Oral Answers to Questions
Hilary Benn Excerpts(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
The Northern Ireland Troubles Bill will establish a reformed, human rights-compliant Legacy Commission to carry out investigations and provide answers on behalf of families who have waited too long, enable information sharing by the Irish authorities and provide, in law, safeguards for our veterans.
Sir Desmond Swayne
We were promised a substantial package of amendments and that the Bill would return to the House early in the Session. Is the delay occasioned by a pause for thought following the personal statement of the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) to the House? I certainly hope so.
Hilary Benn
The right hon. Gentleman will have noticed that the new Defence Secretary, who himself served in Northern Ireland, said on Monday:
“This Government are absolutely committed to the troubles Bill”.—[Official Report, 6 July 2026; Vol. 789, c. 15.]
The right hon. Gentleman will not have to wait too much longer—[Interruption]—to see the substantial package of amendments to which he refers.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
Members are shouting from the Opposition Benches that people have been waiting nine months, but there are victims who have been waiting decades for this issue to be resolved. Will the Secretary of State bring the Bill forward as quickly as possible, thinking about the victims first, never mind personal statements by anybody in this House? Our strong military lobby does not seem to care about the innocent victims who have been left behind in Northern Ireland.
Hilary Benn
My hon. Friend makes an important point about this piece of legislation. As we know, the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 did not command support across all communities in Northern Ireland. How can we hope to proceed if that is the case? That is why the Government are committed to reforming, repealing and replacing the legacy Act—that is what is in the Bill. I hope that when people see the full picture they will realise that it is fair, balanced, proportionate and reasonable, and that it seeks to command the confidence of all communities in Northern Ireland.
Hilary Benn
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) will have to answer that question, but, with respect, I disagree with him. He worked on the package of amendments during his time as a Defence Minister. In the end, we have to strike a balance, as the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) is well aware. When people see those amendments, they will realise that they are fair and reasonable with regard to the protection of our veterans. Crucially, they will put into legislation for the first time protections that were not in the Act passed in 2023.
Alex Burghart
It is clear from the Secretary of State’s answer that the former Armed Forces Minister quit because he could see that the Bill remains unfit for purpose and fails to protect the very veterans that it claims to protect. The Secretary of State must realise that there is no cross-party support in Northern Ireland for his legislation, and nor is there support in the Labour party for his legislation. Will he now accept that the Bill should not progress and that we should return to the legislation that the Conservatives brought forward?
Hilary Benn
I do not accept that, because all the Northern Ireland political parties were opposed to the immunity that was at the heart of the 2023 legacy Act. It had no support from political parties in Northern Ireland or from victims and survivors’ organisations. That is why these changes have to be made, and that is why the Government will proceed with this Bill.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
Back in March, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) travelled to Belfast to address the Alliance party conference. In his speech, he warned that
“it is too easy for the powers-that-be to write their own rules and cover up”.
He was talking about the need for a Hillsborough law, which he said at the time
“is currently stalled in Parliament due to an unacceptably wide carve-out for the security services.”
We on the Liberal Democrat Benches are deeply concerned that exactly that issue now confronts veterans, who, under this Government’s draft troubles Bill, are exposed to investigation and prosecution while the state that gave the orders shelters behind similar carve-outs. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether he will support the Lib Dem amendment to the Bill requiring that any decision to block disclosure on national security grounds is referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee to ensure proper parliamentary scrutiny?
Hilary Benn
We will come to debate that amendment, along with all the other amendments that hon. and right hon. Members have tabled, when we get to the Committee stage. The judgment in the Thompson case was absolutely clear—it was also referred to by the Dillon judgment—that the ultimate responsibility for protecting national security rests with the Government. That is a long-established principle that has support on both sides of the House. At the same time, I have made it clear that I wish to see the maximum possible disclosure, consistent with that requirement that falls on Ministers.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
The Secretary of State will know that, given the legacy of our past, two Governments are involved. Was he concerned, as we were, that Sir Declan Morgan shared with the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee two weeks ago his concern that he will not have access to unredacted intelligence material from the Irish Government? There is nothing in the Government’s draft legislation or the amendments due to come before this House that would change that around. Is the Secretary of State further concerned that the chief operating officer of the Northern Ireland Office said that day that she would take that point back—to whom we do not know, because she is the chief operating officer—but today has written to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee to confirm that nothing in the Secretary of State’s amendments or the Irish Government’s legislation would satisfy Sir Declan’s requirement for access to unredacted material from the Irish?
Hilary Benn
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Irish Government published on 8 June their legislative outline, entitled “The General Scheme of the Legacy of the Troubles Bill 2026”. That is intended to fulfil the commitment that the Irish Government gave in the joint framework to co-operate to the fullest extent possible with the commission. The right hon. Gentleman is referring to the position today in the light of the Dillon judgment, and I happen to agree with him. Now that the Dillon judgment has made it quite clear that the commission, even in its current form, is compliant with the European convention on human rights and capable of carrying out investigations, I hope that we will see co-operation in response to the requests that the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery is making of the Irish Government.
Gavin Robinson
That is an answer to a question, but it is not really the answer to my question. I want to hear from our Secretary of State a full-throated recognition that there is a deficit, that Sir Declan needs access to the unredacted material, and that the Secretary of State will secure agreement from the Irish Government for such a change. Does the right hon. Gentleman not recognise that, as we stand here today in July, no remedial order was put before the Lords by the end of June? That deadline has passed. With no progress before the Irish assume the European presidency, which apparently was another deadline that needed to be met and has passed, and with no summit on 22 July, there is no chance that the Secretary of State’s troubles Bill will become law in 2026.
Hilary Benn
The right hon. Gentleman makes a powerful argument for why the troubles Bill should be passed, because it will enable precisely the information sharing with the Irish authorities that he and I want to see, and that all the people in Northern Ireland who are still waiting for answers would like to receive. That is one of the central arguments for proceeding with the Bill.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
I regularly meet the Northern Ireland Executive and the Police Service of Northern Ireland to discuss a range of issues in Northern Ireland, including community cohesion. However, given the recent serious disorder, there is a problem that needs to be tackled.
Marsha De Cordova
The scenes we witnessed in Belfast last month were truly horrific. The knife attack was an abhorrent act, and I pay tribute to the courage of those who intervened to help, but what followed in the days afterwards was equally disturbing. Innocent people were targeted because of the colour of their skin, families were literally burned out of their homes, and businesses were attacked. Does the Secretary of State agree that overt racism and violence has no place on the streets of Belfast or anywhere in our society, and that those in positions of authority and influence should stop inflaming tensions and legitimising racism and prejudice?
Hilary Benn
I do agree with my hon. Friend. The attack on Mr Ogilvie was truly shocking, and there was no justification whatsoever for the racist thuggery we witnessed on the streets of Belfast in the days following. I met nurses and doctors from a hospital in Belfast, and some of the nurses described to me how, because of the colour of their skin, they were too afraid to leave the hospital at the end of their shift, while others discussed whether they should leave in the back of a colleague’s car covered in a coat or in the boot, because they were afraid of the thugs who had taken control of the streets. The fact that that happened on the streets of our United Kingdom in 2026 should give us all cause for deep concern.
Navendu Mishra
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. What assessment has he made of the level of online co-ordination during the recent unrest in Belfast, and what discussions has he had with the Police Service of Northern Ireland and other security partners about addressing that issue?
Hilary Benn
That was, of course, an awful feature of what we saw. One of the things I learned in my discussions was that those from the far right had taken a list of houses in multiple occupation in Belfast—a list that, in the interests of openness, was properly available on the Belfast city council website; the council has now taken it down—and used it to try to target houses during the racist violence. There is a clear obligation on social media companies, set out in the Online Safety Act 2023, and there is an obligation on Ofcom to enforce that Act, because there is no doubt that part of the violence was fuelled by that kind of online hatred.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State is plainly taking this very seriously, which is very much to his credit. Can he say what points of agreement and dissent there were in the discussions that he and his Ministers are reported to have had with the party leaders in Northern Ireland, and what actions the UK Government undertook to advance in order to try to reduce the possibility of these dreadful scenes—which, for many of us who lived through them, are reminiscent of the 1970s in Belfast—happening again?
Hilary Benn
The right hon. Gentleman raises a really important point, and I am grateful to him for his question. We all have a responsibility—political leaders have a responsibility to call out what was witnessed for what it is and not mince our words, and as I have already indicated, social media companies have a responsibility to ensure that such material, if it is illegal, is not available on social media sites. I pay tribute to the police and the community organisations, who did an extraordinary job on the night of the 10th to find shelter for people who had been burned out of their homes. Parents also have a responsibility; if someone’s son comes back at 11 o’clock at night wearing dark clothing and smelling of smoke, a parent might ask, “Where have you been and what have you been doing?”
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Community cohesion is important, both racially and politically. Everyone accepts that political leaders and others have to be cognisant of what they say and what they do, and whenever we are all remembering our dead, as we do, no one denies republicans the right to remember their dead. Does the Secretary of State agree, however, that if a political leader, such as the First Minister—Sinn Féin’s Michelle O’Neill—not only remembers republican dead, but lauds, praises and defends their indefensible actions, that does great harm to community cohesion?
Hilary Benn
Northern Ireland is a society, as the hon. Gentleman knows better than most, that has been undergoing profound change since the signing of the Good Friday agreement 28 years ago. As the famous lines go, we have a shared history, but not necessarily a shared memory. The progress we have seen is because Northern Ireland society has been working to move beyond that. One of the people I met who was there on the night of the violence said that we now have “another other” in Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman will be familiar with the traditional divisions, but there is now another other: the ethnic minority population of Northern Ireland, who are terrified about what is happening. We do not want to add to the troubles of the past by not being clear how unacceptable it is to see that on the streets of Belfast today.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South and Mid Down) (SDLP)
Community cohesion is deeply threatened by the violence and menace that took place on the streets last month, which included deliberate orchestration and paramilitary flags and trappings that now fly as bold as brass from lampposts in my constituency and in many others. We can no longer pretend that loyalist paramilitaries are not a national security threat. Cohesion is also threatened by a sheer lack of delivery and of responsibility-taking by the Northern Ireland Executive. The Secretary of State must see the role that vetoes and structures play in that, and the moment of peril in which we may now be in Stormont. When will he convene the process for democratic reform of the institutions that a majority of people, of parties and of MLAs have asked for?
Hilary Benn
My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue, because five of the main parties have now come forward with various proposals for reform. I have said to the party leaders that I wish to meet them to discuss those proposals. Time and effort is being expended at the moment on trying to sort out the problem of the budget. On the question of the paramilitary displays and flags, the Police Service of Northern Ireland has new powers to remove them as a result of the recommendation of Jonathan Hall, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
In his first answer, the Secretary of State said that the recent disorder was a problem that needed to be solved. A fortnight ago, I arranged a roundtable in my constituency that included the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, the police, the Executive Office, the Department for Communities and many other organisations and representative organisations, including the Black Diamond Initiatives. It was apparent that they all had their strategies and their procedures, but what they did not have was a co-ordinated response. They were all looking to the Executive to pull all those organisations together. If dysfunction at the top of our Executive is not allowing that to happen, what actions will the Secretary of State take?
