Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Written Statements

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

In 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that the detention of Gerry Adams—who was interned in July 1973—was unlawful because the interim custody order was not personally signed by William Whitelaw, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at the time. The Supreme Court’s view was that the wording of the provision indicated that the Carltona principle was displaced. The Supreme Court quashed Mr Adams’ convictions for escaping from prison while detained under the 1973 order, and he has since applied to the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland for miscarriage of justice compensation.

The Carltona-based challenge was made over 40 years after the order for Mr Adams’ internment. There had been no suggestion at the time of enactment or in the intervening period in any other previous case that the lawfulness of the interim custody orders were in doubt because they were made and signed by Ministers, rather than the Secretary of State personally. At the time that these decisions were taken, Ministers believed they were acting lawfully on the basis of the Carltona doctrine. We consider that, based on Parliament’s intention, they were right to do so.

We consider that it would be unjust and inappropriate in public interest terms for those who were detained under these orders to be able to make claims based on the fact that it was Ministers and not the Secretary of State personally who made the orders. Importantly, there has never been any argument that there was anything other than a proper and lawful substantive basis for making the orders in the Adams case—the grounds for detention were appropriate and sound under the legislation. There can thus be no real doubt that the decisions would have been precisely the same if it had been the Secretary of State taking the decision on the same material as was before the Ministers.

We consider that, in all the circumstances, the right course is one of correction, so that the law is treated as having always been as Ministers then understood it to be. Parliament can change, and can clarify, the law as it wishes, including to correct what it perceives to be errors or unintended consequences flowing from court decisions. It can also ensure that such a change is to be taken as having always been the case—in short, applying the correction of the law retrospectively. Parliament has done so in the past precisely to correct what it considers to have been an incorrect interpretation of the law by the courts.

Clauses 89 and 90 of the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill are specifically intended to address the erroneous interpretation made in Adams regarding the application of the Carltona principle. The Carltona principle is a vital principle for Government; and it is right that it should be protected, including by dealing with what are considered to be incorrect inroads into it. These clauses put it beyond doubt that the Carltona principle applied in the context of interim custody orders, by stating that any order made by a Minister of State or Under Secretary of State is to be treated as an order of the Secretary of State.

One effect of the clauses the Government are introducing is that compensation will not be payable in the Adams case and other similar cases. That is the effect of the provision made in the new clauses that they are to be treated as always having had effect—that is designed to ensure a genuine correction of the law. We consider that that is the right decision for Parliament to make. We also consider that it is a course that is compatible with our obligations under the European convention on human rights, which we take extremely seriously. For all the reasons I have given, I have felt able to make a section19(1)(a) Human Rights Act compatibility statement to that effect, and hope that the House agrees that this is the appropriate course of action to take.

[HCWS1063]

Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

Hilary Benn Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 18th November 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

On 11 June 1966, a 28-year-old storeman, John Patrick Scullion, was shot dead on the doorstep of his home in west Belfast by the Ulster Volunteer Force. It is regarded by many as the first sectarian killing of the troubles. By 10 April 1998 and the signing of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, the death toll from this horrific period of violence in our country had risen to over 3,500, including almost 2,000 civilians and over 1,000 people who were killed while bravely serving the state, and 90% of those who lost their lives were killed by paramilitaries.

Some of the incidents—Warrenpoint, Bloody Sunday, the Kingsmill massacre, the Miami Showband killings, the Birmingham pub bombings—are, sadly, all too well known. Many others are less well known, although for each family, their grief, privately borne, has been just as strong and just as painful—fathers and brothers, mothers and daughters, children, people from all walks of life—and each one is a tragic and needless loss of a loved one. I say “needless” because there was always an alternative to violence, an alternative made real when the Good Friday agreement was signed.

Some found that agreement, which included the early release of prisoners convicted of troubles-related offences, very hard to accept, but over 70% of voters in Northern Ireland backed it in a referendum, because they knew that this was the moment to lay a foundation for peace that could give hope to citizens right across these islands for a future free of violence.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

I think it is appropriate that the Secretary of State opened his speech in the way that he did, but he should recognise that when he gave dates for when the troubles started and concluded, he finished on 10 April 1998. He knows well that that means he did not include the largest atrocity of the troubles, which occurred four months later in the town of Omagh, and he knows that nothing in this Bill will make provisions available for those families. Although an inquiry is ongoing into the Omagh atrocity, that does not answer the questions relating to the Irish Republic. Will he consider extending the dates to include the largest atrocity from the troubles?

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that point, which we have discussed in the House before. As he has acknowledged, there is currently a public inquiry, set up by the last Government, into the terrible events that occurred at Omagh. I think the right and proper thing to do is to let that inquiry proceed with its work and, I hope, provide the answers that families are looking for.

Northern Ireland is now a largely peaceful place, but many people—including those I have had the privilege of meeting and who have shared with me their grief, their pain, their anger and their loss—still live with the effects of those decades of violence. Far too many have still, all these years later, been unable to find an answer to the simplest of questions: what happened—how did my loved one die?

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Further to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), the Republic of Ireland Government and the Garda Síochána have to respond on the things on which they fell short. For instance, when my cousin was killed and others were killed, the killers crossed the border to sanctuary and safety. There was collusion between the Garda Síochána and the people responsible for those murders. Those are some of the things we need within this process. Can the Secretary of State assure all of us, on behalf of our constituents, that the justice we all seek will happen through this Bill, because I am not quite sure of that at the moment?

[Hilary Benn]

I say to the hon. Member, for whom I have enormous respect, that I hope very much that that is the case, because one of the consequences of the agreement reached between the British and Irish Governments, which was published on 19 September, is that the Irish Government will move once our legislation has been put in place. They will move from their current position, which is that they will not co-operate with institutions that we know have failed—I shall come on to that point in a moment—to the fullest possible co-operation with the Legacy Commission and, by doing so, will open up the possibility of people seeing information they have not seen for too long.

The architects of the Good Friday agreement knew that the suffering of victims and survivors needed to be addressed, but they were not able to do so. If we are honest with ourselves, we know that this unfinished business falls to us—to all of us—because time is running out. I want to say directly to all the families—some are here in the Gallery today, and others are watching our proceedings—that we have heard their call, as I hope has the whole House, for us to do more to help them get the answers they seek.

What is this Bill aiming to do and why is it needed? It seeks to put in place a means of dealing with legacy that can actually command broad public support in Northern Ireland, in particular for families who have been trying to find answers for so long. It is needed because the previous Government’s legislation—the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023—whatever its intentions, fundamentally failed. It failed because it has been found in many respects to be incompatible with our international obligations, so creating a legal quagmire of uncertainty.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

How confident is the Secretary of State that his provisions for preventing compensation for interim custody orders will withstand challenge in the courts, and would the Government’s case be undermined in any way by their decision not to challenge the original ruling in the High Court?

[Hilary Benn]

If the right hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I shall come to his question a bit later.

Crucially—this is something that the House has to recognise—the 2023 Act failed because it did not command any support in Northern Ireland among victims and survivors, or the political parties. That was no basis for progress or reconciliation. That point has to be acknowledged. One of the principal reasons for that lack of support was the Act’s attempt to offer immunity from prosecution, including to terrorists who had committed the most appalling murders. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), who is intervening from a sedentary position, needs to go back and read the legislation that his Government passed. I have it here. Immunity was a false promise. It appeared to offer soldiers something that was completely undeliverable. The measures were never implemented, and were struck down by our courts. Families who had endured unimaginable suffering through paramilitary violence were simply not prepared to see those responsible given immunity.

[Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)]

I have spoken to many veterans in my constituency who are understandably concerned about the repeal of that law, and the vacuum that it leaves. Can the Secretary of State set out how the Bill supports our veterans?

[Hilary Benn]

I shall do that. If my hon. Friend will bear with me, I shall come to that directly.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

On what I hope is a non-contentious point, will the Secretary of State explain to Members in all parts of the House something that not everybody realises, which is that the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 means that no matter how heinous the crime, and no matter whether it was committed by a member of the armed forces—unlikely, but possible—a republican terrorist or a loyalist terrorist, no one will serve more than two years in jail? People need to realise that. Compromises have had to be made—and they have to be made by those on both sides, equally, if international law is not to strike them down.

[Hilary Benn]

The right hon. Gentleman is indeed correct. That was, in part, the basis on which the Good Friday agreement was reached, and 71.7% of the people of Northern Ireland gave their support to it. Compromise, of course, is essential in the interests of peace.

There was anger from many of those who served in Northern Ireland, who saw immunity as an affront to the rule of law that they had sought to protect, and as implying some sort of moral equivalence between those who served in our armed forces and terrorists. There is no moral equivalence whatsoever between those members of our armed forces who acted lawfully in carrying out their duties, and paramilitaries who were responsible for barbaric acts of terrorism. We owe our Operation Banner veterans an enormous debt of gratitude. I say to those watching, and to those in the Gallery: your service and your sacrifice will never be forgotten. We have a duty to care for all those who served. That is precisely why we are putting in the legislation new measures that are designed specifically to protect veterans, and why the Ministry of Defence always provides legal and welfare support to any veteran asked to participate.

The safeguards that we are supplying have been designed specifically for veterans, following close consultation with veterans. Some will necessarily apply to others, including former police officers, while others will apply only to veterans. Veterans will be protected against repeat investigations. Part 3 places a duty on the Legacy Commission not to do anything that duplicates any aspect of previous investigations or proceedings unless it is essential. That is a very high threshold. If a veteran is asked to give evidence publicly to an inquest, or in the commission’s inquisitorial proceedings, they will not be forced to travel to Northern Ireland. They will be able to do so remotely.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State just clarify: essential for what?

[Hilary Benn]

The commission is an independent body established—

[Dr Evans]

Ah.

[Hilary Benn]

The hon. Gentleman says “Ah”. It was established by the previous Government’s legislation. They argued very strongly that the body had to be independent. “Essential” is a very high bar. It is for the commission to make that judgment.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I am very grateful to the Secretary of State for clarifying a number of issues already, but I think that the veterans I have spoken to will be looking for clarity that they cannot and will not be placed on trial simply for carrying out orders.

[Hilary Benn]

I shall come on to this point, but decisions about prosecutions are made by prosecutors independently—that is the absolute foundation of our independent legal system—based on the evidence. If one looks at the facts, in the 27 and a half years since the Good Friday agreement, one veteran has been convicted for a troubles-related offence; going back to the point made by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), that veteran received a suspended sentence.

If asked to give evidence to an inquisitorial proceeding, any veteran will be entitled to seek anonymity, as is already the case for public inquiries and inquests. The commission and coroners will have to consider the health and wellbeing of elderly witnesses, and whether it would be appropriate for them to give evidence at all. A new statutory advisory group will provide an opportunity for victims and survivors of the troubles, including those from a service background, to be heard during the commission’s work. This group will, of course, not include anyone who has been involved in paramilitary activity.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

The Secretary of State says that the group will not include any former paramilitaries, but where in clause 8—or elsewhere—is there a prohibition on such participation? The clause is about victims and survivors, and those terms are undefined. Under our current iniquitous definition, a victim could be somebody who made themselves a victim by blowing themselves up with their own bomb. According to the clause, such a person could serve on the advisory panel.

[Hilary Benn]

I would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to reflect on what I have just told the House: anyone who was previously involved in paramilitary activity will not be appointed to the victims and survivors group. I am giving the House that assurance as the Secretary of State.

These measures will be complemented by other commitments to ensure, for instance, that no veteran is cold-called. The Defence Secretary and I will continue to work with veterans, the Royal British Legion, the Veterans Commissioners and others to ensure that we get this right.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

rose—

[Hilary Benn]

I will give way, and then I will make progress.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

Whereabouts in the Bill does it say what the Secretary of State said about the victims and survivors group? If it does not say what he told us, will he amend it to ensure that it does?

[Hilary Benn]

I have given the House a very clear assurance on this point. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that nowhere in the legacy Act, which is the previous Government’s legislation, is there such a prohibition. Indeed, nowhere in that legislation does the word “veterans” appear.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Hilary Benn]

I will make progress.

There are those who have claimed, wrongly, that this legislation will somehow lead to a huge increase in prosecutions of veterans, or that it is only veterans who have been prosecuted in recent years, or that on-the-run letters have given IRA members an amnesty—an issue we have discussed in the Chamber. None of those things is the case. As I have just said to the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), just one soldier has been convicted since the Good Friday agreement, and the majority of those who have been convicted, and indeed of those facing live prosecutions, are paramilitaries, including republicans. As for the on-the-run letters, Prime Minister David Cameron could not have been clearer when he said in 2014:

“There was never any amnesty or guarantee of immunity for anyone, and there isn’t now.”

What is more, the legacy Act also shut down more than 1,000 police investigations into unsolved troubles-related killings, including the deaths of 264 members of our armed forces who were murdered by terrorists. A great many families have spoken of the distress that this caused them. Mary Moreland, who was widowed when her husband John, a reservist in the Ulster Defence Regiment, was killed by the IRA nine days before Christmas in 1988, says:

“As a veteran and war widow I strongly believe in accountability and the rule of law for all and take pride in the fact that the British Armed Forces are the finest in the world. Like many others I have always been opposed to the Legacy Act. It was legislation that was fundamentally flawed. I tentatively welcome the process of repealing and replacing the Legacy Act…the new legislation must be balanced, fair, rights-based and capable of delivering meaningful outcomes for victims and survivors.”

I agree. Or there is Paul Crawford, whose father was murdered in 1974 by the UVF. He says:

“I understand that British Army veterans are an important constituency, but so are we…victims and survivors of the conflict. Our voices matter too. Our experiences of loss, pain and trauma are very real. Many of us have been waiting for more than fifty years for truth and justice and none of us are getting any younger. The legacy of the conflict needs to be addressed, and this legislation needs to be passed.”

I agree.

Or there is Paul Gallagher, who shared his response with WAVE, which does such important work supporting victims, survivors and families. In January 1994, Paul was 21 years old. He was a civil servant. There was a knock on the front door of his family home, and paramilitaries took him and his family hostage. He was shot six times as they left, and has spent the rest of his life using a wheelchair. He is a campaigner who I have had the privilege of meeting several times. WAVE writes:

“What the party opposite proposed in 2023 enraged Paul. He is not naïve. He knows that securing a prosecution against the people who did this would be difficult. But offering an amnesty to these people so they could walk forever free. That to Paul is a moral outrage. How can someone like Paul, who has been betrayed by the system, believe once again in the rule of law.”

The troubles Bill seeks to right the wrongs of the legacy Act, so that together with the remedial order, which we have laid before Parliament under the Human Rights Act 1998, the Bill returns us to the broad principles of the 2014 Stormont House agreement negotiated by the last Conservative Government. It seeks to achieve greater confidence among communities across Northern Ireland. As for those families who have already approached the commission for help, their cases will transition seamlessly under the new arrangements, when the troubles Bill hopefully becomes law.

We announced a joint framework in September. The Irish Government have made important contributions to that, including by co-operating fully with the reformed commissioned by sharing information that, for far too long, far too many families have not been able to see. Let me be clear, however, that it is simply untrue for anyone to suggest that the Irish Government have been given any control or veto over the work of the Legacy Commission.

I turn to the contents of the Bill. The first part provides for the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery to be renamed the Legacy Commission. It also repeals part 2 of the legacy Act in its entirety, and confirms the meaning of “the troubles” and other terms. Part 2 outlines the structure of the Legacy Commission, its principal functions, and how appointments will be made. It will establish an oversight board, led by an independent non-executive chair, to hold the commission to account, and the Secretary of State will consult when making appointments. There will be two co-directors for investigations, of equal standing, one with experience of conducting criminal investigations in Northern Ireland, and one with experience of conducting such investigations elsewhere.

[Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I raise the issue of the Birmingham pub bombings? The Secretary of State says that the reformed Legacy Commission will have greater fact-finding powers. Can he set out why the families, including those who are part of the Justice 4 the 21 campaign, should have confidence in the reformed commission to get to the truth of the Birmingham pub bombings?

[Hilary Benn]

My hon. Friend raises an extremely important point. It is for the simple reason that the commission has the power to see all the information and evidence—everything. It is already investigating the Guildford pub bombings, the M62 coach bombing, and the Kingsmill massacre, and I hope that others—

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

Warrenpoint.

