Trade Diversion and Windsor Framework

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) on securing the debate. The House, once again, has been left in no doubt but that he speaks about Northern Ireland’s trading arrangements with fervour and sincerity, as he did in the Westminster Hall debate in November, to which I responded, and in the debate on his private Member’s Bill in December, to which the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland replied on the Government’s behalf. On the Windsor framework, his position is quite clear: he is opposed to it.

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

The Secretary of State has outlined that on a number of occasions, both he and the Under-Secretary have responded to issues that the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) has raised. He will be aware that I wrote to him about a month ago about the problems with horticultural industry trade between Scotland and Northern Ireland, but I have yet to get a response.

[Hilary Benn]

I can only apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I try hard to be punctilious about responding to correspondence. Those watching will have noted what he said, and he can, I hope, anticipate receiving a reply from me very soon.

For the Government’s part, I want to be equally clear. We needed to have a system in place for managing a unique set of circumstances. The system we have is the inevitable result of leaving the European Union. That is where this all began; if that had not happened, we would not be having this discussion. What did that result in? Two trading entities—the United Kingdom and the European Union—with different rules, but an open border between them. That is to be found nowhere else in the world. In other words, all of us together—everyone has to take responsibility for what they argued for, and for the consequence of that—faced the question: how do we deal with the unique situation of two trading entities with different rules having an open border between them?

[Jim Allister]

The way not to deal with it is to say, “We, the United Kingdom, will hand over part of our territory to EU jurisdiction. We will put it under the EU’s customs code, which will decree the rest of the United Kingdom a foreign territory. We will subject that part of our territory to having 300 areas of its law not made in the United Kingdom; law in those areas cannot even be amended in the United Kingdom. It will be foreign law imposed.” This could have been dealt with by mutual enforcement. We could have said, “We want to trade with each other, and we want to be neighbourly, so we will guarantee, on pain of criminal conviction, that anything we send into your territory meets your standards and vice versa.” Why did things have to be made complicated, at the expense of jettisoning Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom economically and constitutionally?

[Hilary Benn]

The hon. and learned Gentleman argues in favour of what he calls mutual enforcement, but that is not a credible basis for resolving the dilemma created by our leaving the European Union.

[Jim Allister]

indicated dissent.

[Hilary Benn]

The hon. and learned Gentleman may disagree. I am expressing the Government’s view, which is that it is not a credible basis. One thing is absolutely clear: the answer was never to try to wish the dilemma away and pretend that it did not exist. I am afraid that, at times, it has appeared as though that argument has been advanced.

The first go at trying to find an answer was the Chequers plan, which did not get support. The Northern Ireland protocol was the second go, but that was never going to work—I made that argument as an Opposition Back Bencher—so the Windsor framework was negotiated. There is no denying that the Windsor framework represents a huge improvement on the prospect created by the Northern Ireland protocol.

[Sammy Wilson]

The Secretary of State says that the situation is unprecedented, and that unique arrangements have therefore been put in place. The Government recently recognised that the flow of trade from the Irish Republic through Northern Ireland into GB could cause a situation where goods had to be checked to safeguard the GB market, yet they have been able to put in place arrangements, without all this elaboration, that do not require laws to apply to traders in the Irish Republic; they are simply checks away from the border. If the unique situation of trade from GB into Northern Ireland, which has a non-check border with the Republic, has to be dealt with through a labyrinth of regulations, why is it possible to avoid that in the other direction? If such arrangements can work from Northern Ireland to GB, why can they not work from GB to Northern Ireland?

[Hilary Benn]

The answer is this: as a sovereign country, it falls to us to decide how we check goods that arrive in our territory. For quite a period after our leaving the European Union, the last Government were not checking stuff coming across the channel, first, because there was nowhere to do the checks, and secondly, because they were concerned about delays, shortages and added costs for the consumer. They repeatedly put off implementing checks. At the same time, British exporters were experiencing the full impact of checks on the goods that they sent the other way, across the channel to Calais and the rest of the European Union. It is for sovereign countries to determine what checks they apply. The same truth applies to the European Union; it has a single market.

We are a responsible country. Some may argue that we should be irresponsible and say, “Well, this is not our problem; let us leave it to the EU to sort it out.” In the end, we had to have a negotiated answer to the question created by our departure from the European Union on the goods that cross that non-existent border. The one thing that almost everybody agreed on during the Brexit debates was that the border needed to remain as it was. That open border is important for a whole host of reasons, not least the extraordinary progress that Northern Ireland has made in the 26 years since the signing of the Good Friday agreement. The question, therefore, was: how does the EU ensure that goods that cross that border and come into the Republic, and go on to France, Germany or Greece, meet the rules? In exactly the same way, we would ask: how do we know that goods coming into the United Kingdom meet our laws? The only way to do that was with a negotiation.

[Richard Tice]

The right hon. Gentleman said that it is up to a sovereign nation to look after its own borders and determine its own checks. Does he accept that there has been trade diversion within the United Kingdom? If so, does he accept that it is within the Government’s remit to use article 16 or drop the checks to protect trade within our sovereign borders?

[Hilary Benn]

I have only just begun my remarks, but if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I shall shortly come to the point that he raises.

The Windsor framework protects the UK internal market, while, as I argued a moment ago, enabling the EU to be confident that its rules will be respected. The Government’s view and my view is that that was the responsible thing to do in the circumstances, because this Government support sustainable arrangements for Northern Ireland that respect its particular circumstances —indeed, they are unique—and its place in the Union, and that uphold the Good Friday agreement. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim’s central argument this evening is that we should trigger article 16, the unilateral safeguard in the Windsor framework. To do that would be contrary to Northern Ireland having stable arrangements for trade, now and in future. It would disregard the benefits that the Windsor framework offers for businesses—indeed, the benefits that are actively relied upon by businesses, including those that are taking advantage of Northern Ireland’s unique access to the UK and EU markets—[Interruption.] The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim shakes his head, but I have met businesses that have told me how they are taking advantage of that dual market access. I meet businesses in my constituency that can see what Northern Ireland has got out of these unique arrangements.