Hilary Benn
There is a responsibility, above all, on the Northern Ireland Executive to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland. There being no Executive in Northern Ireland for 40% of the time since the Good Friday agreement has not helped to achieve that objective. To take one issue, there is an acute housing crisis in Northern Ireland, as there is in other parts of the United Kingdom. In taking action to enable more homes to be built, one of the issues that needs to be addressed is the fact that water infrastructure cannot cope. If that is sorted out, more homes can be built.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
The attempted murder of Stephen Ogilvie in Belfast last month shocked people throughout the country. The man accused of this horrific attack is thought to have crossed into Northern Ireland illegally from the south. People from all communities are asking what more can be done to prevent people from coming into the UK illegally across that land border. Following the terrible events in Belfast last month, will the Government commit to significantly enhanced operations on the border, similar to those already run by the Republic?
Hilary Benn
We have already increased the number of operations and arrests in Northern Ireland in the last two years, in comparison with the previous period. About 1,000 people who had no right to be in Northern Ireland have been removed, including 500 who have been returned to the Republic of Ireland. The hon. Member will be well aware of the importance of the open border. Intelligence-led policing at the ports and airports under Operation Gull and visits to workplaces have resulted in more people being detained and removed.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
I regularly meet representatives of the logistics sector and businesses trading between Great Britain and Northern Ireland—for instance, through the Northern Ireland business stakeholders group—to discuss how we can make the Windsor framework operate as smoothly as possible.
Sammy Wilson
The Secretary of State will be well aware of the importance of the logistics industry in Northern Ireland, and also of the burdens that are falling on it at present because of the Brexit arrangements, which have pushed up costs, led to delays, and resulted in many containers coming back empty from Great Britain. On top of that, we now have the added costs of a carbon tax on ferries coming to and from Northern Ireland. Does the Secretary of State recognise that this industry is important to Northern Ireland, and is being strangled by the arrangements with the European Union and the net zero policies? What steps does he intend to take to address those issues?
Hilary Benn
In respect of the EU emissions trading system, yes, we are applying a carbon charge to boat movements between Great Britain and Northern Ireland—the same charge that is being applied between Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland. The purpose of that is to ensure that the carbon border adjustment mechanism does not hit businesses in Northern Ireland, which the right hon. Gentleman would be very cross about if it were to be the case. Let me simply say this to him: if things are as bad as he suggests, why is Northern Ireland one of the fastest-growing parts of the United Kingdom economy?
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
I met the leaders of the main Northern Ireland political parties on Thursday 11 June to discuss the terrible disorder. The attack on Mr Ogilvie was truly shocking, but the racist violence that we saw in response had no justification whatsoever.
John Grady
The Roma have suffered centuries of prejudice and hate. Under the Nazis, they were subjected to concentration camps and genocide. Roma people have made their home in my constituency and in Northern Ireland, and should be treated with decency, yet they have been subjected to terrible racist violence in Northern Ireland. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking with the Northern Ireland Executive to safeguard the Roma community in Northern Ireland?
Hilary Benn
The single most important thing that we can all do as political leaders is to be absolutely clear that everyone who has made the United Kingdom their home lawfully should be treated with equality, respect and dignity, regardless of where they come from. That is one of the characteristics of our country.
Janet Daby
I cannot begin to imagine what the victims of the recent disorder felt and experienced, and the devastation that it has brought upon their communities. My Labour values are about respect for others, and about treating people fairly and justly. This act demonstrated none of them. Will my right hon. Friend please say what is being done to rebuild and restore every aspect of these communities, from dealing with their trauma to ensuring their protection and restoring the loss of possessions?
Hilary Benn
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what she says, and I agree with her. There was terrible disorder in Ballymena last year, as a result of which a number of steps were taken to bring the community together. It was noticeable that the recent disorder that we saw in Belfast was not replicated in Ballymena. That is an example of communities working together to build trust and respect, and we need to see a lot more of it.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Does the Secretary of State accept that while there can never be any excuse for criminal disorder, there is equally no excuse for a border policy that leaves Northern Ireland exposed? How many more incidents will it take before he and this Government deal with the open border with the Republic of Ireland, which is being exploited daily? When will they put in place measures to protect our citizens from illegal immigrants?
Hilary Benn
I hope the hon. Lady will recognise that the common travel area, which is more than a century old, is of great benefit to the citizens of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. Many people in Northern Ireland live their lives across that border every single day. Anyone who suggests—I know that she is not doing so—that there should be immigration controls on that border is not being realistic, and it would not be the appropriate action to take. As I indicated in answer to an earlier question, we are increasing immigration enforcement activity across the United Kingdom, including in Northern Ireland, as a result of which 1,000 people have been removed in the two years since the election, including 500 who have been returned to the Republic of Ireland.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
Will the Secretary of State join me in commending the officers of the PSNI, who have responded to the recent disorder with professionalism and integrity? Does he agree that they deserve the very best support, including a modern, high-quality training facility, and can he give the House an update on when that is going to be funded?
Hilary Benn
I join the hon. Gentleman in thanking and praising the brave officers of the PSNI. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick) and I visited the officers at Strandtown police station, who dealt with the disorder when the bus was set on fire on 10 June. More than 40 of them were injured, and we wish them a speedy recovery. I know that the hon. Gentleman is a doughty advocate for the new training centre, and I look forward to discussing the matter further with him.
Robert Hamill Inquiry
Hilary Benn Excerpts(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
I wish to inform the House that the report of the Robert Hamill inquiry, originally chaired by Sir Edwin Jowitt and now by Sir John Evans, will be published shortly after the summer recess, subject to parliamentary timetabling.
As I set out in my statement of 10 December 2025, the original inquiry chair, Sir Edwin Jowitt, advised the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Owen Paterson MP, on 25 February 2011, that the inquiry panel had fulfilled its terms of reference. However, following announcement by the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland in December 2010 of criminal charges against three individuals for perverting the course of justice, it was agreed that the inquiry report would not be submitted to the Secretary of State or published until the conclusion of these legal proceedings.
Following the conclusion of criminal proceedings in June 2024, a new chair, Sir John Evans, was appointed on 7 October 2024 due to Sir Edwin unfortunately being unable to continue in the role. Since then, steps have been taken to enable the publication of the report, and Sir John has now confirmed that the report is ready to be published.
As the person responsible for the publication of the inquiry’s report, I have a duty, as a public authority under the Human Rights Act, to act in a way that is compatible with the European convention on human rights.
On 28 February 2011, the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Owen Paterson MP set out that a checking process had been undertaken to meet obligations in relation to article 2 of the ECHR and national security. While I have not yet seen the report, given the significant passage of time since the last checking process was concluded, I have decided to make arrangements for a new one. I can confirm that this has now been completed, and I have received advice that there is nothing in the report which, if published, could breach article 2 of the ECHR by putting the lives or safety of individuals at risk, or would put national security at risk. I am therefore satisfied that the report can be published in full.
Given the time needed for the panel to finalise the text and to print the report, it will not be feasible to publish the report before the summer recess. My officials have therefore requested that the inquiry team retain custody of the report over the recess.
As with the publication of the Bloody Sunday, Billy Wright and Rosemary Nelson inquiry reports, I intend to consider giving advance sight to those who were designated as core participants by the inquiry, along with their legal representatives.
[HCWS197]
Northern Ireland Office
Hilary Benn Excerpts(4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
I join others in congratulating the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), on having secured this extremely important, timely and useful estimates debate and on the work she does to scrutinise what happens in Northern Ireland and the work of the Northern Ireland Office. The Committee is exceedingly energetic and will be getting full value for money from the small ministerial team, as it did today and will do over the next couple of weeks.
I shall begin by addressing the most important question that has been highlighted, to which the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) just referred: the lack of an agreed budget. He has just reminded us that he thought the spending review was a pretty good settlement. The Chancellor set out that Northern Ireland would receive £19.3 billion per year on average over the course of the spending review period—the largest settlement since devolution in 1998. In addition, the Chancellor confirmed that the Government would be providing almost £750 million in additional funding through the Barnett formula over the spending review period as a result of decisions made at the autumn Budget and the spring statement. That includes an extra £373 million in the current financial year, 2026-27, and that money is available to the Executive.
To pick up on one point, I am aware of the arguments about the funding in comparison to Scotland and Wales. I simply want to make the point that funding settlements for all the nations of the United Kingdom are underpinned by the Barnett formula, and it is important to remember that, for example, compared with Wales, Northern Ireland has benefited from generous funding from the Barnett formula in previous years. The UK Government—the last Government and this one—have also committed around £16 billion in funding packages and agreed financial flexibilities from 2014-15 right up to 2029-30 for the Executive to support public services and long-term investment. The Treasury has given a commitment to discuss a fiscal framework for Northern Ireland, where, of course, funding under the Barnett formula can be discussed.
On the level of need, the fact is that this was independently assessed by the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council. The figure that it came up with was 124%, and that is indeed the level of funding that the Northern Ireland Executive are getting. My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) recognises that fact. She rightly points out that, however much money is allocated, someone will always say, “Give us more.” How the money is spent has also been an important part of this debate, and I shall come to the remarks of the former Finance Minister, the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), in a moment.
Let us look at what is achieved in Northern Ireland for the expenditure, with 124% of the funding in England. In England, about 4% of people are waiting more than a year to see a hospital consultant. In Northern Ireland, it is nearly 50%, with more funding.
Robin Swann
The right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that, as there has not been a repetitive budget since 2016, any transformation or investment in health is always more challenging, and that is where the waiting lists are. Does he also acknowledge that that transformation funding is now there, and that the work being done by my party colleague, the present Minister of Health, Mike Nesbitt, is bringing those waiting lists down?
Hilary Benn
I absolutely acknowledge the work that Mike Nesbitt has been doing in health, and it shows what can be achieved if minds are put to it. It is a difficult balance between, on the one hand, running the services today and keeping them going and, on the other hand, investing in transformation. In the end, however, investing in the transformation is the way in which we will be able to deliver better public services for the people of Northern Ireland.
I share the concern that has been expressed right across the House at the absence of an agreed multi-year budget, which is creating, above all, significant uncertainty for the funding of public services. I have been talking regularly with the Minister for Finance, who clearly faces a huge challenge in trying to get an agreement, and those conversations will continue this week, because we need to get to a multi-year budget as quickly as possible. I said about a month ago that the Executive needed to come towards the Government and meet us halfway, and there are two essential requirements.
The first relates to the fact that the amount of money currently being forecast as the overspend for this year is going up, beyond the level that we saw in the last financial year. The word “pressures” is heard frequently in Northern Ireland. People say that they have budget pressures. Well, everyone has budget pressures. Quite reasonably, the Government have asked what the nature of those pressures is. Are they absolutely unavoidable legal commitments, are they things we would like to do or are they things in between? Trying to interrogate and understand the nature of those pressures and to see what the Executive tell the Government about that is the first requirement.