[Hilary Benn]

And Warrenpoint, indeed. It is already investigating those terrible incidents, and I encourage anyone who is looking for answers to approach the commission and see the changes that we will make.

I shall now finish my description of what is in the Bill and bring my remarks to a close. All public appointments made by the Secretary of State must follow consultation with relevant persons, a list of whom will be published before the beginning of the appointments process. Part 2 will fulfil our commitment to create a fairer disclosure regime, ensuring that the commission has access to any and all information it requires and is able to publish as much of that as possible, subject to proportionate safeguards, which are necessary because even historic information can pose a direct risk to life and safety today or threaten our national security. However, the Bill ensures that any decision to prevent public disclosure is subject to a balancing exercise—with reasons given where possible, akin to the Inquiries Act 2005—and can be legally challenged. Part 2 also includes provisions on reviews into the performance of the commission’s functions, and for the winding up of the commission.

Part 3 deals with the conduct of both criminal and fact-finding investigations, and expands the referral process to enable family members, surviving victims and certain public authorities to request investigations. In all cases, following a case review, the director of investigations will decide whether the investigation is to be carried out as a criminal investigation or a fact-finding investigation. The commission will be able to refer any relevant conduct to prosecutors, as is already the case with the legacy Act, so there is no change in that respect. In the conduct of its investigations, the commission must comply with the statutory conflicts of interest duties set out. Each investigation will conclude with a report produced by a judicial panel member.

Under part 4 of the Bill, inquisitorial proceedings will be established to handle cases that would otherwise have been inquests but are transferred to the commission. These proceedings will draw on the Inquiries Act. They will be chaired by a judicial panel member and be able to consider evidence in public. Crucially, unlike inquests, these proceedings can also consider sensitive information in closed hearings. With that in mind, the Bill provides the Secretary of State with the power to direct inquisitorial proceedings in respect of the small number of cases that were halted prior to 1 May 2024 due to the exclusion of relevant sensitive information.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

If the Bill is as good as the Secretary of State would have the House believe, why have nine very senior four-star officers—eight generals and one air chief marshal—written to The Times and described it as

“a direct threat to national security”?

[Hilary Benn]

I do not agree with that assessment. There is nothing in this Bill that can be described as a direct threat to national security. I also note—[Interruption.] It would be good if the right hon. Gentleman would acknowledge this point. I note that those generals did not call for immunity. Maybe those on the Opposition Front Bench would like to reflect upon that.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Hilary Benn]

No; I am going to have to finish, because many people want to speak.

Part 5 makes provision for the inclusion of personal statements, allowing families to describe what the death meant to them. The commission will have the power to refer troubles-related criminality by police officers to the ombudsman for Northern Ireland. Part 6 puts in place the necessary provisions to set up, on a pilot basis, the Independent Commission on Information Retrieval, as originally proposed in the Stormont House agreement. This will be an international body established jointly with the Irish Government to give families an additional means of retrieving information. Any information disclosed by individuals to the ICIR will be inadmissible in criminal and civil proceedings. Part 6 also includes provisions to ensure that the work of the ICIR does not impede on criminal investigations.

The Government have long been committed to restoring the troubles-related inquests that were halted by the legacy Act, which is why, under part 7 of the Bill, the inquests that were in progress prior to 1 May 2024 but subsequently halted will resume. Inquests that had been directed by the Attorney General but were not in progress will be subject to an independent assessment by the Solicitor General as to whether they are most effectively progressed in the Legacy Commission or the coronial system, and the Solicitor General will have regard to three statutory criteria.

I turn to part 8 and to the point raised earlier about interim custody orders. In short, these provisions seek to address the interpretation made by the UK Supreme Court in R v. Adams, regarding the application of the Carltona principle, with which this Government—and indeed the previous Government—disagreed. That principle is vital for Government, and it is right that it should be protected, including by dealing with what are considered incorrect inroads into it. Clauses 89 and 90 put it beyond doubt that the Carltona principle applied in the context of interim custody orders, by stating that any order made by a Minister of State or Under-Secretary of State is to be treated as an order of the Secretary of State. I refer the House to a written ministerial statement that I have today laid in Parliament setting out in greater detail the Government’s position on that matter.

The Bill will leave in place part 4 of the 2023 Legacy Act, meaning that the important provisions relating to oral history, academic research and the memorialisation of the troubles remain intact. Those measures stem from the Stormont House agreement and have been widely supported in principle. Part 8 of the Bill will also require the commission to produce and publish a historical record.

Separately, part 8 also allows any conduct that does not meet the definition of serious or connected troubles-related offences in the Bill to be investigated by the relevant police force. As a result, potentially serious offences, including sexual offences, will always have a route to investigation should evidence come to light.

Part 9 deals with general matters in relation to the Bill such as various definitions and its commencement.

I will bring my remarks to a close. I am acutely conscious that, for many families in Northern Ireland, time is running out. With every year that passes, memories fade, witnesses are lost and crucial evidence grows weaker. That is why the Government have to fix the mess that we inherited. But what is this really about? It is about those who continue to live with the pain of what happened to them or to someone they loved. We know that the overwhelming majority of those who were killed died at the hands of paramilitaries, and, as the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) so powerfully reminded us just over a month ago, the people who died were not in the wrong place at the wrong time; it was the terrorists who were in the wrong place doing the wrong thing.

We must be clear that terrorism is always wrong. Although we must recognise that the vast majority of those who served in Northern Ireland did so with distinction and bravery, in the words of apology offered in this House by the former Northern Ireland Secretary Brandon Lewis following the Ballymurphy inquest,

“it is clear that in some cases the security forces and the army made terrible errors too.”—[Official Report, 13 May 2021; Vol. 695, c. 277.]

I believe that this legislation represents our best and possibly final chance to fulfil the unrealised ambition of the Good Friday agreement. I accept that nobody will like everything contained in the Bill, as is inevitable given the differing views held by many. If fixing legacy was easy, we would not be discussing it 27 years later.

Let me read from a letter that the Commissioner for Victims and Survivors for Northern Ireland has sent me about our approach, which he says has been received

“with cautious optimism by victims and survivors.”

He goes on to say that we—he is talking about all of us—should

“get a move on rather than waste more precious time”,

and encourages all of us as parliamentarians

“to continue to show courage and determination to deliver for victims and survivors.”

It is no wonder that he refers to caution, because victims and survivors have been let down so many times before. That is why it is now our responsibility to take this forward.

I will continue to talk to victims and survivors, veterans and others, and colleagues in all parts of the House, during the passage of the Bill to consider where amendments might further improve it. Equally, I hope that all who seek a fair and effective way forward will recognise that the Bill represents a fundamental reform of current arrangements, and that it should be given a chance to succeed. I commend the Bill to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I ask those on the Front Benches to keep their opening statements short, because it eats into the time for contributions from Back-Bench Members.

Northern Ireland Troubles Legacy

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Thursday 13th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[David Davis]

My right hon. Friend on the Front Bench mentions the name John Downey. In 2014, John Downey faced prosecution for the Hyde Park bombing. He produced his letter of comfort and his trial collapsed. What the judge said at the trial is important.

He stated there is a

“public interest in holding officials of the state to promises they have made in full understanding of what is involved in the bargain.”

He could not be clearer. He concludes that

“it offends the court’s sense of justice and propriety to be asked to try the defendant.”

It should not have even been brought to trial. In other words, the judge was recognising a de facto amnesty. It was only at the collapse of Downey’s trial that the existence of the administrative scheme became public knowledge.

The Secretary of State will respond with great charm and say, “Ah, but Mr Downey is now facing prosecution.” That is what he will say.

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

He is.

[David Davis]

I am right—one of my predictions has come right any way. But that prosecution is for alleged involvement in the murder of two Ulster Defence Regiment soldiers in 1972, not his involvement in the Hyde Park bombing, in which he was ruled, by the way, to have been an “active participant” in a civil case, so we know that background. For those 1972 murders, it has been six years since charges were brought, and little or no progress has been made since then.

The Government—quite properly—make much of the rights of victims, as do I. That has been part of my life in Parliament. But what of the rights of Squadron Quartermaster Corporal Roy Bright, Lieutenant Dennis Daly, Trooper Simon Tipper and Lance Corporal Jeffrey Young? All were killed in the Hyde Park bombing. All had their rights explicitly destroyed.

Let us be frank about the collective effect of those Blair-era concessions: 483 terrorists released from prison early, at least 16 granted mercy—granted effective pardons—and at least 156 letters of comfort. Taken together, that is at least 655 people given some form of legal or administrative protection. I say again that it is “at least” 655 because, frankly, successive Governments have been deliberately obtuse in how they publish those numbers. I suspect the number is significantly higher, but 655 is what we know.

Yet one of the primary defences of the Government’s new legislation put up by Government MPs in that Westminster Hall debate was that the “only thing” granting immunity to former members of the IRA is the previous Government’s Northern Ireland legacy Act. It is just ridiculous. Terrorists killed over 3,000 people during the troubles. As far as the House of Commons Library can establish, there were no convictions for troubles-era violent offences after the Good Friday agreement during the entire period of the Blair Government. That is what they tell me—none. I could not find any either.

The vast majority of those 3,000 troubles-era killings remain unresolved, with no one having faced justice. Since those so-called “non-amnesties”, very few people have been convicted. Again, the Secretary of State said in the Westminster Hall debate that five convictions have been obtained for terrorist-related offences connected to the troubles since 2012—presumably under the Conservative or coalition Governments of that time. He did not name the cases, and I would like to see the details of those cases published so we can actually understand what has happened here. Are these dissident republicans? Are they loyalists? What are they? That is just so we know what has actually happened here. In any case, there have been five convictions for 3,000 killings, and the Government are trying to maintain that there is no amnesty—really?

To ensure that no prosecutions could effectively be brought against the IRA, the Blair Government also agreed during the Good Friday agreement that none of the decommissioned IRA weapons could ever be used as forensic evidence in any future trial. Of course, there are not many witnesses in a trial about Northern Ireland terrorism—that is a fast way to the grave—so forensic evidence is critical, and it was all ruled out of order.

For those few successful convictions since 1998 that the Secretary of State referred to, what is their punishment? It is limited to two years because of the Blair-era Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998—two years for mass murder? Instead of seeing terrorists face justice, we see veterans being hauled before inquests decades after the fact.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) on having secured this debate. The legacy of the troubles cast a long, dark shadow over the lives of so many people in Northern Ireland and across the United Kingdom, including on some of those the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, and there are many, many others among the 3,500 or so who lost their lives. I would just say to Conservative Members that it is really important that in these debates we acknowledge all of those affected, not just some, even though some are, of course, extremely important. At some point, Conservative Members will need to acknowledge that the last Government’s Legacy Act had no support in Northern Ireland. If we are to move legacy on, there needs to be support for the legislation, and that is why the Government are seeking to change it.

The Government, of course, take the concerns of veterans very seriously. Our commitment to Operation Banner veterans is unshakeable. The Troubles Bill, which we will debate next week, will put in place the strongest possible protections for them, none of which were in the last Government’s Legacy Act.

The right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington talked a lot about prosecutions. As he knows full well, decisions on prosecutions are taken independently by the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland, and nothing that this Government are doing will change that at all. The system will be exactly as it has been for the past 27 and a half years, since the Good Friday agreement. On Loughgall, the reason there is going to be another inquest is because 10 years ago the Conservative Attorney General ordered that the Loughgall inquest take place—that is a fact.

Since nothing has changed in the past 27 years, why do we not look at some facts about prosecutions? Since 2012, there have been 25 decisions to prosecute individuals for troubles-related offences. Six of those have resulted in convictions: three were republicans, two were loyalists and one was military, with the soldier in question receiving a suspended sentence. If we look at the current, live cases that are before the courts, six are republicans, one is loyalist, one is a former member of the police and one is in the military category. What do the facts show? The vast majority of prosecutions are against former paramilitaries.

At one point in his speech the right hon. Gentleman suggested that there had been five or so prosecutions for all the deaths, but in saying that he ignores the very, very large number of paramilitaries who were sent to prison during the troubles, including many of them for murder. That was a very large number compared with the numbers of military prosecuted, as he well knows.

On the subject of immunity, of course I noticed the letter that was published in The Times. When I said repeatedly that the current Legacy Act would have granted immunity to terrorists, I heard Conservative Members saying from a sedentary position, “Well, that is not true”, so let me quote from clause 19 of the Legacy Act. It says:

“The ICRIR must grant a person immunity from prosecution”

if certain conditions are met, including that the person has asked for immunity from prosecution, that the information describes conduct that formed part of the troubles and is to the best of the person’s knowledge true, and that the commission is satisfied that the conduct would have exposed the person to a criminal investigations. Shouting, “That is not true”, when it is true—[Interruption.] One of the reasons why the Legacy Act had no support in Northern Ireland is because the families of all those who saw their loved ones killed did not want their killers to be granted immunity. As the right hon. Gentleman well knows—

Independent Monitoring Panel Report: January to June 2025

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2025 Written Statements

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

On 24 February 2025, I informed the House that an Independent Monitoring Panel would scrutinise the operation of the internal market guarantee set out in the “Safeguarding the Union” Command Paper. The first monitoring period for the guarantee ran from 1 January through to 30 June 2025 and I can confirm that the panel has today published its report for that period. I have deposited a copy in the Library of the House for the record.

Under the guarantee, the Government undertook that 80% of all freight movements from Great Britain to Northern Ireland would be treated as not at risk of moving onwards to the EU, and therefore moving within the UK internal market system. It is the role of the panel’s expert appointees to monitor that commitment on the basis of data, provide recommendations to the Government to support the good functioning of the UK’s internal market and ensure that the facilitations within the Windsor framework are fully used.

The panel’s report today has confirmed that over the first six-month monitoring period, 96% of the value of goods moved by freight met the guarantee. The report also contains an important set of recommendations to the Government. I have informed the panel that the Government are grateful for those recommendations, which will now be considered as part of our response to the independent review of the Windsor framework. I will update the House on the Government’s response to that review in due course.

[HCWS1021]

Northern Ireland

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Written Corrections

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

As we approach Remembrance Sunday, many of those who served in Operation Banner will reflect on comrades whom they lost, comrades who were injured and comrades who still suffer mentally as a result of their deployment in that operation—the British Army’s longest continuous deployment. The Secretary of State has said from the Dispatch Box that his Northern Ireland Troubles Bill will bring strong protections for veterans. It does not; it brings the same protections for everyone under that Bill, including those who possibly perpetrated murderous acts of terrorism in Northern Ireland. So what can he actually provide regarding continuous support for veterans—something set out on the face of the Bill, rather than something that is not in the legislation but is promised by Government?

[Hilary Benn]

The protections were put in place for veterans after consulting veterans, and they are not unimportant: the ability to stay at home and give evidence; the protection from repeated investigations; and the right to seek immunity in a hearing of the commission —people already have the right to seek that in a coroner’s court…

[Official Report, 3 November 2025; Vol. 774, c. 632.]

Written correction submitted by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn):

[Hilary Benn]

The protections were put in place for veterans after consulting veterans, and they are not unimportant: the ability to stay at home and give evidence; the protection from repeated investigations; and the right to seek anonymity in a hearing of the commission —people already have the right to seek that in a coroner’s court…

“Soldier F” Trial Verdict

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Monday 3rd November 2025 Commons Chamber

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

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the verdict in the trial of Soldier F.

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

The trial of Soldier F concluded on 23 October with a not guilty verdict. The Ministry of Defence rightly provided him with legal and pastoral support. I and the Secretary of State for Defence have, of course, noted the judgment, but I do not think it appropriate to be drawn on the particulars of these independent legal proceedings.

The House will recognise that it was also a difficult day for the families of the 13 people shot dead on Bloody Sunday, in circumstances that the former Prime Minister Lord Cameron described as “unjustified and unjustifiable”. I am sure that the sympathies of the whole House remain with them.

We all understand the continuing pain felt by families and communities in Northern Ireland and across the United Kingdom as a result of the troubles. The Government remain committed to establishing a legacy process that can provide answers for families who are still seeking to find out what happened to their loved ones. We will always remember the dangers faced by our brave soldiers, police, and others who served during the time of Operation Banner and who tried to keep people safe, and will always remember, especially at this time of year, those who made the ultimate sacrifice. Their service will never be forgotten, and we owe them a profound debt of gratitude.