Those benefits will be enhanced by the UK internal market “facilitations”—that is the phrase—that will come into force in the near future, and that will, on a durable and legally binding basis, support the smooth flow of goods across the whole of the UK when the next phase of the UK internal market system is implemented this year, without, for example, unnecessary international customs paperwork.

We have seen the benefits of negotiating a way forward. There is unilateralism, as the hon. and learned Gentleman argues, and there are the benefits of negotiation. In respect of agrifood and sanitary and phytosanitary measures, we have been able to lift the old ban on the movement of seed potatoes. Not all those problems have been solved—I am the first to acknowledge that—but it is an improvement compared with the situation before. We are now able to apply UK public health and safety standards to agrifoods on the basis of primacy for goods staying in the United Kingdom moving under the Windsor framework schemes. We have reached agreements with the EU on tariff rate quotas, enabling businesses from Northern Ireland to import steel and agrifood products under UK tariff rates.

We also have an active Assembly that is scrutinising the regulations and raising its views—[Laughter.] Well, I will come back to that point later on. Medicines for the whole of the UK are now authorised by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, and we have ensured that Northern Ireland benefits from the same VAT, alcohol duty and other taxes as the rest of the UK.

All of those are undoubted benefits for Northern Ireland. They are benefits of the framework that supports Northern Ireland’s access to the two markets, and from which this integral part of the United Kingdom, which Northern Ireland is, uniquely benefits. This is possible because we have a lawful and sustainable agreement, in stark contrast to what the hon. and learned Gentleman has proposed as a way forward.

I would be the first to acknowledge from this Dispatch Box that the Windsor framework is not perfect. We all know that. Where problems arise with the practical operation of the framework, this Government and the EU have tried to show that we can work through them in a constructive and pragmatic way, because that is what we have to do. For example, having listened to businesses, we took a pragmatic decision to extend on the timetable for implementing the new arrangements on parcels. One of the consequences of doing that was that the introduction of the new, less onerous customs arrangement was put off, because the EU’s view was that we needed to do the parcels at the same time in order for the new customs arrangements to come in.

Another example is the horticultural sector, where, in the last month the restrictions on the movement of two species of plant were removed. If we are talking about trees, I think that takes it up to 23, including our beloved silver birch and, I am advised, a number of varieties of cherry tree that were sorted out at the end of last year.

On the question of the Stormont brake, we acted on the concerns that the Northern Ireland Assembly raised about the potential implications of the new rules on chemical labels, font sizes and so on by committing to consult on taking forward measures across the UK that will protect the UK internal market. I would just point out—because the hon. Gentleman looks slightly sceptical —that there is a high bar to be met for the Stormont brake. When I received the application as Secretary of State, I was under a legal obligation to consider the application under the rules of the Stormont brake, and I made the decision that I did. In the end, what the Government announced was moving towards the same outcome that those who had raised the concerns in the first place wanted, just by different means than they had sought. In the end, the Stormont brake process actually worked to achieve the outcome that the Assembly wanted.

[Jim Allister]

I think the Secretary of State should listen to himself. What he is saying to the House is that we should be grateful for some sort of dud mechanism to deal with the situation whereby the right to make laws in 300 areas has been gifted to a foreign power, and that people elected in Northern Ireland can have no say in those laws and cannot amend, move or bring them into effect. He says that we should be grateful that, in those 300 areas of law, we might be able to go to the EU and say, “Please, Sir, would you ever mind just making that a little better?” Really? Where is the sense of dignity from this United Kingdom, that we should so prostrate ourselves to a foreign unelected jurisdiction—elected by no one in the United Kingdom—allow them to make our laws, and then claim as a victory the fact that we have a right to go and ask them to make some changes? But the Secretary of State has failed to answer the question. There is trade diversion—what is he going to do about it?

[Hilary Benn]

I am not asking anyone to be grateful for anything; I am simply pointing out to the House the problem that was created in the first place when we left the European Union.

[Jim Allister]

It is punishment.

[Hilary Benn]

If I heard the hon. and learned Gentleman correctly, from a sedentary position he said, “punishment”. I could not disagree more. I would encourage him to reflect on what he has said, because I do not think that he acknowledges that there was an issue there that had to be addressed, and wishing it away was never going to work.

[Jim Shannon]

I am reminded of the wee song we used to sing in Sunday school many years ago:

“So high, you can’t get over it,

So low, you can’t get under it”.

The Stormont brake does not work because it is too high and too low; it is just not functional. In my intervention on the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), I referred to the HMRC cost. To give the Secretary of State an example, last week a business said that the HMRC charges have got to the stage where they are even more expensive than the goods the business is bringing in. There has to be something wrong when it gets to the stage where it is not the issue of getting the product across but the cost factor. Could the Secretary of State look at that, because there is something wrong with a system that ends up costing us more, when it did not cost that amount before the Brexit system came in?

[Hilary Benn]

If the hon. Gentleman wishes to provide me with further information about the particular example he has raised, I will of course look at it.

On trade, I have a slightly different set of figures from those that the hon. and learned Gentleman used. From 2020 to 2023, purchases in Northern Ireland from GB went from £13.4 billion to £16.2 billion—an increase of 20.7%. Sales to the year ending December 2023 from Northern Ireland to GB rose by 12.4%, to £17.1 billion. He used a phrase at the beginning of his speech—I hope I wrote it down correctly—the “natural inclination of trade”. I would simply observe that the inclination of trade is a consequence of decisions that individuals and firms make, and those patterns change over time depending on what they want to buy or sell and what the market itself looks like.

The point I was making, without seeking gratitude, is that in every one of the examples I have just given, the Government worked to resolve the challenges we faced, working with stakeholders in Northern Ireland and with the EU, in what I think is a constructive and mutually beneficial way. That is what a responsible Government do, including abiding by commitments in international law on the world stage. The hon. and learned Gentleman advocates triggering article 16. That measure refers both to trade and to instances where serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties are liable to persist. Given that most goods are flowing relatively smoothly between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, how can it be argued that we are facing those difficulties?

I would just make the point that if one goes to the port, the lorries come off and most of them go on their way—the goods are moving. That is in contrast to the argument that the hon. and learned Gentleman put towards the end of his speech, when he used the phrase “cripple” in relation to the Northern Ireland economy. I have seen no evidence that the Northern Ireland economy, which, by the way, has the lowest unemployment in the whole of the United Kingdom, is being crippled by the matters that we are discussing.