The second requirement is a plan for how we will move from this year-to-year crisis—which was very clearly articulated by the right hon. Member for East Antrim in his contribution—because we need to see something that will address this in the longer term. I am much struck by what the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council said in its report on the sustainability of the finances, published on 16 June. It said that
“these immediate issues facing NI’s public finances reflect an unsustainable trajectory resulting from the underlying structural problems in the Budget. These structural issues are visible in the relatively high public sector pay bill, limited revenue-raising”—
a point just referred to—
“and persistent overspends.”
Whatever the size of the budget that anyone has, we have, in the end, a responsibility to find a way of living within that and to raise more revenue if that is open to us. That is what all Governments must do. The current Government have done it in relation to the public finances, and the same is true for the Northern Ireland Executive. In addition to the funding I have already described, there is the £617 million from the UK Government that is going into the city and growth deals, as well as the defence growth deal, which the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick), has spoken about in the House; the enhanced investment zone; and the local growth fund.
A point was raised about the local growth fund. I recognise and accept that the change in the profile from revenue to capital has created a difficulty for the voluntary sector. That is why I met representatives of the voluntary sector and said to them, “There is unspent money in the PEACEPLUS programme; you can make a bid to that.” I think about £12 million is available in revenue. The Exec came to the Government and said, “We would like to keep £3 million of that for Go Succeed; we think it is a great programme, and we’d like you to carry on backing it.” We said, “Fine.” That left £9 million available in revenue for the economic inactivity programmes that the voluntary sector has been running. I said to the Executive, “How about putting the extra Barnett consequentials that you now have, including £373 million in the current year that you were not expecting, together with the £9 million? We could then enable those projects to continue.” That is an example of what can be done if we put our minds to it.
The extra capital allocation in the local growth fund may in part be the answer to the question asked about the ports fund. A number of commitments were made in the “Safeguarding the Union” document. I remember a large commitment that Casement Park would be fully funded so that the Euros could be hosted. Well, no money was allocated for it at all. The previous Government were very free with the promises, but they did not do the work to find the money. No funding has been identified for the ports fund, but there is money in the local growth fund. I also point out that Belfast harbour has a masterplan, which I understand it is looking to self-fund, and that the Government have made available an increase in capital funding to the Northern Ireland Executive. If the Executive wish to put money into port infrastructure, they are entirely able to do so.
Let me turn to PSNI funding. I once again pay tribute to the officers of the PSNI who, every time there is disorder in Northern Ireland, show extraordinary courage in protecting the public from those who are setting fire to buses, throwing bricks and burning people out of their houses. I had the chance to thank some of those officers when I returned to Northern Ireland the week before last, following the disorder. They are very brave. From memory, I think some 42 officers were injured in the recent disorder.
I appreciate the financial pressures faced, but this is a devolved matter. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim said that he thought it was a profound mistake to have devolved responsibility for policing and justice. I respectfully disagree with him. The trouble with the call for ringfencing, which we have heard from other sources this evening, is this: we either believe in devolved Government—the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland taking decisions about how the money is spent—or begin to move back towards a ringfence; once we have a ringfence for the PSNI, it will not be long before someone says, “Can I have a ringfence over here?” In the end, we have a choice to make. I believe in devolved Government in Northern Ireland, and the Government believe in devolved Government in Northern Ireland. There is a matter of principle here: the funding is available to the Executive; it is for them to decide how much they allocate to policing as opposed to other priorities.
Sammy Wilson
I accept the argument that the Secretary of State is making. I served on the Northern Ireland Policing Board during the change from the Royal Ulster Constabulary to the PSNI, and was on the finance committee of the board. We had continual battles with the then Secretary of State, who was no more generous or flexible than a devolved Minister would have been. Devolution or no devolution, the fiscal and the financial situation is the same. I suppose the difference is that, when it comes to putting on pressure, the Secretary of State here is perhaps a bit more remote than the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland.
Hilary Benn
I will reflect on that point. I do not know in what sense the right hon. Gentleman uses “remote”; if it is geographical, I agree with him entirely. I acknowledge that, as he said from experience, agreeing a budget is difficult in a power-sharing system. It is difficult. He told the House an interesting story about being faced with reductions in budget and it being possible to come together and agree one. All Governments have to deal with the financial and fiscal circumstances they find, but when we take office, we have a responsibility to fulfil the tasks that are in front of us, which include balancing the budget. He also made interesting points about conditionality. How do we ensure, in return for whatever support a Government give—we have seen a long history of lumps and bumps of money, restoration after collapse, and so on—a consistent, measurable path to balanced budgets year after year, and an end to boom and bust in times of crisis?
We have increased the additional security funding, which, from memory, I think was flat for about 10 years under the previous Government. This Government came in and decided to increase the additional security funding. The point has been raised in the Select Committee about the comparison with the counter-terrorism policing grant that is available in England and Wales. However, if we divide the grant by the population, we get £19.42 per head of funding; if we divide the additional security funding for Northern Ireland by the population of Northern Ireland, we get £19.61 per head. When people ask why Northern Ireland is not eligible for the counter-terrorism grant, the answer is that it is getting the same funding per head from the additional security funding. It is for the Chief Constable to decide how best to use that money.
Let me turn to legacy funding. The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar, speaking for the Opposition, is right that the sum was identified some time ago. It is actually £232 million, because £18 million of the £250 million has been set aside for part 4 of the legacy Act. In addition, the framework agreement, to be given effect by the troubles Bill, will enable the Irish Government to commit a further €25 million for legacy mechanisms. We are talking regularly to the ICRIR and the Treasury on a business case, but I say to the hon. Gentleman that the caseload faced by the legacy commission is entirely the product of the piece of legislation that the previous Government passed.
Hilary Benn
Well, it is entirely the result of that. The funding that was made available was the fixed sum to which I referred a moment ago. That is the first point.
Secondly, the Department of Justice had put aside a sum of around, from memory, £50 million when the inquests five-year plan was put in place. It thought it would have 50 cases. A number of those, of course, are now not going ahead, and the troubles Bill proposes to restore nine and to sift the rest. Thirdly, prior to the legacy Act’s coming into law, the PSNI had about 1,000 cases to investigate; had the legacy Act not been passed, it would have continued to have to investigate those and receive requests for disclosure.
The final point I would make on this issue—and I did make this point to the Select Committee when I was asked about it—is that we are looking in particular at schedule 4 to the Bill because Jon Boutcher makes the point that if there is a requirement to sift all the material to identify that which is of high security before handing over the files, that puts an obligation in place. We are looking at what we can do to ease some of the cost burdens, as hon. Members have said, as more people come to the Legacy Commission—and I hope more people will come forward.
I will turn now to a couple of other points.
Alex Burghart
I am pleased that the Government are looking at some sort of additional support for PSNI. I sense that the Secretary of State is about to move off legacy. I did ask him whether he had discussed the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill with the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) because, obviously, his view of the Bill will be critical for its future.
Hilary Benn
The hon. Gentleman invites me to speculate on discussions I may or may not have had, and I will kindly resist the request that he has just made for reasons that I am sure will have been obvious to him when he wrote that question into his speech.
The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) and I have discussed the internal market many times before. He talks about the firms that have stopped shipping stuff to Northern Ireland. He will find many, many firms that have stopped shipping stuff to Europe for exactly the same reason: the decision to leave the European Union. It is from that that all the consequences have flowed.
Hilary Benn
The hon. and learned Member shakes his head. With respect, I am afraid that it is a self-evident fact.
Sammy Wilson
Would the right hon. Member accept that international trade is much different than trade within the country that we belong to? If the impediments are stopping trade within our own country, of course that is much more serious than companies deciding that they are not going to sell to countries abroad.
Hilary Benn
I would indeed accept that point, if it was not for the fact that a decision had been made to leave the European Union when there is an open border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. That was the fundamental problem that had to be solved, and none of the alternative suggestions would enable us to do this.
I want to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) about the Muckamore hospital report. I think that every single Member of the House was deeply shocked by what we read in that report, and our hearts go out to all those who have been affected by the mistreatment that has been revealed. I think the answer to the very reasonable question that she put is that we all hope to see all the many recommendations in that report implemented.
Hilary Benn
I think the hon. Gentleman was responsible for establishing the inquiry, and I pay credit to him for doing so. The real way to honour those who have suffered is to ensure that the recommendations of the report are fully implemented.
Robin Swann
I thank the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for raising the matter. I was the Minister who commissioned the inquiry, and listening to the families and the individuals who were in Muckamore at that time was a harrowing experience. I want to put on the record my thanks to Tom Kark KC, who chaired the inquiry, for handling the inquiry and bringing forward the recommendations in an engaging and compassionate way. The health service, the trusts and the entire health family in Northern Ireland need to pay careful tribute to a number of those recommendations, and the hon. Lady made a good point that they contain learnings for health bodies, trusts and Departments across the United Kingdom.
Hilary Benn
I congratulate the hon. Member on having established the inquiry, because when things go catastrophically wrong, it is what we do about it that counts, and that requires an independent look and for the truth to be told.
In conclusion, it is of course for the Executive to agree a budget—above all, for the citizens they serve. That is the fundamental principle of devolved government in Northern Ireland. I repeat what I said earlier: both myself and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury are ready and willing to try to assist the Executive in doing that, but we need to see the things that I described earlier to be able to do so.
Belfast Attack: Further Information
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)
In my response to yesterday’s urgent question, I committed to provide the House with a further update on the facts surrounding the horrific attack in north Belfast on 8 June.
My thoughts remain with the victim and his family, and with the wider community, who have been left shaken by these brutal events.
The scenes of disorder that we witnessed in some parts of Northern Ireland last night were shameful. It has put innocent lives at risk, injured police officers and caused terror to people—forced to flee their homes by mobs of masked men. I know that the whole House will utterly condemn these attacks, the burning of cars and homes and the other related violence that we have seen. There is no justification at all for this type of thuggery.
I spoke with the chief constable yesterday and have seen him this morning in Belfast. I have extended my full support to the Police Service of Northern Ireland as it seeks to protect the public, and I have wished the officers injured in last night’s disturbances a speedy recovery.
The Home Office confirmed yesterday afternoon that the individual is a Sudanese national with leave to remain in the UK until 2028. He entered the UK in 2023 and was granted refugee status the same year. The suspect says that he travelled from mainland Europe to Dublin and then on to Belfast, where he claimed asylum.
The PSNI yesterday stated that it has no information to suggest that this was a terrorist-related incident.
The suspect was charged last night with attempted murder, possession of an article with a blade or point in a public place and threats to kill.
Although nationality, immigration and asylum are excepted matters under the devolution settlement, the Home Office maintains close co-operation with the Northern Ireland Executive. The Home Office operates the same range of immigration functions in Northern Ireland as it does across the rest of the United Kingdom.
