Oral Answers to Questions
Hilary Benn Excerpts(5 days, 21 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
The 2023 legacy Act was rejected by our domestic courts, as well as by victims and survivors across Northern Ireland, not least because it proposed giving immunity from prosecution for the most appalling terrorist crimes. Any incoming Government would have had to fix this mess, and that is what this Government are seeking to do with the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, which we published yesterday.
Luke Murphy
I thank the Secretary of State for his answer and for his remarks in yesterday’s statement about the professionalism, bravery and sacrifice of our armed forces and veterans, including those who live in my constituency of Basingstoke, in their roles in Northern Ireland, across the UK and abroad. What discussions has he had with veterans, the Defence Secretary and the Minister for Veterans and People on the new provisions and protections in the new legislation?
Hilary Benn
I have had many such discussions, as I indicated in my statement to the House yesterday, and those have informed the package of veterans protections contained in the Bill, which the Government have set out.
Gareth Snell
When the unlawful legacy Act shut down 200 investigations into the deaths of British soldiers, people across the country, including in my constituency, will have thought that was desperately unfair, and not just on those individuals but on the families and victims. Can the Secretary of State assure me and my constituents that under the new legacy Act there will be opportunities for those victims finally to get the justice they deserve?
Hilary Benn
There certainly will, because with the commission as it is now and with the commission as it will be reformed by the troubles Bill, any incident relating to the troubles anywhere in the United Kingdom can be referred into the commission. The M62 coach bombing, the Kingsmill massacre and the Warrenpoint massacre are all currently the subject of investigation by the commission.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
Many families are desperate for answers about what happened to their loved ones. That is often not about wanting to take legal action; they just want to know. Under this new Bill, how quickly will that be delivered for those families? How quickly will they get the information that they have waited decades to receive?
Hilary Benn
I know from my discussions with the commission that it is working hard with the 100 or so cases that it is already dealing with to go through that process and start producing reports for families. We know that many families have decided not to engage with the commission because they objected to the legacy Act and, in particular, to the immunity it was proposing to give. That is why we are removing that. I encourage more families to come forward, because I know that the commission and its staff are determined to try to provide the answers that those families seek.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
The Secretary of State’s allegations about the legacy Act rest on a fiction that the Labour Government have not already handed out amnesties to all those terrorist killers. Two facts need to be put in front of the House. One is from the Good Friday agreement, which
“put in place mechanisms to provide for an accelerated programme for the release of prisoners…convicted of scheduled offences”.
That is one half of the amnesty. The other half is the comfort letters, and the right place to look there is the judge’s ruling in the Downey case, which shot down any future prosecutions. The judge said—I will read it carefully—that there is a
“public interest in holding officials of the state to promises they have made in full understanding of what is involved in the bargain. Hence I have concluded that this is one of those rare cases in which, in the particular circumstances, it offends the court’s sense of justice and propriety to be asked to try the defendant.”
In other words, it is an amnesty, whether the Government like it or not.
Hilary Benn
On the first issue that the right hon. Gentleman raises, for anyone who was serving a sentence for a troubles-related offence, part of the Good Friday agreement was that they were released after two years. The people of Northern Ireland voted for that by about 70%. It was part of the agreement. On his second point, there were specific issues in the case of Mr Downey, because he had been given a letter that said he was not wanted when in fact he was. That is why that prosecution could not proceed. The right hon. Gentleman’s point is undermined by the fact that Mr Downey—this is a matter of public record—is currently facing prosecution for two counts of murder in 1972. It therefore cannot be the case that any letter he received gave him an amnesty.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
A number of the core provisions of the previous Government’s legacy Act have been deemed by the Northern Ireland courts to be incompatible with our human rights obligations. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is little wonder that the legislation was so widely opposed, and does this not make the task of repealing and replacing it even more important?
Hilary Benn
It certainly does make it more important, because it is a piece of legislation that has not worked and did not command support in Northern Ireland. If legislation is passed in this House that does not command support in Northern Ireland, how on earth can we expect the answers that families are seeking, which the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) referred to a moment ago, to be provided? We have a responsibility to give more people in Northern Ireland confidence in the new arrangement so that they will come forward to get the answers they have been seeking.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
The Secretary of State has done much to talk up the alleged special provisions in relation to ex-servicemen, but legally is it not the case that any such provisions would have to apply across the board? If I am wrong about that, will the Secretary of State now tell the House which special provisions apply exclusively and only to servicemen?
Hilary Benn
The provisions that apply exclusively and only to service personnel are: first, the arrangements to prevent cold calling—a protocol will be agreed with the commission in relation to that—and secondly, not being required to rehearse the history when the Ministry of Defence would be perfectly capable of providing that information. The hon. and learned Gentleman, being a distinguished lawyer, will know that, in respect to other arrangements for witnesses, the law requires that they are available to all witnesses.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
Many families have been struggling and campaigning for years for truth and justice, and they are now hopeful that we can get to the truth. We know that MI5 admitted only a few months ago that it had not given all of the files over to Operation Kenova. I am also aware that there are many Northern Ireland Office and MOD files that have not yet gone through the freedom of information process and are therefore not available to the National Archives. Will the Secretary of State commit today to ensuring that those files are available to the new legacy commission?
Hilary Benn
The legacy commission has the right to receive all information that it requires to do its job. We are proposing in the legislation to amend the arrangements for disclosure, to require the Secretary of State to conduct a balancing exercise, which was not in the previous Act, and to require the Secretary of State to give reasons, in line with standards that apply across the UK. In addition, any decision of the Secretary of State is open to be judicially reviewed. Those are important changes that I hope will give people in Northern Ireland greater confidence.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State said yesterday that his new legacy commission will not relitigate previous investigations involving veterans unless there are “compelling reasons” to do so. That is reinforced in clause 30 of the Bill that has now been published. To remove scope from opportunistic lawyers, would he consider defining far more closely than he has done up to this point precisely what he means by “compelling reasons”?
Hilary Benn
That is no doubt an issue that the House will discuss as the Bill is considered in detail. I think that “compelling” and “essential” is a pretty high bar. It will be for the commission to interpret that, but no doubt we will continue to discuss it.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
Further to the Secretary of State’s comments on the adequacy of the legacy and reconciliation Act, I would like to turn to the role of the European convention on human rights. As he will be aware, the Leader of the Opposition seems more interested in the views of the Member for Mar-a-Lago and Moscow than the vision of her predecessor Winston Churchill and is now calling for withdrawal from the ECHR. May I therefore ask the Secretary of State what assessment his Department has made as to the effect that ceasing to be a signatory of the convention would have on the Good Friday agreement, the Windsor protocol, the new legacy framework and Northern Ireland’s institutions in general?
Hilary Benn
The Government are absolutely committed to the European convention on human rights. I very much regret that the current Opposition have moved away from that historic support, which goes right back to Winston Churchill, as the hon. Member has set out. It is highly irresponsible to suggest picking away at one of the essential foundations of the Good Friday agreement.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
Yesterday, in an atypical fit of pique, the Secretary of State failed to answer my question as to whether the Attorney General, Lord Hermer, had been excluded from the legislation or had personally recused himself. So today I have an easier question. Given that the Secretary of State yesterday highlighted the protections for veterans in this legislation, could he tell the House which page, which clause or which line uses the word “veteran”?
Hilary Benn
The clauses that would implement the protections in relation to veterans and others are clauses 30, 31, 36, 51, 54, 56, 69 and 84.
Gavin Robinson
Labour Members may cheer, but not one of those clauses refers to veterans. Those are not protections for veterans; they are protections for everyone—paragraph 20 of the explanatory notes shows that what I am saying is true—and many of them are already available in the criminal justice system. It is a mirage.
To be collegiate, the Secretary of State has spent many years criticising the legacy Act of 2023 and previous efforts on the basis that they commanded no political support whatsoever across the parties of Northern Ireland. If there is agreement across Northern Ireland’s Members of Parliament on amendments during the passage of his legislation, will he agree to those amendments?
Hilary Benn
The right hon. Gentleman invites me to speculate on amendments that I have not yet seen. As I indicated to the House yesterday, I want to work in as collegiate a way as possible in trying to take the legislation through. In respect to the first part of his question, however, I would say that the only reason the protections and clauses I just read out are in the Bill is because of the Government’s determination to treat our veterans fairly.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
As part of “Safeguarding the Union”, Intertrade UK was established to advise on and promote trade and investment across the UK. The terms of reference and work programme were published on gov.uk. The NIO provides secretariat support, but Intertrade UK is free to submit advice and recommendations to the Government as it sees fit.
Alex Easton
What indicators is the Secretary of State using to measure growth in trade within the UK internal market? Will he commit to publicising an independent assessment of the barriers that the Northern Ireland protocol is having on trade within the UK and Northern Ireland, which I believe affects the ability of Intertrade UK to fully promote trade within the UK and operate independently?
Hilary Benn
As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, a range of organisations, including Intertrade UK, are looking at the impact of the Windsor framework. We have recently had Lord Murphy’s report, for example, which the Government are committed to publishing. The House of Lords Northern Ireland Affairs Committee published a report on the same subject only this morning.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South and Mid Down) (SDLP)
Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the major deterrents to investment and growth in Northern Ireland is the absence, 20 months after the restoration of Stormont, of a published investment strategy from the Executive with any sort of a road map for investors or businesses on the infrastructure, roads and housing developments that the Executive will invest in? Does he agree that, in the absence of that strategy, we are flying blind in investment terms? Has he had any discussions with the Executive about that?
Hilary Benn
Like my hon. Friend, I look forward to seeing the investment strategy published. Northern Ireland has a great opportunity under the Windsor framework because of the dual market access, which no other part of the United Kingdom has. For those looking to invest to trade with both the UK and the European Union, there is no better place to come and do that but Northern Ireland.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
The Government are committed to repealing and replacing the legacy Act with new arrangements that seek to command greater confidence in Northern Ireland. Yesterday we published the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill and a draft remedial order to do just that.
John Lamont
Yesterday the Secretary of State announced this Labour Government’s new Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. Despite all the justifications for the Bill, it still means one thing: veterans, many of whom are elderly, being dragged back through the courts. Does the Secretary of State think that is an acceptable way to treat those people who bravely served and defended our country?
Hilary Benn
The hon. Gentleman says “dragged back” to court. The only circumstances in which a veteran, or anyone else, appears in court is if they are charged with an offence. He will know perfectly well what the figures show about prosecutions in the 27 years since the Good Friday agreement. Here we are talking about coroners’ inquests. A small number will be restarted because they were already in train and were stopped by the last legacy Act. The rest will go into the sifting process governed by the Solicitor General. We think that we have a fair and reasonable framework that we will put in place to ensure that veterans are protected and properly looked after.
Gregory Stafford
On 25 September, the Prime Minister assured the BBC that veterans would receive protections not afforded to paramilitaries, so can the Secretary of State confirm which of the statutory protections will apply solely to veterans? Or is it the case that they will also extend to paramilitaries?
Hilary Benn
I will give the hon. Gentleman one example, which involves the representation of veterans on the statutory advisory group that will be established, drawing on the experience of Operation Kenova, allowing the voice of veterans to be heard. This will be covered by clause 8 of the legislation.
Bob Blackman
One of the concerns around dragging veterans through lawfare and our courts is the effect on Army recruitment, so what is the Secretary of State’s reaction to Colonel Nick Kitson, the son of General Sir Frank Kitson, saying:
“How can anyone volunteer to put their life on the line for a Government—indeed a nation—that does not have their back?”
Hilary Benn
I meet many cadets who are very keen to join the armed forces, and we should pay tribute to all who are offering their services to the nation in defence of the realm. We should not talk down the importance of that recruitment effort. If anybody looks in the round at what we are putting forward, they will think it is reasonable. I have met many veterans who argue—as the Veterans Commissioners have said—that they are not looking for immunity under the law, which is what the legacy Act gave; they are looking for fairness under it, and that is what we will provide.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that people who join the British Army not only recognise that they have to abide by the law, but expect the Government to have their back and offer them that fairness? Can he offer an assurance that people who served in Northern Ireland will be given the fairness that they expect, and that this is a Government that genuinely have their back?
Hilary Benn
I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. To take another example of the protections, it was put to us by veterans in our discussions that no veteran should have to return to Northern Ireland to engage with legacy processes, and we are legislating for that in the Bill.
Hilary Benn
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not only offer congratulations but continue these discussions about legacy matters in that spirit. When I say I am prepared to listen, I mean it. I would just point out to him that the problem arose because of the Supreme Court judgment, as he is well aware, and that for just over two years, the last Government could not find a solution. The one that was put in place did not work because it was found to be incompatible. I have reflected on the point that was made in representations, and this decision will ensure that there is no gap, as it has been referred to. We have found a mechanism that we believe will achieve what sections 46 and 47 failed to do.
Alex Burghart
I invite the Secretary of State to look at his own legislation, because clauses 89 and 90 are markedly similar to the sections that we left him. We on this side of the House may have won the battle over this, but we still have not won the war to protect our veterans from vexatious complaints. Is it not the truth that if it had not been for months of campaigning by the Conservatives, the shadow Defence team, the media and reports from Policy Exchange, which may now have saved the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds, Labour would have stuck to its plan and allowed Mr Adams and his comrades to sue anyway?
Hilary Benn
I indicated to the House some months ago that we were determined to find a means of dealing with the Supreme Court judgment in 2020 on the subject of the Carltona principle. That is what our proposed legislation will seek to remedy. We think it is a better formulation than sections 46 and 47, and I look forward to the hon. Gentleman’s support in passing it.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
The Government are committed to safeguarding Northern Ireland’s place in the UK internal market and to implementing the Windsor framework in good faith. The internal market scheme enables traders to move goods from Great Britain into Northern Ireland tariff-free and, since May, with significantly reduced paperwork and checks.