[Mr Campbell]

rose—

[Hilary Benn]

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

[Mr Campbell]

The Secretary of State is being very generous with his time. He just said most goods are flowing freely. Does he not agree that he should amend that to say, “In certain sectors, most goods are flowing freely, but in certain other sectors, they most certainly are not”?

[Hilary Benn]

It depends on the hon. Gentleman’s definition of “freely.” There are requirements that certain goods must meet. There is the retail movement scheme and the horticultural scheme, and certain paperwork and documents are required, looking forward to the customs requirements being reduced later this year—hopefully when the new arrangements come in—but the goods move, and I do not think that anyone in the debate can stand up and say that the goods are not moving in those circumstances.

As I have indicated, the Windsor framework represents a step forward. Although I respect the sincerity with which the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim makes his argument, I do not believe that current circumstances meet the article 16 test. Pulling that lever in the current circumstances would actually throw away the progress secured by the framework and damage the good faith that has been built up in taking the framework forward. We all need to remember that, not long ago, we had a Government who signed an international agreement and then set about showing that they had no intention of honouring it. That did extraordinary damage to the United Kingdom’s international reputation.

[Jim Allister]

rose—

[Hilary Benn]

The hon. and learned Gentleman has had quite a lot to say and I have given way to him three times, so I hope he will bear with me while I continue my remarks.

In the past, the idea that the UK would be a country that signed an international agreement and then reneged upon it would have been extraordinary to us all in this House, but that is what happened in very recent living memory, and it is why I put this point to the hon. and learned Gentleman.

The last Government negotiated the Windsor framework. I stood up in the House and supported it. The Opposition supported it at that time, and I voted for it because I genuinely believed that it represented a significant step forward. But if we do not honour the most recent agreement that we have signed with the European Union, why would it wish to reach agreement on what this Government are currently seeking, in particular on an SPS veterinary and agrifood agreement? This Government have come in saying that we want to do that, while the last Government appeared to say, “Well, the trade and co-operation agreement is all we want—we don’t want anything else.” This Government have a very different view: we want to negotiate an SPS veterinary and agrifood agreement, and that would help considerably with some of the issues that have been raised during the debate. The Government will continue to listen to the concerns of businesses and respond pragmatically.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I have listened intently to the Secretary of State’s contribution and I am somewhat bemused by some of what he said. He speaks of businesses in his constituency that are jealous of what Northern Ireland businesses have. What we have in Northern Ireland is increased costs, increased paperwork and impediments to trade. It is increasingly difficult for engineering, agrifood and horticultural businesses in my constituency. I have invited the Secretary of State to visit those businesses, but I am still waiting. I encourage him to come to Northern Ireland and listen to the businesses that are impacted by the protocol and the Windsor framework on a daily basis. I also heard today about two plants that have been added to the ever-lengthening list of plants that are not available to Northern Ireland, well whoop-de-do-da-day—how brilliant and great for Northern Ireland. When are we going to get real and address the real problems that exist with the protocol and the Windsor framework?

[Hilary Benn]

Kind though it is of the hon. Member to encourage me to come to Northern Ireland, as she knows I am in Northern Ireland on a very regular basis and a little while ago I had a meeting with her and two organisations, at her request. I meet businesses on a very regular basis. I met the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce and Industry Brexit working group and I always do my level best to respond to requests for visits from colleagues in the House of Commons, including the hon. Lady, but there are only so many hours in the day.

I wanted to point out that the independent monitoring panel, which I met for the first time yesterday, has started its work. Establishing the panel was a commitment made in the safeguarding the Union Command Paper. Its job will be on the basis of the evidence and it will be provided with data on the flow of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland to say whether the UK internal market guarantee is being met. The first six-month reporting period commenced on 1 January and will conclude on 30 June 2025, following which the IMP will publish its assessment and any recommendations. I commit to the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim, and all those who contributed to the debate, that I shall consider the report with the same attention to detail that he has shown in forwarding his argument today.

To conclude, this Government are committed to Northern Ireland. They are committed to the United Kingdom and to implementing the Windsor framework in a manner that is consistent with protecting Northern Ireland’s place within our internal market.

Question put and agreed to.

Independent Reporting Commission: Seventh Report

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Written Statements

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

Today I am laying before Parliament the seventh report from the Independent Reporting Commission (IRC).

The commission was established following the Fresh Start agreement in November 2015 to report on progress towards ending paramilitary activity. The agreement set out the Northern Ireland Executive’s commitments around tackling paramilitary activity and associated criminality, and led to a programme of work to deliver a Northern Ireland Executive action plan.

In the New Decade, New Approach agreement in January 2020, a commitment was made to continue this work, including through a second phase of the Northern Ireland Executive’s programme on paramilitarism, criminality and organised crime.

In this seventh report, which covers 2024, the commission notes that interventions through the Executive programme, alongside policing and criminal justice measures which work to tackle paramilitary criminality, are having a tangible effect on the communities where paramilitaries operate. But the IRC also notes significant concerns relating to continuing paramilitary-linked harms such as intimidation, coercive control, and threats.

The commission has set out a number of recommend-ations on how the effort to tackle paramilitarism and its continued impact in communities can be improved. It also asks the Northern Ireland Executive, the UK Government and the Government of Ireland to ensure that work to tackle paramilitarism remains a high priority beyond the lifetime of the Executive programme.

The commission has again suggested that the UK Government and the Government of Ireland should appoint an independent person to scope out the potential for, and explore what might be involved in, a process to end paramilitarism.

The UK Government and the Government of Ireland have been giving consideration to how progress could be made towards ending paramilitarism, and to the recommendations from the IRC and others, including the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on this issue. In April 2024, the then UK Government and the Government of Ireland committed to taking forward further work.

The two Governments have agreed to jointly appoint, in the period ahead, within the existing IRC legislative framework, an independent expert to carry out a short scoping and engagement exercise to assess whether there is merit in, and support for, a formal process of engagement to bring about paramilitary group transition to disbandment. This will include examining what could be in the scope of such a formal process.