Nearly 70,000 individuals were returned or removed from the UK between July 2024 and the end of March 2026. This represents a 41% increase on the number of returns recorded in the previous 21-month period.
Of the total returns in the year ending March 2026, nearly 5,900 were of foreign national offenders—an increase of 13% compared to 5,203 FNO returns in the previous year.
Foreign nationals who commit crimes should be under no illusion: the law will be strictly enforced and, where appropriate, we will pursue deportation.
This attack was deeply shocking and public concern is understandable, but this moment requires calm leadership. We must stand united in rejecting any attempts to use this incident to incite violence, which, as we saw last night, only harms local communities. There is absolutely no excuse for further disorder and the route to justice will be achieved solely through the work of the PSNI and the legal system. I would encourage anyone with relevant information to contact the police.
[HCWS106]
North Belfast: Violent Attack
Hilary Benn Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on reports of a serious violent attack in north Belfast involving a foreign national, and the implications for public safety, immigration enforcement and community cohesion.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question. Shortly after 10.30 pm last night, a man in his 40s was subjected to a horrific, sustained knife attack on a street in north Belfast. He is in hospital in a serious condition, having suffered very severe injuries. I know the thoughts of the whole House will be with him and his loved ones at what must be a time of unimaginable distress. The response from the Police Service of Northern Ireland was immediate. A man in his 30s was arrested on suspicion of attempted murder. He remains in police custody, and the PSNI is continuing to investigate. It has declared this a critical incident.
Amid the horror of what happened, we also saw something extraordinary. When confronted with scenes of terrifying violence, members of the public did not walk on by. Instead, a number of them stepped forward and, at immense risk to their own safety, intervened to pull the assailant away and protect the victim until the police arrived. To those individuals, I would like to say this: you showed the very best of humanity, and you have the profound gratitude of this entire House.
This was a horrific and brutal attack, and the PSNI is seeking to provide support and reassurance to the local community. The Chief Constable, to whom I have spoken twice this morning, and his officers have our full, unwavering support as they pursue their inquiries. I would also like to repeat their appeal not to share or repost footage of the attack out of respect for the victim’s family.
I echo the words of the Prime Minister this morning that there is no place for such violence on our streets. All of us have a responsibility now to urge calm and let the police do their job.
Gavin Robinson
Mr Speaker, may I first thank you for granting this urgent question? The attempted murder in Belfast last night was chilling. What has been seen by thousands already across the country cannot be unseen. It was medieval—the systematic mutilation and attempted slaughter of a citizen of Belfast on our streets. My prayers are with the victim. I praise the brave man who, with a hurl in his hand, intervened to save his neighbour’s life, and this House should praise him too.
What occurred last night will have profound implications for community cohesion in this country. This needs to be a time for honesty, openness and truth. Will the Secretary of State confirm that he and his Government recognise that uncontrolled immigration needs to end? Will he confirm that the Government need to reassure and protect our population, who for too long have had their concerns ignored?
Knowing that the Secretary of State, the Chief Constable and I share a concern that there could be violence, I express my wish and our collective desire for calm, but community cohesion lies on the precipice. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the actions last night in no way reflect or represent the values of our nation, and that the victim belongs in Belfast but the attacker does not? Having abused the privilege of our nation, the perpetrator—living in the UK under a five-year visa—needs to be convicted and deported on the first flight out with a one-way ticket.
Hilary Benn
First, the footage that many people have seen is, indeed, truly horrifying. On the right hon. Gentleman’s last point, as he will be well aware, any foreign national who abuses the hospitality of this country to commit crimes should be in no doubt of our determination to deport them. We need to allow the criminal justice process to take place. On his question about net migration, as he will know, it is now down 82% from the peak reached under the previous Government.
I would most particularly echo what the right hon. Gentleman said in appealing for calm, because we have seen previously in Belfast in August 2024 and in Ballymena in 2025 what happens after horrific incidents. When there is disorder on the streets, it is the communities that suffer; it is innocent people who suffer and whose lives can be put at risk. That is why all political leaders—all—have such a solemn responsibility to urge the calm that I have called for in my response to his question today.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his response, and I thank the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) for asking this urgent question. As a member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, I have visited Belfast on several occasions, and I have been struck by the incredible community spirit of that incredible city. What we witnessed last night was the worst of humanity but also the best of humanity; it is incredible that bystanders came to the aid of an individual suffering a brutal attack. Can the Secretary of State assure me that the PSNI will be given every resource it needs to conduct a swift investigation and ensure that all facts are shared with the public? Can we also ensure that those brave people who rushed to the aid of one of our own countrymen are given the honour and reward they deserve for representing the best of humanity?
Hilary Benn
I know from the conversations I have had with the Chief Constable this morning that the PSNI is, of course, as the House would expect, treating this with the utmost seriousness and pursuing its inquiries. We need to let the police investigation and, in due course, any criminal justice process take place. I am in favour of as much information being shared as soon as possible, and I can report to the House that the PSNI will be holding a press conference in approximately five and a half minutes’ time to provide more information about the incident. I join my hon. Friend in expressing the hope that the bravery we saw on the streets of north Belfast last night may, in due time, be recognised.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
I echo the Secretary of State’s comments in condemning this dreadful attack. Last night’s attack in north Belfast was horrifying, appalling and deeply disturbing. This was a brutal act of violence that will send shockwaves through the local community and cause huge concern across the city, Northern Ireland and the whole of the United Kingdom. My thoughts, and I am sure those of the whole House, are with the victim, whose condition has been described as serious. I also pay tribute to the PSNI and the members of the public who displayed remarkable courage in stepping in to confront the attacker before the police arrived.
The Police Service of Northern Ireland must be given the time and space to carry out a full and thorough investigation, and those responsible must face the full force of the law. However, given the understandable public concern surrounding the incident, it is vital that the facts are established and we have the transparency that people deserve. Can the Secretary of State confirm the immigration status of the attacker? If, as is reported, the attacker is a foreign national, what steps will the Home Office take?
The facts should be put on the public record urgently to avoid speculation and prevent an information vacuum, which the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation has warned about. If there have been failings on our borders, this will be yet another reminder that we do need stronger borders, which is why we believe it is time to leave the European convention on human rights. I encourage all who have evidence of the attack to come forward and support the PSNI in its investigation. I join the Secretary of State and all communities in condemning this horrific attack.
Hilary Benn
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments and the tone in which he expressed them, because I think it is very important that we act responsibly in these circumstances. I agree, as I have already indicated, that information should be made available to the public. To answer his very specific question, the proper procedure is for the PSNI to be in contact with the Home Office, which I know it has been, in order to establish the facts around the individual. As I say, it is proper that the police provide those, as they are leading the investigation, and I anticipate that more information will be made available shortly by the PSNI. That is the right and proper approach. However, I do not agree with what he said about the European convention on human rights. It is very important. We have it because it protects the liberty of all of us.
Hilary Benn
I agree with everything the hon. Gentleman said. I know that the PSNI is working hard to provide reassurance to the local community and to make arrangements for that reassurance to be visible in the face of those who, let us be frank in this House, will wish to use this terrible event to stir up trouble and disorder on the streets of Northern Ireland. I say that because we have seen it before. We do not wish to see it again. That is why all community leaders, politicians and others have such a responsibility to call for calm, as he so eloquently did.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his well-chosen and wise words, and for his answers. Tensions are inflamed, and I am aware of protests planned throughout my constituency. I am also aware that many of those who intend to attend do so not because they are frightened for their families alone, but because they feel that their fears are ignored when they make a good and grand statement. How can the Secretary of State and this Government ensure that people from Portavogie to Newtownards know that their right to peacefully protest is respected and, more than that, that their Government—my Government—will make changes for safety reasons as a matter of urgency?
Hilary Benn
I join the hon. Member in reasserting the right of every citizen of our country to protest peacefully, but we have seen in the past that there are those, provoked by others, who have sought to use that opportunity to then promote violence and disorder. I join the hon. Member in saying that of course everyone has the right to express their view through peaceful protest, but if we want to support the PSNI, the last thing people should be doing is stretching its resources across Northern Ireland to deal with protests that are not going to help anyone, and that are not going to assist in the furtherance of the investigation so that the perpetrator can be brought to face justice. That is the way we do things in our country, is it not?
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
We are all shocked by the sheer savagery of this attack. Indeed, the only bright spot in this orgy of violence was the brave intervention of local citizens, whose courage we salute. What I want to know, and what I know that my constituents want to hear, is what will be done to stop the importation of an alien culture that thinks it is appropriate to try to behead someone within the United Kingdom.
On the immigration status of this person, did they hold a visa before they came to the United Kingdom? Did they obtain a visa having come illegally to the United Kingdom? I think we are entitled to know. This House should be getting its information from the Secretary of State, not from a chief constable’s press conference. The House is entitled to know, because truth and transparency are the greatest antidote to rising tensions, so can we have the answers?
Hilary Benn
I am sorry that the hon. and learned Gentleman used the words “alien culture”; what exactly is he referring to? What the British people have had enough of is anyone, from wherever they come and whatever their background, who seeks to commit violence against citizens of the United Kingdom. That is what we together are strongly opposed to.
There is a proper procedure that needs to be followed in relation to the release of information. It is a live investigation and it is right and proper that the police lead on that, which is why it is the police who have been in touch with the Home Office and will provide further information. As soon as I am able to update the House, I will do so. I am in favour of as much information as possible being provided, once process has been followed to make sure that it can be confirmed.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
While I agree with virtually everything the Secretary of State said in his opening response, I really am baffled by his refusal to share with the House a piece of simple information. Did this person come legally into this country and have a five-year visa because he came legally, or was he given the visa after entering the country illegally? The information will come out sooner or later, and we have learned from similar terrible incidents that the longer it is withheld, the worse the rumour mill goes into action.
Hilary Benn
I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s last point, but it is very important in these circumstances to be absolutely sure about the facts before they are released. The proper vehicle for doing that is the PSNI being in touch with the Home Office, which is what has been happening this morning. As the right hon. Gentleman may be aware, the police originally said they believed the perpetrator to be of one nationality, but it may well turn out that he is in fact of another nationality. That demonstrates the point I am trying to put to the House: it is important that the police lead on that so that the full facts can come out, and then they can be made available to the House and to the country.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
Of course, the Secretary of State will know the answer to this question: did the assailant enter the United Kingdom as an illegal migrant or asylum seeker?
Hilary Benn
Until I am in a position, by talking the—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman has asked me a question; will he do me the courtesy of allowing me to answer it? Until I am in a position to have that information confirmed, I cannot confirm it to the House. As soon as I can, I will, but, as I have already explained, the PSNI is leading on answering the very legitimate question that the hon. Gentleman has asked.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
The right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) described the incident as “medieval”. It was not just medieval: what we saw happen on the streets of the United Kingdom was pure evil. While tribute has been paid to those members of the general public who stepped in and the emergency services that responded, may I seek reassurance from the Secretary of State that those members of the general public who stepped in will be recognised and will not be persecuted or prosecuted for the actions they took in regard to attacking that individual? I encourage the Secretary of State to come forward and fill the vacuum of information, because he knows more than he is telling the House at this minute about this incident.