It is, however, important to note that the case of Soldier F of course involved no role for either this Government or the last one. The independent proceedings were ongoing before the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, and they were not halted by that legislation. Decisions by the prosecution service in Northern Ireland are always taken independently, in the light of facts and circumstances, and we should all respect that independence. A prosecution can only ever be brought when the evidence presents, in the view of prosecutors, a reasonable prospect of a conviction, and when it is in the public interest to proceed.

I also recognise that all those affected by the troubles, including veterans, want a system that is fair, balanced and proportionate. That is what the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill is seeking to put in place, with a new legacy commission and strong protections for veterans that were not included in the last Government’s legacy Act. That act offered a false and undeliverable promise of immunity to our Northern Ireland veterans. These measures will provide what the three UK veterans commissioners have called for—not immunity from the law, but fairness under it.

[Alex Burghart]

Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. I, too, begin with a thought for the families left bereft by the events of that day in 1972. It was a Conservative Prime Minister who, 15 years ago, said to the House that what happened on Bloody Sunday was both “unjustified” and “wrong”, and

“on behalf of our country—I am deeply sorry.”——[Official Report, 15 June 2010; Vol. 511, c. 740.]

He did so, of course, after the publication of the Saville inquiry, which took 12 years and cost in today’s money about £325 million. Even after such an extensive inquiry, there has been no conviction. Indeed, Judge Patrick Lynch told Belfast Crown court that the evidence fell well short of the standard required. He said:

“A 53-year-old statement cannot be cross-examined, nor can I assess the demeanour of a sheet of A4 paper”.

That goes to the heart of what my party argued when passing our legacy Act.

As time goes by, it becomes vanishingly difficult to obtain convictions. The 1998 agreement was 27 years ago, and the ceasefires were 31 years ago. That of course has implications for the Government’s troubles Bill, which will reopen many cases where there is no prospect of resolution, only a prospect of ongoing legal process. Under the Bill, there is almost no possibility of bringing terrorists to court, but it ultimately leaves open the likelihood of ever more vexatious complaints against our veterans. We are talking about claims like that thrown out by the High Court in Belfast last month; the judge described the challenge as “utterly divorced from reality”, although not before a former special forces soldier had to endure four years of investigation.

Last week, it was reported that a similar case, from 53 years ago, may soon go to trial. No wonder that on Friday, Special Air Service veterans published a letter in the Financial Times, in which they said that

“‘legacy’ has become an industry that keeps wounds open while rewriting history.”

We ask the Secretary of State to think again.

[Hilary Benn]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for referring to the Saville inquiry. That long-running inquiry finally brought some truth and justice, in the eyes of families of the 13 people shot dead, and led the former Prime Minister to make his apology. The hon. Member is right when he says that, given the passage of time, it is “vanishingly difficult”—I think that was the phrase he used—to obtain convictions. Most of the families—not all—whom I have met and who lost loved ones recognise that fact. However, he also has to acknowledge that the legacy Act, with its offer of immunity—

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

Conditional immunity.

[Hilary Benn]

As I say, the legacy Act’s offer of immunity in return for statements that the legacy commission regarded as truthful and credible could have given immunity to terrorists. That is why the immunity that the last Government sought to put in place was rejected by victims’ and survivors’ groups in Northern Ireland, was opposed by all the political parties in Northern Ireland, and was found by the courts to be incompatible with our human rights obligations. Therefore, as I have said to the House before, and I have said to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), the Act was no basis on which to try to help those families find the answers that they are looking for. That is why we need a different approach—building on the establishment of the legacy commission, I grant him, because I took the decision that we would not abolish it but reform it. That is what the Bill that we will debate shortly seeks to do, and I look forward to it being scrutinised by the House.

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

Many people impacted by the troubles continue to live with the pain, trauma and grief of war. The previous Government’s approach to legacy was rendered essentially useless because, as the Secretary of State just said, it was opposed by all the political parties in Northern Ireland. What steps has the Secretary of State taken to carry all the people of Northern Ireland with him on his approach to legacy?

[Hilary Benn]

Having promised the House in two statements since the Government were elected in July 2024 that I would bring forward proposals, I did so when the Government published the Bill on 14 October. Since then, I have met political parties and organisations representing victims and survivors, and this week I will again meet the victims and survivors forum that I met on the day that the agreement with the Irish Government was published. As I acknowledged to the House when I made my oral statement, no proposals put forward will be greeted with approval by everyone, but I have been much struck by the fact that those I have met and talked to have said, “Well, we will need to consider the detail.” I believe that the proposals provide a basis for moving forward, and I hope that the House will recognise that.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his responses so far. We welcome the resolution of this trial and the clarity that the law has afforded. The Liberal Democrats extend our deepest sympathies to the families who still seek justice and answers. The legacy Act of 2023 may have been driven by the instinct to protect veterans, but it fails to comply with our international legal obligations and, through its conditional immunity, created a false equivalence between those who valiantly served in the British armed forces and those involved in acts of terrorism. That approach was both morally wrong and offensive to veterans and victims alike. The violence carried out by terrorist organisations during the troubles caused deep suffering across Northern Ireland, and we believe that the need to uphold the rule of law must apply to all without exception, but prosecution should never become persecution. This case focuses our attention back on the Government’s new attempt to deal with the legacy of the past. Is the Secretary of State absolutely confident that the Bill will deliver strong enough protections for British veterans? What has he done to try to secure support from veterans’ organisations? What has he done to ensure that victims and families can finally access the truth and justice that they deserve?

[Hilary Benn]

I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says and his characterisation of the immunity provisions in the legacy Act. Nick Pope, the chair of the Confederation of Service Charities, said that the confederation welcomes

“the development of the safeguards that have been put in place to offer protection to those within the armed forces community who are affected by legacy issues.”

We drew those up having spoken to veterans. I hope that when people look at them and see how they work, they will recognise that we have acknowledged our particular responsibility to treat veterans fairly in the process. That is the right way to proceed.

[Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)]

Some 53 years after the events of Bloody Sunday, and 15 years after the report of the Saville inquiry, it is becoming clear that future criminal cases will be few and far between, but every single day, this issue sits with the families who have lost loved ones. It affects every day of their lives, be they the families of military personnel or of those who were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. What assurances can the Secretary of State give that they will remain absolutely central to this work, going forward?

[Hilary Benn]

All those families, including military families, are at the centre of what we seek to do. What are the Government trying to achieve? We are trying to create a legacy system that more people in Northern Ireland can have confidence in. The last legacy Act failed to command sufficient confidence from the people in Northern Ireland; that is a fact that no one can dispute. I agree with my hon. Friend that prosecutions are increasingly unlikely with the passage of time—I think the judgment and the judge’s summing up in the case of Soldier F made that extremely clear—but even where they are not possible, we want to put in place arrangements, and to be able to provide information about what happened to the families.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Whatever the wrongs committed on that day, does the Secretary of State understand that it beggars belief that a former IRA man can, in his old age, be lolling on a sofa, despite all his torturing, kneecapping and executions? I am thinking of Captain Nairac, who was abducted, tortured and killed; his perpetrators were never brought to justice. Does the Secretary of State realise that this whole process is deeply wounding to the morale of the British Army? He can take refuge in independent prosecution, but he can give his own opinion and say that it is surely time that Northern Ireland moves on into a better age.

[Hilary Benn]

We all want Northern Ireland to be able to move on into a better age and a better future, but we have a responsibility to those families who are still searching for answers to put in place a system that will help them to get those answers, including in the cases that the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned. I simply point out that it is estimated that between 25,000 and 35,000 paramilitaries served sentences of imprisonment during the troubles for a wide variety of offences, including murder. If he looks at the cases currently awaiting trial, he will find that most of them relate to former paramilitaries, not to our armed forces.

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s remarks about the professionalism, bravery and sacrifice of our armed forces, and the role that they played in Northern Ireland and across the UK. What discussions has he had with veterans, as well as the Defence Secretary and the Minister for Veterans and People, about the new protection in the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill? Is he or one of the Defence Ministers prepared to speak to veterans in Cornwall on this matter?

[Hilary Benn]

I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends who are Ministers in the Ministry of Defence will have heard what my hon. Friend has said. The protections in the legislation that has been brought before the House are the result of extensive discussions with the Secretary of State for Defence, the armed forces Ministers, and veterans’ organisations.

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

The Front Benchers have rightly referred to the pain of the relatives of those who died on Bloody Sunday. We all share their sympathy, but nothing justifies the persecution of innocent people, particularly innocent veterans. The judge in the trial said:

“The evidence presented by the Crown falls well short of…the high standard of proof required in a criminal case”.

Nevertheless, in two weeks’ time, there will be another case involving another soldier from 53 years ago, which has already been reviewed for four years by the Director of Public Prosecutions and ruled as “no case to answer”. Despite that, with no evidence whatsoever having been provided since that time, that man is being put through misery and persecution now—a 78-year-old man sitting in anxiety in his home, waiting to be prosecuted for a case that should never have been brought. Does the Secretary of State not recognise that this is injustice? Wrap it up however he likes, it is injustice, and his legislation will mean that many more such cases will occur.

[Hilary Benn]

The legislation that the Government have put before the House will make no change at all to the basis on which decisions about any potential prosecutions are made. Indeed, that system will remain as it has been right through the course of the troubles and in the 27 and a half years since. [Interruption.] It is the case. Decisions about prosecutions are taken independently by prosecutors, and it is not for us to gainsay the decisions that those prosecutors make, because that is the absolute bedrock of our independent judicial system.

[David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)]

Some quarter of a million people served in Operation Banner, and the vast majority did so with great distinction and huge bravery, leading to the peace that we see in Northern Ireland today. The number of prosecutions of Army veterans is vanishingly small, so will the Secretary of State join me in thanking those veterans for their service and condemn the rhetoric that at times is coming from Conservative Members, which is unnecessarily stoking fear among those veterans?

[Hilary Benn]

I have already expressed the Government’s thanks in my answer to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), and I think those sentiments are felt right across the House.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I welcome the clear and just verdict delivered by Mr Justice Lynch, which rightly found Soldier F not guilty on all charges—vindication for a man who served his country with honour and distinction. Does the Secretary of State agree that this case again exposes the disgrace of vexatious prosecutions of aged veterans, pursued where there was never evidence capable of meeting the threshold for conviction, and that it is time to end the witch hunt once and for all?

Does the Secretary of State further agree that around 90% of all deaths during the troubles were caused by terrorists, and that of the 10% that involved the security forces, the largest proportion occurred while engaging terrorists who were engaged in murderous and criminal activities? Sinn Féin’s historical revisionism, exemplified by the First Minister’s comments following the verdict, is therefore defamatory. To equate murderers with those who defended democracy is an attempt to smear our veterans, and it should not be allowed.

[Hilary Benn]

I agree with the hon. Member that 90% of those who were killed during the troubles were killed by paramilitary terrorists, which is why the vast majority of those who have been prosecuted and convicted have been paramilitary terrorists. However, I do not agree with her when she uses the phrase “vexatious prosecutions”. There are no vexatious prosecutions. [Hon. Members: “What?”] There are no vexatious prosecutions, because if the hon. Member is arguing that a decision to prosecute is vexatious, she is criticising the independent prosecuting authorities, which make their decisions on the basis of whether there is a reasonable prospect of a conviction and whether it is in the public interest to prosecute. We should be extremely careful about trying to undermine an independent judicial system.

[Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

Many IRA murders on UK soil have never been solved, including the targeting of soldiers and their families in the M62 coach bombing in 1974 and the Warrenpoint massacre in 1979, the deadliest attack on the British Army during the troubles. Does the Secretary of State agree that by shutting down investigations—including into the deaths of more than 200 Operation Banner soldiers—without an adequate alternative, the legacy Act failed many families and victims of the troubles?

[Hilary Benn]

I share my hon. Friend’s concern about what happened as a result of the legacy Act, but I welcome that two of the cases she mentioned—the M62 coach bombing and Warrenpoint—are currently being investigated by the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, because members of their families have chosen to refer in those cases. I want more families to have more confidence in the commission, which is why I am seeking to reform it so that they too feel able to refer their cases in.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I am listening carefully to the right hon. Gentleman, and the whole premise of his case is that it is somehow in the public interest for people in that community to carry on trying to find people to blame and prosecute on both sides of the argument. Is the real case here not that it is not only an extraordinary injustice for people to be prosecuted for having done their duty as members of Her Majesty’s armed forces, but it does not serve the interests of peace and reconciliation to allow and encourage people to carry on reopening wounds, when so much time and money has already been spent on trying to explain what happened to their loved ones? Nothing must detract from that sympathy, but it is a monstrous injustice that people in the line of duty who bear the scars of that conflict are paying the price for this almost politically correct process, instead of drawing a line.

[Hilary Benn]

I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that I do not accept the characterisation he used at the end of his question. This is not a politically correct process; this is about trying to find a way forward for those families. The honest answer to the fair point that he raises is that each family deals with the loss of their loved one in their own way. Some do not come forward. They live with their grief silently, alone. Others have campaigned. If it had not been for the campaigning of the Bloody Sunday families, there would not have been a Saville inquiry and we would not have got to the point where the former Prime Minister stood at this Dispatch Box to apologise for the killing of their loved ones.

Having said that, in the vast majority of cases, no one is likely to be held to account through a judicial process, and that is why one of the focuses of the new commission will be on fact-finding and the new body for information retrieval, using all the means at our disposal to try to provide answers to those families. It will then be for them to decide how they come to terms with what happened. We owe it to them to leave no stone unturned and to put a better system in place.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

As someone who served in Northern Ireland, I just remind the House that this was the most peculiar operation that we could ever expect soldiers to do—patrolling streets in this United Kingdom, defending people against terrorists here in the UK, against a very strict rules of engagement booklet. They had to make complex decisions in a split second. Some of them were 18 years old, on the streets, petrified. In that context, I simply say to the right hon. Gentleman that he talks of equivalence, but more than 700 British soldiers in Northern Ireland were killed by paramilitaries. Not one single paramilitary has been arraigned and taken to court for any of those murders that were committed against the British Army and the British forces. The Secretary of State talks of equivalence, but this is not equivalence, because it is those soldiers who will be persecuted for the rest of time, and not one single member of the paramilitaries, who kept no records, will ever go in front of a court. That is not fair.

[Hilary Benn]

I apologise if I have got this wrong, but I do not remember using the word “equivalence”. What I said was that independent prosecutors would make decisions on the basis of the evidence that they had before them. The current legacy commission is able to refer cases for potential prosecution, and the new legacy commission will be able to do the same. If there is evidence that will allow paramilitaries to be prosecuted, it will be for the prosecutors to decide whether to bring a case, and if the right hon. Gentleman cares to look at the convictions that there have been since the Good Friday agreement, he will find that most of them have related to paramilitaries. As I said a moment ago, most of the trials that are currently being awaited relate not to the armed forces but to paramilitaries.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

Does the Secretary of State not understand that, given the judge’s comments that the evidence fell well short of the standard required, veterans do consider that that was a vexatious prosecution? They do consider that the prosecution of Soldier B is a vexatious prosecution, and they do feel utterly betrayed by this Government’s repeal of the legacy Act.

[Hilary Benn]

The legacy Act offered a false promise of immunity. It was found to be incompatible with our obligations, and it had no support in Northern Ireland. At some point, Opposition Members must recognise that it had no support there. How can Northern Ireland move forward if the basis of the last Government’s legislation lacks that support? In those circumstances, it is for prosecutors to make decisions, and we need to respect that. People may agree or disagree, but we need to respect a system in which prosecution decisions are made independently, because there are other countries in the world where that is not the case.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State envisage any circumstances in which an IRA terrorist could be prosecuted after he had received a letter of comfort, and if so, what are those circumstances?

[Hilary Benn]

I would cite to the right hon. Gentleman the case of Mr John Downey, to whom I have referred in the House before. He received one of those letters, and as a result his trial for the Hyde Park bombings was halted by the judge, but the public record will show that Mr Downey is currently awaiting trial for two murders committed during the troubles, in which case the letter that he received cannot—I repeat, cannot—be said to have granted him immunity from prosecution.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

I greatly welcome the “not guilty” verdict on Soldier F, but has the Secretary of State no empathy with Soldier F, a man who has lived through years of turmoil and torture while awaiting prosecution, in circumstances in which it was patently obvious that the evidence was never going to stack up? As a lawyer, I am absolutely astounded that this prosecution got as far as it did, because it relied entirely, in terms of what was relevant, on the word of two individuals, both of whom had by then been depicted as liars and perjurers, and neither of whom could be cross-examined—yet our so-called independent prosecution service persisted with the prosecution. Is that not the very essence of what is vexatious, and does the Secretary of State agree that those who campaigned for this persecution of Soldier F should accept the verdict that he is not guilty, and leave the man to live out his years in peace?