I want to be clear that this is not the start of a formal process itself. This scoping exercise is also not a part of, or an alternative to, the existing law enforcement and criminal justice measures and the wider effort through the Executive programme to tackle the ongoing violence and harm caused by paramilitary groups. I also want to be clear that no financial offer will be made to paramilitary groups or to the individuals involved in them in exchange for an end to violence and ongoing harms.

I will be writing to the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee to set out more detail on this.

I would like to express my thanks to the commissioners and the secretariat for their continued work in reporting on progress towards ending paramilitarism.

[HCWS470]

Independent Monitoring Panel: Internal Market Guarantee

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2025 Written Statements

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

On 19 September 2024, I announced the appointment of Aidan Reilly, Anna Jerzewska and Alastair Hamilton as members of the Independent Monitoring Panel. I would now like to provide an update on how the panel will fulfil its core function, as set out under the “Safeguarding the Union” Command Paper, by scrutinising the performance of the internal market guarantee over six-monthly reporting periods.

I can confirm that, following agreement with the panel, the first six-month reporting period for the internal market guarantee commenced on the 1 January and will conclude on 30 June 2025.

The internal market guarantee relates to movements taking place under the UK internal market system. The guarantee undertakes that more than 80% of all freight movements from Great Britain to Northern Ireland will be treated as “not at risk” of moving onwards to the EU, and therefore moving within the UK internal market. Relevant data will be provided to the panel to support it performing its monitoring functions.

The Government believe that this progress demonstrates our continued commitment to protecting the UK internal market. I look forward to considering the panel’s first report later this year.

[HCWS463]

Clonoe Inquest

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2025 Commons Chamber

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

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to make a statement on the coroner’s ruling in the Clonoe inquest.

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

On 16 February 1992, a heavily armed unit of the Provisional IRA carried out an attack on Coalisland police station armed with a 12.7 mm heavy machine gun and three AKM rifles. Approximately 60 rounds were fired, but thankfully no one was injured. Following the attack, the IRA unit proceeding to a car park where they were engaged by soldiers of the Army’s specialist military unit. This resulted in four men, Patrick Vincent, Sean O’Farrell, Peter Paul Clancy and Kevin O’Donnell, being shot and killed by the soldiers.

On 6 February, Mr Justice Humphreys, sitting as a coroner in the inquest into the circumstances of those deaths at Clonoe chapel, found that the use of lethal force by the soldiers was unjustified and that

“the operation was not planned and controlled in such a way as to minimise to the greatest extent possible the need for recourse to lethal force.”

The coroner further found that the soldiers did not hold

“an honest and genuinely held belief”

that the use of force was necessary to defend themselves or others.

These are clearly very significant matters that require careful consideration. I know that the Ministry of Defence is considering the coroner’s finding. Therefore there is, unfortunately, a limit to what I am able to say in relation to the findings themselves, particularly given that there is also an ongoing civil case relating to these events. However, it is clear the Government must take such findings very seriously. We owe a great debt to our armed forces—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is no sub judice to the case that you have just mentioned. We must be clear on that. So please let us not try to use that as a barrier. I just want to be clear on that.

[Hilary Benn]

I accept that entirely, Mr Speaker. I was merely pointing out, as I think your statement alluded to, that there is an ongoing civil case.

We owe a great debt to our armed forces. The vast majority of those who served in Operation Banner during the troubles did so with distinction. They operated in the most dangerous and difficult circumstances to protect the citizens of the United Kingdom. During the troubles, over 1,000 members of the security forces lost their lives in that endeavour. It is right that we hold our armed forces to the highest standards. We must also recognise the extreme circumstances that they faced. That is what sets them apart from the terrorist organisations who indiscriminately murdered over 3,000 people during the troubles.

[David Davis]

I thank the Secretary of State for taking this statement personally. I know that he did not have to, so I thank him for that. The Government gave notice at the election that they intended to remove the element of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 that protects soldiers and police who served during the troubles from prosecution. Last week’s frankly speculative judgment from the Northern Ireland coroner into the Clonoe shootings now exposes a number of soldiers to potential prosecution. These are men who served their country with honour, heroism and skill, sometimes in the face of the most incredible danger. They are now mostly in their 60s and 70s and no doubt hoping for a well-earned peaceful retirement. In his statement in December, the Secretary of State of spoke of

“recognising the dedicated service of the vast majority of police officers, members of the armed forces and the security services who did so much to keep the people of Northern Ireland safe during the troubles.”[Official Report, 4 December 2024; Vol. 758, c. 419.]

So precisely what are the Government going to do to stop the vengeful pursuit of decent patriotic people? If the Government leave them open to persecution, it will frankly be shameful and serve only to further the IRA’s attempt to rewrite the history of Northern Ireland.

[Hilary Benn]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for asking this urgent question. As he will be aware, this inquest was part of the five-year plan established by the former Lord Chief Justice, and because the hearings were held prior to the legacy Act 1 May cut-off, the inquest was able to be concluded. For the avoidance of doubt, it is not the result of anything that this Government have done.

The Government set out in our election manifesto and the King’s Speech our commitment to repeal and replace the legacy Act, because it did something quite remarkable in uniting the political parties and communities of Northern Ireland in opposition to it. It is a fatally flawed piece of legislation that has been found, in a number of respects, to be incompatible with our obligations under the European convention on human rights. [Hon. Members: “Ah!”] This Government believe in upholding our commitment to the European convention on human rights, even if other Members do not share that view.

I set out in my statement to the House of Commons in December the approach that we are taking, and I will bring forward further proposals in due course. I echo what the right hon. Gentleman said about the service of our armed forces, the police and security services during those terribly dark, difficult and bloody days of the troubles.

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

I thank the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) for his urgent question and the Secretary of State for his answer. I have a simple question: what does the Secretary of State think this ruling will mean for peace and reconciliation and for bringing communities together in Northern Ireland?

[Hilary Benn]

That is a judgment that individuals and communities will have to make, having regard to what the coroner had to say. There have been a very large number of inquest findings in relation to the troubles, and the Government and I understand the concerns that have been raised by the coroner’s findings in this case.