Andrew Rosindell
It is a disgrace that the “Safeguarding the Union” provisions severely restrict trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, binding the Province to 300 areas of EU law over which the people have no say. Will the Secretary of State take steps to remove what is left of this damaging international trade border within our own nation and restore the birthright of the people of Northern Ireland as equal citizens of this United Kingdom?
Hilary Benn
I say to the hon. Gentleman and those who advocated that we should leave the European Union: this is the consequence of it. There was an open border and two different jurisdictions—how were we going to deal with trade in those circumstances? Secondly, the goods are flowing; the goods are moving. Look at the evidence: the Northern Ireland economy in the second quarter grew by 2%. That is not indicative of a problem.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
On 26 November last year, the Health Secretary assured this House that the Tobacco and Vapes Bill will apply in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State will know that the age-based sales ban affects the placement of tobacco products on the market and so is potentially in breach of the EU’s tobacco products directive, so can the Secretary of State repeat the Health Secretary’s assurance and also tell us whether the Government have confirmed with the European Union that the ban will stand in Northern Ireland?
Hilary Benn
It is certainly the Government’s intention that the ban will apply in Northern Ireland, because it is very important that young people all over the United Kingdom are protected in the way in which the Bill seeks.
Northern Ireland Troubles
Hilary Benn Excerpts(6 days, 21 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the legacy of the troubles, which still hangs heavily over the lives of so many people in Northern Ireland and across the United Kingdom.
The Good Friday agreement—that extraordinary act of political courage—brought peace. Although its architects knew that legacy would have to be dealt with, they were not able to do so. This is therefore the unfinished business of that agreement, and it is why so many—too many—victims and survivors are still waiting for answers about what exactly happened to those whom they loved so much.
The previous Government’s Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 failed to win support in Northern Ireland, failed to comply with our international human rights obligations and was undeliverable. Whatever its intentions, it was no basis for trying to move forward. That is why the Government are today introducing new primary legislation and laying a draft remedial order under the Human Rights Act as we seek to fulfil our King’s Speech commitment to repeal and replace the legacy Act. This legislation will give effect to the framework that I announced with the Irish Government on 19 September, which reflects the principles of the Stormont House agreement and contains sovereign commitments by both the UK and Irish Governments.
The new troubles Bill will reform the independent commission, to be renamed the legacy commission, giving it statutory oversight to provide accountability and confidence, and—learning from Operation Kenova—a statutory victims and survivors advisory group. It will significantly strengthen the governance of the commission, with two co-directors of investigations, statutory conflict of interest duties, and appointments made only following independent advice. It will enhance the investigative powers of the commission and put in place a fairer disclosure regime, ensuring that the commission has the powers that it needs to find answers for families and can make public the maximum possible information, consistent with the state’s responsibility to protect life and national security.
The Bill will fulfil the commitment that we have made to restore the small number of troubles-related inquests that were stopped in their tracks by the legacy Act, and refer the other inquests that had not yet commenced to the Solicitor General for independent consideration of whether, in each case, they are dealt with most appropriately by the reformed legacy commission or via the coronial system. It will enable the reformed commission to hold new proceedings in cases that are transferred to it from the coronial system. Consistent with the provisions in the Inquiries Act 2005, that will provide for public hearings, the consideration of sensitive information in closed hearings, and effective next-of-kin participation, including participation through legal representation.
We will also address in the Bill, rather than in the remedial order, the UK Supreme Court ruling in the Adams interim custody order case regarding the application of the Carltona principle. We must put beyond doubt Parliament’s intention by clarifying the fact that the relevant legislation allowed such orders to be made by junior Ministers as well as by the Secretary of State.
We owe a huge debt of gratitude to the 250,000 Northern Ireland veterans who served with honour and distinction to keep people safe, and who worked with the police and other emergency services in the most difficult circumstances imaginable. Their service and their sacrifice will never be forgotten. That is why, having worked closely with the Defence Secretary and the Armed Forces Minister, the Government are introducing strong safeguards for veterans that respond directly to the concerns that have been expressed to us. Those safeguards will also apply to other people, such as former police officers. They will mean that no witnesses will need to travel to Northern Ireland to engage with legacy mechanisms. They will have a right to do so remotely, because coroners and judges in the commission will be legally required to allow it, and support for veterans will be available to assist them in that regard. The commission will be under a duty not to duplicate aspects of any previous investigations unless there are compelling reasons that make it essential. The welfare of veterans will be given proper consideration as part of any assessment of whether they are required to give evidence, and that will include the right of veterans to seek anonymity when doing so.
Our protections will not be limited to legislation. Any contact with veterans will be facilitated through the Ministry of Defence, protecting veterans from cold calling, and veterans will not be required to rehearse the historical context surrounding incidents when such information can be obtained from other sources, including the Ministry of Defence. These measures will provide what the three UK veterans’ commissioners have called for: not immunity from the law, but fairness under it.
The remedial order, which I am also laying today, will remove the last Government’s much-criticised immunity scheme, which offered false promises, was never introduced, and would have enabled those who had committed the most appalling terrorist crimes to be granted immunity from prosecution—the principal reason why the Act was so strongly opposed in Northern Ireland—and it will lift the current prohibition on troubles-related civil proceedings.
I am grateful to the Tánaiste, Simon Harris, and his team for their open and constructive approach in reaching the framework agreement, which recognises that helping families affected by the troubles is a shared responsibility. That is why the joint framework contains specific and unprecedented commitments by the Irish Government to facilitate the fullest possible co-operation of the Irish authorities with a reformed legacy commission, to establish a dedicated unit within An Garda Síochána to deal with troubles-related cases, which will include investigating all outstanding cases in Ireland, and to make a financial contribution of €25 million to help fund legacy mechanisms. That is, of course, in addition to the £250 million already committed by the UK Government. Where required, legislation will be introduced by the Irish Government to implement those commitments. We are also establishing with the Irish Government an independent commission on information retrieval—initially on a pilot basis—to give families an additional means of obtaining information.
Since my appointment last year, I have had many discussions with political parties, victims and survivors organisations, human rights groups, veterans and others affected by the troubles. Given the views held by so many people—often diametrically opposed—it was always going to be impossible to set out a plan that gives everyone everything that they want. There will be elements of our approach that some people will welcome and others will not. I also recognise that, because of what has gone before, there is a great lack of trust in all of us in the House on the part of victims and survivors. That is, unfortunately, the reality; but it is not, and it never has been, an argument for not trying to find a way forward. I hope that those who want to see a fair and effective approach to legacy that can command greater support in Northern Ireland will recognise that these measures represent fundamental reform, and that they will therefore be given a chance to succeed.
Time waits for no one, least of all for the many families who lost loved ones, and they, ultimately, will be the judge of whether these new arrangements can give them the answers that they have sought for so long. I hope that we will together be able to grasp this opportunity, and so help the people of Northern Ireland to look to a future freer of the burden of the past. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.
The last Government legislated to draw a line under troubles-era litigation. That litigation was inevitably weighted against those who sought to protect our country from terrorism. It was inevitably weighted against those who keep records, and whose servicemen are easy to locate and contact. Even today, vexatious claims are being made. Only last week a judicial review of a 1991 case was rightly thrown out by the High Court in Belfast. The judge described the challenge as “utterly divorced from…reality”, but not before the former special forces soldier at the centre of it had had to endure four years of investigation. Mindful of cases such as this, the last Government sought to draw a line. Through their actions today this Government are erasing that line, and as they do so, many former servicemen will again feel, with profound unease, that the lawyers are coming. I hope the House will spare a thought for them this afternoon.
I know we will have a lot of time to debate the legislation that the Government are laying, but there are a number of specific questions that I would like to ask the Secretary of State. First, on the resumption of inquests, will he tell the House how many inquests will be restored and how many will be referred to the Solicitor General? Can he specifically tell the House whether that list will include the 1987 Loughgall case?
Secondly, civil cases are to reopen. It is thought that at the time of prohibition, many hundreds of such cases—affecting perhaps thousands of people—were before the Belfast courts. What is the Northern Ireland Office’s calculation of the number of civil cases that are now likely to proceed? I ask that because there are clear financial consequences to reopening legacy in this way. The Secretary of State referred to the £250 million already committed—indeed, it was committed by the last Government to deal with the legacy as we framed it—but it is now clear that the new legacy commission is to have a much bigger remit than the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery. If so, will its budget be increased? If not, how will it be expected to function?
Similarly, the Police Service of Northern Ireland has raised very serious concerns about the amount of money that it will need to support reopened inquests and civil cases. Policy Exchange has placed the cost on the police at around £90 million, at a time when police numbers in Northern Ireland are at an all-time low. There is a very real prospect that without additional funding from the Secretary of State, frontline policing in Northern Ireland will be further reduced. Can the Secretary of State make a commitment that that will not happen?
Thirdly, the Government have today briefed journalists that legislation will ban Gerry Adams from receiving compensation for his detention in the 1970s, but the Secretary of State’s statement made no reference to that. Can he tell the House unequivocally that Mr Adams will not receive one penny of compensation?
Fourthly, the Secretary of State listed a number of protections for veterans in court, but it is already the case that anonymity, age-related considerations and remote hearings are available at the discretion of the court. That was apparent to the Tánaiste on 19 September, when he emphasised that no new protections would be available to veterans. Does the Secretary of State agree with Mr Harris? There has also been some confusion about whether these protections will extend to paramilitaries. On 25 September, the Prime Minister claimed that they will not. Can the Secretary of State be definitive for the House?
Lastly, there is the question of the involvement of the Republic of Ireland in legacy. This has proved deeply controversial, and I am sure that the Secretary of State will be asked questions about it this afternoon. However, I was interested to see that the Republic has made commitments to get the Garda to investigate unresolved troubles-related incidents within its jurisdiction, and to legislate to enable the fullest possible co-operation of the relevant Irish authorities with the legacy commission. If that is to happen, it is to be welcomed, because during the troubles the UK repeatedly sought extraditions from the Republic to bring terrorist charges. In the vast majority of cases, they were turned down.
Following 1998, the former Irish Justice Minister, Michael McDowell, said that the Irish Government gave a de facto amnesty to the IRA. Indeed, there are many instances of possible collusion between the Garda and the Provisional IRA, which have never received the attention they deserve: Kingsmill, the murder of Ian Sproule, Bloody Friday, Teebane, La Mon—the list goes on. I sincerely hope that the Republic will now engage sincerely, deeply and honestly, and I hope the Secretary of State will ensure that it does.
Hilary Benn
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his response. He says that the last Government sought to draw a line, but it did not work. In the act of seeking to do that—this is the one question that the now Opposition have never been able to answer—they decided that they would give terrorists immunity from prosecution. [Hon. Members: “No, they didn’t!”] Yes, that is what the last Government did, and I have never heard a justification. [Hon. Members: “No, they didn’t!”] Yes, they did, and it did not work. It did not have support in Northern Ireland. How can Northern Ireland proceed to deal with the legacy of the troubles, when the legislation that the last Government passed had no support in Northern Ireland?
To answer the hon. Gentleman’s specific questions, nine inquests will be restored and the remaining 24 will go into the sifting process. Those nine inquests will include Loughgall, because the Conservative Attorney General ordered a new inquest into Loughgall 10 years ago—a point never referred to by the Opposition. It was one of the cases that had begun, and it therefore falls within the group that will be restored. The rest will be considered by the Solicitor General in the sifting process. The number of civil cases will depend on those who choose to bring them or resume them.
On the PSNI, I say to the hon. Gentleman that prior to 1 May last year, the force had over 1,000 cases on its books, and that is no longer the case. The legacy commission, which the UK Government are funding, is now responsible for looking at all cases referred to it. That cost is borne by the UK Government and not by the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland. To the extent that cases are no longer inquests but will go to the commission, the cost will be borne by the UK Government and not by the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland.
On the issue of interim custody orders, as I indicated to the House a moment ago, the legislation will make it clear that the signing of those orders by junior Ministers was always lawful, but we have also decided, in placing a draft remedial order before the House today, that sections 46 and 47 of the legacy Act will now remain in place until the provisions of the Bill take effect. That will deal with the point that some people have made about avoiding a gap, but we all have to recognise that sections 46 and 47 proved to be an ineffective way of dealing with this issue—the hon. Gentleman smiles, but he knows that that is the case.
On the protections we have brought in for veterans, we have done so with the motivation of protecting veterans. On the involvement of the Republic of Ireland, I join the hon. Gentleman—a point of unity at the end—in welcoming the commitment of the Irish Government to this partnership. The history of Northern Ireland teaches us that a lot of progress is made when the two guarantors of the Good Friday agreement work together, and many people in Northern Ireland would like to get answers from the Garda and the Irish authorities. At the moment, the Irish Government are refusing to co-operate. Why? Because of the last Government’s legacy Act. I look forward to the Irish Government participating in the process in the months and years ahead.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
I am pleased to see from the joint framework that the Government have listened to some of the key concerns voiced by stakeholders during my Committee’s inquiry into legacy. Those stakeholders will no doubt want to study the detail of the proposals that my right hon. Friend is publishing today. To that end, what consultation have the Government had with victims and survivors groups since the joint framework was announced, and in what ways has this informed the legislation laid today?