[Hilary Benn]

It is a fundamental principle of our legal system that we accept the verdicts of the courts, even if we may not agree with them. The hon. and learned Gentleman is a distinguished lawyer, and he expresses his views regarding the basis of that prosecution. The only point that I am making is that that decision is made by independent prosecutors, not by any of us.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

Fifty-one years ago this month, 21 people were murdered and 200 people were injured in the Birmingham pub bombings. Last week the Minister for Security, the hon. Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis), issued a statement saying that he would not be recommending a public inquiry and that, instead, the Justice for the 21 campaigners could pursue justice via the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, which the Secretary of State has referred to. But BBC Northern Ireland is reporting that, because there has been an inquest into those bombings, it would not be in scope for the commission to look into the Birmingham pub bombings. Could the Secretary of State, at the Dispatch Box, confirm to the families in Justice for the 21 that it would indeed be possible for the commission to look into that?

[Hilary Benn]

It would indeed be possible for them to refer the case to the commission.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I will first declare an interest: I served in the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Ulster Royal Artillery for some 14 and a half years.

This ruling was expected, as there was no additional evidence and it was twice held to be not fit for prosecution, as others have mentioned. It is hard to understand how they could pursue something without having the criminal investigation and the evidence sorted in advance. It is clear that the Secretary of State must address the way forward and provide certainty for those service personnel who know that they served honourably in impossible conditions, and yet who live with the sword of Damocles hanging over their heads, waiting to have their service used as a tool by republicans to make it seem like they were fighting a dirty war, when quite clearly they were not.

Will the Secretary of State send the message today that he will not sign off on the narrative that our troops—the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Ulster Defence Regiment—were ever anything other than honourable men and women putting their lives on the line for us, and that they will be protected as honourably as they protected us? How does the Secretary of State intend to protect them better than we are doing right now?

[Hilary Benn]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the protections that we have put into legislation following the discussions that we have had with veterans, which I referred to earlier. I join him in again paying tribute to the extraordinarily brave service of all those who served during the time of Operation Banner in trying to protect the people of Northern Ireland from the terrorists. I will make a point that I know the whole House will agree with: while some people argue that there was no alternative to that terrorism, there was, and we saw it in the signing of the Good Friday agreement and what happened thereafter. There was always an alternative. That is why we should always support those who did their duty honourably.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

The Secretary of State baulked at the word “equivalence”, so I will have a go with another one. Does he believe that Northern Ireland terrorists should be treated equally to Northern Ireland veterans? If he does, why does he not issue letters of comfort to those Northern Ireland veterans?

[Hilary Benn]

The letters of comfort—or the on-the-run letters, however one wishes to describe them—had their origin in the time after the Good Friday agreement, as the hon. Gentleman will be well aware, but, as I explained a moment ago in answer to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), they did not give anyone immunity from prosecution. That is an extremely important point to make. Anyone who gives the impression that they gave immunity from prosecution is, I am afraid, causing people unnecessary worry when the facts do not support that.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

As we approach Remembrance Sunday, many of those who served in Operation Banner will reflect on comrades whom they lost, comrades who were injured and comrades who still suffer mentally as a result of their deployment in that operation—the British Army’s longest continuous deployment. The Secretary of State has said from the Dispatch Box that his Northern Ireland Troubles Bill will bring strong protections for veterans. It does not; it brings the same protections for everyone under that Bill, including those who possibly perpetrated murderous acts of terrorism in Northern Ireland. So what can he actually provide regarding continuous support for veterans—something set out on the face of the Bill, rather than something that is not in the legislation but is promised by Government?

[Hilary Benn]

The protections were put in place for veterans after consulting veterans, and they are not unimportant: the ability to stay at home and give evidence; the protection from repeated investigations; and the right to seek immunity in a hearing of the commission—people already have the right to seek that in a coroner’s court. There are, of course, two other protections: the protection from cold calling and the right to be heard through the statutory advisory group that will be established, working alongside the commission, which will have representation from a member of the armed forces or a police force. Those are very practical changes that we have made, which, as I said earlier, are not contained in the current legacy Act.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

The Secretary of State is right to say that this Remembrance Month underlines the debt of gratitude that we owe to those who serve our nation, but many in my constituency feel that that stands in stark contrast to the fundamental failure in our nation’s duty of care to veterans of Operation Banner. The Secretary of State suggests that the troubles legacy Bill will not increase the risk of veterans being dragged through the courts, but veterans feel that the reality is different. In the letter that my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) referred to, they call it “lawfare”. They say that there is a legal conveyor belt of several actions that are taking place. Is it not time for a time limit on civil actions relating to historical military operations?

[Hilary Benn]

The hon. Member raises an important point. It is, however, very important to distinguish, as I know she will, between potential criminal prosecutions, which are the result of decisions of independent prosecutors, and civil cases. One of the other things that the courts found was that the ban on civil cases was incompatible with our human rights obligations. I point out that there has already been a civil case in relation to a paramilitary, which found against that individual, and it is a fundamental feature of our system that people are able to bring civil cases. Decisions about how those cases are disposed of is rightly a matter for the courts.

[Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Ind)]

My thoughts today are with the families of the Bloody Sunday victims and with the people of Derry, who have carried the burden of grief, truth and justice for more than five decades. What happened on Bloody Sunday is not up for debate; the Saville inquiry established in painstaking detail what the Parachute Regiment did to peaceful civil rights demonstrators on the Bogside. Can the Secretary of State explain how it was determined and who determined that Soldier F qualified for Ministry of Defence funding, and what precedent this decision was based on, particularly given reports that he received double the financial support typically afforded to a single defendant? If he was eligible for legal aid, that avenue was open for him. Instead, £4.3 million of public money was spent defending a man who, in his own evidence to the Saville inquiry, admitted his lethal role in the state-sanctioned murders on Bloody Sunday. Does the Secretary of State believe that this represents an equal and impartial application of justice, or a two-tiered system designed to shield the British state from accountability?

[Hilary Benn]

I say to the hon. Member that the Saville inquiry report made for very sobering and distressing reading for all of us. Like many Members present, I was in the House to hear the former Prime Minister, Lord Cameron, make that apology to the families—something for which they had campaigned for years and years when justice was denied to them. I will always remember the photographs of the fists that came out of the window in the Guildhall in Derry/Londonderry as people heard what the Prime Minister at the time had said from the Dispatch Box.

On the hon. Member’s first point, it is right and proper that the Ministry of Defence provides support to any veteran who is facing a criminal justice process. I think we would expect nothing less.

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

It is important that we in this House remember that terrorists killed Members of this House, including Airey Neave only a few hundred yards from where we stand today. The Secretary of State on previous occasions has indicated that something like nine inquests could now restart. He has said that Loughgall, an exemplary special forces operation in which brave men stood up against terrorists and nullified them, will be one of those. He has not said which other eight will be reopened. Can he take this opportunity to do that here today?

[Hilary Benn]

I will do so when we have been able to inform the families in those cases. I hope that the hon. Gentleman would accept that it is only right and proper that we inform the families first, and then I will make a list available. On the reason for the Loughgall inquest, he will be aware that the former Attorney General said on 23 September 2015:

“Following careful consideration of a huge amount of material I have come to the decision that new inquests into the Loughgall deaths are justified.”

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)]

Can the Secretary of State tell the House how it is compatible with the sovereignty of the United Kingdom to give the Irish Government an official role—effectively, a veto—over the new framework that the Government propose? Is he confident that the Irish state itself will do everything it can to ensure that its agents are held to account for any collusion that may have happened in atrocities carried out by Irish nationalists during the troubles?

[Hilary Benn]

The Irish Government do not have a veto. I stood next to the Tánaiste, Simon Harris, and I made commitments on behalf of the British Government and he made commitments on behalf of the Irish Government. All of us in the House who wish families to get the answers for which they have been searching for so long should welcome the fact that the Irish Government are prepared to move from where they are now, because they oppose the legacy Act too, to a place where they will give this their fullest co-operation. In the course of that, we all hope to provide more information to give more families answers. That is what we are trying to do, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that the two Governments are working together on this, because it will help the families.

[David Davis]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[David Davis]

During his responses today, the Secretary of State has said two things: on the one hand, he said that letters of comfort do not give immunity; and on the other hand, he accepted that letters of comfort stopped the prosecution of Mr Downey for the Hyde Park bombing. It seems to me that those two statements are inconsistent. What way is available to him to correct Hansard and put one of them right?

[Hilary Benn]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. What I said was absolutely accurate, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows. On the circumstances of the trial of Mr Downey in relation to the Hyde Park bombing, the reason why the judge called that to a halt was set out. But subsequent statements made it quite clear that those letters of comfort did not constitute immunity, as the subsequent events—not least the impending prosecution of Mr Downey—demonstrate.

[Mr Speaker]

Thank you.

Oral Answers to Questions

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

8. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023.

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

The 2023 legacy Act was rejected by our domestic courts, as well as by victims and survivors across Northern Ireland, not least because it proposed giving immunity from prosecution for the most appalling terrorist crimes. Any incoming Government would have had to fix this mess, and that is what this Government are seeking to do with the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, which we published yesterday.

[Luke Murphy]

I thank the Secretary of State for his answer and for his remarks in yesterday’s statement about the professionalism, bravery and sacrifice of our armed forces and veterans, including those who live in my constituency of Basingstoke, in their roles in Northern Ireland, across the UK and abroad. What discussions has he had with veterans, the Defence Secretary and the Minister for Veterans and People on the new provisions and protections in the new legislation?

[Hilary Benn]

I have had many such discussions, as I indicated in my statement to the House yesterday, and those have informed the package of veterans protections contained in the Bill, which the Government have set out.

[Gareth Snell]

When the unlawful legacy Act shut down 200 investigations into the deaths of British soldiers, people across the country, including in my constituency, will have thought that was desperately unfair, and not just on those individuals but on the families and victims. Can the Secretary of State assure me and my constituents that under the new legacy Act there will be opportunities for those victims finally to get the justice they deserve?

[Hilary Benn]

There certainly will, because with the commission as it is now and with the commission as it will be reformed by the troubles Bill, any incident relating to the troubles anywhere in the United Kingdom can be referred into the commission. The M62 coach bombing, the Kingsmill massacre and the Warrenpoint massacre are all currently the subject of investigation by the commission.

[Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

Many families are desperate for answers about what happened to their loved ones. That is often not about wanting to take legal action; they just want to know. Under this new Bill, how quickly will that be delivered for those families? How quickly will they get the information that they have waited decades to receive?

[Hilary Benn]

I know from my discussions with the commission that it is working hard with the 100 or so cases that it is already dealing with to go through that process and start producing reports for families. We know that many families have decided not to engage with the commission because they objected to the legacy Act and, in particular, to the immunity it was proposing to give. That is why we are removing that. I encourage more families to come forward, because I know that the commission and its staff are determined to try to provide the answers that those families seek.

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

The Secretary of State’s allegations about the legacy Act rest on a fiction that the Labour Government have not already handed out amnesties to all those terrorist killers. Two facts need to be put in front of the House. One is from the Good Friday agreement, which

“put in place mechanisms to provide for an accelerated programme for the release of prisoners…convicted of scheduled offences”.

That is one half of the amnesty. The other half is the comfort letters, and the right place to look there is the judge’s ruling in the Downey case, which shot down any future prosecutions. The judge said—I will read it carefully—that there is a

“public interest in holding officials of the state to promises they have made in full understanding of what is involved in the bargain. Hence I have concluded that this is one of those rare cases in which, in the particular circumstances, it offends the court’s sense of justice and propriety to be asked to try the defendant.”

In other words, it is an amnesty, whether the Government like it or not.

[Hilary Benn]

On the first issue that the right hon. Gentleman raises, for anyone who was serving a sentence for a troubles-related offence, part of the Good Friday agreement was that they were released after two years. The people of Northern Ireland voted for that by about 70%. It was part of the agreement. On his second point, there were specific issues in the case of Mr Downey, because he had been given a letter that said he was not wanted when in fact he was. That is why that prosecution could not proceed. The right hon. Gentleman’s point is undermined by the fact that Mr Downey—this is a matter of public record—is currently facing prosecution for two counts of murder in 1972. It therefore cannot be the case that any letter he received gave him an amnesty.

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

A number of the core provisions of the previous Government’s legacy Act have been deemed by the Northern Ireland courts to be incompatible with our human rights obligations. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is little wonder that the legislation was so widely opposed, and does this not make the task of repealing and replacing it even more important?

[Hilary Benn]

It certainly does make it more important, because it is a piece of legislation that has not worked and did not command support in Northern Ireland. If legislation is passed in this House that does not command support in Northern Ireland, how on earth can we expect the answers that families are seeking, which the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) referred to a moment ago, to be provided? We have a responsibility to give more people in Northern Ireland confidence in the new arrangement so that they will come forward to get the answers they have been seeking.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

The Secretary of State has done much to talk up the alleged special provisions in relation to ex-servicemen, but legally is it not the case that any such provisions would have to apply across the board? If I am wrong about that, will the Secretary of State now tell the House which special provisions apply exclusively and only to servicemen?

[Hilary Benn]

The provisions that apply exclusively and only to service personnel are: first, the arrangements to prevent cold calling—a protocol will be agreed with the commission in relation to that—and secondly, not being required to rehearse the history when the Ministry of Defence would be perfectly capable of providing that information. The hon. and learned Gentleman, being a distinguished lawyer, will know that, in respect to other arrangements for witnesses, the law requires that they are available to all witnesses.

[Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Many families have been struggling and campaigning for years for truth and justice, and they are now hopeful that we can get to the truth. We know that MI5 admitted only a few months ago that it had not given all of the files over to Operation Kenova. I am also aware that there are many Northern Ireland Office and MOD files that have not yet gone through the freedom of information process and are therefore not available to the National Archives. Will the Secretary of State commit today to ensuring that those files are available to the new legacy commission?

[Hilary Benn]

The legacy commission has the right to receive all information that it requires to do its job. We are proposing in the legislation to amend the arrangements for disclosure, to require the Secretary of State to conduct a balancing exercise, which was not in the previous Act, and to require the Secretary of State to give reasons, in line with standards that apply across the UK. In addition, any decision of the Secretary of State is open to be judicially reviewed. Those are important changes that I hope will give people in Northern Ireland greater confidence.

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

The Secretary of State said yesterday that his new legacy commission will not relitigate previous investigations involving veterans unless there are “compelling reasons” to do so. That is reinforced in clause 30 of the Bill that has now been published. To remove scope from opportunistic lawyers, would he consider defining far more closely than he has done up to this point precisely what he means by “compelling reasons”?

[Hilary Benn]

That is no doubt an issue that the House will discuss as the Bill is considered in detail. I think that “compelling” and “essential” is a pretty high bar. It will be for the commission to interpret that, but no doubt we will continue to discuss it.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

Further to the Secretary of State’s comments on the adequacy of the legacy and reconciliation Act, I would like to turn to the role of the European convention on human rights. As he will be aware, the Leader of the Opposition seems more interested in the views of the Member for Mar-a-Lago and Moscow than the vision of her predecessor Winston Churchill and is now calling for withdrawal from the ECHR. May I therefore ask the Secretary of State what assessment his Department has made as to the effect that ceasing to be a signatory of the convention would have on the Good Friday agreement, the Windsor protocol, the new legacy framework and Northern Ireland’s institutions in general?

[Hilary Benn]

The Government are absolutely committed to the European convention on human rights. I very much regret that the current Opposition have moved away from that historic support, which goes right back to Winston Churchill, as the hon. Member has set out. It is highly irresponsible to suggest picking away at one of the essential foundations of the Good Friday agreement.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

Yesterday, in an atypical fit of pique, the Secretary of State failed to answer my question as to whether the Attorney General, Lord Hermer, had been excluded from the legislation or had personally recused himself. So today I have an easier question. Given that the Secretary of State yesterday highlighted the protections for veterans in this legislation, could he tell the House which page, which clause or which line uses the word “veteran”?