Hilary Benn
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it was an act of pure evil. I am surprised he suggests that there is any possibility that those who came to the aid of the victim should be at risk of prosecution, because they were trying—[Interruption.] Judging by the footage, they were trying to save the victim when the attacker was trying to inflict great harm upon him. My judgment, having looked at that, is that what they did was proportionate and fair, but that is for others to judge. It is important that they are recognised. I have already indicated to the House that as soon as I have information that is confirmed and that I can be sure of, I will inform the House.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Tens of thousands of people are horrified at the circulation online of the video that the Secretary of State has alluded to. He quite rightly congratulates the members of the public who intervened—whether it was a hurl bat or a cricketing bat, they took action—but as tension rises, we now need to see Government action to restrict and inhibit people arriving in this country illegally, some of whom carry out actions like we saw on the streets of Belfast last night.
Hilary Benn
The hon. Gentleman will be well aware of the action that the Government are taking to deal with illegal migration. I have also made clear to the House the steps that we take if anyone, however they came to the country, or whether they are from this country, commits a criminal offence: they will face due process. Any foreign national, regardless of how they came, who abuses our hospitality and commits crimes can expect to be deported at the end of their sentence.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
My thoughts are very much with the victim of the horrific attack last night, and I echo the calls for calm in our communities. Communities in Northern Ireland are angry: they are demanding answers and they deserve answers, but sadly I do not feel they are getting those answers today. It is not lost on the people of north Belfast who in this place today is speaking up for working-class communities that are very concerned about uncontrolled immigration and the fact that mayors will not even say how many houses they have full of immigrants.
Was this individual known to the authorities? How many others from the same country are currently being accommodated in Northern Ireland? How did they enter the UK? What actions are this Government taking to prevent the abuse of our immigration system, including via the land border with the Republic of Ireland?
Hilary Benn
I say to the hon. Member that the public are right to be angry about what they witnessed in that appalling video and what they will have heard about the attack that took place. I will endeavour to come back to her on some of the questions she has asked but, as I have already indicated to the House, other answers will be provided in due course once the facts have been checked. It is really important that the facts are checked before information is given to the House, because I would not want to stand here and say something that turns out not to be the case. Checking the facts thoroughly is a responsibility on me before I inform the House, and that is what I intend to do.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
I echo the sentiments of other Members and send my thoughts and prayers to the victim of this horrific attack. May I also extend my gratitude to those in the local community who bravely intervened? We must all encourage calm at this most troubling time and prevent tensions from being further inflamed. To that end, does the Secretary of State agree that we must not let the heinous actions of one person be taken as an opportunity to taint an entire community? We should not and must not attempt to fill the gaps in the story while the police investigation continues to deliver justice to the victim and their family.
Hilary Benn
I do agree with the hon. Gentleman. I think back to those who were attacked in the wake of the terrible events in Southport and in Ballymena. We know that in Northern Ireland certain individuals were attacked who had nothing to do with any of it, simply because of the colour of their skin. That is not what this country is about. We must identify an attacker and follow due process in due course after investigation, but we must not cast aspersions on a whole community. Many people from all backgrounds contribute so much to our national life.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Following on from that question, I also give my deepest sympathies to the victim and his family, and pay tribute to the bystanders who intervened in this horrific case. Does the Secretary of State agree that, as he has already expressed, crime and heroes come in all different hues and colours? We saw that on the train in Cambridgeshire and with the stabber of the Saudi student in the picturesque streets of Cambridge last year. It does not matter which background people come from. It is the responsibility of Members of this House to temper the inflammatory remarks so that we do not see actions like those last week in Southampton, where innocent police officers have had to go into hiding.
Hilary Benn
We all have a responsibility, by our actions and our words, not to inflame and, as I indicated in answering the original question from the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), we all have a responsibility to plead for calm in these circumstances. That is the right thing to do on behalf of all the people of Northern Ireland.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
Calm is essential after this horrific, brutal attack—we all know that. The Secretary of State has referred to further information coming out as we speak. Will he commit to return to the House, later today if possible, to update us on the important information about the suspect, and any other information?
Hilary Benn
I am very happy to say to the hon. Gentleman that I will report to the House in an appropriate form as soon as I am able to do so.
Oral Answers to Questions
Hilary Benn Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
Before answering, I pay tribute to Sir Desmond Rea who died recently. He played an important role in the peace process in Northern Ireland, particularly through the transformation of policing as the first chair of the Northern Ireland Policing Board. I am sure the whole House will join me in sending condolences to his family.
I welcome the clarity provided by the Supreme Court in the Dillon case, which has confirmed that the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery is capable of delivering human rights-compliant investigations and reaffirms the Government’s position on the interpretation and application of article 2 of the Windsor framework.
Peter Swallow
Terrorists were responsible for the vast majority of deaths during the troubles. Many of those murders remain unsolved, and the last Tory Government’s Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 sought to offer immunity to the perpetrators. Does the Secretary of State agree that that is wrong in principle, and can he provide an update on when he plans to move the approval motion for the remedial order to repeal it in the other place?
Hilary Benn
I agree with my hon. Friend that seeking to give immunity to terrorists who committed the most terrible crimes, including the killing of police officers, soldiers and many members of the public, was profoundly wrong. It is also wrong in principle. On the remedial order, now that we have the Dillon judgment we will be bringing it forward as soon as parliamentary time allows.
Fleur Anderson
The Supreme Court found wholly in the Government’s favour. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Government now have a responsibility to put in place legislation that delivers justice for victims and survivors of the troubles, who are both civilians and veterans, and that upholds the special duty of care to veterans?
Hilary Benn
I do indeed agree with my hon. Friend—that is exactly what the troubles Bill will do. It is essential to build confidence across all communities, which the legacy Act failed to do, to put in place protections for our veterans and to enable all families who are seeking answers to request information through a reformed legacy commission.
Phil Brickell
As the proud son of a Northern Ireland veteran myself, I wish to put on the record my eternal gratitude to the brave men and women of our armed forces who served our nation in Operation Banner. With that in mind, can the Secretary of State reiterate to the House how many veterans have been convicted for offences committed during the troubles and how that compares with the number of paramilitaries who have been successfully prosecuted?
Hilary Benn
I ask my hon. Friend to pass on my thanks and, I am sure, the thanks of the whole House for his father’s service. He and all those who served deserve our eternal gratitude. As my hon. Friend knows, the number of service personnel convicted of troubles-related offences was very small—only one in the last 28 years—whereas between 25,000 and 35,000 paramilitaries were sent to prison during the troubles. Of the current 10 live cases, eight relate to paramilitaries accused of killing or attempting to kill soldiers and police officers—paramilitaries whom the last Government wanted to give immunity to.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
Does the Secretary of State agree that the Supreme Court judgment in the Dillon case reinforces vital legal protections for our security forces, creating a more secure environment? Will he join me in thanking the courageous men and women of our army and police who fought and defeated terrorism with integrity?
Hilary Benn
I will certainly join the hon. Member in expressing those thanks to all those who served with such distinction in Northern Ireland during the troubles to keep people safe. The Dillon judgment has provided extremely important clarity about the correct interpretation of the Windsor framework, as I said a moment ago. It also reinforces the case that the Government make: that we need to put protections for veterans, which were not contained in the last legacy Act, on the statute book.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
I welcome the rebuff in the Dillon judgment for the article 2 expansionist demands of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and of the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland. Does the Secretary of State accept that rights in Northern Ireland must evolve according to United Kingdom law, not European Union law? Thus, on the gender issue, does he accept that the ruling of the Supreme Court on the supremacy of biological sex must prevail?
Hilary Benn
That is indeed what the Supreme Court found in that particular important case. The Equality Act 2010 applies in only limited ways in Northern Ireland, as the hon. and learned Member knows. I agree with him on his first point. The Government took the appeal because they felt that the interpretation of the Windsor framework, particularly article 2, by the Northern Ireland courts was too broad. The Supreme Court has agreed with the Government and said that it is a much more narrow interpretation, relating to the troubles, not the expansive interpretation that we have previously seen.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
May I echo the Secretary of State’s comments in relation to the sad passing of Sir Desmond Rea?
In response to the Dillon judgment, a Northern Ireland spokesperson said on 7 May:
“We welcome the clarity provided today by the Supreme Court, which has confirmed that the ICRIR is fully equipped to deliver human rights-compliant investigations”.
Does the Secretary of State therefore accept that the courts have determined that the ICRIR as presently constituted is sufficiently independent to conduct its investigations? If so, why is there any need to make these cumbersome changes in his proposed Bill?
Hilary Benn
As I have said from the Dispatch Box many times before, the courts had previously found that the ICRIR was independent. The Supreme Court has dealt with the two particular issues identified by the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland. I have already indicated to the House that the Government propose to make amendments to the disclosure provisions, which I think are right and proper compared with those that were contained in the legacy Act. It remains the case that the last legacy Act did not command confidence on the part of all—[Interruption.] It is no good hon. Members on the Conservative Front Bench shaking their heads; it did not command confidence on the part of all communities in Northern Ireland, and that is why the changes are necessary.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
The Secretary of State will know that the howls of outrage from the article 2 expansionists have been proven to be wrong, yet those same howls of outrage have been repeated ad nauseum by the Irish Government. They continue with their state case against this country and they continue to assert that there is an incompatibility with the ICRIR. In doing so, they refuse to respond to the requests of victims; they have not responded once to the ICRIR’s requests for information from the Guards; and, as the Secretary of State heard with the victim in our presence just last week, the much-fêted Garda unit does not even answer the phone. Will he now challenge the Irish Republican Government to withdraw their case and to recognise compatibility with article 2?
Hilary Benn
As I have said to the right hon. Gentleman a number of times before, the Government’s view, which is reinforced by the Dillon judgment, is that the legislation that we are bringing forward, combined with the judgment, means that there is no basis for the inter-state case; but it is a matter for the Irish Government to take a decision about what they do about that. The other argument for the legislation that we are putting forward is that it will enable precisely the co-operation that the right hon. Gentleman is seeking and that will be so important to many families in Northern Ireland, including the families of service and police personnel who were killed and injured during the troubles. There may well be information that the Irish Government can now provide, and that is another strong argument for the legislation.
Gavin Robinson
The Secretary of State must know that victims in Northern Ireland would like him to stand up for them, to challenge the excess and the eccentricities of the Republic of Ireland Government, and to ensure, when they promise that they will provide information, that they do, and that their reluctance to do so has now been proven hollow. Gender has already been mentioned and he knows that the Dillon case was silent on some of the other expansionist parts of the quest on article 2. He has indicated his support for the Supreme Court’s view, but will he ensure that he defends that view in court?