Hilary Benn
The legislation is about to be published, but in the 14 months since I took up this post, I have had many conversations with families, victims, and the other organisations and groups that I listed in my statement. The Bill that the House will see is the result of that process of discussion, listening, drafting and attempting to respond—not in a way that will please everyone—to the mess that this Government were left by the last Government, who passed a piece of legislation that did not work, did not have support and was found by the courts not to be compatible with our obligations in a number of respects. The question now for all those groups, having seen the framework agreement that we have reached with the Irish Government, is: do they feel that the legislation gives effect to that, and will it enable Northern Ireland to move forward in dealing with these really intractable problems?
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. As this is my first statement as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for Northern Ireland, I want to begin by recognising the deep scars left by the troubles on families and communities across the island of Ireland and these islands. The pain, loss and legacy of that conflict remain deeply felt to this day.
Although the Liberal Democrats welcome the recent agreement between the British and Irish Governments, the true test of this deal will lie in the detail of the legislation that follows. The Government’s stated intention—to promote an honest attempt at reconciliation and to draw a line under decades of division—is one that every Member of this House can understand. Victims’ families deserve truth, justice and closure. Equally, our veterans deserve and must be afforded fairness and protection from injustice. As the Secretary of State has said, the legacy Act, introduced by the Conservatives, failed to gain the support of any of the parties in Stormont, victims groups or the Irish Government. This lack of consensus speaks volumes but is not loud enough, it seems, for His Majesty’s official Opposition.
I look forward to examining the contents of the new Bill in detail and to tabling constructive amendments. My party will engage fully with the Government, as lasting reconciliation depends on transparency, fairness and independent oversight. That means an effective information retrieval body with statutory disclosure powers, meaningful participation for victims, and safeguards to uphold both justice and compassion for veterans and victims alike.
I have three questions for the Secretary of State. First, how will this Bill ensure that reconciliation is not imposed from above, but built from the ground up? Secondly, based on the many meetings my party has had with veterans and their representatives, what specific safeguards will the Government include to ensure fairness, proportionality and proper protections for those who serve with integrity? Lastly, how will this Government ensure that prosecution under the law, or the possibility of it, can never be used to harm, oppress or discredit those who fought for our country, regardless of the final verdict?
Hilary Benn
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new role, and I genuinely look forward to working with him on these and other matters, given his interest in Northern Ireland, which is shared right across the House.
Let me turn to his three specific questions. First, no legislation can enable people to feel reconciled in some way to what happened. In the end, reconciliation has to come from within. The title “reconciliation” will not be in the new name of the legacy commission, because it is a consequence of a process that we are trying to put in place, if families can find answers. I urge the House to concentrate on that, because that is what this is all about—trying to enable families to find answers. Secondly, I did draw attention to the safeguards in my statement, and when the Bill is published later, the hon. Gentleman will be able to see how they are given legal expression.
Lastly, on the hon. Gentleman’s point about prosecution, I would simply say that people have made one or two comments in these discussions about politically motivated prosecutions or vexatious prosecutions. I think it is very important that the House upholds the integrity and independence of the prosecutorial authorities. A fundamental bedrock of our legal system is that independent prosecutors make such decisions, and to suggest that they are in any way politically motivated is in my view profoundly mistaken.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the Secretary of State, the Defence Secretary and the Minister for the Armed Forces for working so hard to achieve this new phase of the peace settlement in Northern Ireland. As we celebrate peace starting in the middle east, this statement is a reminder of how long it takes to build peace and how important justice is for peace. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that by shutting down investigations, including into the deaths of more than 200 Operation Banner soldiers, without an adequate alternative, the unlawful legacy Act failed so many families and victims of the troubles, and the mess had to be undone?
Hilary Benn
I thank my hon. Friend for her question, but above all for her great service in the Northern Ireland Office. It was a real pleasure to work with her, and she did so much during her time in the Department.
I do agree with my hon. Friend, because those service families want to find answers. Some time ago, I met the family of Tony Harrison, who served and was murdered in Belfast. His mother and his brother told me how outraged they were by the legacy Act, because it proposed that those who had killed her son could get immunity from prosecution. It is so important that we put that misguided approach on one side, so that all families—service families and others—can find answers.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
It is worth remembering that most victims are not in a group, are not in the media and are not taking action; they just want to know what happened to their loved ones. As we debate the forthcoming legislation, I hope we can all collectively remember that, because investigations are key to delivering for those families.
I want to ask the Secretary of State two specific questions. First, there is some concern that there will be protection for combatants who may have been involved in rapes and other sexual activity. Could he look at that as the Bill proceeds to make sure that victims are able to talk and have protections, as those ex-combatants have? Secondly, what thought has he given to a change of Government in the south should Sinn Féin take power, and to the delivery of the Irish contribution and commitments in such a scenario?
Hilary Benn
I am grateful, as ever, to the right hon. Gentleman for his wise words, and I once again pay tribute to the distinguished role he played in trying to move forward some of these and many other Northern Ireland questions during his time as Secretary of State.
On the latter point, it is not for me to speculate on what is going to happen as a result of the decisions of the Irish electorate. The current coalition Government have given a commitment, and this partnership was two Governments coming together, each making sovereign commitments and promising to carry them out in their own jurisdictions. I think it is a hugely significant moment, because we have to go back 11 years to the last such time, when the last Government were able to reach agreement with the Irish Government in the form of the Stormont House agreement.
On the first question, when the right hon. Gentleman sees the Bill, he will see that we are making changes to allow some other matters to be investigated, because I am conscious of the point he has raised.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
I welcome the statement and the progress made by both this Government and the Government of the Republic of Ireland. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) said, we on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee have heard of the heartbreak of many of those who lost loved ones over the course of the troubles, and regardless of the background of those loved ones, they deserve answers.
The response we have consistently received is that Operation Kenova is an example of good practice—that many of those in the island of Ireland are too close to this matter, and bringing in suitably qualified individuals from other parts of the UK should be considered as part of any process. Can I ask the Secretary of State if that has been considered in the new Bill?
Hilary Benn
I would make two points. First, as I have alluded to, we have drawn on the experience of Operation Kenova, in that the Bill will create a statutory victims and survivors advisory group to ensure that, in the way it goes about its work, the commission takes account of victims and survivors, and that will include a representative of those who served the state during the troubles.
On the second point, we are putting together much tougher statutory provisions in place relating to conflicts of interest. That is why there will be two directors of investigation—one will have experience of investigating cases in Northern Ireland, the other will not—which will address the concerns some families have about who will be looking into their case. We should not forget that, despite the nearly 100 cases that the commission is currently investigating, which I welcome, far too many families in Northern Ireland have said that they will not be going anywhere near the commission. Part of the purpose of what we are seeking to do is to build confidence on the part of more families in Northern Ireland to go to the commission and get answers.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
First, I welcome the Minister to his place and to the Department, and I welcome the new shadow spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats. I personally thank the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) for the role she played in her time in the Northern Ireland Office.
That the announcement with the Irish Government was made during a House of Commons recess, one could consider as cynical; that we stand here today during a statement on legislation that has yet to be introduced, and therefore we have no detail on, as disgraceful; and the suggestion that the Irish Government have committed to legislate at all as entirely fanciful—they have not. But the detail we do have is that the Secretary of State wishes for the Solicitor General to be the person to carry out the sifting process on whether cases should go to inquest through the coronial system or to the legacy commission.
In Northern Ireland, we have an Advocate General. The Advocate General is England and Wales’s Attorney General. I am clear in my mind that Richard Hermer would be wholly inappropriate to have his hands anywhere near cases touching on the legacy of the past, given how he has conflicted himself. Will the Secretary of State indicate: has the Attorney General of this country recused himself from this process? Has he, as Secretary of State, decided to exclude the Attorney General from this process? Is he legislating in a way that will exclude every Attorney General from this process, or is it just Richard Hermer?
Hilary Benn
I would say to the right hon. Gentleman that I am sorry to have heard what he has just said in relation to very substantial proposals contained in the framework document. I grant him that the Bill will be published shortly, and he will have a chance to read it. I have been accused of many things in my time in public life but being cynical is not one of them, so that is a first. The truth about the announcement of the framework—[Interruption.] Well, it may be the beginning of a number of such accusations, but I will leave that to others who want to take the debate in that particular direction.
The framework was announced when it was because it is a joint framework between two Governments and that means there had to be a negotiation about when it came out, but I did undertake to Mr Speaker at the time that I would come to the House as quickly as possible to make a statement. I laid a written ministerial statement in the House yesterday, and I came today at the first available opportunity with Members here, bearing in mind the Whip we had yesterday, to subject what had agreed to scrutiny.
I have every confidence in the Solicitor General, and I am sure she will do an excellent job in sifting these cases against three criteria, which will be laid out in statute. The first will be about the impact that sensitive information will have on the ability of inquests to actually complete the case. The second will be speed—time waits for no one. The third will be the view of those who are involved in the cases, including families.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and I welcome the Government’s focus on a protections package for veterans. Last week, I met David, Ishbel and Gary from Yateley and Hawley Royal British Legion, who do an excellent job supporting veterans in my community. We discussed the new veterans protection package announced by the Government, including the protections against repeated investigations. Many veterans from my constituency served courageously for our nation in very, very difficult conditions and they asked me to raise a number of questions on behalf of veterans who served in Northern Ireland. How will the Government ensure that the protections are absolutely watertight in practice, so that veterans are not subjected to repeated, distressing investigations in old age? What steps are being taken with the Irish Government and other partners to ensure that accountability and justice are applied consistently and fairly on all sides?
Hilary Benn
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. She is such a strong advocate for the many veterans she represents. I encourage her to look at the legislation to see the nature of the legislative commitments to give effect to the veterans’ protections. There will be a couple that will not be in legislation because they are entirely in our own hands, agreeing a protocol with the commission to ensure that there is no cold calling.
I would like to take this opportunity to welcome my new deputy, the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick) to the House. It is very remiss of me not to have done so. This is the first chance we have had to sit together on the Front Bench. I pay tribute to the Minister for the Armed Forces, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), from the Ministry of Defence, who has played a really important and significant role in putting the protections in place. I note that Lieutenant General Sir Nick Pope, the chair of the Confederation of Service Charities, has said that the Confederation
“welcomes the development of the safeguards that have been put in place to offer protection to those within the armed forces community who are affected by legacy issues.”
I, too, welcome that recognition of what we have done.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
Obviously the devil lies in the detail in these things, and never more so than in Northern Ireland. Before the Bill comes eventually before us, we really cannot say for certain whether it is good, bad or indifferent, as is often the case.
I will raise two points. First, I will mention the agreement—I find it a little wishy-washy—over Ireland’s role in all this, which, as has been said by my hon. Friends, has a huge amount of history attached to it, given that Ireland has previously refused to hand over people who really were guilty of the most vexatious, disgusting attacks on civilians and soldiers. It does seem to me rather peculiar. We will wait and see what that actually means. Ireland says it is committed—I would love to see what that commitment actually means.
Secondly, I will mention vexatious prosecutions. The note we have here talks about protection from repeated investigations
“unless there are compelling reasons to do so”.
My concern with things like that is that they are little hooks that allow development through legislation, instead of being powerful tools to do what the Secretary of State says. I therefore urge him right now to be very clear when this legislation comes forward that this cannot be broken through and to tie down the definition of “compelling”.
Hilary Benn
I note the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the past, and I am not going to dissent from what he said, but this is an attempt to move beyond the past and the history and to move forward to something that is better. In the end, people will judge the commitments that this Government and the Irish Government have made, but the deal has been signed in good faith, and we are committed to doing what we promised to do.
The commission was established by the previous Government, after all, and I took the decision not to abolish it, but to reform it. Many people criticised that—they wanted it scrapped completely and for us to start again, but I thought that would have been a mistake, because time waits for no one. We would have wasted all the money and stopped the investigations that are taking place, which are really important to the families. Every single investigation is important to every single family, because each is about the death of a loved one.
I am sure we will debate the specifics of the legislation at length in the House. The state has a duty, of course, to properly investigate cases where it has been involved in a death. The right hon. Gentleman is well aware of that. It is a duty that all of us should uphold.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South and Mid Down) (SDLP)
I thank the Secretary of State and his team for their work on this package, including the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), who was so well regarded by everybody who came across her in Northern Ireland. I also thank the officials in the Department of Foreign Affairs in Dublin for their work, because that partnership is vital to moving forward.
The Social Democratic and Labour party acknowledges the progress in this package if it is faithfully captured in the legislation. When we push for more and better, please know that that comes from a sincere and long-held determination to get this right for families, survivors and our society as a whole. Despite some opinions to the contrary, including recently, I do not believe that most people believe that any murder in Northern Ireland was justified, inevitable, useful or worthy of cover-up, and perpetuating those narratives is an enormous challenge for the present and the future, too.
Does the Secretary of State agree that all the work invested by families, campaigners and his officials will be worth nothing if those who created victims—whether republican or loyalist paramilitaries or the state forces who assisted them—do not approach this with full transparency and disclosure and put honesty and the needs of victims over the needs of their own narratives?
Hilary Benn
My hon. Friend gives me the opportunity to pay tribute to my extraordinary officials, some of whom are present today. It has been the privilege of my life to work with them on this. I know that my hon. Friend will hold us to the highest standards, and I accept what she says in the spirit in which it is offered. As I indicated to the House earlier, I want there to be maximum provision of information to families, but we must also acknowledge that any and all Governments have responsibilities for the security of the state and to protect life, and this Government will uphold both.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
I welcome the hon. Member for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick) to his ministerial position, and I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) to his new place as spokesperson—frankly the best job anybody could have in opposition.
