Supreme Court judgment today in the Thompson case.
The Government welcome the unanimous judgment handed down by the Supreme Court. This is a highly complex case with wide-ranging implications.
The Government will therefore take time to fully consider all aspects of this judgment, including those relevant to the request made by Operation Kenova for the Government to name Stakeknife.
I will return to the House on this as soon as the Government have come to a final view.
[HCWS1194]
Independent Review under Schedule 6A Northern Ireland Act 1998: Government Response
Hilary Benn Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
Following the Northern Ireland Assembly’s democratic consent motion on the trading arrangements under the Windsor framework, on 9 January 2025 I commissioned Lord Murphy of Torfaen to lead an independent review on those arrangements. I received his final report on 9 July 2025, and I can confirm to the House that the Government have now responded in line with schedule 6A to the Northern Ireland Act 1998. I have placed a copy of this response in the Library of the House.
I was very grateful that Lord Murphy agreed to conduct the independent review, as an experienced former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. He has my utmost thanks for the detailed consideration that he has given to these issues, and for the engagement he has conducted, including with the Northern Ireland parties and the relevant civic and business organisations.
The Government’s response reflects their clear aim of ensuring that Northern Ireland’s trading arrangements command the broadest possible confidence among communities. In preparing this response, I have taken into account the views expressed in the Northern Ireland Assembly and in Parliament; and those expressed by other public bodies and stakeholders, including the Independent Monitoring Panel and the Federation of Small Businesses, as well as Intertrade UK and civic organisations with whom the Government have engaged. Given the number of reports that have been published within a six-month period examining similar themes, I have concluded that a single, comprehensive response is the most appropriate and timely way to set out how the Government will be taking action.
In particular, the Government are committing to legislation that will better support scrutiny of relevant regulations by the Northern Ireland Assembly and, as part of the measures announced at the Budget, we will be delivering a £16.6 million programme to boost trade within the UK internal market. This funding will, in particular, answer the call from business for an enhanced one stop shop service, and provide a single place for businesses to get guidance on how to trade across the UK and the opportunities for businesses in Northern Ireland to trade across two markets.
The Government are clear about wanting to deliver practical solutions for businesses and traders, on the basis of agreed arrangements with the EU. This has underpinned the Government’s approach in the 12 months since I commissioned the independent review, including in the form of new arrangements for human medicines and freight and parcels. We have taken action where the Assembly has expressed concerns, including to safeguard the supply of certain dental fillings. The Government have also put in place a set of measures to safeguard the supply of veterinary medicines from 1 January 2026, and we will continue to monitor those arrangements into the new year.
The response outlines the Government’s continued commitment to work collaboratively with businesses, civil society, the Northern Ireland Executive and our partners in the EU and its member states, across all of these issues as relevant. As we look ahead, we will continue to be guided by our commitment to implementing the Windsor framework in good faith while ensuring the protection of the UK internal market, and will seek to secure a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement with the EU from which Northern Ireland’s traders and hauliers benefit.
[HCWS1185]
Independent Reporting Commission: Eighth Substantive Report
Hilary Benn Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
I have received the eighth substantive report from the Independent Reporting Commission, and have laid a copy before the House.
The commission was established following the Fresh Start agreement of November 2015 to report on progress towards ending paramilitary activity in Northern Ireland. That agreement set out the Northern Ireland Executive’s commitments around tackling paramilitary activity and associated criminality, and led to a programme of work to deliver a Northern Ireland Executive action plan. It also provided the framework for the UK Government, the Executive and law enforcement agencies, alongside partners in Ireland, to work together to tackle the challenges of organised crime, paramilitarism and terrorism. In the New Decade, New Approach agreement in January 2020, a commitment was made to ongoing work to tackle paramilitarism, and this work continues, including through a second phase of the NI Executive programme.
The commission’s eighth report primarily considers activity undertaken to tackle paramilitarism in the financial year 2024-25. It highlights progress in a number of areas. It notes that Police Service of Northern Ireland statistics indicate that 2024-25 was the first year since records began in 1969 in which there were no security-related deaths, and that violent crime linked to paramilitarism appears to be on a downward trajectory. The report also notes law enforcement successes in tackling paramilitarism and welcomes progress across the justice system in embedding trauma-informed approaches. The report also highlights significant progress in the development of a co-ordinated response to child criminal exploitation.
The report points out that security statistics only tell part of the story. There is still much work to be done on tackling paramilitarism in Northern Ireland. The commissioners note that intimidation, coercive control, and threats linked to paramilitary groups persist, and that paramilitary structures continue to be used to facilitate organised crime and other forms of violence.
The commission has made a number of recommendations on how the approach to paramilitarism can be strengthened and on ways in which a focused effort on paramilitarism can be maintained beyond the life of the Executive programme on paramilitarism and organised crime. We will consider recommendations for the UK Government through engagement with representatives of Northern Ireland political parties, the Executive, the Irish Government, civic society and community representatives in Northern Ireland, and the Independent Reporting Commission. The commissioners also note the scoping exercise that is now under way by Fleur Ravensbergen, the independent expert on paramilitary group transition to disbandment. We look forward to receiving her report on this work next year.
Paramilitarism is a scourge on society in Northern Ireland. The UK Government remain committed to working closely with our partners to support efforts in tackling the enduring threat and harms posed to communities by paramilitary groups. The Executive programme has demonstrated how progress can be made in tackling these harms, and the UK Government look forward to continuing work with the Northern Ireland Executive as they develop plans to build a sustainable, long-term approach for addressing multiple types of violence and harm for the period beyond March 2027.
I would like to extend my thanks to the commissioners for their work in producing this report on progress made towards ending paramilitarism.
[HCWS1145]