Hilary Benn
I reject the suggestion that in some way I am not standing up for victims, because the legislation that we have brought forward is about trying to give confidence to all victims in Northern Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman was one of many critics the immunity provisions in the legacy Act, which had no support in Northern Ireland, did not command support from any of the political parties, was wrong in principle and was never even commenced by the last Government. In relation to the Irish Government, we should judge each other by the steps that we take. Since we last had an exchange on this matter, the Irish Government have now legislated—it is just awaiting the Irish President’s signature—to enable witness evidence to be given to the Omagh bombing inquiry. That is a sign of the Irish Government’s good faith.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
The Northern Ireland Troubles Bill will return to the House early this Session. In the meantime, I have been consulting widely on the legislation. I will bring forward amendments designed to improve the process for victims, to further safeguard veterans, and to differentiate between the roles played by security forces and paramilitary terrorists.
Lincoln Jopp
In the Secretary of State’s wide consultation, did he consult General Sir Nick Parker, who suggested that there should be no further criminal investigations, inquests, inquiries or prosecutions unless there is new and compelling evidence that was not available at the time of the event?
Hilary Benn
I have consulted and met a wide range of people. I have seen the amendment that has been tabled, which we will come to when the Bill is in Committee, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is already provision in the Bill for protection from repeated investigations unless the commission regards them as essential. I recognise, however, the need to build upon what we have already in the Bill, and that will be visible when the amendments are published.
David Reed
In the previous Session, the troubles Bill drew criticism from nine former four-star generals, regimental associations and veterans across the country. The Defence Secretary told this House earlier this week that he had “dealt with their concerns” and would make “significant amendments”, but every time we ask for detail, we are stonewalled. Will the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland lay out today exactly what protections he is proposing and guarantee that no veteran will be hounded through the courts?
Hilary Benn
We are looking at amendments to improve the process for families, to further safeguard our Operation Banner veterans and to ensure oversight of how the protections work. We will make it clear that there is no equivalence, and never was, between the actions of terrorists and the conduct of our armed forces and the police in trying to protect life. We will ensure that coroners and the commission take proper account of the circumstances in which our armed forces were operating. All those things will be consistent with the joint framework and with the Government’s human rights obligations, and I would hope that the Opposition would welcome them all.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
During our Committee’s inquiry on legacy, we heard serious concerns from victims and survivors about the Government’s approach to information disclosure. In the Dillon case, the Supreme Court showed a significant degree of deference to Government on national security grounds. What reassurances can the Secretary of State give to families and survivors that national security will not be invoked to withhold information simply because it is uncomfortable for the state, rather than because its disclosure would present a genuine risk to the public?
Hilary Benn
As my hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee knows only too well, responsibility for national security ultimately rests with Ministers, and the Dillon and the Thompson judgments confirmed that. As I have already indicated, I have proposed changes to the disclosure provisions in the Bill, including requiring the Secretary of State to conduct a balancing exercise when considering each case and also to give reasons. The Supreme Court made it clear that the Secretary of State does not have a veto, because any decision can be subject to judicial review.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
The Secretary of State will have seen reports in the Belfast Telegraph that prior to 1985, a large part of the gelignite used in IRA bombs was routinely stolen from a single factory in County Meath in the Republic. The supply amounted to many tonnes of explosives, and it took the lives of many hundreds of people. At the time, British intelligence repeatedly raised concerns with Dublin. Nothing was done, despite the factory’s allegedly being in receipt of Irish state subsidy. Following those revelations, will the Secretary of State commit to writing to the Taoiseach to ask him to hold an urgent public inquiry into the Enfield explosives factory?
Hilary Benn
I have indeed seen the reports to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. As I have explained, one purpose of the troubles Bill is to facilitate co-operation with the Irish authorities in relation to all these matters. We cannot undo the past, but what we can do is provide information for those whose lives were lost as a result of the use of those explosives, through full co-operation between the Irish authorities and the legacy commission. We require the Bill to make that happen.
Alex Burghart
With all due respect, the Secretary of State did not answer my question. This is an extraordinary missing piece of the puzzle in the story of the troubles—in the story of how the IRA obtained weapons that killed people in our country. The Secretary of State is perfectly within his rights to raise this with his opposite numbers, and to ask them to conduct a full public inquiry on behalf of the victims. Will he do so?
Hilary Benn
Since the hon. Gentleman has raised the matter directly with me, I undertake to him—and to the House—to raise it with the Irish authorities, because they will have seen the exchange that he and I have just had.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
The May review of the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery describes a “toxic”, “divided” and “disrespectful” senior culture, along with structural weaknesses in the governing legislation. It also raises concerns that the Government’s forthcoming troubles Bill will make matters worse. However, in his response to the review, the Secretary of State appeared to suggest that it was simply up to the ICRIR to sort this out, although the ICRIR is sponsored by his Department, the review was commissioned by his Department, and his Department is now legislating to rebadge this failing body as the legacy commission.
Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether he accepts that he is ultimately responsible for Peter May’s 19 recommendations being followed? Will he also give us an update on whether the Northern Ireland Office plan is still on schedule, and explain how the troubles Bill is to be amended to remedy the structural shortcomings exposed in the review?
Hilary Benn
The responsibility is held jointly with the independent commission established under the legislation put in place by the last Government. Some of the things that have been uncovered are evidence of why we need to reform the way in which the commission works, which is what the troubles Bill will seek to do. We have a joint plan on which we are working together. I have made my displeasure very clear to every single one of those who sit on the legacy commission board, because what was found is not acceptable. However, we must acknowledge that the report also said the commission had a great many committed staff, and nothing must get in the way of their carrying on with their work to find answers for families.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
Northern Ireland: Springhill Inquest Findings
Hilary Benn Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
I am making this written ministerial statement following the findings of the Springhill inquest, which investigated the 1972 killings at Springhill and Westrock of Father Noel Fitzpatrick, Patrick Butler, Margaret Gargan, David McCafferty, and John Dougal.
While many of those serving were operating in a challenging environment, the coroner’s findings are clear: it was not reasonable for soldiers to have fired the shots that caused these five deaths. The Government accept and deeply regret these findings and recognises their gravity. It is the duty of the state to hold itself to the highest standards. This includes acknowledging and apologising where it has fallen short.
On behalf of the Government, I would like to join the Prime Minister in placing on record my sincere apology for what happened and for the grief and trauma experienced by their families. Their loved ones should not have been killed. And while no apology can lessen their enduring pain, I hope that the families may take some measure of comfort from the answers they have secured. This Government are determined to ensure that, in future, families can obtain answers without such distress and long delay.
We owe an enormous debt of gratitude to our armed forces, including those who served in Northern Ireland during the troubles and helped to create the conditions for peace. The vast majority of those who served did so with great distinction, honour and professionalism. It is also clear that in some cases terrible errors were made, and the state must never shy away from this.
As the coroner noted, some of those serving had already lost colleagues during their time in Northern Ireland. They were operating in a challenging environment, which contributed to what the coroner described as a “hyper-vigilant and highly defensive” mindset. They were none the less required to use only such force as was reasonable in the circumstances, which did not happen in this case.
Any loss of civilian life in situations involving the use of lethal force by military personnel is profoundly regrettable. The Government are determined to learn lessons and do all they can to prevent such tragedies in future.
The events at Springhill and Westrock form part of the complex legacy of the troubles, which affected so many families and communities across Northern Ireland and more widely. This Government remain firmly committed to enabling victims of the troubles and their families to seek information and acknowledgment, including through the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill which I am currently taking through Parliament.
I am placing a copy of the coroner’s findings in the Library of the House.
[HCWS84]
Supreme Court Dillon Judgment
Hilary Benn Excerpts(2 months, 1 week 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, I will make a statement on the recent Supreme Court judgment in the case of Dillon and others. It is a complex judgment, but I thought it right to come to the House at the first available opportunity to summarise its main findings.
The case was originally brought against the previous Government following the passage of the legacy Act—the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act—in 2023. The applicants, a group of families who lost loved ones during the troubles, argued that various provisions of the legacy Act undermined rights protected by article 2 of the Windsor framework and by the Human Rights Act 1998, which gives effect to the European convention on human rights.
In February 2024, the High Court of Northern Ireland found the conditional immunity scheme and other provisions of the legacy Act to be incompatible with our obligations under articles 2 and 3 of the European convention on human rights. Those findings were endorsed in September 2024 by the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal. It also made judgments that two additional matters with regard to investigations by the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery—namely, next-of-kin participation in investigations and the role of the Secretary of State in decisions about the disclosure of sensitive information—did not meet the standard required to be compatible with the ECHR.
This Government have been clear that we are opposed to aspects of the legacy Act, including immunity. That scheme, which would have offered immunity to terrorists, had no support in Northern Ireland or from victims and their families. It was wrong in principle and provided no effective protections for veterans, not least because the provisions were never commenced by the previous Government. That is why, when we came into government, we immediately withdrew the appeal on immunity. However, the Court of Appeal’s interpretation of article 2 of the Windsor framework and its findings on next-of-kin participation and disclosure had wider implications for the Government’s ability to legislate effectively across the UK and protect national security. It was for those reasons that the Government appealed against that judgment to the Supreme Court. I am pleased to report that last week the Supreme Court upheld our appeal, finding wholly in the Government’s favour.
Article 2 of the Windsor framework ensures that there is no diminution of rights, safeguards or equality of opportunity in Northern Ireland as a result of the UK leaving the European Union. The Government are firmly committed to those human rights and equalities provisions but felt that article 2 had been interpreted too broadly by the lower courts. The Supreme Court’s judgment has provided important clarity on this question and confirmed the Government’s long-standing position that the rights protected by article 2 of the Windsor framework are those concerned with ending the sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland. While reaffirming the Government’s position on this matter, the Supreme Court found that the relevant provisions of the legacy Act should not have been disapplied by article 2 of the Windsor framework. The purpose of bringing the appeal was to obtain clarity on how article 2 should be interpreted in the future, not to defend immunity.
On next-of-kin participation and disclosure of information, the Supreme Court found that the commission is currently capable of conducting investigations that are compliant with our obligations under the European convention on human rights. The Supreme Court also concluded that the provision of legal aid for the cross-examination of witnesses is not always necessary for an investigation to be fully compliant with human rights. However, the Government recognise the importance of next-of-kin involvement in the reformed Legacy Commission’s inquisitorial proceedings, and we are providing for that in the troubles Bill.
On disclosure, the Supreme Court was unequivocal, saying that
“there must be a system restricting disclosure in circumstances where disclosure may or would risk prejudicing the national security interests of the United Kingdom”,
but it went on to say that
“the Secretary of State does not have an unrestrained power to ‘veto’ the disclosure of information”
and that
“any decision to do so is subject to challenge by way of judicial review.”
This Government are committed to ensuring the maximum possible disclosure of information while protecting life and national security, hence the changes I am bringing forward in the troubles Bill to create a fairer disclosure regime with greater transparency in how decisions are made.