I have spent the summer speaking to veterans about the vital commitment they need to feel that the process of prosecution does not become persecution. While many of those veterans recognise that they went to Northern Ireland in order to restore the rule of law and think that they should be subject to the laws of this land, they none the less remain incredibly anxious about the possibility that the process of prosecution becomes persecution. Has the Secretary of State had the official backing of any veterans group for the approach that he has taken? Separately, has he had any assurances from the Republic of Ireland Government that they will, as a result of the publication of this Bill, drop the inter-state case against the United Kingdom?
Hilary Benn
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the role he played as Liberal Democrat spokesperson for Northern Ireland. The truth is that with the passage of time, the possibility of prosecution becomes increasingly remote. We all know that to be the case. Most of the families I have met—not all, but most—have said, “I know that no one is going to be held to account through the judicial process, but I just want to know what happened. That’s what I want.” It causes such pain and grief that that answer cannot be provided. It really is difficult.
As far as the Irish Government are concerned, I believe that they will honour the promises they have made. This partnership with the Irish Government is a significant moment, because moving from non-co-operation to co-operation will open up the possibility for more information to come to families. The inter-state case is a matter for the Irish Government, but I am very clear of one thing, which is that the last legacy Act created circumstances in which the law that was not compatible with our international obligations, and that is the basis of the inter-state case. The legislation I am bringing before the House will fix that and deal with it, and in those circumstances the inter-state case will no longer have a basis.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement today, particularly his focus on answers, which are what people want. As someone who lost a friend, Tim Parry, when he was murdered by the IRA in 1993, I know exactly how important it is for families and everyone who knows victims to get the answers that they deserve. The agreement is vital in getting the process moving again so that victims and families can get those answers. How will the Secretary of State continue that work with families and victims both during the process of the legislation and afterwards to make sure that answers remain at the heart of what the Government are trying to achieve?
Hilary Benn
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. I spoke yesterday to the victims’ commissioner in Northern Ireland. On 19 September when the framework was published, the Tánaiste and I met the victims and survivors forum in Northern Ireland and explained what the framework seeks to do. I made a commitment to the victims’ commissioner yesterday that I will come back to meet the victims and survivors forum once it has had a chance to look at the legislation to find out what it thinks.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
In the interests of trying to solve this issue, I wish the Secretary of State well and hope that he will bring forward the Bill and deal with its progress in the spirit of compromise and co-operation between the parties to find the best landing spot possible. He mentioned good faith, which is a precious resource that is often in short supply when it comes to this issue. I think it would be helpful if he works vigorously with the Irish Government to get them to ascertain at speed and pace what, if any, legislative measures they require to make good on what they have committed to, and could he as best as possible work those two pieces of legislation in lockstep to give confidence to both sides, who have concerns when it comes to good faith—or rather the absence of it?
Hilary Benn
I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he said. I hope he knows that I will do anything and everything I can to try to find a way forward, in partnership with as many Members of the House as possible. For a long period of time, this question has been subject to the bipartisanship which, in the main, has characterised relations between the parties in the House on matters to do with Northern Ireland. I recognise that there are disagreements in relation to one aspect of what we are putting forward; that does not mean that we cannot work together on the others.
I take the hon. Gentleman’s point about the importance of seeing the legislation required in Ireland to give effect to the proposals. I was standing next to the Tánaiste when he made it quite clear—to give an example—that he would ensure legislation was in place to deal with the commitment to enable witnesses to give evidence to the Omagh public inquiry before the hearings resume in March. That seems to be an important example of good faith.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
I suppose that the Secretary of State will forgive some of us for being cautious before we are ready to believe that the Government, the state and any paramilitary organisation will give over the information that is required. In fact, right now there are families across the road in the Supreme Court in legal dispute with the Government because the Government are withholding information from them. We know that there is a pattern.
When it comes to inquests, will the Secretary of State look again at the sifting process? Will he give family views primacy when it comes to deciding which cases will have an inquest? Will he drop his proposal to give himself the power to appoint judges in that inquisitorial mechanism? The important principle of the independence of the judiciary needs to be held up.
Hilary Benn
On inquests, there are three statutory tests that the Solicitor General will have to apply. In answer to an earlier question, I indicated what they are. Family views will be one of the considerations, but if inquests cannot proceed because of sensitive information, would it not be more sensible to put it into the commission, which can deal with sensitive information, because it has provision for closed hearings?
No doubt my hon. Friend will make the point about appointment processes when we come to discuss the Bill. However, on the agreement on the information-retrieval mechanism, I point out—this is also relevant to the point made by the Opposition—that that was negotiated by the previous Conservative Government and the Irish Government, and it formed part of the Stormont House agreement. What is the purpose of it? It is to enable those who have information to pass it to the body, which can then pass it to the families, and that information will be a protected disclosure, which is not the same as immunity.
That system has worked well through the independent commission for the location of victims’ remains in recovering quite a number of the remains of those who were abducted, tortured, murdered and buried by the IRA. I hope that it is a step forward in going back to what was agreed at Stormont House by the previous Government, the Irish Government and the political parties—well, not all of them—and will be welcomed on all sides.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
The Secretary of State referred to this as unfinished business. In the last statement, we heard about the successes of the peace process in Northern Ireland. I was 12 years old when the Good Friday agreement was signed; I now stand here 40 years of age as the MP for Lagan Valley, and my constituents deserve truth and justice as much as anybody else.
We have heard a lot today about veterans. My family were part of that cohort. They proudly served, along with many others. They do not want an amnesty. They do not want immunity. They do not want equivocation with terrorists, which was proposed by the outgoing Government.
We hear about people in Northern Ireland who were in the wrong place at the wrong time whenever they died. They were not; it was the terrorists who were in the wrong place, doing the wrong work. We must send out a clear signal, no matter what our political opinion, that terrorism was wrong in the past and is wrong now. Will the Secretary of State give me his guarantee that he will discuss that with the Northern Ireland Executive and my ministerial colleagues to ensure that those families who so rightfully deserve truth and justice have the resource to be able to get that?
Hilary Benn
May I say to the hon. Member that I agree with every single word that she has expressed so powerfully and forcefully? I encourage those who have been chuntering from a sedentary position during the course of these exchanges to reflect on her point that there are many people who say they do not want immunity and they certainly object to it being given to those who committed the most appalling crimes.
Voices in Northern Ireland really need to be listened to. The failure to do that, including under the last legacy Act, is why I made the point that there has been a terrible lack of trust in politicians over a long period of time. I will not make a party point, but there is a terrible lack of trust in politicians because there have been attempts before and they have not worked. We have to try to make this work, and I have already begun the process of talking to the hon. Member’s colleagues in the Northern Ireland Executive.
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
Following the last question, I want to say that the Tory’s immunity system would have meant immunity for the perpetrators of terrorist crimes across the UK. Our domestic courts have determined that. Does the Secretary of State agree that this Government have no choice but to rectify the situation?
Hilary Benn
I agree with my hon. Friend, who makes the point extremely forcefully. It did not work and it was never deliverable. There never was immunity; it was a false promise made to veterans who were badly let down and badly served by the last Government. Whoever won the election last year would have had to deal with the mess that we have inherited, and that is what we seek to do.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
In March of this year, it was widely reported that the Secretary of State gave his word to Mairead Kelly, the sister of IRA murderer Patrick Kelly, that there would be an inquest on the Loughgall incident. Is this remedial order a fulfilment of that promise? If so, it means that 30 years on, the Government are dragging veterans into court over an operation that stopped eight heavily armed IRA murderers—men who had already killed and who were on their way to kill again, with weapons that had been used in 40 previous murders.
Let us be clear: by stopping the attack, those soldiers prevented the murder of many more innocent Northern Ireland citizens. What justice is served by punishing those brave soldiers with a stressful and unnecessary process? The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) described it as a persecution, punishing them for doing nothing more than their duty. Is this really what the Secretary of State intends?
Hilary Benn
The fact is that this Government were elected on a commitment. There was a lot of opposition to the ending of inquests under the legacy Act—maybe not from the right hon. Gentleman but from a lot of people in Northern Ireland. The Government came in committed to restoring the inquests that had started and were stopped. The reason that I said what I said is because Loughgall, as I have already indicated to the shadow Secretary of State, is one of those nine cases.
It is for the independent coronial system to take a decision about that, but one of the factors that coroners have to take into account is how they will deal with any sensitive information that is provided. We know from other inquests that there have been a number of cases when the coroner has said that they accept that the information cannot see the light of day. They have examined the public interest immunity certificate and have reached the conclusion that they cannot take the case any further. In those circumstances, the sensible thing would be for cases to move into the commission, where sensitive information can be considered.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to new protections for veterans. Will he update the House on the discussions that he and Ministry of Defence Ministers have had with veterans and their representative groups about the measures?
Hilary Benn
The Minister for the Armed Forces, the Defence Secretary and I have had many such discussions. The measures that I have announced that will be contained in the Bill and the other non-legislative measures are the result of those discussions. We have listened very carefully to the concerns expressed by veterans and we have come forward with what we think is a fair, reasonable and balanced package of measures that will provide protection while also taking forward our responsibility to enable families, including forces families, to find answers.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
I am against the repealing of the legacy Act, and I served in Northern Ireland. As I am now doing in opposition, I raised when we were in government the major concern and dishonour when none of those on the Labour Benches had the decency to come to this House and debate all the points the Minister is making now. They let the legislation go through, but it is recorded in Hansard that very few people bothered to come to the Chamber to debate it when we took it through the House.
I want to make two quick points on the support for veterans. First, you have spoken about the process they will have to go through; I want to know what support will be available, as you have mentioned. Secondly, given that the terrorists did not keep records but the British Army did, how will you ensure fairer disclosure throughout the process?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I remind Members not to refer to “you”, as that means me.
Hilary Benn
I am grateful to the hon. Member for his point. Support is available for veterans through the Ministry of Defence, and the Armed Forces Minister is very committed to making sure that veterans get all the support they need, which is in part reflected in the package we have announced.
On disclosure, we are making a number of changes, including amending the definition of “sensitive information” so that it is not designated by virtue of the body that held it. That is one of the reasons why the courts found that the disclosure arrangements were not compatible with our commitments. The Secretary of State will have to conduct a balancing exercise on what should be disclosed; the Secretary of State will be required to give reasons for any decision not to disclose, to the extent that that does not risk harm to national security; and, of course, any decision that the Secretary of State makes can be subject to judicial review.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for the way he and the Minister for the Armed Forces have engaged on this matter in recent months. I have many constituent veterans in Sunderland Central who served with distinction in Operation Banner; the Secretary of State rightly praised the professionalism and service of our armed forces in that operation, and I welcome the protections he has set out today. May I press him a bit more on the need for continuing work with veterans groups, so that as the protections are being implemented there will be a process of ongoing review to ensure that they provide effective protection from vexatious lawfare?
Hilary Benn
I am very happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. We have made these commitments because we want them to work, and the Government are determined to ensure that that is the case.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
On that assurance from the Secretary of State about the protections for veterans, on 19 September he stood beside the Irish Government when he made this announcement, and later that evening the Tánaiste, Simon Harris, went on Irish media and clearly said that there were no added protections for veterans in the legacy deal. Will the Secretary of State give assurance to the House: are there protections for veterans in this legacy deal, or not?
Hilary Benn
When the hon. Gentleman sees the legislation, he will see that the protections that we have said will be backed by legislation are in the legislation. In addition to that, there are the provisions relating to cold calling and on not requiring veterans to rehearse the historical context when it is possible for someone from the Ministry of Defence, for example, to do that to assist both inquests and the commission.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
As the Secretary of State knows, I am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and we have been very engaged in this issue, not least because of the ruling of our courts that the previous Government’s attempt to legislate on this issue was unlawful because it would potentially grant immunity to, among others, terrorists. That is no way to serve justice to families and victims, and it is no way to serve justice to our veterans. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the legislation we are bringing forward will not grant immunity to terrorists? That is a simple request and it is remarkable that I have to make it, but given the legislation that the previous Government attempted to pass, it is important to have it on the record.
Hilary Benn
I am very happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. The legislation was passed; it was never commenced. It was struck down by the courts, and the remedial order will remove it from the statute book, because we do not agree with giving immunity to terrorists. We do not agree with the principle of immunity because we believe, as I hope the whole House believes, in the rule of law.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I am surprised that no one has mentioned the letters of comfort that were given to the IRA and the question of whether or not they still hold water, but let me go back to what the Secretary of State said about the possibility of IRA bosses like Gerry Adams claiming compensation on technical grounds that the “wrong” Minister signed their internment papers. As I understand it from what the Secretary of State said earlier, the remedial order that he is laying before Parliament will open up the possibility of such people suing the Government for compensation, which the new legacy legislation that he is bringing in will nevertheless then rule out. He referred to a possible gap between the new legislation coming into force and the remedial order opening the gap. It has been suggested to me that the Government are briefing the press that the remedial order will not actually be voted on until the new legacy Bill has gone through Parliament. Is that his policy, and if not, what is his policy?
Hilary Benn
The aim of the remedial order is to remove from the statute book provisions in the previous legislation that have been found to be incompatible with our obligations. I would just say that the letters of comfort did not offer immunity. That has been quite clear from Lady Justice Hallett’s review and what the Chief Constable and others have said.
I want to reassure the right hon. Gentleman on the interim custody orders. The Supreme Court judgment was in 2020. The last Government did not know what to do about that: it was not a judgment that the Government expected, and they did not know how to deal with the question of potential compensation. In the end, two Members of the other House introduced what are now sections 46 and 47. They were voted on, but they were subsequently found to be ineffective in achieving the objective, when the court said that they were incompatible.