The fundamental problem in Northern Ireland remains the legacy of the troubles and the fact that so many people still do not have an answer to the question of what happened to their loved one. I am afraid the previous Government made, in my view, a terrible mistake in deciding that civil cases and inquests would be closed off.

I also have to point out that the legacy Act did not prevent the possibility of future prosecutions, because it is possible, even under the law as it stands today, for prosecutions to be undertaken if the independent commission finds evidence that it thinks should be passed to the independent prosecution bodies.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

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

Thank you for granting this UQ, Mr Speaker.

On a February night in 1992, four men—known terrorists—armed with semi-automatic weapons and a Dushka machine gun capable of firing 600 rounds a minute at a range of 1,100 yards had already attacked a Royal Ulster Constabulary police station and were planning further attacks. These terrorists called themselves an army, they carried weapons of war, they sought to kill, and they operated entirely outside the bounds of the law. Yet we are asked to believe that the use of lethal force against them was not justified. I am not a lawyer, but if this is the state of the law, then the law is an ass, and it is up to Parliament to change it.

What if this had not been on the streets of Tyrone? What if it had been on the streets of Birmingham? What if it had been in Parliament Square? Would we be asking why those men had not been arrested? Would we find it acceptable that the courts subsequently sought to punish those forces that had risked their lives for ours?

The consequences of this ruling are potentially very severe: military morale weakened, military recruitment reduced, military effectiveness diminished, and more retired servicemen in their declining years dragged before the courts for trying to protect their countrymen from terrorists. For the record, there is no Defence Minister on the Treasury Bench to hear this urgent question.

The last Government took steps to ensure that a line was drawn under court actions like the one handed down last week. This Government have said they will repeal that Act, but seven months into their tenure, they have brought forward no plans. When will the House see that legislation? When we do see it, will the Secretary of State ensure that it includes provisions to protect servicemen, such as those affected by the ruling, from prosecution?

The Secretary of State will have seen this morning the excellent report by Policy Exchange, which puts the costs of repealing the legacy Act at hundreds of millions of pounds. The return to inquests and civil cases will severely hit the budget of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Without funding, that will inevitably reduce policing and affect national security. Will His Majesty’s Government commit to underwriting that liability?

I will end by saying that if we in this House think the law is not fit for purpose, it is our job, and ours alone, to change it. That is what parliamentary sovereignty means.

[Hilary Benn]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I completely understand the concerns, which he has expressed with such passion, about our armed services personnel, including in relation to this case. He has just said, “If this is the law, the law needs to be changed.” Is he suggesting that the arrangements for inquests and the way in which they are conducted—coroners sitting, hearing the evidence and coming to a finding—ought to be changed? [Interruption.] That is a very interesting observation from His Majesty’s Opposition.

The legislation passed by the last Government would have given the very terrorists who were killed in the exchange of fire, if they had survived, the ability to secure immunity from prosecution. That is what the last Government’s legacy Act did. It would have given anyone—soldiers, but also terrorists—immunity from prosecution. I am afraid that this Government take the view that that was wrong and the courts have determined that that was wrong. That is why we will repeal and replace the legacy Act.

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

Throughout the troubles, both state and non-state actors committed unlawful killings that have created harm and scarred families across both our islands. Does the Secretary of State agree that his Government, working with the Northern Irish parties, must find and build bodies that honour the Stormont House obligations of articles 2 and 3-compliant investigations and ensure that no victim-maker—nobody who carries out an unlawful killing, whether UK state forces, IRA or UDA—has the right to suppress truth from families?

[Hilary Benn]

As I have previously indicated to the House, I am committed in all my discussions with many of those affected, including veterans, to finding a way forward that can command a degree of consensus in a way that the last Government’s legacy Act failed to do. I understand the strength of feeling being expressed in the House today—I really do—but there needs to be some reflection on how a piece of legislation came to be passed that engendered almost universal opposition in Northern Ireland. The people of Northern Ireland, who, after all, lived through the troubles, did not feel that that was the right way to proceed, and time and again it has been found to be unlawful. In other words, we were left with a mess and we are doing our best to try to fix it.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

I thank the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) for bringing this issue to the House. The Liberal Democrats are firmly committed to the principles of truth, justice and accountability. The violence carried out by the IRA during the troubles was abhorrent and inflicted deep suffering on communities across Northern Ireland. At the same time, upholding the rule of law is a fundamental principle that applies to all, including the actions of state forces.

The findings of the Clonoe inquest highlight the importance of due process and transparency in dealing with legacy issues. It is vital that families seeking answers about the past are able to access justice and that all events are subject to rigorous legal scrutiny. That is the only way to build trust and support a lasting reconciliation in Northern Ireland.

There has been immense progress in Northern Ireland since the Good Friday agreement and that progress was built on the principles of justice, democracy and accountability. We—all of us—must continue to uphold those principles if we are to secure a lasting and peaceful future for all communities.

The Secretary of State recently said that legislation to revoke the deeply flawed legacy Act, which does not command confidence across Northern Ireland, will be introduced when time allows. Will he offer details on when that might be?

[Hilary Benn]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his observations. The answer to his last question is: when parliamentary time allows. As soon as I am in a position to indicate when that will be, I will tell the House.

I very much agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about the violence inflicted by terrorists being abhorrent. It is important that in this House we make it quite clear that there was always an alternative to violence: pursuing the path of peace. When people finally decided that that was the course of action that they should take, we saw a transformation in the lives of people in Northern Ireland. The tragedy is that so many people were killed and murdered before we got to the point of the Good Friday agreement.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

The Secretary of State asked rhetorically whether the law around inquests needs to change. The coroner had to answer four questions: where, when, who and how. He had no role in trying to answer why, but we know why: four depraved terrorists for the IRA and their warped ideology tried to destroy society and kill in our country.

Yesterday, the Defence Secretary was clear when he said that those who served in the SAS that day,

“deserve, and they will receive, our fullest support.”—[Official Report, 10 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 21.]

I will not stand for a rewriting of the past. Does the Secretary of State agree with the Defence Secretary?