[Hilary Benn]

The clauses that would implement the protections in relation to veterans and others are clauses 30, 31, 36, 51, 54, 56, 69 and 84.

[Hon. Members]

Hear, hear!

[Gavin Robinson]

Labour Members may cheer, but not one of those clauses refers to veterans. Those are not protections for veterans; they are protections for everyone—paragraph 20 of the explanatory notes shows that what I am saying is true—and many of them are already available in the criminal justice system. It is a mirage.

To be collegiate, the Secretary of State has spent many years criticising the legacy Act of 2023 and previous efforts on the basis that they commanded no political support whatsoever across the parties of Northern Ireland. If there is agreement across Northern Ireland’s Members of Parliament on amendments during the passage of his legislation, will he agree to those amendments?

[Hilary Benn]

The right hon. Gentleman invites me to speculate on amendments that I have not yet seen. As I indicated to the House yesterday, I want to work in as collegiate a way as possible in trying to take the legislation through. In respect to the first part of his question, however, I would say that the only reason the protections and clauses I just read out are in the Bill is because of the Government’s determination to treat our veterans fairly.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

2. What steps he is taking to ensure that Intertrade UK operates independently and transparently.

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

As part of “Safeguarding the Union”, Intertrade UK was established to advise on and promote trade and investment across the UK. The terms of reference and work programme were published on gov.uk. The NIO provides secretariat support, but Intertrade UK is free to submit advice and recommendations to the Government as it sees fit.

[Alex Easton]

What indicators is the Secretary of State using to measure growth in trade within the UK internal market? Will he commit to publicising an independent assessment of the barriers that the Northern Ireland protocol is having on trade within the UK and Northern Ireland, which I believe affects the ability of Intertrade UK to fully promote trade within the UK and operate independently?

[Hilary Benn]

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, a range of organisations, including Intertrade UK, are looking at the impact of the Windsor framework. We have recently had Lord Murphy’s report, for example, which the Government are committed to publishing. The House of Lords Northern Ireland Affairs Committee published a report on the same subject only this morning.

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

Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the major deterrents to investment and growth in Northern Ireland is the absence, 20 months after the restoration of Stormont, of a published investment strategy from the Executive with any sort of a road map for investors or businesses on the infrastructure, roads and housing developments that the Executive will invest in? Does he agree that, in the absence of that strategy, we are flying blind in investment terms? Has he had any discussions with the Executive about that?

[Hilary Benn]

Like my hon. Friend, I look forward to seeing the investment strategy published. Northern Ireland has a great opportunity under the Windsor framework because of the dual market access, which no other part of the United Kingdom has. For those looking to invest to trade with both the UK and the European Union, there is no better place to come and do that but Northern Ireland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

13. What steps he is taking to replace the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023.

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

The Government are committed to repealing and replacing the legacy Act with new arrangements that seek to command greater confidence in Northern Ireland. Yesterday we published the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill and a draft remedial order to do just that.

[John Lamont]

Yesterday the Secretary of State announced this Labour Government’s new Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. Despite all the justifications for the Bill, it still means one thing: veterans, many of whom are elderly, being dragged back through the courts. Does the Secretary of State think that is an acceptable way to treat those people who bravely served and defended our country?

[Hilary Benn]

The hon. Gentleman says “dragged back” to court. The only circumstances in which a veteran, or anyone else, appears in court is if they are charged with an offence. He will know perfectly well what the figures show about prosecutions in the 27 years since the Good Friday agreement. Here we are talking about coroners’ inquests. A small number will be restarted because they were already in train and were stopped by the last legacy Act. The rest will go into the sifting process governed by the Solicitor General. We think that we have a fair and reasonable framework that we will put in place to ensure that veterans are protected and properly looked after.

[Gregory Stafford]

On 25 September, the Prime Minister assured the BBC that veterans would receive protections not afforded to paramilitaries, so can the Secretary of State confirm which of the statutory protections will apply solely to veterans? Or is it the case that they will also extend to paramilitaries?

[Hilary Benn]

I will give the hon. Gentleman one example, which involves the representation of veterans on the statutory advisory group that will be established, drawing on the experience of Operation Kenova, allowing the voice of veterans to be heard. This will be covered by clause 8 of the legislation.

[Bob Blackman]

One of the concerns around dragging veterans through lawfare and our courts is the effect on Army recruitment, so what is the Secretary of State’s reaction to Colonel Nick Kitson, the son of General Sir Frank Kitson, saying:

“How can anyone volunteer to put their life on the line for a Government—indeed a nation—that does not have their back?”

[Hilary Benn]

I meet many cadets who are very keen to join the armed forces, and we should pay tribute to all who are offering their services to the nation in defence of the realm. We should not talk down the importance of that recruitment effort. If anybody looks in the round at what we are putting forward, they will think it is reasonable. I have met many veterans who argue—as the Veterans Commissioners have said—that they are not looking for immunity under the law, which is what the legacy Act gave; they are looking for fairness under it, and that is what we will provide.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that people who join the British Army not only recognise that they have to abide by the law, but expect the Government to have their back and offer them that fairness? Can he offer an assurance that people who served in Northern Ireland will be given the fairness that they expect, and that this is a Government that genuinely have their back?

[Hilary Benn]

I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. To take another example of the protections, it was put to us by veterans in our discussions that no veteran should have to return to Northern Ireland to engage with legacy processes, and we are legislating for that in the Bill.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Hilary Benn]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not only offer congratulations but continue these discussions about legacy matters in that spirit. When I say I am prepared to listen, I mean it. I would just point out to him that the problem arose because of the Supreme Court judgment, as he is well aware, and that for just over two years, the last Government could not find a solution. The one that was put in place did not work because it was found to be incompatible. I have reflected on the point that was made in representations, and this decision will ensure that there is no gap, as it has been referred to. We have found a mechanism that we believe will achieve what sections 46 and 47 failed to do.

[Alex Burghart]

I invite the Secretary of State to look at his own legislation, because clauses 89 and 90 are markedly similar to the sections that we left him. We on this side of the House may have won the battle over this, but we still have not won the war to protect our veterans from vexatious complaints. Is it not the truth that if it had not been for months of campaigning by the Conservatives, the shadow Defence team, the media and reports from Policy Exchange, which may now have saved the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds, Labour would have stuck to its plan and allowed Mr Adams and his comrades to sue anyway?

[Hilary Benn]

I indicated to the House some months ago that we were determined to find a means of dealing with the Supreme Court judgment in 2020 on the subject of the Carltona principle. That is what our proposed legislation will seek to remedy. We think it is a better formulation than sections 46 and 47, and I look forward to the hon. Gentleman’s support in passing it.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

6. What steps he is taking to maintain Northern Ireland’s place in the UK internal market.

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

The Government are committed to safeguarding Northern Ireland’s place in the UK internal market and to implementing the Windsor framework in good faith. The internal market scheme enables traders to move goods from Great Britain into Northern Ireland tariff-free and, since May, with significantly reduced paperwork and checks.

[Andrew Rosindell]

It is a disgrace that the “Safeguarding the Union” provisions severely restrict trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, binding the Province to 300 areas of EU law over which the people have no say. Will the Secretary of State take steps to remove what is left of this damaging international trade border within our own nation and restore the birthright of the people of Northern Ireland as equal citizens of this United Kingdom?

[Hilary Benn]

I say to the hon. Gentleman and those who advocated that we should leave the European Union: this is the consequence of it. There was an open border and two different jurisdictions—how were we going to deal with trade in those circumstances? Secondly, the goods are flowing; the goods are moving. Look at the evidence: the Northern Ireland economy in the second quarter grew by 2%. That is not indicative of a problem.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

On 26 November last year, the Health Secretary assured this House that the Tobacco and Vapes Bill will apply in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State will know that the age-based sales ban affects the placement of tobacco products on the market and so is potentially in breach of the EU’s tobacco products directive, so can the Secretary of State repeat the Health Secretary’s assurance and also tell us whether the Government have confirmed with the European Union that the ban will stand in Northern Ireland?

[Hilary Benn]

It is certainly the Government’s intention that the ban will apply in Northern Ireland, because it is very important that young people all over the United Kingdom are protected in the way in which the Bill seeks.

Northern Ireland Troubles

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the legacy of the troubles, which still hangs heavily over the lives of so many people in Northern Ireland and across the United Kingdom.

The Good Friday agreement—that extraordinary act of political courage—brought peace. Although its architects knew that legacy would have to be dealt with, they were not able to do so. This is therefore the unfinished business of that agreement, and it is why so many—too many—victims and survivors are still waiting for answers about what exactly happened to those whom they loved so much.

The previous Government’s Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 failed to win support in Northern Ireland, failed to comply with our international human rights obligations and was undeliverable. Whatever its intentions, it was no basis for trying to move forward. That is why the Government are today introducing new primary legislation and laying a draft remedial order under the Human Rights Act as we seek to fulfil our King’s Speech commitment to repeal and replace the legacy Act. This legislation will give effect to the framework that I announced with the Irish Government on 19 September, which reflects the principles of the Stormont House agreement and contains sovereign commitments by both the UK and Irish Governments.

The new troubles Bill will reform the independent commission, to be renamed the legacy commission, giving it statutory oversight to provide accountability and confidence, and—learning from Operation Kenova—a statutory victims and survivors advisory group. It will significantly strengthen the governance of the commission, with two co-directors of investigations, statutory conflict of interest duties, and appointments made only following independent advice. It will enhance the investigative powers of the commission and put in place a fairer disclosure regime, ensuring that the commission has the powers that it needs to find answers for families and can make public the maximum possible information, consistent with the state’s responsibility to protect life and national security.

The Bill will fulfil the commitment that we have made to restore the small number of troubles-related inquests that were stopped in their tracks by the legacy Act, and refer the other inquests that had not yet commenced to the Solicitor General for independent consideration of whether, in each case, they are dealt with most appropriately by the reformed legacy commission or via the coronial system. It will enable the reformed commission to hold new proceedings in cases that are transferred to it from the coronial system. Consistent with the provisions in the Inquiries Act 2005, that will provide for public hearings, the consideration of sensitive information in closed hearings, and effective next-of-kin participation, including participation through legal representation.

We will also address in the Bill, rather than in the remedial order, the UK Supreme Court ruling in the Adams interim custody order case regarding the application of the Carltona principle. We must put beyond doubt Parliament’s intention by clarifying the fact that the relevant legislation allowed such orders to be made by junior Ministers as well as by the Secretary of State.

We owe a huge debt of gratitude to the 250,000 Northern Ireland veterans who served with honour and distinction to keep people safe, and who worked with the police and other emergency services in the most difficult circumstances imaginable. Their service and their sacrifice will never be forgotten. That is why, having worked closely with the Defence Secretary and the Armed Forces Minister, the Government are introducing strong safeguards for veterans that respond directly to the concerns that have been expressed to us. Those safeguards will also apply to other people, such as former police officers. They will mean that no witnesses will need to travel to Northern Ireland to engage with legacy mechanisms. They will have a right to do so remotely, because coroners and judges in the commission will be legally required to allow it, and support for veterans will be available to assist them in that regard. The commission will be under a duty not to duplicate aspects of any previous investigations unless there are compelling reasons that make it essential. The welfare of veterans will be given proper consideration as part of any assessment of whether they are required to give evidence, and that will include the right of veterans to seek anonymity when doing so.

Our protections will not be limited to legislation. Any contact with veterans will be facilitated through the Ministry of Defence, protecting veterans from cold calling, and veterans will not be required to rehearse the historical context surrounding incidents when such information can be obtained from other sources, including the Ministry of Defence. These measures will provide what the three UK veterans’ commissioners have called for: not immunity from the law, but fairness under it.

The remedial order, which I am also laying today, will remove the last Government’s much-criticised immunity scheme, which offered false promises, was never introduced, and would have enabled those who had committed the most appalling terrorist crimes to be granted immunity from prosecution—the principal reason why the Act was so strongly opposed in Northern Ireland—and it will lift the current prohibition on troubles-related civil proceedings.

I am grateful to the Tánaiste, Simon Harris, and his team for their open and constructive approach in reaching the framework agreement, which recognises that helping families affected by the troubles is a shared responsibility. That is why the joint framework contains specific and unprecedented commitments by the Irish Government to facilitate the fullest possible co-operation of the Irish authorities with a reformed legacy commission, to establish a dedicated unit within An Garda Síochána to deal with troubles-related cases, which will include investigating all outstanding cases in Ireland, and to make a financial contribution of €25 million to help fund legacy mechanisms. That is, of course, in addition to the £250 million already committed by the UK Government. Where required, legislation will be introduced by the Irish Government to implement those commitments. We are also establishing with the Irish Government an independent commission on information retrieval—initially on a pilot basis—to give families an additional means of obtaining information.

Since my appointment last year, I have had many discussions with political parties, victims and survivors organisations, human rights groups, veterans and others affected by the troubles. Given the views held by so many people—often diametrically opposed—it was always going to be impossible to set out a plan that gives everyone everything that they want. There will be elements of our approach that some people will welcome and others will not. I also recognise that, because of what has gone before, there is a great lack of trust in all of us in the House on the part of victims and survivors. That is, unfortunately, the reality; but it is not, and it never has been, an argument for not trying to find a way forward. I hope that those who want to see a fair and effective approach to legacy that can command greater support in Northern Ireland will recognise that these measures represent fundamental reform, and that they will therefore be given a chance to succeed.

Time waits for no one, least of all for the many families who lost loved ones, and they, ultimately, will be the judge of whether these new arrangements can give them the answers that they have sought for so long. I hope that we will together be able to grasp this opportunity, and so help the people of Northern Ireland to look to a future freer of the burden of the past. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

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

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.

The last Government legislated to draw a line under troubles-era litigation. That litigation was inevitably weighted against those who sought to protect our country from terrorism. It was inevitably weighted against those who keep records, and whose servicemen are easy to locate and contact. Even today, vexatious claims are being made. Only last week a judicial review of a 1991 case was rightly thrown out by the High Court in Belfast. The judge described the challenge as “utterly divorced from…reality”, but not before the former special forces soldier at the centre of it had had to endure four years of investigation. Mindful of cases such as this, the last Government sought to draw a line. Through their actions today this Government are erasing that line, and as they do so, many former servicemen will again feel, with profound unease, that the lawyers are coming. I hope the House will spare a thought for them this afternoon.

I know we will have a lot of time to debate the legislation that the Government are laying, but there are a number of specific questions that I would like to ask the Secretary of State. First, on the resumption of inquests, will he tell the House how many inquests will be restored and how many will be referred to the Solicitor General? Can he specifically tell the House whether that list will include the 1987 Loughgall case?

Secondly, civil cases are to reopen. It is thought that at the time of prohibition, many hundreds of such cases—affecting perhaps thousands of people—were before the Belfast courts. What is the Northern Ireland Office’s calculation of the number of civil cases that are now likely to proceed? I ask that because there are clear financial consequences to reopening legacy in this way. The Secretary of State referred to the £250 million already committed—indeed, it was committed by the last Government to deal with the legacy as we framed it—but it is now clear that the new legacy commission is to have a much bigger remit than the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery. If so, will its budget be increased? If not, how will it be expected to function?

Similarly, the Police Service of Northern Ireland has raised very serious concerns about the amount of money that it will need to support reopened inquests and civil cases. Policy Exchange has placed the cost on the police at around £90 million, at a time when police numbers in Northern Ireland are at an all-time low. There is a very real prospect that without additional funding from the Secretary of State, frontline policing in Northern Ireland will be further reduced. Can the Secretary of State make a commitment that that will not happen?

Thirdly, the Government have today briefed journalists that legislation will ban Gerry Adams from receiving compensation for his detention in the 1970s, but the Secretary of State’s statement made no reference to that. Can he tell the House unequivocally that Mr Adams will not receive one penny of compensation?

Fourthly, the Secretary of State listed a number of protections for veterans in court, but it is already the case that anonymity, age-related considerations and remote hearings are available at the discretion of the court. That was apparent to the Tánaiste on 19 September, when he emphasised that no new protections would be available to veterans. Does the Secretary of State agree with Mr Harris? There has also been some confusion about whether these protections will extend to paramilitaries. On 25 September, the Prime Minister claimed that they will not. Can the Secretary of State be definitive for the House?