What I have just told the House is that the new draft remedial order will not remove them from the statute book. Sections 46 and 47 will remain in place until such time as the new legislation I am introducing takes effect. It is a flimsy defence, because it has already been found by the courts to be ineffective, but it will remain in place. It shows that I have listened to the representations that were made about sections 46 and 47, and it is placed in the remedial order. I am now going to deal with the problem by legislation in the way that I set out.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Scores, if not hundreds, of people in Northern Ireland lost their lives because of the safe base and the haven that the Republic of Ireland offered their IRA murderers. That was where they had their arms dumps, that was where they had their training camps and that was where they returned to for sanctuary, safe in the knowledge that extradition would invariably be refused. Yet it is with the Government of that territory that the Secretary of State has chosen to co-design these proposals. He did not co-design them with the innocent victims of terrorism; he chose to co-design them with the Government of the territory that facilitated the victim makers. Why, then, should any innocent victim have any confidence in these proposals, particularly as they still require nothing meaningful from the Republic of Ireland? There is a tentative promise that, if necessary, there will be co-operation, but there is no apology for the Republic’s role in facilitating terrorism for years. Did the Secretary of State even seek an apology publicly from the Republic of Ireland? That is the same Government who to this day continue with an inter-state action against this Government. How could any of this proposal command widespread support when that is its genealogy?
Hilary Benn
I say to the hon. and learned Gentleman that we can remain stuck in the past and think of a thousand reasons why, “This isn’t good enough,” and, “We shouldn’t do this,” or, “We shouldn’t do the other.” The responsibility on the House is to try to find a way of moving forward, because the fact that so many families do not have answers is a product of—if I may say so—people being stuck in the past, and we need to move beyond that.
The hon. and learned Gentleman is mistaken, if I may gently chide him, in saying that these proposals have been co-designed with the Irish Government. I have said already that I would have taken these steps regardless of whether we reached an agreement with the Irish Government, because the mess left to us by the last Government forces whoever is in office now to deal with the consequences of a piece of legislation that did not work. But I will agree with him on one thing: in the end, it will be the families who will decide whether this new approach allows them to find the answers. I cannot say too many times that that is what really matters in all this, because it is those families who have influenced me more than anyone else in the discussions I have had.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The young men sent out to do the state’s business during the troubles are now old men, often sick, often disabled. Some of them are my constituents. They will be listening carefully to the Secretary of State and will be hearing honeyed words. They will be reading those words in this framework document, even as the protections given by the legacy Act are stripped away from them and they listen for the metaphorical knock on the door as activist, left, liberal human rights lawyers construct, open and reopen cases that will do them in in their failing years. Is that what the Secretary of State wants? Is this not a beanfeast for lawyers? Is it any wonder that no veterans groups have come out to support the framework that he has announced today?
Hilary Benn
I have great respect for the right hon. Member and his service, both as a Minister and in our armed forces. I gently say to him that protections are not being stripped away because they never existed in the first place. It is important for the House to appreciate this: the provisions that were passed in the legacy Act were never commenced. They were then struck down by the courts. They do not exist; they never have existed. [Interruption.] That is just a fact. Nobody has been granted immunity because the provisions of that Act have never ever been applied. One cannot strip away something that never existed in the first place.
I am afraid what the last Government did was to offer a false promise to veterans. One of the consequences of the widespread failure of the legacy Act is court case after court case where people have said, “Well, we need to find another means of getting an answer to the question about what happened to our loved ones.” That involves expensive court cases. I am under an order to establish a public inquiry into one case. It is—I think the phrase has been used—a legal wild west that the legislation opened up, and we are trying to put things back together again.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The Secretary of State indicated that the Government are introducing what he described as “strong safeguards”, and he says that the legacy commission will be
“under a duty not to duplicate aspects of any previous investigations unless there are compelling reasons that make it essential.”
What will he do when—not if, but when—the Republic of Ireland’s Government come under severe pressure from other sources to make compelling reasons to him that there has to be something investigated that the person who is the subject of that investigation believed they would be excluded from? What will he do then?
Hilary Benn
The hon. Gentleman, for whom I have great respect, asks what is, in fairness, a totally hypothetical question. [Interruption.] Well it is a hypothetical question. The fact is that it will be for the commission to interpret the legal obligation that will be placed upon it by the legislation, which refers to such reinvestigation being essential. Ultimately, the commission will judge, and if people do not like the way in which it has interpreted things, they have a remedy available to them in judicial review.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
As a veteran, I am deeply concerned by the Government’s dogged pursuit of this legislation, which has the support neither of Northern Ireland veterans nor of veterans in my generation, who have concerns about their own service in Iraq and Afghanistan. What guarantees can the Secretary of State give the British public that this legislation will achieve justice and that terrorists guilty of the murders of British service personnel will now be held to account? How many cases does he believe will be reopened in order to pursue IRA terrorists in the way that British personnel are now vulnerable to being pursued?
Hilary Benn
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his service. If he looks at the nearly 100 cases that the commission is currently investigating, he will find that they include the Guilford pub bombing, the M62 coach bombing and the Kingsmill massacre. The commission has the powers it needs—in this respect, I pay tribute to the previous Government—to get the information required to do the job of investigating. Having met the investigators, I can say that they are very committed to their task. The families who have chosen to refer the cases—which is what has governed the 100 cases that the commission is looking at—have said, “Please, can you look at this?” I want more families to do that, so that more of them get answers. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the number of cases, he will see that it reflects in reasonable measure who was actually responsible for the vast majority of deaths in Northern Ireland.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
Does the Secretary of State agree that this Government’s continued hounding of our brave Northern Ireland veterans—many of whom should be enjoying well-earned retirement after their loyal service to the British Government, not living in fear of prosecution for simply following orders—is nothing short of shameful?
Hilary Benn
The Government do not wish to see anybody hounded. We have put these protections in place precisely because we have listened to the concerns that veterans have expressed to me, to the Defence Secretary and to the Minister for the Armed Forces. I gave one example of a veteran welcoming the fact that we were putting the protections in place. I would ask people to look at the protections when the legislation is presented, and to understand that what I say about the risk of prosecution diminishing rapidly over time is, looking back over recent years, reflected in what the facts tell us.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State set out how many of the proposed six protections for veterans will also be available to former paramilitaries?
Hilary Benn
When they introduced immunity, the previous Government said that it would apply not just to veterans but to others, including terrorists, and that is what the legislation did in those circumstances. There are provisions that apply to witnesses, but the reason for the package is the determination of the Government to protect veterans. The hon. Member will see that a number of those protections are laid out in the legislation. Others will be steps that the Ministry of Defence will take.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Like the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State should stop using the phrase, “The legislation was struck down by the courts.” The courts have no such power. As Jack Straw made clear from the Dispatch Box, a declaration of incompatibility is no more than a declaration; it places no obligation or expectation on Parliament. But may I thank the Secretary of State for at least listening to my representations in delaying the repeal of sections 46 and 47 of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 until the new legislation is in place? Of course, he is doing so because they are effective. Otherwise, there would be no point in delaying their repeal, would there?
Hilary Benn
I suppose I should take that praise from the right hon. Gentleman at face value. The fact is that sections 46 and 47 were found to be incompatible, but I have listened, and I hope Members of the House will find me willing to listen. I must, however, correct him, because when it comes to the immunity provisions, they were found to be incompatible, and he is correct in what he describes, but they were also struck down under article 2 of the Windsor framework. That is why they are not operational.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is no secret that I have major concerns over the legacy Bill, not least that innocent victims were precluded from taking their path to justice. What seems to be before us now is carte blanche for political inquiries and yet no hope for the Kingsmill families. It instead highlights the role of the Irish Government in British matters after their continued refusal to engage and their collusion to protect IRA murderers across the border.
In the penultimate paragraph of his statement, the Secretary of State said that
“the many families who lost loved ones…will be the judge of whether these new arrangements can give them the answers that they have sought for so long.”
Quite clearly, that will not be the case for many families, and the Secretary of State will know that a member of my family was murdered on 10 December 1971. It shows that the Government have no heart for the victims but have an ear instead for the victim maker. Does the Secretary of State not understand why these feelings exist? When will he put right thinking and good people of the Province above being seen to be politically correct by the enemies of peace and justice in Northern Ireland? My family seek justice, and I do not see it on the other side. For all the other families that I represent and that we all represent, we seek that justice, but not within this.
Hilary Benn
The hon. Gentleman has spoken before most powerfully and movingly about the impact that the death of family members has had upon him. He exemplifies, if I may say so, what so many people in Northern Ireland say when they meet us and talk to us: some will open up and some will weep, and some will not be able to open their mouths to describe what happened because the pain runs so deep after all these years. We are trying to create a mechanism and a means of enabling every single family who wants to come forward and say, “Can you please look at this case and see if we can find more information?” to do that.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the Kingsmill massacre. As I have already indicated to the House, that is one of the cases that the commission is currently looking into. There was the inquest verdict, and we know what it found. I will simply say to the House that probably the most difficult conversation I have had since I took up this post was to listen to the sole survivor of the Kingsmill massacre, Alan Black, describe to me exactly what happened on that dark and dreadful night.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
I personally do not have a great deal of faith in this Government or previous Governments on issues to do with legacy. Can the Secretary of State give assurances that in addressing the legacy of the Northern Ireland troubles, terrorists will not be allowed to rewrite history and that our history will be recorded truthfully, with the focus on innocent victims rather than on those who committed acts of terrorism? Can he further reassure me that veterans will not be chased for prosecutions vexatiously? Can he also reassure me—given that Irish Governments for 56 years of my life have failed to give information to our Government about acts of terrorism from their side of the country? Can he tell us what inquests will actually go ahead now? If he could name them all, I would really appreciate that.
Hilary Benn
I will write to the hon. Gentleman in response to his last question, if I may.
What the hon. Member describes is exactly what the commission is there to do. I am making a number of changes in the commission to create greater confidence on the part of families to come forward. I have great respect for Sir Declan Morgan and his colleagues, and for the work that they are doing. The fact that a hundred families have approached them is very significant, but as the hon. Gentleman will know very well, there are many families in Northern Ireland who will say, “Because of the circumstances of its creation, and the closing down of inquests and civil cases, we do not trust the commission to look independently and properly at our case.” I am trying to make it possible for more families to come forward so that more can find the answers they seek.
The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point about co-operation from Ireland. The reason why I was so keen to try to reach an agreement with the Irish Government is that we have got, as a result of our negotiations, a commitment to co-operate with the commission. At the moment, the Irish Government will not do so because of the legislation passed by the last Government. Once we have made these changes, they are committed to co-operating. In the end, we will all be judged on how this goes and how it proceeds, and whether the answers are found for families, but we will be in a much better position than we are with the total mess that the last Government left us.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
When we cut through the waffle of this statement and the Secretary of State’s answers this afternoon, one fact remains: soldiers who served in Northern Ireland who have already had cases tried will be able to be dragged back into the courts and will be subject to interrogation there. The Secretary of State talked about all these wonderful protections, so let us look at them: they will not have to travel to Northern Ireland—they can appear remotely; they will be given help to appear remotely—I assume that means that somebody will show them how to work an iPad; and they will not have a knock at the door from anybody other than the military police, so the PSNI will not be coming over from Northern Ireland and knocking at their door at 6 o’clock in the morning. That is hardly any reassurance to the people who served in Northern Ireland.
Then we are told that dealing with the families who were affected by the troubles is a joint responsibility with Irish Government. There is no obligation in this statement on the Irish Government, other than to throw 30 pieces of silver at the legacy mechanism to assuage their guilt for protecting terrorists over 30 years and for covering up for the collaboration of some within the Irish establishment who helped the IRA in their job.
Hilary Benn
I would say two things to right hon. Gentleman. First, I would not be quite so light with the importance of that commitment to allow our veterans to give evidence remotely. The Minister for the Armed Forces and I have both spoken to veterans for whom having to go back to Northern Ireland would bring back memories that they have been having to deal with ever since they served. That is actually a very important protection and one that the Government are committed to putting in place.
Secondly, how would the right hon. Gentleman propose that we move this question forward? For all the criticisms —no doubt, I will receive many, many more—the people I most wish to hear from are those who have practical proposals as to how we can create greater confidence on the part of the victims, survivors and the families so that they get the answers they are looking for. Anyone who comes forward with helpful suggestions will find a ready partner in me.
Legacy of the Troubles: UK and Ireland Joint Framework
Hilary Benn Excerpts(1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
My noble Friend Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent made the following statement on Friday 19 September:
I wish to report to the House on the Government’s approach to dealing with the legacy of the troubles and today’s publication of a joint framework agreed between the UK Government and the Government of Ireland. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will provide an update to the House of Commons at the earliest opportunity when it returns.
The UK’s commitments under the framework will fulfil the Government’s King’s Speech commitment to repeal and replace the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, acknowledge and address the suffering of victims and survivors and take forward one of the unfinished aims of the Good Friday agreement.
The framework sets out the commitment of the UK and Irish Governments to work in partnership to deliver effective legacy mechanisms that comply with our legal obligations, can command public confidence, and draw on the principles of the Stormont House agreement.