[Hilary Benn]

I do not support a rewriting of the past either. Of course we should stand with our armed service veterans, which is what the Ministry of Defence does. I will say, however, that the coroner—a judge—considered the facts of the case and came to an independent judgment about them. We are all of course perfectly free to express a view about the findings but, to come back to my point in answer to the Opposition spokesperson’s earlier comment: if Members argue that the coronial system applying to inquests right across the country should—[Interruption.] If I may just finish the point: if they argue that the system should be changed because there is a great deal of feeling about particular findings that the coroner reached, the House should give that careful consideration before going down that road.

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

Does the Secretary of State accept that the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 continues to apply? That means that no soldier and no terrorist, convicted of even the most heinous murders, can serve more than two years in jail. Those are the sort of compromises that have been necessary. When the Secretary of State accepts that the legacy Act would have given immunity to terrorists and soldiers alike, does he not recognise the principle of a truth recovery process, coupled with a statute of limitations, as exemplified by what happened in South Africa? Is what was good enough for Nelson Mandela not good enough for Northern Ireland?

[Hilary Benn]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. Societies around the world that have faced terrible conflict have each taken their own path to try to find a way forward. The release of 400 prisoners in the two years after the Good Friday agreement was a very bitter pill to swallow for many in Northern Ireland, but I support that step—it was nothing to do with me at the time—because it was the right one to take to enable the Good Friday agreement to be reached. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that I have met people, including the family of a member of our armed forces who was murdered by the IRA, who expressed to me their bitter opposition to the immunity provisions of the legacy Act.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The sharpened tension in Northern Ireland is palpable after the ruling. The day after the shooting, the Provisional IRA issued a statement boasting that the men were in the East Tyrone brigade and on active service. Mr Speaker, you and I know the Bible, and it is very clear: live by the sword, die by the sword. If you live by a machine gun that you use to shoot a police station, you die by a machine gun—that is the way that I see it. For right-thinking people in Northern Ireland, and indeed throughout this United Kingdom, to be told that the use of lethal force was not justified flies in the face of common justice, and feeds the feeling that the judiciary are not just complicit but active in their rewriting of history. What can the Secretary of State do to rectify that situation?

[Hilary Benn]

The findings of the coroner in this case stand for themselves and are on the record, and all of us are able to read them. In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s direct question about what the Government are doing, as I indicated to the House in my answer to the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), the Ministry of Defence is, of course, giving very serious consideration to what the coroner had to say.

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

I am astonished by the coroner’s findings. He was not asked to contemplate the question about why—getting inside the head of a soldier who is worried about whether they are going to be shot dead is very difficult. I served in Northern Ireland and some of the decisions that we had to take were instantaneous. There was no time to mull them over—it was either life or death. I lost a very good friend, Captain Robert Nairac. The Secretary of State says that the trouble with the last legacy Act was that it gave immunity to IRA members, but they already had immunity, not just through the letters of comfort but because they kept no records, so they cannot be prosecuted. The only group that will be prosecuted will be soldiers, like myself, who never asked to go to Northern Ireland, but went because we were told to protect civilians, and who served their country. They will be dragged in front of the courts because the Government seem not to care about them.

[Hilary Benn]

I say to the right hon. Gentleman, who himself gave distinguished service, that I absolutely understand and recognise the point he forcefully makes about the circumstances in which our soldiers found themselves as part of Operation Banner. They had seen their comrades killed and they did not know what they were going to face; as he rightly says, in those circumstances soldiers had to make very hard split-second decisions.

The coroner had a job to do. He expressed his findings, Members of the House are expressing what they feel about those findings, and the Ministry of Defence is considering them. It is right and proper that we stand by our armed forces, which is why the Government and the Ministry of Defence give support to veterans in those circumstances. However, I would point out that many, many members of the Provisional IRA and the loyalist terrorist organisations were prosecuted, tried and convicted.

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

Based on the Secretary of State’s earlier comments, is it not now clear that the Secretary of State believes the Government cannot stand behind our brave soldiers in this instance because of our membership of the European convention on human rights? Therefore, surely that is a perfect reason why we must leave the ECHR.

[Hilary Benn]

That is not the Government’s position. The Government’s position is indeed to stand behind our brave armed services personnel—

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

By repealing the Bill.

[Hilary Benn]

By repealing the Bill, indeed, which has been found repeatedly to be unlawful. I make no apology for saying to the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) and to the House that this is a Government who uphold the European convention on human rights. I recognise that some people say we should leave, which would put us in the same position as some other countries around the world with which I would not want the United Kingdom to find itself associated. The point about the European convention is that its rights are for every single citizen: those rights may accord people with a decision that Members of the House disagree with today, but tomorrow they may protect the rights of every single one of us. That is why we are committed to the ECHR.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

How will the Secretary of State ensure that veterans who served their country with distinction will not be hounded through the courts over events that may or may not have happened decades before?

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

As history shows, decisions about potential prosecutions are taken by independent prosecutors. Such decisions are not determined by the Government; independent prosecutors have to take decisions on the basis of the evidence and then courts have to decide whether they are going to convict or not. That is called the rule of law. A distinguished former Defence Secretary, Ben Wallace, set out very clearly that the British Army believes in the rule of law and is held to the highest standards, and I agree with him. I also agree with what the newly appointed veterans commissioner in Northern Ireland had to say about that in the comments that were reported over the weekend.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

There is tangible anger in Northern Ireland over this preposterous verdict, and the Secretary of State’s limp response today will not assuage that anger. This is a Secretary of State who wants to see IRA godfather Gerry Adams paid compensation because the wrong Minister signed his detention order 50 years ago. This is a Secretary of State who has today defended the retention of a coronary system that, time without number, puts the security forces in the dock, but never the terrorists. Little wonder that confidence in the Secretary of State is haemorrhaging in Northern Ireland, and this response only underscores why.

[Hilary Benn]

As I made clear at Northern Ireland questions recently, the Supreme Court issued a judgment on the interim custody orders relating to internment in 2020. The previous Government knew there was a problem and, for quite a long period of time, was unable to find a solution. In the end, the solution—sections 46 and 47 of the legacy Act—has been found to be unlawful, but I have given an undertaking from the Dispatch Box that we are looking at all lawful means to prevent compensation from being paid in those circumstances. I believe that we are taking the right approach to the legacy Act.