I now turn to what this means for the question of immunity. Contrary to what has been claimed by some, the UK Supreme Court has not endorsed the immunity scheme—it remains incompatible with our human rights obligations. It is also important to dispel the suggestion that the Government do not have the power to make the remedial order. As I have previously made clear, the conditions for laying a remedial order under the Human Rights Act are that:
“An appeal brought within that time has been determined or abandoned.”
The Government’s appeal regarding the immunity scheme in the legacy Act had already been abandoned. The Supreme Court recognised that, and therefore that was not an issue before it, but it did state very clearly that no exceptions in case law exist to justify the granting of immunity for breaches of articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR.
Finally, I want to make clear why, although we welcome the Supreme Court’s determination of certain aspects of the legacy Act, we cannot leave the statute book as it is. The central underpinning of the legacy Act, which was the immunity scheme, was wrong and has failed, so we need a new system. The troubles Bill is essential for a number of reasons. First, while we know that the commission is capable of doing investigations, it has not delivered so far and it must be reformed. The Bill will implement various changes to address these matters, including reformed governance and enhanced investigatory functions.
Secondly, we need the Bill to avoid endless legal disputes in future—for example, the clauses on interim custody orders will put beyond doubt that the Carltona principle applied in the context of those orders. The Bill will also ensure that all troubles-related cases can be investigated, one way or another.
Thirdly, there is the issue of Irish co-operation. Currently, no information is being shared by the Irish authorities with the commission; the Bill will enable that to happen for the first time, helping to find answers for the relatives of those who were murdered, including service personnel who served our country.
Fourthly, the Bill will enable information to be provided to families through the new Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery. Fifthly, we need new and effective safeguards for our veterans and other former service personnel. Crucially, the legacy Act did not provide those protections, and we have developed them for veterans and others who served. As I have made clear, we will be bringing forward more provisions in Committee in response to veterans’ concerns. Simply returning to the legacy Act would leave veterans without immunity or any protections whatsoever.
I am grateful to the Supreme Court for its careful consideration of these matters, and I welcome its judgment. I hope that the combination of this ruling and legislative progress on the troubles Bill will mean that all communities affected in Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom can have confidence that a reformed legacy commission will be able, where possible, to provide answers to those who have waited far too long to find out what happened to their loved ones.
I commend this statement to the House.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
As is traditional, I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, in that—as he said himself—the judgment in the Dillon case is a complex one. We on the Conservative Benches certainly agree. I suspect that this judgment will be pored over and, indeed, argued over at considerable length, not least in the other place should Labour’s benighted troubles Bill ever make it there.
I will just make a point about immunity, and the concept that lay behind the Conservatives’ Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. I was serving on the Select Committee on Defence under my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis)—an excellent Chairman—when, in 2017, we produced an extremely detailed report on this complex issue. In fairness, I think the Secretary of State has read that report. What was proposed by the Select Committee is akin to what the legacy Act turned out to be, and that in turn was based on the South African truth and reconciliation commission.
We never legislated for absolute immunity for anybody; we legislated for conditional immunity, so that if someone who was involved in a troubles-related fatality came forward to give evidence to the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery—I will return to the commission in a moment—the commission could judge whether they had fully co-operated with it, such as by revealing the burial place of one of the so-called disappeared. If the commission believed that that individual had genuinely co-operated in good faith, they would be granted immunity. If not—if the commission felt that that person was lying, dissembling or trying to hide something—the commission could recommend that a prosecution still go ahead. Contrary to the Government’s position, the legacy Act and ICRIR, which the Act established, only ever allowed for conditional immunity. It is important to put that on the record this morning.
I have three specific questions for the Secretary of State about his statement. First, will he say a bit more about the relationship between the Dillon judgment and the Windsor framework? He touched on it, but can he expand? Secondly, as he knows, many of the cases brought against veterans were funded by legal aid in Northern Ireland. He referred very briefly to the implications for legal aid, but can he say something more about that? Thirdly, we heard at business questions a few minutes ago that the Armed Forces Bill will be returning to the House in Committee on 2 June. I was quite involved with that Bill. Under its programme motion, the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill has two days for Committee and remaining stages. When do the Government plan to bring it back to the Floor of the House? Perhaps he could answer that specifically.
I am sad to say that Labour has been cynical today. I humbly remind the Secretary of State that when we debated and voted on the related remedial order back on 21 January, almost a third of the Labour parliamentary party abstained, famously including the Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns). As we all know, he is otherwise occupied today. Even the current Prime Minister abstained. He blew the whistle and sent his troops over the top to vote for this benighted legislation that he did not have the courage to vote for himself.
That brings me to encapsulating exactly what is going on today. While this Government prepare to tear themselves to pieces over a mixture of post-electoral fear and vaulting ambition, what is the Labour party’s absolute priority this morning? It is to advance legislation to facilitate the prosecution of brave Northern Ireland veterans, many of whom gave their lives to uphold the rule of law in Northern Ireland—in essence, to defend all of this around us today. That sums up the Labour party. It has clearly chosen today as a not-so-good day to bury bad news. The very bad news is that despite all its protestations to the contrary, Labour would rather help Sinn Féin chase those who fought for their country. The public will see this for what it is: not a complex legal treatise, but a disgrace.
Hilary Benn
I can agree with the right hon. Gentleman when he describes the judgment as a complex one; he is absolutely right about that. I should make it clear that protected disclosure relating to the location of remains of those murdered by the IRA—in almost all cases, they were buried in the Republic of Ireland—is covered by separate arrangements that were introduced when the independent commission for the location of victims’ remains was created. That had support right across Northern Ireland, because people rightly judged that the most important thing was to enable families to be reunited with the remains of their loved ones. Sadly, there are four individuals whose remains have not yet been found.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about the conditional immunity scheme. The fact remains that if a terrorist who committed one of many horrendous crimes—some of which are being investigated at the moment, such as the M62 coach bombing, what happened at Warrenpoint and the Kingsmill massacre—came to the commission and told the full truth, the last Government’s legislation said that the commission “must”, not “may”, grant them immunity from prosecution.
Hilary Benn
Well, I am afraid it is not a question of nuance. The reason why—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Shadow Minister, you asked the questions; please allow the Secretary of State to answer them without interruption.
Hilary Benn
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the reason why the immunity provisions had no support from any of the political parties in Northern Ireland and no support from victims and survivors’ organisations in Northern Ireland was that people were outraged by the suggestion that terrorists who committed appalling crimes should be able to walk away scot-free because of those immunity provisions. He also has to recognise that immunity remains incompatible with our human rights obligations.
I turn to the three specific questions that the right hon. Gentleman asked. The first was about the interrelationship between the Dillon judgment and the Windsor framework. Clearly a very important part of the judgment is to do with the Windsor framework. In essence, the issue before the Supreme Court was this: was article 2 of the Windsor framework correctly interpreted by the courts in Northern Ireland when they decided to disapply the immunity provisions and in effect struck them down? The Court said clearly that that was incorrect.
The Government brought the appeal because, although we disagree with immunity as a matter of principle and believe that it never existed, that judgment of the courts in Northern Ireland raised a much bigger question, which could be interpreted in other ways in respect of other policies; hon. Members will have seen some of the issues to do with immigration. That is why the Government brought the appeal, and we now have clarity that article 2 applies to certain things, but it is not capable of the broad interpretation that the Northern Ireland courts had given to it.
Secondly, legal aid is a matter for the Northern Ireland Executive as it is their responsibility.
On the troubles Bill, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, it is a carry-over Bill, and its Committee stage will come early in this new Session. I do not accept what he said about the Bill for the very simple reason that, as he well knows, the basis on which any decisions are taken about prosecutions has not changed and will not change under the legislation that the Government are bringing before the House.
Everybody recognises that with the passage of time, for reasons that all of us understand—and the facts demonstrate it—the chance of further, future prosecutions is rapidly diminishing. I also remind the right hon. Gentleman that any decisions about prosecutions are taken independently by independent prosecuting authorities.
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
With respect to the shadow Minister, I have to say as someone who ran peacemaking programmes in Northern Ireland and who did a master’s dissertation on the South African truth and reconciliation commission that, sadly, the legacy Act came nowhere near replicating that. Does the Secretary of State agree that as we take forward the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, we do have both a responsibility to the victims and the survivors and a special duty to our veterans, and that there does not need to be a false dichotomy in creating legislation that supports both groups?
Hilary Benn
I very much agree with my hon. Friend. In the end, the legacy Act failed because it did not command support across all communities in Northern Ireland. How can we hope to make progress if that is the case? What we are trying to do, with the support and scrutiny of the House, is to come up with a system that is fair and reasonable but that enables those many families who are still searching for answers to find them. I hope that what I have said today provides some reassurance, in particular to those representing victims who were crestfallen on seeing parts of the Dillon judgment. I have tried to set out the Government’s commitment to ensuring that we have a system that can command confidence from all.
Hilary Benn
I agree with all of what the hon. Gentleman says about the failings of the 2023 legacy Act, and he has done the House a service in taking Members through the argument as to why it could not be sustained.
As I have repeatedly said to the House, protections are already contained in the troubles Bill, and we intend to bring forward more protections. We have had many discussions with veterans’ organisations, and my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary and I are determined to ensure that we treat our veterans fairly and with care. The protections will be published in advance of Committee, and then the House will have a chance to debate them. I look forward to that moment.
Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)
In Plymouth I represent very many veterans, lots of whom served in Northern Ireland, and I reflect on the fact that the state asked our people to do incredibly difficult things, at enormous personal risk and sacrifice, in a very particular context and with a particular political direction that they were deciphering at the time. Many of those difficult things were necessarily secret, and today we still ask our people to do incredibly difficult things—in secret, necessarily—at enormous personal risk and sacrifice. Many of those people are personal friends of mine. The 2023 legacy Act was unworkable, and we were elected on a manifesto to repeal and replace it. We should do that, but my constituents and my close friends are deeply concerned, as am I. Can the Secretary of State lay out how the troubles Bill will protect them in years to come from being forced into the courts by those who wish them ill?
Hilary Benn
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his representation of his constituents, and for what he has just said. I join him in paying tribute to those who served with such bravery in Northern Ireland. As he will be aware, the courts and coroners in Northern Ireland have on many occasions recognised the point that was made to the Prime Minister in the opening of the King’s Speech debate yesterday: members of our armed forces had to take split-second decisions. The courts recognise and understand that, and have on many occasions said that what they did was entirely lawful. Nobody who acted lawfully, in line with lawful orders, has anything to fear at all; indeed, the very small number of cases in which members of the armed forces have been convicted for offences during the troubles is evidence of that. The commitment that I give to my hon. Friend, and which I have already given to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, is that when we come to Committee, he will see the answer to the very fair question that he has put to me about the protections that we intend to put in place, and it will be made absolutely clear that there is no equivalence between those who sought to protect the public in Northern Ireland and those who tried to murder them.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. Unlike others, I have not had the benefit of reading it beforehand, so I hope that he will forgive me when I say that it is very high protein and will take a little while to process. To pick up on the remarks he just made to the hon. Member for Plymouth Moor View (Fred Thomas), with whom I serve on the Defence Committee, about bringing forward more provisions in Committee to respond to veterans’ concerns, the Bill was carried over on a promise that that would be done, so will he update the House on the status of discussions with veterans’ groups to give us some reassurance? Is he in a position to say that they now fully agree with the provisions to protect veterans, which were so lacking in previous versions of the Bill?