In place of the Legacy Act 2023, the framework confirms that the Government will legislate to introduce:
a new Legacy Commission, with statutory oversight arrangements to provide accountability and—learning from Operation Kenova—a statutory advisory group to ensure that the voices of victims and survivors, including those from a service background, are heard as part of the Commission’s work;
strengthened governance, including two new co-directors of investigations, new statutory conflict of interest provisions, and appointments made to a new oversight board following advice from an independent appointments panel;
enhanced investigative and fact finding powers and a fairer disclosure regime, ensuring that the Commission has all it needs to find answers for families, and that the maximum possible information can be made public, subject to proportionate safeguards;
removal of the previous Government’s failed and undeliverable immunity scheme for terrorists, which would have allowed those who perpetrated the most appalling terrorist crimes to seek immunity from prosecution;
an approach to inquests that fulfils the commitments we have made to restore those that were halted by the Act, while recognising the primary role that the reformed Legacy Commission will play in providing answers for families, particularly in cases containing sensitive information. All other outstanding inquests will be referred to the Solicitor General to independently consider whether, in each case, they are most appropriately dealt with by the Legacy Commission or in the coronial system;
a new process within the commission to be used for cases that transfer in from the coronial system. This will have provision for public hearings, the ability to consider sensitive information in closed hearings, and provide effective next of kin participation, including through legal representation;
the establishment of an independent commission on information retrieval, jointly with the Irish Government, and consistent with the Stormont House agreement. This will, initially on a pilot basis, provide families with an additional means of retrieving information.
These measures will be implemented in legislation, which the Government will introduce in the near future.
The framework also contains specific commitments by the Irish Government, recognising that addressing the legacy of the troubles is the responsibility of both the UK and Irish Governments. The Irish Government is committed to:
facilitating the fullest possible co-operation of the Irish authorities with the reformed commission, including through legislation. This will be the first time that information held by the Garda and the Irish authorities will be made available in this comprehensive way;
establishing a dedicated unit within An Garda Síochána—the Irish police—to deal with troubles-related cases, and;
making a financial contribution of €25 million to support families in the legacy process.
These commitments by the Irish Government are very significant, and will help more families—including families of service personnel killed during the troubles—to finally seek answers about what happened.
The Government have also separately announced a range of effective protections that respond to the concerns expressed by veterans who served in Northern Ireland. These will ensure that any veteran who is asked to give information to the Legacy Commission or an inquest is treated fairly. We owe a huge debt to those who served with honour to bring about peace in Northern Ireland in some of the most extreme and challenging circumstances.
The measures announced will provide:
protection from repeated investigations—the Commission will be under a requirement to not duplicate the work of any previous investigations unless there are compelling reasons to do so;
protection from cold calling—veterans will be protected from cold calling through a new protocol, ensuring they are only ever contacted with the support of the MOD;
protection in old age—measures which require the commission and coroners to consider the health and wellbeing of potential witnesses at all times—including whether it would be inappropriate for them to give evidence at all;
a right to stay at home—changing the law to ensure that no Northern Ireland veteran is forced to travel to Northern Ireland to give evidence to the commission or to an inquest;
a right to anonymity—ensuring veterans can seek anonymity when giving evidence and removing the need for veterans to give unnecessary evidence on historical context and general operational details, so that veterans are not forced to recount established facts; and
a right for veterans’ voices to be heard—there will be a statutory advisory group that will provide an opportunity for the voices of victims and survivors of the troubles to be heard, including those from a service background, and the commission will be required to take account of wider circumstances surrounding incidents being investigated.
The framework agreed with the Irish Government and this Government’s separate protections for Operation Banner veterans reflect the significant engagement that the Government have undertaken with political parties, victims and survivors organisations, human rights groups, veterans and their representatives, and many others.
This is the closest we have been in many years to putting in place mechanisms that can help families find answers—that unrealised ambition of the Good Friday agreement—and so help Northern Ireland to look to the future.
Given the significant range of views held by so many stakeholders, a perfect outcome is not attainable. However, the Government firmly believe that this framework represents the best possible way forward, and hopes that it will be given a fair chance to succeed.
[HCWS941]
Windsor Framework: Independent Review
Hilary Benn Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
Following the outcome of the democratic consent vote which was held in the Assembly in December 2024, and in line with schedule 6A to the Northern Ireland Act 1998, I commissioned the right hon. Lord Murphy of Torfaen to lead the independent review of the Windsor framework on 9 January 2025.
I can confirm that Lord Murphy provided me with a report of his conclusions on 9 July 2025, within the six month reporting period, and I am thankful for his diligent work on this matter. As per schedule 6A, I have today laid a copy of the report in Parliament, and transmitted a copy to the Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
I understand that Members of both Houses and the Assembly contributed towards the independent review. I welcome their engagement on the issues and will take the time to carefully consider the recommendations made and the issues raised in the report.
For its part, the Government remain fully committed to securing the broadest possible confidence of communities in Northern Ireland in the trading arrangements that apply. Since the review was commissioned, we have continued working in this endeavour. This includes through the new arrangements to secure the long-term supply of human medicines, which we completed in January; the delivery of arrangements to support the smooth movement of freight and parcels in May; measures to safeguard the supply of veterinary medicines, which we announced in June; and the launch that same month of a consultation on aligning rules on the labelling and packaging of chemicals across the UK, following concerns raised by Assembly Members in December 2024.
Following the UK/EU summit in May, the Government announced a new partnership with the EU. The new agreement we are taking forward on agrifood with the EU will be of considerable benefit to businesses and consumers in Northern Ireland, and further shows the capacity of our approach to deliver for them and to further strengthen the UK internal market.
In line with schedule 6A, I will publish a written response to the recommendations of the report within six months and bring them to the Joint Committee. I will update this House and provide a copy of the Government response when that is ready.
[HCWS907]
Northern Ireland Veterans: Prosecution
Hilary Benn Excerpts(3 months 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 pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I am grateful to the organisers of the petition, to the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for his opening remarks, and to all Members who have spoken. In the very short time I have, I will try to answer as many points as possible. I want to say at the outset that I recognise the very real fears that many veterans have, especially those who have been called to give evidence a number of times. I have heard that in my meetings with veterans, and the Government take those concerns very seriously.
A number of things are clear from the debate. The first—I join the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), in this—is that we are united in our appreciation of the extraordinary service of our brave armed forces, police, security services and others, who served with distinction in the most difficult circumstances, described chillingly by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), to keep the people of Northern Ireland safe during the troubles. We will forever be in their debt, and in the debt of all the veterans in the Public Gallery and the Members in the Chamber who have served in our armed forces.
We all agree that there can be no rewriting of history. I agree with the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) that there is no equivalence between soldiers and terrorists. I say to him, however, that the Independent Commission for the Location of Victims’ Remains—he mentioned Robert Nairac—was created not by the legacy Act, but by a treaty reached between the United Kingdom and the Irish Government in 1999. It has recovered the remains of a number of those taken, murdered and buried by the IRA, but sadly not yet the remains of Robert Nairac. I also say this: we cannot have any more false promises or undeliverable pledges—pledges that our courts have found to be unlawful. That is why we will fix the mess we inherited from the previous Government, whatever their intentions were, and we will protect our veterans as we do so.
On inquests, I understand why the Clonoe inquest has caused such consternation and, frankly, incredulity. It was an operation in which an armed IRA gang who had just tried to kill members of the RUC were confronted by British soldiers. The Government are clear that the findings did not reflect the context in which the incident took place, and that is why we have the backs of the veterans involved, by seeking a judicial review to try to protect them. The MOD is also funding the veterans to bring their own JR.
Not all Northern Ireland inquests end like that, however. Other inquests have found that the use of lethal force by our military was justified, including two inquest verdicts delivered last year. The truth is that our legal system is independent. Why is it independent? Because we all believe in the rule of law. If I heard the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk correctly, he talked about politically motivated charges. I presume he is talking about criminal charges. I point out in all gentleness that if he is claiming that there are politically motivated charges, he is saying that the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland is politically motivated. I utterly reject that, and I hope all Members will too.
Jesse Norman
The Secretary of State described the situation in law as illegal, but he never pressed the question of the appeal to the Supreme Court, which would have decided the question of whether it was in fact illegal. Was that decision taken on the basis of law, and if so, what were the grounds for it?
Hilary Benn
I did not say it was illegal; I said it was unlawful. I shall come directly to the right hon. Gentleman’s point. Look at the facts: of the 250,000 veterans who served so bravely in Operation Banner, as we heard, the number who have been prosecuted for offences has been very small. The Centre for Military Justice records that only one soldier has been convicted since the Good Friday agreement. The House might want to reflect on that, because for almost all of those 27 years, immunity was not on the statute book—the legacy Act was not passed. [Interruption.]
Hilary Benn
If the right hon. Gentleman will bear with me, we have also heard it said that terrorists are not being prosecuted and have somehow been given immunity. I want to challenge that, both because the only thing that gave terrorists immunity was the legacy Act, and because during the troubles an estimated 25,000 to 35,000 republicans and loyalists were tried and convicted, many of them serving sentences for murder and bombings. Indeed, there have been five convictions for terrorist-related offences connected to the troubles since 2012.
The so-called “on-the-run” letters had no legal force and did not give anyone any immunity. On interim custody orders, I made it clear in a written answer a couple of weeks ago that we will bring forward legislation to deal with that. By the way, I say to the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford that the remedial order does not bring back inquests—he was incorrect when he suggested that.
The fact that the legacy Act enabled terrorists to be given immunity was, as we have heard, one of the principal reasons why so many people in Northern Ireland were strongly opposed to it. We need to have in mind the people of Northern Ireland when we discuss these matters. Across all the political parties, among many victims and survivors—and I have met many of them myself—and Northern Ireland veteran groups, some of which I met last year, there is not just one view on this.
I know that there are some—and we have heard the argument in this debate—who say there should be absolute immunity for anyone who served in Operation Banner. I would simply say to them that, as a country, we either believe in the rule of law—[Interruption.] Well, that there should be no prosecutions. We either believe in the rule of law, or we do not. That was a point forcefully made by my hon. Friends the Members for North East Derbyshire (Louise Jones) and for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger).
As the former Conservative Defence Secretary Ben Wallace put it,
“the British Army is not above the law, and nor should it be. That is the difference between us and the terrorist.”—[Official Report, 18 November 2015; Vol. 602, c. 678.]
In a joint statement last Friday, the Veterans Commissioners for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales said that they do not call for immunity from the law but “for fairness under it”. I could not agree with them more.
Because immunity was struck down by the domestic courts even before the Government were elected—and we came into office committed to repealing the Act—any incoming Administration would have had to fix it. It is wrong for anyone to suggest anything different. [Interruption.] The answer is because we do not agree with it.
Emma Lewell (in the Chair)
Order. Members will refrain from shouting out and having dialogue with the Secretary of State. Please intervene in the normal manner.
Hilary Benn
Legacy is hard. This is the unfinished business of the Good Friday agreement.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Hilary Benn
I am afraid that because of the time I am not able to.
That is why, as well as listening carefully to veterans, which we are doing, we also need to listen to the many families who lost loved ones, including the families of British service personnel who served so bravely.
More than 200 families of UK military personnel are still searching for answers about the murder of their loved ones 30, 40 or 50 years ago. The Police Service of Northern Ireland confirmed on 30 April 2024 that it had 202 live investigations into troubles-related killings of members of our armed forces, and a further 33 into the killings of veterans. The following day, on 1 May, each and every one of those investigations was forced to close by the legacy Act.
Hilary Benn
I am not going to give way.
The other challenge that all of us have to face is the lack of confidence in the Act on the part of communities in Northern Ireland, and in the commission it created, which we will seek to reform so that it is more capable of commanding confidence for those who are searching for answers. We owe it to all those families; the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) reminded us to remember them and their search for answers. We owe it to them and to all communities to get this right, including trying to reach an agreement with the Irish Government. Doing nothing is not credible.
Independent Reviewer for National Security Arrangements: Report
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)
The role of the Independent Reviewer of National Security Arrangements in Northern Ireland is to monitor compliance with annex E of the St Andrews agreement 2006, reviewing the relationship between MI5 and PSNI in handling national security matters.
Dr Jonny Byrne, the Independent Reviewer of National Security Arrangements in Northern Ireland, has sent me his report for 2024. Due to the classification of the report, I am unable to deposit a copy in the Libraries of both Houses, but I am able to provide the House with a summary of its content. What follows is a summary of the main findings of the report covering the period from 1 January 2024 to 31 December 2024.
Dr Byrne states:
“My role is to monitor compliance with Annex E of the St Andrews Agreement (2006) reviewing the relationship between MI5 and PSNI in handling national security matters. The role seeks to provide assurance that MI5 and PSNI operate together within the letter and spirit of the St Andrews Agreement. In order to meet the Terms of Reference, I reviewed documents and had a series of meetings with senior members of the PSNI and MI5 along with political and policy stakeholders.
There were no national security attacks in Northern Ireland in 2024. This is compared to one in both 2023 and 2022. There were none in 2021 and 2020, five in 2019, one in 2018 and five in 2017.
In 2024 there was one security-related death (the murder of Kevin Conway), compared to none in 2023. There were six bombing incidents and seventeen shooting incidents in 2024, compared with eight bombing and thirty-three shooting incidents in 2023. There were twenty-three casualties of paramilitary style assaults (seven in Belfast), compared to thirty-one in 2023. There were five casualties of paramilitary style shootings, compared to nineteen which occurred in 2023. There were sixty-seven security related arrests under Section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000, with nine persons subsequently charged. This is compared to one hundred and four arrested in 2023 with twenty-one charged.