On coroners, I say for, I think, the third time that if we have an inquest system that we support and that applies right across the piece, it is not possible to write legislation that says, “We will have the verdicts, judgments and findings that we like, but we will not have the findings that we do not like.” That is a decision—[Interruption.] Independent coroners make those decisions in respect of individual cases. I feel the anger of many Members of the House—[Interruption.] Will the hon. and learned Gentleman let me finish answering the question that he put? I feel the anger that is being expressed in the House, but we have an independent legal system in this country, which is one of the foundations of our freedom.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

The IRA itself claimed the terrorists shot by the security forces at Clonoe, describing their actions that night as being “active service”. They had just launched a cowardly attack on Coalisland RUC station, no doubt with murderous intent, but they met real soldiers and they lost. No doubt many innocent lives were saved by the security forces as a result of that evening: these were not innocent people, but hardened terrorists. Does the Secretary of State agree that this was a justified and necessary operation, within the guidelines of military interception, and will he condemn judicial rulings that seek to rewrite history, undermine our security forces and embolden bloodthirsty terrorists who wage war against innocent people?

[Hilary Benn]

I accept the characterisation that the hon. Member has ascribed to the individuals. Clearly, in firing 60 rounds at the police station, we know what their intent was. That was what the Provisional IRA and terrorists on the loyalist side did during the course of the troubles, and we have to speak of that as well. The coroner’s findings are there on the record. Members and public society are perfectly entitled to express a view, and I acknowledge the concerns that Members have raised today. It is a very serious issue, and that is why it falls to the Ministry of Defence to consider the findings and what may follow.

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

It is a great pity that no one from the Defence Front-Bench team is here with us because I am sure that if they were, they could confirm that the DShK machine gun that these men had is a weapon of incredible power. If we were to look around the average city block, there would be nothing that a DShK could not hit and put a bullet right through. We now sit here warm and safe and consider the actions of, as we have heard, brave men who had to take an instantaneous decision to stand up and face that weapon and the people who had already demonstrated that they were prepared to use it. It sticks in the craw that we hear the IRA described here as a “unit”—as though they were some sort of army. They style themselves as an army, but they are not an army—they are a murder gang, simple as that. Is it not the case that the ECHR now skews the balance in their favour, and that we are hide-bound by the idea that there is an equivalence between the IRA and the brave soldiers of the SAS who stood up and did what they had to do to protect innocent lives?

[Hilary Benn]

There is no equivalence at all—none whatsoever—for the reasons that have been set out by Members in this exchange, following the question asked by the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington. There is nothing in the European convention on human rights that says there must be equivalence. Our armed services personnel, the RUC, security services and others were doing their best to protect the citizens of Northern Ireland from the murderous onslaught that they were subjected to over the years of the troubles. That is why there is no equivalence between them and those who chose in those circumstances to use violence to try to advance their cause. In the end, the terrible violence that we are discussing was brought to an end by the Good Friday agreement—by people finally recognising that that is not the way to proceed.

Going back to the question asked about the cost by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), there was an alternative cost, which is what we would have faced if the Good Friday agreement had not been successful in bringing peace to Northern Ireland. We should recognise what a significant moment it was, but we should stand with our soldiers.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

Much has been made in recognising the service of our armed forces, including the members of the RUC and the PSNI, because not only did they defend our communities, they lived among them. Does the Secretary of State agree that the soldiers acted inside the rules of engagement in that they believed their lives were in danger from heavily armed terrorists, who were intent on murder, and that decisions taken in a split second by the military commander were, in his view, justified?

[Hilary Benn]

In all honesty, I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that, of course, I was not present at the time; I am not the coroner; I have not looked into the circumstances of the case; and therefore I am not in any position to answer the question that he has put to me. But I have read the summary of the coroner’s findings. They of course raise serious matters, which is why the Ministry of Defence is considering them.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

As has been said, people in Northern Ireland are appalled at this decision by a coroner who, incidentally, would have had police officers protecting him during the troubles. I guarantee that had he been faced with armed terrorists and those officers had asked them to put their hands up and surrender, he would have been appalled. He would have expected them to be shot. People will be equally appalled by the measly mouthed response from the Secretary of State. Let me quote some of the things he has said: “I can’t comment on this”, “We have to take seriously the judgment of the coroner” and “I will defend the ECHR, even though it has been abused by terrorists.” When will the Secretary of State take the side of the soldiers who fought in Northern Ireland and not be afraid that whatever he says here might offend Sinn Féin, the IRA and their supporters?

[Hilary Benn]

I will only say to the right hon. Gentleman that the characterisation of the views that he attempts to attribute to me is incorrect, but I make no apology for telling the House about this Government’s support for the European convention, because this set of findings by the coroner has nothing to do with the European convention on human rights. The coroner was faced with a set of circumstances. He considered them and produced his findings, as inquests do all the time. People are entitled to criticise the outcome, but it is an independent coronial process.

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

Compounding the problems that the coroner has created with his comments is the fact that in the past whenever innocent people were killed, the judiciary has commented that attention should be drawn to those behind the scenes who send young men out to carry out the killing. These young men were sent out to kill; they had murder in their minds. It is a pity that the coroner did not mention who was behind that—why are their names not being brought to public light? Does the Secretary of State agree that something like that might have helped a little to minimise the compounding problem created by the coroner’s comments at the time?

[Hilary Benn]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about how we come to tell the truth about what happened; to give the families answers—I have met many of them, as have my predecessors—about what really happened. Although we will repeal and replace the legacy Act, I decided to keep and reform the independent commission because I believe it offers the best means of trying to provide those answers in the round. The problem with the inquest system in certain cases is that it has no capacity to deal with sensitive information; the independent commission does. That is why I urge families in Northern Ireland who are still seeking answers to talk to Sir Declan Morgan and his colleagues, because he is able to produce reports that can range as widely as he thinks appropriate.

[Gavin Robinson]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not believe that the Secretary of State would have intended to mislead the House, but I suspect that he may have misunderstood the point being made, and it has filtered into a number of his subsequent responses. In relation to the coroner and his powers, the point being made was that there are aspects of the judgment released on Thursday that are outwith the coronial law in Northern Ireland and outwith what would be expected of a judicial officer. I give the Secretary of State an opportunity to say not that the coronial law needs to change, but that the judgment does not sit within the remit and powers of the coronial system.