Hilary Benn
I am grateful to the hon. Member for his comments, not least because of his service. As he will know, we have been engaged in very close discussion and consultation with many organisations representing veterans. The honest answer to his question is that people will make a judgment when they see the detail of the amendments that the Government are committed to bringing forward, and those amendments will then be carefully scrutinised and debated in the House. Again, we have to strike a balance that is fair and proper, but I assure him that the Government are extremely seized of their obligations to make sure that the arrangements that we put in place are fair to veterans.
What is not fair is to pretend that somehow the immunity provisions contained in the legacy Act were ever going to work. We now know that they were not going to work, they have been found to be incompatible, they had no support in Northern Ireland and they were never commenced by the last Government. We do no service to our veterans by continuing to argue, as some have done, that that is the alternative—it is not.
Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
The Opposition say that we are somehow letting terrorists off the hook, but is the Secretary of State able to tell the House how many prosecutions there were for terrorist offences during the troubles and how many live prosecutions there are now?
Hilary Benn
The estimates are that between 25,000 and 35,000 paramilitaries were convicted for offences, including murder, bombings and other things, during the course of the troubles. There were four soldiers convicted of troubles-related offences during that time, one of whom was freed on appeal. Since the Good Friday agreement, there has been one conviction of a member of the armed forces, who received a suspended sentence. There are currently 10 live prosecutions, eight of which relate to paramilitaries, including people accused of killing members of the police and our armed forces. That lays to rest the argument that I have heard from some that the paramilitaries are not being pursued any more—that is not the case. Of the two other cases, one relates to the Royal Ulster Constabulary and one relates to members of our armed forces. That gives a very clear indication of where the balance of evidence and effort currently lies.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for his and his Government’s clarity, which is helpful. This Parliament is the supreme lawmaking body of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and courts must interpret laws, not rewrite them or strike them down based on political sensitivities. That has been made clear and the Windsor framework overreach, weaponised by the courts to override domestic UK human rights and criminal justice legislation, has been rightly stopped, and we thank the Government for that. When will the Northern Ireland Office instruct every Government Department to cease their political games and to do their job and apply the law correctly?
Hilary Benn
I have the greatest respect for the hon. Gentleman, but I do not accept his characterisation or that it is right to accuse the courts of weaponising anything. The courts looked at the case before them and reached a judgment, but the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land and, in the Government’s view, its interpretation of article 2 of the Windsor framework was right: the courts did not have the power to disapply the immunity provisions. That is separate from whether immunity continues to be incompatible—as it does—with the European convention. Secondly, I cannot think of any case where Government Departments are not following the law as it is and as we now understand it to be as a result of a very clear finding by the Supreme Court. That is why I have welcomed that finding on behalf of the Government.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The Secretary of State says that soldiers who complied with a lawful order have nothing to fear. I did not serve in Northern Ireland but I did serve in Iraq and Afghanistan. I know that if I were hauled before the courts to recount my actions from 20-odd years ago to acquit myself, I would be extremely worried about the pressure that would place on me and on my colleagues.
The Secretary of State mentions that there will be changes to the Bill. For those veterans who were not privy to those conversations, will he outline some of the actions that he is prepared to take to address the parts of the Bill that he is not content with, so that they can have a better understanding of how this might change going forward? Members of this House would like to understand what those amendments are likely to be.
Hilary Benn
I quite understand why the hon. Gentleman makes that point, and I thank him for his service on behalf of our country. It is right and proper that it is the House of Commons that sees the detail of the amendments first, and I give the House that commitment.
In addition to what is in the troubles Bill—the hon. Gentleman will see what it says—I have indicated that we are looking at the question of equivalence. The argument has been made strongly to the Government by veterans and others, and I accept it. As I have said at this Dispatch Box on a number of occasions, of course there was no equivalence between those who served the state to protect the people of Northern Ireland and those who were seeking to kill.
We are also looking at how the protections can be overseen to ensure that they work in the way that the Government intended, and at the extent to which both coroners and the commission take into account the circumstances under which those who served were operating at the time, including around things such as orders, instructions and so on. Understanding the context in which split-second decisions were made by those who served is very important to ensuring that there is justice for all.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
Looking to the future, the troubles Bill makes no explicit link between legacy processes and long-term reconciliation initiatives, such as integrated education, sustained community dialogue and cross-community projects. Will the Secretary of State commit to developing a comprehensive reconciliation strategy that connects addressing the past with building a settled, shared future?
Hilary Benn
The hon. Member raises an extremely important point. As I am sure she is aware, our troubles Bill leaves in place part 4 of the legacy Act. Not everything in the 2023 Act was wrong, and that part deals with memorialisation and digitisation of records. I agree with the hon. Member that it is not either/or; these things need to be pursued in parallel. However, for people to be reconciled, it is really important that they are able to feel—in so far as it is possible; it will not be in all cases—that they have finally been given an answer as to how and at whose hands their loved ones died. That is such an important part of enabling people in Northern Ireland who still live in the shadow of the troubles to reconcile themselves with what happened—people come to that in very different ways, as I know from the many conversations that I have had—so that Northern Ireland’s society can move forward. It has already been transformed in the last 28 years and we all applaud that.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
As the Secretary of State has laid out, the Supreme Court in its Dillon judgment was not able to rule on whether the immunity provisions of the legacy Act were compatible with the European convention, because the Government withdrew that appeal when they came to power. But the right hon. Gentleman must recognise the fear and anger of our soldiers and veterans in response to the changes that the Government have proposed. If the Government felt it was at all possible that these protections for our soldiers and veterans might be compatible with the ECHR, why not test that in the courts? If the Government are convinced that it is not, what better case could there be for leaving?
Hilary Benn
I do not agree with the hon. Member that we should leave the European convention on human rights, because it provides protections for all of us as citizens. The point I was seeking to address—and I thought it was very important to bring clarity to the House in relation to immunity and whether the appeal had been withdrawn—was this. It was argued from the Conservative Benches, because of the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement’s intervention, that in some way the appeal on that matter remained live. It was also put to me that the United Kingdom Supreme Court was likely to rule on the question.
I wanted to come to the House today, at the first available opportunity, to make it quite clear that, I am afraid, those two arguments were wrong. The appeal had been withdrawn. The Supreme Court recognised that, and therefore there was nothing for it to rule on. The incompatibility with the convention of immunity remains, but the Court went out of its way to explain why case law means that there is not an exception on grounds of reconciliation that would in any way justify the immunity provisions that were contained in the last Government’s legislation.
Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery
Hilary Benn Excerpts(2 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 made a written ministerial statement on 15 April about Peter May’s review into the corporate effectiveness and cultural health of the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery. In that statement, I committed to placing the findings of the review in the Library of the House, along with our response and joint action plan. I can confirm that, with the review having been shared in the first instance with ICRIR staff, these documents were placed in the Library on 11 May 2026.
[HCWS1566]
Government’s Legislative Programme: Northern Ireland
Hilary Benn Excerpts(2 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 UK Government legislative programme for the second Session was set out at the state opening of Parliament on 13 May 2026. This statement summarises the programme and how it applies to Northern Ireland. It does not include Law Commission Bills, or Finance Bills.
The Government will continue to work for a stable, prosperous, and vibrant Northern Ireland through the upcoming legislative programme. This Government firmly believe that devolution represents the best means of delivering for the people of Northern Ireland. We will continue to work collaboratively with the Northern Ireland Executive to support institutional stability and we will continue to work closely with Ministers and party leaders ahead of local and Assembly elections in May 2027.
We will deliver the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, which will repeal and replace the previous Government’s legacy Act.
The Bill will enable victims and bereaved families affected by the troubles—including armed forces families —to seek information and accountability through a reformed Legacy Commission.
The Bill will provide for a fair and more transparent disclosure regime; a new independent commission on information retrieval; and lawful protections for veterans so that those who carried out their duty properly in Northern Ireland will not face an endless cycle of legal uncertainty and are treated with dignity and respect.
This Government will look to share best practice while continuing to strengthen our relationship with the Northern Ireland Executive to provide stability and improve the lives of the people of Northern Ireland.
We will continue to support and invest in Northern Ireland’s economic future, generating economic growth through the Government’s “Invest 2035” industrial strategy and ensure that all our UK-wide strategies have benefits for the people of Northern Ireland. In support of this, we are working with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to ensure Northern Ireland is fully considered in the development of UK-wide AI growth zone policy.
Following its launch on 22 April 2026, the Northern Ireland defence growth deal will provide a £50 million boost, part of a £250 million UK-wide investment, to create high-skilled jobs and support small and medium sized businesses to access the UK defence supply chain. This Government are committed to protecting Northern Ireland’s place in the UK internal market, while faithfully implementing the Windsor framework. We will continue to support the work of Intertrade UK as it takes forward an ambitious programme of work to identify barriers to trade in the UK internal market and how these can be addressed.
The Government have provided £235 million funding for public sector transformation. In March 2025, £129 million of this funding was allocated to six projects across health, education, justice and infrastructure. These projects will continue to embed change and act as a catalyst for further improvements as Departments begin to deliver results in the years ahead. Details on the allocation of the remaining £102 million available are set to be announced by the Executive soon.
This Government will continue to facilitate and encourage integration in education across Northern Ireland, in line with the UK’s commitments under the Good Friday agreement, through a £2 million injection of grant programme funding over the next three years.
The Government’s first responsibility is to keep people safe. I pay tribute to those who work so hard to do this in Northern Ireland. In recognition of the security situation, the Government have increased the amount provided to the Police Service of Northern Ireland in additional security funding. This helps the PSNI to tackle terrorist threats, alongside day-to-day policing, so allowing them to continue keeping people safe.
The recent attacks on police stations in Northern Ireland are a reminder that a small minority of people remain determined to cause harm to our communities through acts of violence and it is testament to the tremendous efforts of the PSNI and security partners that the lives of the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland remain unaffected by this threat.
The following Bills will extend and apply to Northern Ireland, either in full or in part:
Armed forces
Civil Aviation
Clean Water
Competition Reform
Courts and Tribunals
Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information System)
Digital Access to Services
Electricity Generator Levy
Energy Independence
Enhancing Financial Services
European Partnership
Immigration and Asylum
National Security
Health
Northern Ireland Troubles
Public Office (Accountability)
Railways
Regulating for Growth
Removal of Peerages
Representation of the People
Small Business Protections (Late Payments)
Sovereign Grant
Sporting Events
Steel Industry (Nationalisation)
Tackling State Threats
Ticket Tout Ban (Draft)
The UK Government will endeavour to work collaboratively with the Northern Ireland Executive to secure the legislative consent of the Assembly where appropriate.
[HCWS1570]