On 6 March 2024 and for the remainder of the year, Northern Ireland-related Terrorism (NIRT) threat level in Northern Ireland was lowered from SEVERE (an attack is highly likely) to SUBSTANTIAL (an attack is likely). It is important to note that from the first time a NIRT-specific threat level was published in September 2010 to March 2022 the threat level remained at SEVERE, it was lowered to SUBSTANTIAL between March 2022 and March 2023, and then increased to SEVERE until March 2024.
It is apparent that security statistics along with the approach to measuring the threat level, fails to adequately capture the transformation Northern Ireland has gone through since 1998. Since 2010, the threat level has fluctuated (in a small part) between SEVERE and SUBSTANTIAL yet the policing and security landscape in 2024 is very different and significantly closer to one envisaged through the peace process. There is a risk that Northern Ireland is solely defined through these indicators and that they have a significant influence on current and future security-related policy.
There is a lack of agreement among politicians, policy-makers and the community as to what constitutes a ‘national security issue’. There is also a reluctance to engage on the issue in a public way as most people align it with the conflict and part of our past. As a result, there are limited discussions about national security within the context of public health, the economy, climate change and the environment, migration and immigration, cyber threats and extremism.
In 2019 MI5 in oral evidence to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament responded to a question about the security environment by saying “do not proceed with an assumption that we (MI5) can continue to drive (NIRT attacks) down to zero. That looks to us to be an undeliverable goal, albeit one we should always strive towards.” If this is the case then there should be focused discussion as to what normalisation looks like and what security indicators are best placed to measure it and reflect the situation. My concern is that we use the current security indicators and threat level to justify why we cannot ‘move on’, which makes any further move to normalisation challenging.
During the November 2024 public session of the Northern Ireland Policing Board the PSNI Chief Constable indicated that due to changes to historical arrangements for assigning Close Protection (namely the dissolution of the Northern Ireland Committee on Protection, NICOP), that the organisation was required to develop a policy to govern the assessment and delivery of such protection. The media interpreted this as the PSNI significantly reducing the level of close protection they provide for members of the judiciary because the degree of terrorist threat had diminished. If this were to happen it may have implications around the justification and rationale for additional funding for security related issues. It may also engineer a more public debate around vulnerability, harm, threats and national security.
Annex E sets out five key principles identified as crucial to the effective operation of national security arrangements between PSNI and MI5. My conclusions in relation to these are as follows:
a) All Security Service intelligence relating to terrorism in Northern Ireland will be visible to the PSNI.
It is evident that the PSNI have sight and access to all Security Service Intelligence relating to terrorism in Northern Ireland. There is compliance.
b) PSNI will be informed of all Security Service counter terrorist investigations and operations relating to Northern Ireland.
There are a number of processes and protocols in place to ensure that PSNI will be informed of all Security Service counter-terrorist activities relating to NI. There is compliance.
c) Security Service intelligence will be disseminated within PSNI according to the current PSNI dissemination policy, and using police procedures.
All Security Service intelligence is disseminated within PSNI according to the current PSNI dissemination policy, and using current police procedures. There is compliance.
d) The great majority of national security CHISs in Northern Ireland will continue to be run by PSNI officers under existing police handling protocols.
It is apparent that the overwhelming number of what are considered national security Covert Human Intelligence Sources (CHISs)in Northern Ireland continue to be run by PSNI officers under existing handling protocols. There is compliance.
e) There will be no diminution of the PSNI’s ability to comply with the HRA or the Policing Board’s ability to monitor said compliance.
It is evident that there has been no diminution of the PSNI’s responsibility to comply with the Human Rights Act or the Policing Board’s ability to monitor said compliance throughout 2024. There is compliance.
I wish to note the full co-operation extended to me by both MI5 and the PSNI and the support of the NIO in compiling the report.
It is my conclusion that there is full compliance with Annex E of the St Andrews Agreement between MI5 and PSNI.”
[HCWS789]
Oral Answers to Questions
Hilary Benn Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
The Union connectivity review recognised the importance of the A75 and A77 roads for passengers and freight between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. The Government have therefore allocated up to £5 million to support a feasibility study into bypass options for the A75 and have also encouraged the Scottish Government to improve the A77.
John Cooper
There cannot be a person in Northern Ireland who has not either been along the A75 or the A77 or had something delivered to them that has been driven through the ferry port at Cairnryan. We in Dumfries and Galloway and people across Scotland know that these are the highways from hell. This morning, even as we speak, the A75 has been closed by another overturned lorry. We are crying out for improvements. Can I count on the support of the might of the Northern Ireland Office to get the Department for Transport here to engage, as well as the Scottish Government?
Hilary Benn
I echo the hon. Gentleman’s point, having driven along the road myself. My notes helpfully say that average speeds on the A75 and A77 are lower than on several other Scottish trunk roads—you can say that again. I think that the Secretary of State for Scotland has written to him and offered a meeting to discuss the issue. We all want to see the road improved.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
To the A75 and the A77, add the A9, which is the link from the Highlands to Scotland. For 25 years we have been waiting for it to be dualled; the SNP has failed to do that. The Scottish Government cannot make the ferries work and they cannot make the road work. Can the Secretary of State push them into action?
Hilary Benn
I have many and varied responsibilities, but I was not aware that the A9 was one of them. I hope that the Scottish Government will have heard my hon. Friend’s strong plea.
Becky Gittins (Clwyd East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
The Government’s new strategic partnership with the EU will deliver a broad range of economic benefits for Northern Ireland. In particular, a new agreement on agrifood and plants will further smooth trade flows across the Irish sea, protect the UK’s internal market, reduce costs for businesses and improve consumer choice in Northern Ireland.
Joe Morris
I am pleased that the agreement secured with our largest trading partner, the European Union, will make it easier for food and drink to be imported and exported. Will the Secretary of State assure me and my constituents that all future conversations with trading partners will continue to prioritise high welfare standards and food standards on both sides of the Irish sea?
Hilary Benn
I can happily give my hon. Friend that assurance. He will have noticed how in another context—the trade agreement reached with the United States of America—we said that we would uphold our food standards in that agreement, and that is exactly what we have done.
Julia Buckley
Which of the sanitary and phytosanitary and agrifood requirements does the Secretary of State expect to be removed on goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland as a result of the SPS agreement with the EU?
Hilary Benn
Once we have negotiated the legal text and put our rulebook in line with current European arrangements, there will be: no need for SPS paperwork; no mandatory identity checks or physical checks on goods moving; no need for Northern Ireland plant health labels; an end to the ban on chilled frozen meats moving; an end to the ban on movements of products of animal origin imported to GB and then moved to Northern Ireland; and no onward paperwork or checks on agrifood moved for onward processing. That is why the SPS agreement in outline has been so widely welcomed in Northern Ireland.
Becky Gittins
I am pleased to say that the proposed SPS agreement has been welcomed by the Welsh farming community, including those in my constituency of Clwyd East. That is alongside the Ulster Farmers Union, the Federation of Small Businesses, the CBI, the Horticultural Trades Association, supermarkets including Asda, M&S and Iceland, and many others. Does the Secretary of State agree with me and with them that an SPS agreement would bring huge benefits for Wales, Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK?
Hilary Benn
It certainly would. It is a rare agreement that invites so much praise, certainly across the range of opinion in Northern Ireland. We all want to see it progress as quickly as possible, so we have got to turn it into a legal text and sort out our own legal rulebook. The benefits will then flow for businesses right across the United Kingdom.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The Windsor framework is causing untold damage to businesses in Northern Ireland. It cost one of my local businesses £86 to bring a box of simple ties from GB to Northern Ireland because of the parcels border, and used farm machinery is now subject to EU import procedures, with some having been turned back from the ports to Scotland in recent days. The latest FSB report confirms that small businesses are being hardest hit with red tape costs and uncertainty. Will the Secretary of State accept that the reset is not helping the here and now? Will he commit to meeting these industries and helping to sort out practical solutions?
Hilary Benn
On the agricultural machinery point that the hon. Member raises, if the machinery is coming into and staying in Northern Ireland, it can be brought in, subject to cleaning, with a plant health label that is relatively straightforward. Only if it might move into Ireland would it need to go through the red lane. I will make this general point: in 2023 Northern Ireland purchases of goods from the rest of the United Kingdom rose by 16.2%, and Northern Ireland is the fastest growing region in the UK.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
With regards to agricultural machinery, I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware of a Northern Ireland farmer who took agricultural machinery from Northern Ireland to participate in a Scottish agricultural show. On bringing it back, it was rejected in Northern Ireland and sent back to Scotland because there may have been soil on the underside of a piece of agricultural equipment. Does the Secretary of State really think that that makes common sense?
Hilary Benn
It is the requirement of the Windsor framework, which the last Government negotiated, to address the basic problem of having two different systems and an open border. Everybody knows that agricultural machinery needs to be properly cleaned. If that is the case and the appropriate label, which is straightforward, is applied, there is nothing to stop the machinery moving back to Northern Ireland.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
If the reset deal is supposed to bring an end to the SPS checks, when will the customs posts, which are there for the purpose of carrying out those checks, be demolished? Instead, the Secretary of State willingly presides over the ever-tightening EU noose on our economy, with agricultural machinery being the latest that has to kowtow to EU diktats. Meanwhile, trade diversion is rampant and the Secretary of State looks the other way. When will he stop acting as the Secretary of State for the EU and start acting as the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland?
Hilary Benn
I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation. At some point, he has to acknowledge that following our departure from the European Union—this was the issue that the previous Government had to address—the United Kingdom has one set of rules, the EU has another and there is an open border. How do we deal with that? I am afraid that on mutual enforcement, the only idea I have ever heard him put forward is not a practical proposition. He needs to take some responsibility for the consequence of his own arguments.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South and Mid Down) (SDLP)
The EU-UK deal was warmly and broadly welcomed across Northern Ireland to begin to unpick and undo some of the damage and friction created by Brexit, which was championed by some of those on the Opposition Benches. However, an FSB report out this week highlighted continuing problems, particularly for small businesses. Will the Secretary of State reassure businesses that there will be co-design and full consultation as the text and the outworkings of that very positive deal are brought through?
Hilary Benn
We will continue to consult as widely as possible in taking forward the agreement that has been reached and outlined with the European Union. There is help available for small businesses. It is important that it is as effective and easy to understand for those who seek to trade. I will look carefully at the report that the FSB has produced.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
Regarding the EU trade agreement, what barriers is the Secretary of State aware of that currently hinder free and unfettered trade from Northern Ireland within the UK? What is the timescale for their removal?
Hilary Benn
Goods flow freely from Northern Ireland to the rest of the United Kingdom. Further, one of the great advantages of the trade agreements that have been negotiated with India, the United States of America and the European Union is, in the case of India, a significant reduction of tariffs on whisky, which will benefit producers in Northern Ireland, and being able to sell lamb into India. The deal with the United States of America will allow Northern Ireland farmers to sell their beef.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
Contrary to what the Secretary of State has just told the House, two weeks ago, the Federation of Small Businesses in Northern Ireland published a report suggesting that a third of small businesses that move goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland have ceased supplying customers or partners either in Great Britain or in Northern Ireland. Under the Northern Ireland protocol, if the UK experiences diversion of trade, we are entitled to take unilateral action to safeguard our internal market. Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether he thinks that a third of small businesses ceasing trade in that way amounts to a diversion of trade? If not, perhaps he could tell us what would.
Hilary Benn
There are other small businesses that are able to trade perfectly—[Interruption.] The point that the hon. Gentleman needs to recognise is that if some small businesses manage to move their goods from GB to Northern Ireland, others can do so. In the end, it is a decision for an individual business where it chooses to sell its goods. It is the Windsor framework that applies now, not the Northern Ireland protocol, and I think he will accept that the Windsor framework represents a significant improvement on what was there before.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
The Federation of Small Businesses has warned that small and medium-sized enterprises in Northern Ireland continue to face disruption under the Windsor framework and, more importantly and sadly, that the Government have failed to effectively communicate the supposed benefits of dual market access so far. If dual market access is indeed a competitive advantage, as so many people across this House think it can and should be, can the Secretary of State specifically identify what concrete benefits it is providing to Northern Ireland businesses right now? How does he respond to the growing criticism from firms across the UK who are burdened with red tape and the fog of uncertainty?
Hilary Benn
I was interested by that observation in the FSB report because, as the House will testify, I spend a lot of my time extolling the virtues of the dual market access that Northern Ireland has as a result of the Windsor framework. I meet companies as I travel around Northern Ireland who tell me about the benefits of it that they are feeling. I think we all have a responsibility to extol the virtues of dual market access because, in my experience, if businesses can see an opportunity that allows them to sell more products, they will seize it with both hands.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
I regularly meet the Northern Ireland Finance Minister to discuss funding. The Government will provide Northern Ireland with a record settlement of £19.3 billion per year on average—the largest in the history of devolution—and the Executive will also continue to receive over 24% more per person, in line with their independently assessed level of need.
Noah Law
Does the Secretary of State agree that record funding for Northern Ireland through the spending review reflects this Government’s broader commitment to fairer funding across the UK, including in areas like Cornwall, where rurality, seasonal pressures and historical underfunding are finally being recognised, and that many in Cornwall would welcome the opportunity to further shape our own future through a level of devolution closer to that enjoyed in Northern Ireland?
Hilary Benn
The spending review settlement does indeed reflect the Government’s commitment to providing resources right across the United Kingdom. A year ago, people were saying there was going to be a fiscal cliff edge, but the money being made available for Northern Ireland means that no one is saying that now.
Gurinder Singh Josan
Thank you for calling me, Mr Speaker—[Interruption.]