Lastly, there is the question of the involvement of the Republic of Ireland in legacy. This has proved deeply controversial, and I am sure that the Secretary of State will be asked questions about it this afternoon. However, I was interested to see that the Republic has made commitments to get the Garda to investigate unresolved troubles-related incidents within its jurisdiction, and to legislate to enable the fullest possible co-operation of the relevant Irish authorities with the legacy commission. If that is to happen, it is to be welcomed, because during the troubles the UK repeatedly sought extraditions from the Republic to bring terrorist charges. In the vast majority of cases, they were turned down.

Following 1998, the former Irish Justice Minister, Michael McDowell, said that the Irish Government gave a de facto amnesty to the IRA. Indeed, there are many instances of possible collusion between the Garda and the Provisional IRA, which have never received the attention they deserve: Kingsmill, the murder of Ian Sproule, Bloody Friday, Teebane, La Mon—the list goes on. I sincerely hope that the Republic will now engage sincerely, deeply and honestly, and I hope the Secretary of State will ensure that it does.

[Hilary Benn]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his response. He says that the last Government sought to draw a line, but it did not work. In the act of seeking to do that—this is the one question that the now Opposition have never been able to answer—they decided that they would give terrorists immunity from prosecution. [Hon. Members: “No, they didn’t!”] Yes, that is what the last Government did, and I have never heard a justification. [Hon. Members: “No, they didn’t!”] Yes, they did, and it did not work. It did not have support in Northern Ireland. How can Northern Ireland proceed to deal with the legacy of the troubles, when the legislation that the last Government passed had no support in Northern Ireland?

To answer the hon. Gentleman’s specific questions, nine inquests will be restored and the remaining 24 will go into the sifting process. Those nine inquests will include Loughgall, because the Conservative Attorney General ordered a new inquest into Loughgall 10 years ago—a point never referred to by the Opposition. It was one of the cases that had begun, and it therefore falls within the group that will be restored. The rest will be considered by the Solicitor General in the sifting process. The number of civil cases will depend on those who choose to bring them or resume them.

On the PSNI, I say to the hon. Gentleman that prior to 1 May last year, the force had over 1,000 cases on its books, and that is no longer the case. The legacy commission, which the UK Government are funding, is now responsible for looking at all cases referred to it. That cost is borne by the UK Government and not by the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland. To the extent that cases are no longer inquests but will go to the commission, the cost will be borne by the UK Government and not by the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland.

On the issue of interim custody orders, as I indicated to the House a moment ago, the legislation will make it clear that the signing of those orders by junior Ministers was always lawful, but we have also decided, in placing a draft remedial order before the House today, that sections 46 and 47 of the legacy Act will now remain in place until the provisions of the Bill take effect. That will deal with the point that some people have made about avoiding a gap, but we all have to recognise that sections 46 and 47 proved to be an ineffective way of dealing with this issue—the hon. Gentleman smiles, but he knows that that is the case.

On the protections we have brought in for veterans, we have done so with the motivation of protecting veterans. On the involvement of the Republic of Ireland, I join the hon. Gentleman—a point of unity at the end—in welcoming the commitment of the Irish Government to this partnership. The history of Northern Ireland teaches us that a lot of progress is made when the two guarantors of the Good Friday agreement work together, and many people in Northern Ireland would like to get answers from the Garda and the Irish authorities. At the moment, the Irish Government are refusing to co-operate. Why? Because of the last Government’s legacy Act. I look forward to the Irish Government participating in the process in the months and years ahead.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

I am pleased to see from the joint framework that the Government have listened to some of the key concerns voiced by stakeholders during my Committee’s inquiry into legacy. Those stakeholders will no doubt want to study the detail of the proposals that my right hon. Friend is publishing today. To that end, what consultation have the Government had with victims and survivors groups since the joint framework was announced, and in what ways has this informed the legislation laid today?

[Hilary Benn]

The legislation is about to be published, but in the 14 months since I took up this post, I have had many conversations with families, victims, and the other organisations and groups that I listed in my statement. The Bill that the House will see is the result of that process of discussion, listening, drafting and attempting to respond—not in a way that will please everyone—to the mess that this Government were left by the last Government, who passed a piece of legislation that did not work, did not have support and was found by the courts not to be compatible with our obligations in a number of respects. The question now for all those groups, having seen the framework agreement that we have reached with the Irish Government, is: do they feel that the legislation gives effect to that, and will it enable Northern Ireland to move forward in dealing with these really intractable problems?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. As this is my first statement as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for Northern Ireland, I want to begin by recognising the deep scars left by the troubles on families and communities across the island of Ireland and these islands. The pain, loss and legacy of that conflict remain deeply felt to this day.

Although the Liberal Democrats welcome the recent agreement between the British and Irish Governments, the true test of this deal will lie in the detail of the legislation that follows. The Government’s stated intention—to promote an honest attempt at reconciliation and to draw a line under decades of division—is one that every Member of this House can understand. Victims’ families deserve truth, justice and closure. Equally, our veterans deserve and must be afforded fairness and protection from injustice. As the Secretary of State has said, the legacy Act, introduced by the Conservatives, failed to gain the support of any of the parties in Stormont, victims groups or the Irish Government. This lack of consensus speaks volumes but is not loud enough, it seems, for His Majesty’s official Opposition.

I look forward to examining the contents of the new Bill in detail and to tabling constructive amendments. My party will engage fully with the Government, as lasting reconciliation depends on transparency, fairness and independent oversight. That means an effective information retrieval body with statutory disclosure powers, meaningful participation for victims, and safeguards to uphold both justice and compassion for veterans and victims alike.

I have three questions for the Secretary of State. First, how will this Bill ensure that reconciliation is not imposed from above, but built from the ground up? Secondly, based on the many meetings my party has had with veterans and their representatives, what specific safeguards will the Government include to ensure fairness, proportionality and proper protections for those who serve with integrity? Lastly, how will this Government ensure that prosecution under the law, or the possibility of it, can never be used to harm, oppress or discredit those who fought for our country, regardless of the final verdict?

[Hilary Benn]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new role, and I genuinely look forward to working with him on these and other matters, given his interest in Northern Ireland, which is shared right across the House.

Let me turn to his three specific questions. First, no legislation can enable people to feel reconciled in some way to what happened. In the end, reconciliation has to come from within. The title “reconciliation” will not be in the new name of the legacy commission, because it is a consequence of a process that we are trying to put in place, if families can find answers. I urge the House to concentrate on that, because that is what this is all about—trying to enable families to find answers. Secondly, I did draw attention to the safeguards in my statement, and when the Bill is published later, the hon. Gentleman will be able to see how they are given legal expression.

Lastly, on the hon. Gentleman’s point about prosecution, I would simply say that people have made one or two comments in these discussions about politically motivated prosecutions or vexatious prosecutions. I think it is very important that the House upholds the integrity and independence of the prosecutorial authorities. A fundamental bedrock of our legal system is that independent prosecutors make such decisions, and to suggest that they are in any way politically motivated is in my view profoundly mistaken.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to the Secretary of State, the Defence Secretary and the Minister for the Armed Forces for working so hard to achieve this new phase of the peace settlement in Northern Ireland. As we celebrate peace starting in the middle east, this statement is a reminder of how long it takes to build peace and how important justice is for peace. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that by shutting down investigations, including into the deaths of more than 200 Operation Banner soldiers, without an adequate alternative, the unlawful legacy Act failed so many families and victims of the troubles, and the mess had to be undone?

[Hilary Benn]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question, but above all for her great service in the Northern Ireland Office. It was a real pleasure to work with her, and she did so much during her time in the Department.

I do agree with my hon. Friend, because those service families want to find answers. Some time ago, I met the family of Tony Harrison, who served and was murdered in Belfast. His mother and his brother told me how outraged they were by the legacy Act, because it proposed that those who had killed her son could get immunity from prosecution. It is so important that we put that misguided approach on one side, so that all families—service families and others—can find answers.

[Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

It is worth remembering that most victims are not in a group, are not in the media and are not taking action; they just want to know what happened to their loved ones. As we debate the forthcoming legislation, I hope we can all collectively remember that, because investigations are key to delivering for those families.

I want to ask the Secretary of State two specific questions. First, there is some concern that there will be protection for combatants who may have been involved in rapes and other sexual activity. Could he look at that as the Bill proceeds to make sure that victims are able to talk and have protections, as those ex-combatants have? Secondly, what thought has he given to a change of Government in the south should Sinn Féin take power, and to the delivery of the Irish contribution and commitments in such a scenario?

[Hilary Benn]

I am grateful, as ever, to the right hon. Gentleman for his wise words, and I once again pay tribute to the distinguished role he played in trying to move forward some of these and many other Northern Ireland questions during his time as Secretary of State.

On the latter point, it is not for me to speculate on what is going to happen as a result of the decisions of the Irish electorate. The current coalition Government have given a commitment, and this partnership was two Governments coming together, each making sovereign commitments and promising to carry them out in their own jurisdictions. I think it is a hugely significant moment, because we have to go back 11 years to the last such time, when the last Government were able to reach agreement with the Irish Government in the form of the Stormont House agreement.

On the first question, when the right hon. Gentleman sees the Bill, he will see that we are making changes to allow some other matters to be investigated, because I am conscious of the point he has raised.

[Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)]

I welcome the statement and the progress made by both this Government and the Government of the Republic of Ireland. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) said, we on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee have heard of the heartbreak of many of those who lost loved ones over the course of the troubles, and regardless of the background of those loved ones, they deserve answers.

The response we have consistently received is that Operation Kenova is an example of good practice—that many of those in the island of Ireland are too close to this matter, and bringing in suitably qualified individuals from other parts of the UK should be considered as part of any process. Can I ask the Secretary of State if that has been considered in the new Bill?

[Hilary Benn]

I would make two points. First, as I have alluded to, we have drawn on the experience of Operation Kenova, in that the Bill will create a statutory victims and survivors advisory group to ensure that, in the way it goes about its work, the commission takes account of victims and survivors, and that will include a representative of those who served the state during the troubles.

On the second point, we are putting together much tougher statutory provisions in place relating to conflicts of interest. That is why there will be two directors of investigation—one will have experience of investigating cases in Northern Ireland, the other will not—which will address the concerns some families have about who will be looking into their case. We should not forget that, despite the nearly 100 cases that the commission is currently investigating, which I welcome, far too many families in Northern Ireland have said that they will not be going anywhere near the commission. Part of the purpose of what we are seeking to do is to build confidence on the part of more families in Northern Ireland to go to the commission and get answers.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

First, I welcome the Minister to his place and to the Department, and I welcome the new shadow spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats. I personally thank the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) for the role she played in her time in the Northern Ireland Office.

That the announcement with the Irish Government was made during a House of Commons recess, one could consider as cynical; that we stand here today during a statement on legislation that has yet to be introduced, and therefore we have no detail on, as disgraceful; and the suggestion that the Irish Government have committed to legislate at all as entirely fanciful—they have not. But the detail we do have is that the Secretary of State wishes for the Solicitor General to be the person to carry out the sifting process on whether cases should go to inquest through the coronial system or to the legacy commission.

In Northern Ireland, we have an Advocate General. The Advocate General is England and Wales’s Attorney General. I am clear in my mind that Richard Hermer would be wholly inappropriate to have his hands anywhere near cases touching on the legacy of the past, given how he has conflicted himself. Will the Secretary of State indicate: has the Attorney General of this country recused himself from this process? Has he, as Secretary of State, decided to exclude the Attorney General from this process? Is he legislating in a way that will exclude every Attorney General from this process, or is it just Richard Hermer?

[Hilary Benn]

I would say to the right hon. Gentleman that I am sorry to have heard what he has just said in relation to very substantial proposals contained in the framework document. I grant him that the Bill will be published shortly, and he will have a chance to read it. I have been accused of many things in my time in public life but being cynical is not one of them, so that is a first. The truth about the announcement of the framework—[Interruption.] Well, it may be the beginning of a number of such accusations, but I will leave that to others who want to take the debate in that particular direction.

The framework was announced when it was because it is a joint framework between two Governments and that means there had to be a negotiation about when it came out, but I did undertake to Mr Speaker at the time that I would come to the House as quickly as possible to make a statement. I laid a written ministerial statement in the House yesterday, and I came today at the first available opportunity with Members here, bearing in mind the Whip we had yesterday, to subject what had agreed to scrutiny.

I have every confidence in the Solicitor General, and I am sure she will do an excellent job in sifting these cases against three criteria, which will be laid out in statute. The first will be about the impact that sensitive information will have on the ability of inquests to actually complete the case. The second will be speed—time waits for no one. The third will be the view of those who are involved in the cases, including families.

[Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and I welcome the Government’s focus on a protections package for veterans. Last week, I met David, Ishbel and Gary from Yateley and Hawley Royal British Legion, who do an excellent job supporting veterans in my community. We discussed the new veterans protection package announced by the Government, including the protections against repeated investigations. Many veterans from my constituency served courageously for our nation in very, very difficult conditions and they asked me to raise a number of questions on behalf of veterans who served in Northern Ireland. How will the Government ensure that the protections are absolutely watertight in practice, so that veterans are not subjected to repeated, distressing investigations in old age? What steps are being taken with the Irish Government and other partners to ensure that accountability and justice are applied consistently and fairly on all sides?

[Hilary Benn]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. She is such a strong advocate for the many veterans she represents. I encourage her to look at the legislation to see the nature of the legislative commitments to give effect to the veterans’ protections. There will be a couple that will not be in legislation because they are entirely in our own hands, agreeing a protocol with the commission to ensure that there is no cold calling.

I would like to take this opportunity to welcome my new deputy, the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick) to the House. It is very remiss of me not to have done so. This is the first chance we have had to sit together on the Front Bench. I pay tribute to the Minister for the Armed Forces, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), from the Ministry of Defence, who has played a really important and significant role in putting the protections in place. I note that Lieutenant General Sir Nick Pope, the chair of the Confederation of Service Charities, has said that the Confederation

“welcomes the development of the safeguards that have been put in place to offer protection to those within the armed forces community who are affected by legacy issues.”

I, too, welcome that recognition of what we have done.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

Obviously the devil lies in the detail in these things, and never more so than in Northern Ireland. Before the Bill comes eventually before us, we really cannot say for certain whether it is good, bad or indifferent, as is often the case.

I will raise two points. First, I will mention the agreement—I find it a little wishy-washy—over Ireland’s role in all this, which, as has been said by my hon. Friends, has a huge amount of history attached to it, given that Ireland has previously refused to hand over people who really were guilty of the most vexatious, disgusting attacks on civilians and soldiers. It does seem to me rather peculiar. We will wait and see what that actually means. Ireland says it is committed—I would love to see what that commitment actually means.

Secondly, I will mention vexatious prosecutions. The note we have here talks about protection from repeated investigations

“unless there are compelling reasons to do so”.

My concern with things like that is that they are little hooks that allow development through legislation, instead of being powerful tools to do what the Secretary of State says. I therefore urge him right now to be very clear when this legislation comes forward that this cannot be broken through and to tie down the definition of “compelling”.

[Hilary Benn]

I note the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the past, and I am not going to dissent from what he said, but this is an attempt to move beyond the past and the history and to move forward to something that is better. In the end, people will judge the commitments that this Government and the Irish Government have made, but the deal has been signed in good faith, and we are committed to doing what we promised to do.

The commission was established by the previous Government, after all, and I took the decision not to abolish it, but to reform it. Many people criticised that—they wanted it scrapped completely and for us to start again, but I thought that would have been a mistake, because time waits for no one. We would have wasted all the money and stopped the investigations that are taking place, which are really important to the families. Every single investigation is important to every single family, because each is about the death of a loved one.

I am sure we will debate the specifics of the legislation at length in the House. The state has a duty, of course, to properly investigate cases where it has been involved in a death. The right hon. Gentleman is well aware of that. It is a duty that all of us should uphold.

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

I thank the Secretary of State and his team for their work on this package, including the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), who was so well regarded by everybody who came across her in Northern Ireland. I also thank the officials in the Department of Foreign Affairs in Dublin for their work, because that partnership is vital to moving forward.

The Social Democratic and Labour party acknowledges the progress in this package if it is faithfully captured in the legislation. When we push for more and better, please know that that comes from a sincere and long-held determination to get this right for families, survivors and our society as a whole. Despite some opinions to the contrary, including recently, I do not believe that most people believe that any murder in Northern Ireland was justified, inevitable, useful or worthy of cover-up, and perpetuating those narratives is an enormous challenge for the present and the future, too.