Gurinder Singh Josan
Local growth funding has provided vital investment for many communities across Northern Ireland in recent years. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the new local growth fund will give sectors across Northern Ireland the long-awaited security they need?
Hilary Benn
My hon. Friend will have noticed the funding made available for local growth. As part of the spending review, discussions on the fiscal framework will be taken forward by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Department of Finance, to talk about things like the Holtham review and capital borrowing by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive.
Gareth Snell
Whether it is Stoke-on-Trent in the west midlands or the proud communities in Northern Ireland, the spending review anticipates helping to create good jobs and industrial improvement. Will the Secretary of State set out how the spending review will help to improve the industrial base in Northern Ireland?
Hilary Benn
The spending review gives the Northern Ireland Executive more funds to disperse as they see fit. It comes alongside the publication of the industrial strategy, the funds that the Government are making available and the £30 million that will come to Northern Ireland through UK Research and Innovation. There is funding available and there is great wealth, talent and potential in Northern Ireland to make the best use of it.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of Barnett funding on health in Northern Ireland, given that the Northern Ireland Department of Health’s financial bid falls below requested and required levels each year? It is important that we have funding for health, so will the Secretary of State outline what that will be?
Hilary Benn
The Government make funding available to the Northern Ireland Executive through the block grant. As the hon. Gentleman will know, it is for the Northern Ireland Executive to decide how they distribute the money between all the needs in Northern Ireland, including health, where of course there are significant pressures. The public services transformation funding that the last Government made available is now beginning to be used to reform some of the ways in which the health service works.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
The spending review settlement for the Northern Ireland Office explicitly covers the Finucane inquiry, but so far the Government have refused to say how much money has been set aside for that inquiry. Will the Secretary of State please tell the House how much do the Government expect the inquiry to cost?
Hilary Benn
The Finucane inquiry is beginning its work. It will publish, as is normal, statements of the expenditure that it engages in. It depends how long the inquiry lasts and how much evidence is taken, but the hon. Gentleman can rest assured that he will receive an answer in due course, as that process unfolds.
Alex Burghart
The Government have just had a spending review, so they must know how much they intend to spend. There will be a line in the Treasury accounts set aside for the Finucane inquiry. I do not understand why the Secretary of State finds it so hard to tell the House how much we expect to spend.
Similarly, the Government must know how much compensation they expect to pay Gerry Adams, following their inexplicable decision to drop the appeal that we lodged in that case. We have repeatedly pressed the Government to legislate to prevent that compensation from being paid and the Government have dragged their heels. This morning, Policy Exchange has published an excellent new report, “Legislating about Gerry Adams and Carltona”, which sets out a clear legal solution. The Government have nowhere further to hide, so will they finally do the right thing?
Hilary Benn
The hon. Gentleman needs to keep up. I answered a parliamentary question yesterday in which I made it clear that we will deal with this issue, which arises because of the application of the Carltona principle in the Supreme Court judgment of 2020, which the last Government could not sort out in two and a half years. We will deal with it in our forthcoming legislation, and I will keep the House updated.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
I commend the Secretary of State for at least answering a question yesterday. Despite it being a day when the Labour Government were prepared to take money out of the pockets of the most vulnerable, they at least had the courage to stand forward and say that Gerry Adams would get none, so I thank the Secretary of State for that. I also advise him not to ignore the warnings of the Federation of Small Businesses, which in its report was explicit that the Windsor framework is fracturing the United Kingdom’s internal market. That is a cause for concern. When we were talking of the spending review two weeks ago, he was asked whether the financial transactions capital being made available to Casement Park was additional; he knows that the blue book has a flat line for the next five years, so what is the answer?
Hilary Benn
The answer to the right hon. Gentleman is that it is additional.
Gavin Robinson
The Secretary of State knows that the blue book has a flat line for the next five years. Talking of economic growth, let me say he also knows that there is a commitment to an enhanced investment zone in Northern Ireland. When does he believe the businesses of Northern Ireland will benefit from that?
Hilary Benn
If the right hon. Gentleman just bears with us, I hope we can see progress on that in the not-too-distant future.
Mr Speaker
Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I welcome to the Gallery His Excellency Ahmad Safadi, the Speaker of the House of Representatives in Jordan, and his delegation.
Veterinary Medicines: Northern Ireland
Hilary Benn Excerpts(4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
The Government are committed to safeguarding supplies of veterinary medicines to Northern Ireland and to the protection of animal health and welfare. I therefore wish to update the House that today the Government have published a policy paper called “Protecting Animal Health: the Government’s Approach to Veterinary Medicines in Northern Ireland” and have deposited copies of the paper in the Libraries of both Houses.
Certain exemptions from EU law currently facilitate the supply of veterinary medicines to Northern Ireland. These exemptions will end after 31 December 2025. Ensuring the supply of veterinary medicines to Northern Ireland from 1 January 2026 is therefore of critical importance. We have seen significant progress to that end, as large sections of the pharmaceutical industry have taken and are taking the steps needed to continue to supply veterinary medicines to Northern Ireland. This means that, in the vast majority of cases, vets, farmers and pet owners will continue to have access to the medicines they need. But I recognise that even a small disruption could cause real difficulties, and that there are understandable concerns in those limited areas where supply may be disrupted and there are no alternative products authorised or available in Northern Ireland. Therefore, the Government are taking further measures to ensure access to veterinary medicines in such cases, as set out in the paper.
The Government have undertaken extensive engagement with the pharmaceutical industry, suppliers and retailers to understand the scale of any likely disruption to supply of veterinary medicines. Disruption is expected to be highly limited as a result of the pharmaceutical industry making the necessary changes to continue to supply Northern Ireland. We will continue to support industry in that endeavour in the coming months. Of the products that will be discontinued—which, on the basis of current analysis, we expect to be 10% to 15% of authorised products—most will have alternatives authorised in Northern Ireland or are not sold or only sold in limited quantities. Only a very small proportion, if discontinued, would be unlikely to have a suitable alternative and lack of access would have a significant adverse impact on animal health.
In line with the commitment in the “Safeguarding the Union” Command Paper, the Government will “deploy all available flexibilities to safeguard and sustain the supply of veterinary medicines in Northern Ireland”. To that end, the Government are setting out steps in relation to the supply routes of veterinary medicines to Northern Ireland, making use of provisions within or consistent with EU law to improve access for veterinary surgeons, farmers and pet owners.
The Government are therefore launching two new schemes to ensure the needs of animal health and welfare can continue to be met. First, the veterinary medicines internal market scheme will allow veterinary surgeons to use their own judgment to determine whether to move veterinary products into Northern Ireland from Great Britain, where doing so is the only reasonable way of preventing unacceptable suffering of animals in their care, building on and simplifying existing processes. The requirement for a special import certificate will also be removed for Great Britain to Northern Ireland movements of therapeutic veterinary medicines, reflecting the importance of the UK internal market and recognising that this requirement exists for products entering the UK from outside the UK rather than movements within the UK internal market. Secondly, the veterinary medicines health situation scheme will allow the supply of alternatives to critical products in Northern Ireland, if these are not authorised and the situation of animal or public health so requires. These arrangements will last for as long as the animal or public health justification for it persists.
The combination of progress to date on the adaptation by industry and the measures set out in the paper means that the Government are confident that Northern Ireland will continue to enjoy access to the veterinary medicines necessary to protect the health and welfare of animals, and the livelihoods of farmers and veterinary surgeons.
Further guidance will be issued in due course, and we will continue to monitor emerging risks to animal health and veterinary medicine availability. Intensive engagement will continue through 2025 and beyond to address any gaps. Where they have yet to do so, we are encouraging the pharmaceutical industry to make any necessary changes as soon as possible. The Government will invite the veterinary medicines working group to continue to meet to provide a forum for discussion of both the implementation of the measures set out, and for the identification and escalation of issues to be addressed.
[HCWS716]
Patrick Finucane Inquiry
Hilary Benn Excerpts(4 months, 1 week 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 on the Government decision to establish an independent statutory inquiry into the murder of Patrick Finucane in February 1989.
Today, the Government have appointed the right hon. Sir Gary Hickinbottom as chair of the Patrick Finucane inquiry. The inquiry is being established under section 1 of the Inquiries Act 2005, with full powers, including the power to compel the production of documents, and to summon witnesses to give evidence on oath. The Government have also today appointed the Baroness O’Loan and Francesca Del Mese as assessors to the inquiry under section 11 of the Inquiries Act.
The appointment of Sir Gary follows my announcement, on 11 September 2024, that the Government will establish an independent statutory inquiry into the murder of Patrick Finucane. This decision was in response to the 2019 judgment of the Supreme Court, which found that all 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.
The murder of Mr Finucane in front of his wife, Geraldine, who was also wounded, and his three children, was a barbarous and heinous crime and one which continues to highlight the legacy of the troubles in Northern Ireland. I commend and support the tireless campaign of Mrs Finucane and her family in seeking answers to the brutal murder of their loved one and I am confident that this inquiry will provide answers to the family who have suffered so terribly.
In determining who should chair the inquiry, I considered that in view of the nature of the evidence and questions to be tested by the Patrick Finucane inquiry, a judicial chairperson, sitting alone without a panel and with two assessors, would be most appropriate for the role.
Sir Gary has had a distinguished judicial career in England and Wales. He is currently President of Welsh Tribunals and member of the judicial openness and transparency board. He was made a full-time judge in 2000 and was appointed to a succession of judicial appointments in both the court and tribunal systems. In 2021, Sir Gary retired from the Court of Appeal to conduct a commission of inquiry into governance and corruption in the British Virgin Islands, on which he reported in April 2022.
Baroness O’Loan is a life peer appointed to the House of Lords in 2009. She became a member of the Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee in January 2025. Prior to that, she was a member of various House of Lords Select Committees from 2010 to 2024. Baroness O’Loan was the first Police Ombudsman in Northern Ireland.
Francesca Del Mese is an international criminal and human rights lawyer with over 25 years of experience in rule of law and security sector reform, specialising in conflict-affected and fragile states and countries experiencing political transition. She serves as a member of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal and is also a judge (recorder) of the Crown Court of England and Wales.
I am delighted that Sir Gary Hickinbottom has accepted this important role as chair of the Patrick Finucane inquiry and that Baroness O’Loan and Francesca Del Mese have accepted the important roles of assessors to the inquiry. I am confident that, together, their valuable knowledge, experience and professionalism will be of great benefit to the work of the Patrick Finucane inquiry.
The chair will now meet with the family and consult them on the terms of reference.
[HCWS699]
Northern Ireland: Civil Disorder
Hilary Benn Excerpts(4 months, 1 week 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 update the House on the civil disorder in Ballymena and elsewhere in Northern Ireland. I have been in contact with the First and Deputy First Ministers and the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland.
The violence we have witnessed over the last three days is deeply shocking, including the attacks on police officers as they have worked to keep people safe and the attempts to burn people out of their homes. Such behaviour is completely unacceptable and has no place in Northern Ireland. Those involved will be brought to justice.
I urge all of those in positions of leadership to continue to work together to help bring this disorder to an end and to rebuild community relations, and I want to thank all those community leaders who are working hard, night and day, to bring calm back to our streets.
On Monday 9 June, approximately 4,000 people attended a peaceful vigil in the Harryville area of Ballymena to show support following reports of a sexual assault. I am saddened by those reports and my thoughts are with those affected. This case is now before the courts, and the PSNI and prosecutors must be given the time and space to do their jobs.
Despite the majority of people engaging in peaceful protest, a number of masked individuals broke away from the vigil and began to attack police officers using petrol bombs and masonry. Properties in the area were also attacked.
On Tuesday 10 June, in a second night of disorder in Ballymena, police officers again came under sustained attack from petrol bombs, heavy masonry, bricks and fireworks. PSNI officers discharged a number of attenuating energy projectiles, and deployed a water cannon and public order dogs to disperse the crowds. Properties were again attacked and damaged, and a number of vehicles in the area were set on fire.
On Wednesday 11 June, there was further disorder in Ballymena—AEPs and water cannon were again deployed —and in Larne a group set fire to the leisure centre where some of the families displaced from the disorder in Ballymena had been taken. The fire, in the reception area, was extinguished but there is smoke damage. The families that had been in the centre had all been safely relocated. In Coleraine, disorder led to bus and train services being suspended during the evening.
As policing and justice are devolved matters in Northern Ireland, the response to the disorder is being led by the PSNI and the devolved Government. I have been receiving regular updates from the Chief Constable both on the disorder, and the impact on PSNI officers. A mutual aid request has been submitted by the PSNI to the National Police Co-ordination Centre. The PSNI has my full support as it works to bring those responsible to justice.
More than 30 police officers have been injured. The House will want to pass its best wishes to them for a speedy recovery. Police officers working to protect local communities should not have to face this kind of attack. The fact that they continue in their duties despite this is testament to their commitment to the community they serve. I will be meeting the Chief Constable and some of those officers who have been keeping people safe in Ballymena, and will have an opportunity to thank them and pass on my wishes for their swift recovery.
Peaceful protest is an important part of our democratic society but what we have seen is disorder which has harmed the local community and caused fear, suffering and disruption to those living in the area.
Northern Ireland is a welcoming, open place. In my time as Secretary of State I have spoken to many people across Northern Ireland who want to work together to build a safer, more prosperous future. The vast majority of people are shocked by this disorder and the harm it has caused.
Finally, I would like to express my sincere thanks to the PSNI, the NI Ambulance Service and the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service, as well as to the community and local organisations and agencies, who have worked in difficult conditions over the past few days to keep people safe.
[HCWS696]