Does the Secretary of State agree that all the work invested by families, campaigners and his officials will be worth nothing if those who created victims—whether republican or loyalist paramilitaries or the state forces who assisted them—do not approach this with full transparency and disclosure and put honesty and the needs of victims over the needs of their own narratives?

[Hilary Benn]

My hon. Friend gives me the opportunity to pay tribute to my extraordinary officials, some of whom are present today. It has been the privilege of my life to work with them on this. I know that my hon. Friend will hold us to the highest standards, and I accept what she says in the spirit in which it is offered. As I indicated to the House earlier, I want there to be maximum provision of information to families, but we must also acknowledge that any and all Governments have responsibilities for the security of the state and to protect life, and this Government will uphold both.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

I welcome the hon. Member for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick) to his ministerial position, and I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) to his new place as spokesperson—frankly the best job anybody could have in opposition.

I have spent the summer speaking to veterans about the vital commitment they need to feel that the process of prosecution does not become persecution. While many of those veterans recognise that they went to Northern Ireland in order to restore the rule of law and think that they should be subject to the laws of this land, they none the less remain incredibly anxious about the possibility that the process of prosecution becomes persecution. Has the Secretary of State had the official backing of any veterans group for the approach that he has taken? Separately, has he had any assurances from the Republic of Ireland Government that they will, as a result of the publication of this Bill, drop the inter-state case against the United Kingdom?

[Hilary Benn]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the role he played as Liberal Democrat spokesperson for Northern Ireland. The truth is that with the passage of time, the possibility of prosecution becomes increasingly remote. We all know that to be the case. Most of the families I have met—not all, but most—have said, “I know that no one is going to be held to account through the judicial process, but I just want to know what happened. That’s what I want.” It causes such pain and grief that that answer cannot be provided. It really is difficult.

As far as the Irish Government are concerned, I believe that they will honour the promises they have made. This partnership with the Irish Government is a significant moment, because moving from non-co-operation to co-operation will open up the possibility for more information to come to families. The inter-state case is a matter for the Irish Government, but I am very clear of one thing, which is that the last legacy Act created circumstances in which the law that was not compatible with our international obligations, and that is the basis of the inter-state case. The legislation I am bringing before the House will fix that and deal with it, and in those circumstances the inter-state case will no longer have a basis.

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement today, particularly his focus on answers, which are what people want. As someone who lost a friend, Tim Parry, when he was murdered by the IRA in 1993, I know exactly how important it is for families and everyone who knows victims to get the answers that they deserve. The agreement is vital in getting the process moving again so that victims and families can get those answers. How will the Secretary of State continue that work with families and victims both during the process of the legislation and afterwards to make sure that answers remain at the heart of what the Government are trying to achieve?

[Hilary Benn]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. I spoke yesterday to the victims’ commissioner in Northern Ireland. On 19 September when the framework was published, the Tánaiste and I met the victims and survivors forum in Northern Ireland and explained what the framework seeks to do. I made a commitment to the victims’ commissioner yesterday that I will come back to meet the victims and survivors forum once it has had a chance to look at the legislation to find out what it thinks.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

In the interests of trying to solve this issue, I wish the Secretary of State well and hope that he will bring forward the Bill and deal with its progress in the spirit of compromise and co-operation between the parties to find the best landing spot possible. He mentioned good faith, which is a precious resource that is often in short supply when it comes to this issue. I think it would be helpful if he works vigorously with the Irish Government to get them to ascertain at speed and pace what, if any, legislative measures they require to make good on what they have committed to, and could he as best as possible work those two pieces of legislation in lockstep to give confidence to both sides, who have concerns when it comes to good faith—or rather the absence of it?

[Hilary Benn]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he said. I hope he knows that I will do anything and everything I can to try to find a way forward, in partnership with as many Members of the House as possible. For a long period of time, this question has been subject to the bipartisanship which, in the main, has characterised relations between the parties in the House on matters to do with Northern Ireland. I recognise that there are disagreements in relation to one aspect of what we are putting forward; that does not mean that we cannot work together on the others.

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point about the importance of seeing the legislation required in Ireland to give effect to the proposals. I was standing next to the Tánaiste when he made it quite clear—to give an example—that he would ensure legislation was in place to deal with the commitment to enable witnesses to give evidence to the Omagh public inquiry before the hearings resume in March. That seems to be an important example of good faith.

[Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I suppose that the Secretary of State will forgive some of us for being cautious before we are ready to believe that the Government, the state and any paramilitary organisation will give over the information that is required. In fact, right now there are families across the road in the Supreme Court in legal dispute with the Government because the Government are withholding information from them. We know that there is a pattern.

When it comes to inquests, will the Secretary of State look again at the sifting process? Will he give family views primacy when it comes to deciding which cases will have an inquest? Will he drop his proposal to give himself the power to appoint judges in that inquisitorial mechanism? The important principle of the independence of the judiciary needs to be held up.

[Hilary Benn]

On inquests, there are three statutory tests that the Solicitor General will have to apply. In answer to an earlier question, I indicated what they are. Family views will be one of the considerations, but if inquests cannot proceed because of sensitive information, would it not be more sensible to put it into the commission, which can deal with sensitive information, because it has provision for closed hearings?

No doubt my hon. Friend will make the point about appointment processes when we come to discuss the Bill. However, on the agreement on the information-retrieval mechanism, I point out—this is also relevant to the point made by the Opposition—that that was negotiated by the previous Conservative Government and the Irish Government, and it formed part of the Stormont House agreement. What is the purpose of it? It is to enable those who have information to pass it to the body, which can then pass it to the families, and that information will be a protected disclosure, which is not the same as immunity.

That system has worked well through the independent commission for the location of victims’ remains in recovering quite a number of the remains of those who were abducted, tortured, murdered and buried by the IRA. I hope that it is a step forward in going back to what was agreed at Stormont House by the previous Government, the Irish Government and the political parties—well, not all of them—and will be welcomed on all sides.

[Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)]

The Secretary of State referred to this as unfinished business. In the last statement, we heard about the successes of the peace process in Northern Ireland. I was 12 years old when the Good Friday agreement was signed; I now stand here 40 years of age as the MP for Lagan Valley, and my constituents deserve truth and justice as much as anybody else.

We have heard a lot today about veterans. My family were part of that cohort. They proudly served, along with many others. They do not want an amnesty. They do not want immunity. They do not want equivocation with terrorists, which was proposed by the outgoing Government.

We hear about people in Northern Ireland who were in the wrong place at the wrong time whenever they died. They were not; it was the terrorists who were in the wrong place, doing the wrong work. We must send out a clear signal, no matter what our political opinion, that terrorism was wrong in the past and is wrong now. Will the Secretary of State give me his guarantee that he will discuss that with the Northern Ireland Executive and my ministerial colleagues to ensure that those families who so rightfully deserve truth and justice have the resource to be able to get that?

[Hilary Benn]

May I say to the hon. Member that I agree with every single word that she has expressed so powerfully and forcefully? I encourage those who have been chuntering from a sedentary position during the course of these exchanges to reflect on her point that there are many people who say they do not want immunity and they certainly object to it being given to those who committed the most appalling crimes.

Voices in Northern Ireland really need to be listened to. The failure to do that, including under the last legacy Act, is why I made the point that there has been a terrible lack of trust in politicians over a long period of time. I will not make a party point, but there is a terrible lack of trust in politicians because there have been attempts before and they have not worked. We have to try to make this work, and I have already begun the process of talking to the hon. Member’s colleagues in the Northern Ireland Executive.

[Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

Following the last question, I want to say that the Tory’s immunity system would have meant immunity for the perpetrators of terrorist crimes across the UK. Our domestic courts have determined that. Does the Secretary of State agree that this Government have no choice but to rectify the situation?

[Hilary Benn]

I agree with my hon. Friend, who makes the point extremely forcefully. It did not work and it was never deliverable. There never was immunity; it was a false promise made to veterans who were badly let down and badly served by the last Government. Whoever won the election last year would have had to deal with the mess that we have inherited, and that is what we seek to do.

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

In March of this year, it was widely reported that the Secretary of State gave his word to Mairead Kelly, the sister of IRA murderer Patrick Kelly, that there would be an inquest on the Loughgall incident. Is this remedial order a fulfilment of that promise? If so, it means that 30 years on, the Government are dragging veterans into court over an operation that stopped eight heavily armed IRA murderers—men who had already killed and who were on their way to kill again, with weapons that had been used in 40 previous murders.

Let us be clear: by stopping the attack, those soldiers prevented the murder of many more innocent Northern Ireland citizens. What justice is served by punishing those brave soldiers with a stressful and unnecessary process? The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) described it as a persecution, punishing them for doing nothing more than their duty. Is this really what the Secretary of State intends?

[Hilary Benn]

The fact is that this Government were elected on a commitment. There was a lot of opposition to the ending of inquests under the legacy Act—maybe not from the right hon. Gentleman but from a lot of people in Northern Ireland. The Government came in committed to restoring the inquests that had started and were stopped. The reason that I said what I said is because Loughgall, as I have already indicated to the shadow Secretary of State, is one of those nine cases.

It is for the independent coronial system to take a decision about that, but one of the factors that coroners have to take into account is how they will deal with any sensitive information that is provided. We know from other inquests that there have been a number of cases when the coroner has said that they accept that the information cannot see the light of day. They have examined the public interest immunity certificate and have reached the conclusion that they cannot take the case any further. In those circumstances, the sensible thing would be for cases to move into the commission, where sensitive information can be considered.

[Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to new protections for veterans. Will he update the House on the discussions that he and Ministry of Defence Ministers have had with veterans and their representative groups about the measures?

[Hilary Benn]

The Minister for the Armed Forces, the Defence Secretary and I have had many such discussions. The measures that I have announced that will be contained in the Bill and the other non-legislative measures are the result of those discussions. We have listened very carefully to the concerns expressed by veterans and we have come forward with what we think is a fair, reasonable and balanced package of measures that will provide protection while also taking forward our responsibility to enable families, including forces families, to find answers.

[Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)]

I am against the repealing of the legacy Act, and I served in Northern Ireland. As I am now doing in opposition, I raised when we were in government the major concern and dishonour when none of those on the Labour Benches had the decency to come to this House and debate all the points the Minister is making now. They let the legislation go through, but it is recorded in Hansard that very few people bothered to come to the Chamber to debate it when we took it through the House.

I want to make two quick points on the support for veterans. First, you have spoken about the process they will have to go through; I want to know what support will be available, as you have mentioned. Secondly, given that the terrorists did not keep records but the British Army did, how will you ensure fairer disclosure throughout the process?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I remind Members not to refer to “you”, as that means me.

[Hilary Benn]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for his point. Support is available for veterans through the Ministry of Defence, and the Armed Forces Minister is very committed to making sure that veterans get all the support they need, which is in part reflected in the package we have announced.

On disclosure, we are making a number of changes, including amending the definition of “sensitive information” so that it is not designated by virtue of the body that held it. That is one of the reasons why the courts found that the disclosure arrangements were not compatible with our commitments. The Secretary of State will have to conduct a balancing exercise on what should be disclosed; the Secretary of State will be required to give reasons for any decision not to disclose, to the extent that that does not risk harm to national security; and, of course, any decision that the Secretary of State makes can be subject to judicial review.

[Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for the way he and the Minister for the Armed Forces have engaged on this matter in recent months. I have many constituent veterans in Sunderland Central who served with distinction in Operation Banner; the Secretary of State rightly praised the professionalism and service of our armed forces in that operation, and I welcome the protections he has set out today. May I press him a bit more on the need for continuing work with veterans groups, so that as the protections are being implemented there will be a process of ongoing review to ensure that they provide effective protection from vexatious lawfare?

[Hilary Benn]

I am very happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. We have made these commitments because we want them to work, and the Government are determined to ensure that that is the case.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

On that assurance from the Secretary of State about the protections for veterans, on 19 September he stood beside the Irish Government when he made this announcement, and later that evening the Tánaiste, Simon Harris, went on Irish media and clearly said that there were no added protections for veterans in the legacy deal. Will the Secretary of State give assurance to the House: are there protections for veterans in this legacy deal, or not?

[Hilary Benn]

When the hon. Gentleman sees the legislation, he will see that the protections that we have said will be backed by legislation are in the legislation. In addition to that, there are the provisions relating to cold calling and on not requiring veterans to rehearse the historical context when it is possible for someone from the Ministry of Defence, for example, to do that to assist both inquests and the commission.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

As the Secretary of State knows, I am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and we have been very engaged in this issue, not least because of the ruling of our courts that the previous Government’s attempt to legislate on this issue was unlawful because it would potentially grant immunity to, among others, terrorists. That is no way to serve justice to families and victims, and it is no way to serve justice to our veterans. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the legislation we are bringing forward will not grant immunity to terrorists? That is a simple request and it is remarkable that I have to make it, but given the legislation that the previous Government attempted to pass, it is important to have it on the record.

[Hilary Benn]

I am very happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. The legislation was passed; it was never commenced. It was struck down by the courts, and the remedial order will remove it from the statute book, because we do not agree with giving immunity to terrorists. We do not agree with the principle of immunity because we believe, as I hope the whole House believes, in the rule of law.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I am surprised that no one has mentioned the letters of comfort that were given to the IRA and the question of whether or not they still hold water, but let me go back to what the Secretary of State said about the possibility of IRA bosses like Gerry Adams claiming compensation on technical grounds that the “wrong” Minister signed their internment papers. As I understand it from what the Secretary of State said earlier, the remedial order that he is laying before Parliament will open up the possibility of such people suing the Government for compensation, which the new legacy legislation that he is bringing in will nevertheless then rule out. He referred to a possible gap between the new legislation coming into force and the remedial order opening the gap. It has been suggested to me that the Government are briefing the press that the remedial order will not actually be voted on until the new legacy Bill has gone through Parliament. Is that his policy, and if not, what is his policy?

[Hilary Benn]

The aim of the remedial order is to remove from the statute book provisions in the previous legislation that have been found to be incompatible with our obligations. I would just say that the letters of comfort did not offer immunity. That has been quite clear from Lady Justice Hallett’s review and what the Chief Constable and others have said.

I want to reassure the right hon. Gentleman on the interim custody orders. The Supreme Court judgment was in 2020. The last Government did not know what to do about that: it was not a judgment that the Government expected, and they did not know how to deal with the question of potential compensation. In the end, two Members of the other House introduced what are now sections 46 and 47. They were voted on, but they were subsequently found to be ineffective in achieving the objective, when the court said that they were incompatible.

What I have just told the House is that the new draft remedial order will not remove them from the statute book. Sections 46 and 47 will remain in place until such time as the new legislation I am introducing takes effect. It is a flimsy defence, because it has already been found by the courts to be ineffective, but it will remain in place. It shows that I have listened to the representations that were made about sections 46 and 47, and it is placed in the remedial order. I am now going to deal with the problem by legislation in the way that I set out.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Scores, if not hundreds, of people in Northern Ireland lost their lives because of the safe base and the haven that the Republic of Ireland offered their IRA murderers. That was where they had their arms dumps, that was where they had their training camps and that was where they returned to for sanctuary, safe in the knowledge that extradition would invariably be refused. Yet it is with the Government of that territory that the Secretary of State has chosen to co-design these proposals. He did not co-design them with the innocent victims of terrorism; he chose to co-design them with the Government of the territory that facilitated the victim makers. Why, then, should any innocent victim have any confidence in these proposals, particularly as they still require nothing meaningful from the Republic of Ireland? There is a tentative promise that, if necessary, there will be co-operation, but there is no apology for the Republic’s role in facilitating terrorism for years. Did the Secretary of State even seek an apology publicly from the Republic of Ireland? That is the same Government who to this day continue with an inter-state action against this Government. How could any of this proposal command widespread support when that is its genealogy?

[Hilary Benn]

I say to the hon. and learned Gentleman that we can remain stuck in the past and think of a thousand reasons why, “This isn’t good enough,” and, “We shouldn’t do this,” or, “We shouldn’t do the other.” The responsibility on the House is to try to find a way of moving forward, because the fact that so many families do not have answers is a product of—if I may say so—people being stuck in the past, and we need to move beyond that.

The hon. and learned Gentleman is mistaken, if I may gently chide him, in saying that these proposals have been co-designed with the Irish Government. I have said already that I would have taken these steps regardless of whether we reached an agreement with the Irish Government, because the mess left to us by the last Government forces whoever is in office now to deal with the consequences of a piece of legislation that did not work. But I will agree with him on one thing: in the end, it will be the families who will decide whether this new approach allows them to find the answers. I cannot say too many times that that is what really matters in all this, because it is those families who have influenced me more than anyone else in the discussions I have had.

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

The young men sent out to do the state’s business during the troubles are now old men, often sick, often disabled. Some of them are my constituents. They will be listening carefully to the Secretary of State and will be hearing honeyed words. They will be reading those words in this framework document, even as the protections given by the legacy Act are stripped away from them and they listen for the metaphorical knock on the door as activist, left, liberal human rights lawyers construct, open and reopen cases that will do them in in their failing years. Is that what the Secretary of State wants? Is this not a beanfeast for lawyers? Is it any wonder that no veterans groups have come out to support the framework that he has announced today?

[Hilary Benn]

I have great respect for the right hon. Member and his service, both as a Minister and in our armed forces. I gently say to him that protections are not being stripped away because they never existed in the first place. It is important for the House to appreciate this: the provisions that were passed in the legacy Act were never commenced. They were then struck down by the courts. They do not exist; they never have existed. [Interruption.] That is just a fact. Nobody has been granted immunity because the provisions of that Act have never ever been applied. One cannot strip away something that never existed in the first place.

I am afraid what the last Government did was to offer a false promise to veterans. One of the consequences of the widespread failure of the legacy Act is court case after court case where people have said, “Well, we need to find another means of getting an answer to the question about what happened to our loved ones.” That involves expensive court cases. I am under an order to establish a public inquiry into one case. It is—I think the phrase has been used—a legal wild west that the legislation opened up, and we are trying to put things back together again.

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

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

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

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

[Hilary Benn]

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

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

As a veteran, I am deeply concerned by the Government’s dogged pursuit of this legislation, which has the support neither of Northern Ireland veterans nor of veterans in my generation, who have concerns about their own service in Iraq and Afghanistan. What guarantees can the Secretary of State give the British public that this legislation will achieve justice and that terrorists guilty of the murders of British service personnel will now be held to account? How many cases does he believe will be reopened in order to pursue IRA terrorists in the way that British personnel are now vulnerable to being pursued?

[Hilary Benn]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his service. If he looks at the nearly 100 cases that the commission is currently investigating, he will find that they include the Guilford pub bombing, the M62 coach bombing and the Kingsmill massacre. The commission has the powers it needs—in this respect, I pay tribute to the previous Government—to get the information required to do the job of investigating. Having met the investigators, I can say that they are very committed to their task. The families who have chosen to refer the cases—which is what has governed the 100 cases that the commission is looking at—have said, “Please, can you look at this?” I want more families to do that, so that more of them get answers. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the number of cases, he will see that it reflects in reasonable measure who was actually responsible for the vast majority of deaths in Northern Ireland.

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

Does the Secretary of State agree that this Government’s continued hounding of our brave Northern Ireland veterans—many of whom should be enjoying well-earned retirement after their loyal service to the British Government, not living in fear of prosecution for simply following orders—is nothing short of shameful?

[Hilary Benn]

The Government do not wish to see anybody hounded. We have put these protections in place precisely because we have listened to the concerns that veterans have expressed to me, to the Defence Secretary and to the Minister for the Armed Forces. I gave one example of a veteran welcoming the fact that we were putting the protections in place. I would ask people to look at the protections when the legislation is presented, and to understand that what I say about the risk of prosecution diminishing rapidly over time is, looking back over recent years, reflected in what the facts tell us.

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State set out how many of the proposed six protections for veterans will also be available to former paramilitaries?

[Hilary Benn]

When they introduced immunity, the previous Government said that it would apply not just to veterans but to others, including terrorists, and that is what the legislation did in those circumstances. There are provisions that apply to witnesses, but the reason for the package is the determination of the Government to protect veterans. The hon. Member will see that a number of those protections are laid out in the legislation. Others will be steps that the Ministry of Defence will take.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

Like the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State should stop using the phrase, “The legislation was struck down by the courts.” The courts have no such power. As Jack Straw made clear from the Dispatch Box, a declaration of incompatibility is no more than a declaration; it places no obligation or expectation on Parliament. But may I thank the Secretary of State for at least listening to my representations in delaying the repeal of sections 46 and 47 of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 until the new legislation is in place? Of course, he is doing so because they are effective. Otherwise, there would be no point in delaying their repeal, would there?

[Hilary Benn]

I suppose I should take that praise from the right hon. Gentleman at face value. The fact is that sections 46 and 47 were found to be incompatible, but I have listened, and I hope Members of the House will find me willing to listen. I must, however, correct him, because when it comes to the immunity provisions, they were found to be incompatible, and he is correct in what he describes, but they were also struck down under article 2 of the Windsor framework. That is why they are not operational.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is no secret that I have major concerns over the legacy Bill, not least that innocent victims were precluded from taking their path to justice. What seems to be before us now is carte blanche for political inquiries and yet no hope for the Kingsmill families. It instead highlights the role of the Irish Government in British matters after their continued refusal to engage and their collusion to protect IRA murderers across the border.

In the penultimate paragraph of his statement, the Secretary of State said that

“the many families who lost loved ones…will be the judge of whether these new arrangements can give them the answers that they have sought for so long.”

Quite clearly, that will not be the case for many families, and the Secretary of State will know that a member of my family was murdered on 10 December 1971. It shows that the Government have no heart for the victims but have an ear instead for the victim maker. Does the Secretary of State not understand why these feelings exist? When will he put right thinking and good people of the Province above being seen to be politically correct by the enemies of peace and justice in Northern Ireland? My family seek justice, and I do not see it on the other side. For all the other families that I represent and that we all represent, we seek that justice, but not within this.

[Hilary Benn]

The hon. Gentleman has spoken before most powerfully and movingly about the impact that the death of family members has had upon him. He exemplifies, if I may say so, what so many people in Northern Ireland say when they meet us and talk to us: some will open up and some will weep, and some will not be able to open their mouths to describe what happened because the pain runs so deep after all these years. We are trying to create a mechanism and a means of enabling every single family who wants to come forward and say, “Can you please look at this case and see if we can find more information?” to do that.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the Kingsmill massacre. As I have already indicated to the House, that is one of the cases that the commission is currently looking into. There was the inquest verdict, and we know what it found. I will simply say to the House that probably the most difficult conversation I have had since I took up this post was to listen to the sole survivor of the Kingsmill massacre, Alan Black, describe to me exactly what happened on that dark and dreadful night.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

I personally do not have a great deal of faith in this Government or previous Governments on issues to do with legacy. Can the Secretary of State give assurances that in addressing the legacy of the Northern Ireland troubles, terrorists will not be allowed to rewrite history and that our history will be recorded truthfully, with the focus on innocent victims rather than on those who committed acts of terrorism? Can he further reassure me that veterans will not be chased for prosecutions vexatiously? Can he also reassure me—given that Irish Governments for 56 years of my life have failed to give information to our Government about acts of terrorism from their side of the country? Can he tell us what inquests will actually go ahead now? If he could name them all, I would really appreciate that.

[Hilary Benn]

I will write to the hon. Gentleman in response to his last question, if I may.

What the hon. Member describes is exactly what the commission is there to do. I am making a number of changes in the commission to create greater confidence on the part of families to come forward. I have great respect for Sir Declan Morgan and his colleagues, and for the work that they are doing. The fact that a hundred families have approached them is very significant, but as the hon. Gentleman will know very well, there are many families in Northern Ireland who will say, “Because of the circumstances of its creation, and the closing down of inquests and civil cases, we do not trust the commission to look independently and properly at our case.” I am trying to make it possible for more families to come forward so that more can find the answers they seek.

The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point about co-operation from Ireland. The reason why I was so keen to try to reach an agreement with the Irish Government is that we have got, as a result of our negotiations, a commitment to co-operate with the commission. At the moment, the Irish Government will not do so because of the legislation passed by the last Government. Once we have made these changes, they are committed to co-operating. In the end, we will all be judged on how this goes and how it proceeds, and whether the answers are found for families, but we will be in a much better position than we are with the total mess that the last Government left us.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

When we cut through the waffle of this statement and the Secretary of State’s answers this afternoon, one fact remains: soldiers who served in Northern Ireland who have already had cases tried will be able to be dragged back into the courts and will be subject to interrogation there. The Secretary of State talked about all these wonderful protections, so let us look at them: they will not have to travel to Northern Ireland—they can appear remotely; they will be given help to appear remotely—I assume that means that somebody will show them how to work an iPad; and they will not have a knock at the door from anybody other than the military police, so the PSNI will not be coming over from Northern Ireland and knocking at their door at 6 o’clock in the morning. That is hardly any reassurance to the people who served in Northern Ireland.

Then we are told that dealing with the families who were affected by the troubles is a joint responsibility with Irish Government. There is no obligation in this statement on the Irish Government, other than to throw 30 pieces of silver at the legacy mechanism to assuage their guilt for protecting terrorists over 30 years and for covering up for the collaboration of some within the Irish establishment who helped the IRA in their job.

[Hilary Benn]

I would say two things to right hon. Gentleman. First, I would not be quite so light with the importance of that commitment to allow our veterans to give evidence remotely. The Minister for the Armed Forces and I have both spoken to veterans for whom having to go back to Northern Ireland would bring back memories that they have been having to deal with ever since they served. That is actually a very important protection and one that the Government are committed to putting in place.

Secondly, how would the right hon. Gentleman propose that we move this question forward? For all the criticisms —no doubt, I will receive many, many more—the people I most wish to hear from are those who have practical proposals as to how we can create greater confidence on the part of the victims, survivors and the families so that they get the answers they are looking for. Anyone who comes forward with helpful suggestions will find a ready partner in me.

Legacy of the Troubles: UK and Ireland Joint Framework

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Written Statements

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

My noble Friend Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent made the following statement on Friday 19 September:

I wish to report to the House on the Government’s approach to dealing with the legacy of the troubles and today’s publication of a joint framework agreed between the UK Government and the Government of Ireland. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will provide an update to the House of Commons at the earliest opportunity when it returns.

The UK’s commitments under the framework will fulfil the Government’s King’s Speech commitment to repeal and replace the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, acknowledge and address the suffering of victims and survivors and take forward one of the unfinished aims of the Good Friday agreement.

The framework sets out the commitment of the UK and Irish Governments to work in partnership to deliver effective legacy mechanisms that comply with our legal obligations, can command public confidence, and draw on the principles of the Stormont House agreement.

In place of the Legacy Act 2023, the framework confirms that the Government will legislate to introduce:

a new Legacy Commission, with statutory oversight arrangements to provide accountability and—learning from Operation Kenova—a statutory advisory group to ensure that the voices of victims and survivors, including those from a service background, are heard as part of the Commission’s work;

strengthened governance, including two new co-directors of investigations, new statutory conflict of interest provisions, and appointments made to a new oversight board following advice from an independent appointments panel;

enhanced investigative and fact finding powers and a fairer disclosure regime, ensuring that the Commission has all it needs to find answers for families, and that the maximum possible information can be made public, subject to proportionate safeguards;

removal of the previous Government’s failed and undeliverable immunity scheme for terrorists, which would have allowed those who perpetrated the most appalling terrorist crimes to seek immunity from prosecution;

an approach to inquests that fulfils the commitments we have made to restore those that were halted by the Act, while recognising the primary role that the reformed Legacy Commission will play in providing answers for families, particularly in cases containing sensitive information. All other outstanding inquests will be referred to the Solicitor General to independently consider whether, in each case, they are most appropriately dealt with by the Legacy Commission or in the coronial system;

a new process within the commission to be used for cases that transfer in from the coronial system. This will have provision for public hearings, the ability to consider sensitive information in closed hearings, and provide effective next of kin participation, including through legal representation;

the establishment of an independent commission on information retrieval, jointly with the Irish Government, and consistent with the Stormont House agreement. This will, initially on a pilot basis, provide families with an additional means of retrieving information.

These measures will be implemented in legislation, which the Government will introduce in the near future.

The framework also contains specific commitments by the Irish Government, recognising that addressing the legacy of the troubles is the responsibility of both the UK and Irish Governments. The Irish Government is committed to:

facilitating the fullest possible co-operation of the Irish authorities with the reformed commission, including through legislation. This will be the first time that information held by the Garda and the Irish authorities will be made available in this comprehensive way;

establishing a dedicated unit within An Garda Síochána—the Irish police—to deal with troubles-related cases, and;

making a financial contribution of €25 million to support families in the legacy process.

These commitments by the Irish Government are very significant, and will help more families—including families of service personnel killed during the troubles—to finally seek answers about what happened.

The Government have also separately announced a range of effective protections that respond to the concerns expressed by veterans who served in Northern Ireland. These will ensure that any veteran who is asked to give information to the Legacy Commission or an inquest is treated fairly. We owe a huge debt to those who served with honour to bring about peace in Northern Ireland in some of the most extreme and challenging circumstances.

The measures announced will provide:

protection from repeated investigations—the Commission will be under a requirement to not duplicate the work of any previous investigations unless there are compelling reasons to do so;

protection from cold calling—veterans will be protected from cold calling through a new protocol, ensuring they are only ever contacted with the support of the MOD;

protection in old age—measures which require the commission and coroners to consider the health and wellbeing of potential witnesses at all times—including whether it would be inappropriate for them to give evidence at all;

a right to stay at home—changing the law to ensure that no Northern Ireland veteran is forced to travel to Northern Ireland to give evidence to the commission or to an inquest;

a right to anonymity—ensuring veterans can seek anonymity when giving evidence and removing the need for veterans to give unnecessary evidence on historical context and general operational details, so that veterans are not forced to recount established facts; and

a right for veterans’ voices to be heard—there will be a statutory advisory group that will provide an opportunity for the voices of victims and survivors of the troubles to be heard, including those from a service background, and the commission will be required to take account of wider circumstances surrounding incidents being investigated.

The framework agreed with the Irish Government and this Government’s separate protections for Operation Banner veterans reflect the significant engagement that the Government have undertaken with political parties, victims and survivors organisations, human rights groups, veterans and their representatives, and many others.

This is the closest we have been in many years to putting in place mechanisms that can help families find answers—that unrealised ambition of the Good Friday agreement—and so help Northern Ireland to look to the future.

Given the significant range of views held by so many stakeholders, a perfect outcome is not attainable. However, the Government firmly believe that this framework represents the best possible way forward, and hopes that it will be given a fair chance to succeed.

[HCWS941]

Windsor Framework: Independent Review

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2025 Written Statements

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

Following the outcome of the democratic consent vote which was held in the Assembly in December 2024, and in line with schedule 6A to the Northern Ireland Act 1998, I commissioned the right hon. Lord Murphy of Torfaen to lead the independent review of the Windsor framework on 9 January 2025.

I can confirm that Lord Murphy provided me with a report of his conclusions on 9 July 2025, within the six month reporting period, and I am thankful for his diligent work on this matter. As per schedule 6A, I have today laid a copy of the report in Parliament, and transmitted a copy to the Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

I understand that Members of both Houses and the Assembly contributed towards the independent review. I welcome their engagement on the issues and will take the time to carefully consider the recommendations made and the issues raised in the report.

For its part, the Government remain fully committed to securing the broadest possible confidence of communities in Northern Ireland in the trading arrangements that apply. Since the review was commissioned, we have continued working in this endeavour. This includes through the new arrangements to secure the long-term supply of human medicines, which we completed in January; the delivery of arrangements to support the smooth movement of freight and parcels in May; measures to safeguard the supply of veterinary medicines, which we announced in June; and the launch that same month of a consultation on aligning rules on the labelling and packaging of chemicals across the UK, following concerns raised by Assembly Members in December 2024.

Following the UK/EU summit in May, the Government announced a new partnership with the EU. The new agreement we are taking forward on agrifood with the EU will be of considerable benefit to businesses and consumers in Northern Ireland, and further shows the capacity of our approach to deliver for them and to further strengthen the UK internal market.

In line with schedule 6A, I will publish a written response to the recommendations of the report within six months and bring them to the Joint Committee. I will update this House and provide a copy of the Government response when that is ready.

[HCWS907]