[Mr Speaker]

Does the Secretary of State wish to reply to that?

[Hilary Benn]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. That is a judgment for others to make, if that is the view they take. I accept that the right hon. Gentleman has made that point, but it would be for others to consider it, and it may be a factor that the Ministry of Defence considers when it is looking at this set of rules.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Is there any way within the rules of order that I can point out how the divisiveness of the exchanges that we have just had illustrates what happens when a line is not drawn under bitter historical conflicts?

Stormont Brake Notification

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Written Statements

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

On 20 December 2024, the Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly provided to me a notification signed by 35 Members of the Assembly under schedule 6B of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, seeking to prevent a replacement of the Chemical Classification, Labelling and Packaging Regulation from applying.

The democratic scrutiny provisions in schedule 6B, commonly referred to as the Stormont brake, place important legal obligations on me as the Secretary of State. The Government take these legal obligations seriously, noting that they are designed to enable Members of the Legislative Assembly to raise concerns where a regulation would have an unacceptable impact on everyday life in Northern Ireland.

I have considered the concerns raised by MLAs and, specifically, the notification provided, against the tests provided for in law. I am grateful to them for their submission. I have yesterday written to the Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly giving notice of my determination that the conditions for the use of the Stormont brake have not been met, and setting out the reasons for this decision. However, in doing so I have been clear that, because of the concerns set out in the notification, the Government will take the steps necessary to avoid new barriers arising within the UK internal market through our classification, labelling and packaging regimes for chemicals. As part of this, the Government will explicitly consult on applying a consistent regime across the United Kingdom, should this be required to safeguard the UK internal market.

Industry and members of the public will be encouraged to contribute to the consultation when it has launched, which the Government intend to do as soon as possible. I have also committed to the Speaker of the Assembly to write to the Chair of its Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee to advise on the opening of this consultation, so that Assembly Members may contribute to it.

This approach will ensure that our domestic regime does not undermine the smooth operation of the UK internal market, and Northern Ireland’s integral place within it, in all circumstances, which the Government is steadfastly committed to safeguarding.

This outcome is a direct result of the scrutiny that has been conducted by Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, and I am grateful for their consideration of the issues, and particularly that undertaken by its democratic scrutiny Committee.

This process—just as with the steps the Government took last year on the supply of dental amalgam in response to the concerns of MLAs—demonstrates the importance of the democratic scrutiny mechanisms under the Windsor framework. Objective consideration has been given to a notification given by MLAs, and action is being taken by the Government in response, even where, as in this case, the strict legal tests for the use of the brake have not been met.

I have placed a copy of my letter to the Assembly Speaker in the Library of the House for future reference.

[HCWS374]

Oral Answers to Questions

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Commons Chamber

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

2. What progress his Department has made on securing the future of Spirit AeroSystems in Northern Ireland.

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

The Government are working with the Northern Ireland Executive to help to ensure the best outcome for Spirit’s aerospace production and its skilled and hard-working staff in the current commercial negotiations.

[Gavin Robinson]

It is welcome that the Secretary of State has visited the Spirit AeroSystems site a number of times. He will know of its importance to advanced manufacturing, and of its aeronautical history in Northern Ireland—it originated in 1908 as Short Brothers—and he will also know that at this stage there is a purchaser for about a third of the facility and a third of the staff. The current plan fails to recognise not only the integration of the units within Spirit AeroSystems, but its importance to the Northern Ireland supply chain. Will the Secretary of State join Unite and GMB in their call for the Government to support a one-sale solution, so that the integration of staff, work flows and supply chains continues to benefit for decades to come?

[Hilary Benn]

I agree with everything the right hon. Gentleman has said about the importance of the site and its history, but in the end there will be a commercial outcome. Airbus wants to buy the bit that makes the A220 wings, because it wants the site to produce more of them, and Boeing is seeking a buyer for the rest of the production. The right hon. Gentleman will be well aware of what else is produced on site. I continue to engage with all those involved, but, as I have said, in the end this will be a commercial decision. We do, of course, want to see the production and the jobs remain.

[Gavin Robinson]

The Secretary of State will know that the facility would not be there had it not been for Government investment and support. Guarantees were given not just to the people of Belfast, but to the staff directly employed at Spirit AeroSystems. The Government have also engaged in discussions about Harland and Wolff and Navantia, and the fleet solid support ships.

The Secretary of State will share the concern that I felt yesterday about the news that the four Harland and Woolf shipyards across the United Kingdom would be going into administration, and he will know of the countless businesses throughout the UK that are owed tens of millions of pounds in respect of the work on those fleet solid support ships. We want their viability to continue, and we know of individual businesses that have been family-owned for generations and have succeeded. Can the Secretary of State indicate his endeavour to ensure that that viability will be at the forefront of his mind, so that we can deliver the fleet solid support ships in Belfast and Devon?

[Hilary Benn]

The administration announcement, which involves the other side of the runway, is part of a process to ensure that the takeover by Navantia goes ahead, because it is very good news. The right hon. Gentleman and I were present to celebrate that announcement, which provides security for the future. Ultimately the question of how to relate to those suppliers is a commercial matter for Navantia, but I am sure that it wants to build a good relationship with firms that will help Harland and Wolff to build the three fleet solid support ships.

[Katrina Murray]

While the contract with Airbus is welcome, there is concern about the split of the Spirit plant in Belfast. Can the Secretary of State reassure me that wider defence and aerospace contracts with companies such as Skyrora in my constituency that are held in Belfast by the non-Airbus part of Spirit will not be put at risk because of that?

[Hilary Benn]

I understand my hon. Friend’s concern. We will know the answers to these questions when the commercial negotiations are concluded, but I will draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to the specific issue that she has raised in relation to her constituency.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

The Government have a visibly strong relationship with Airbus in respect of its presence in north Wales. What representations is the Secretary of State making to ensure that there is equivalent investment for the Spirit AeroSystems workers in Belfast?

[Hilary Benn]

The fact that Airbus wants to acquire the A220 wing production and wants more A220 wings to be built in Belfast is, I think, a sign of its willingness to invest and to see that production grow and prosper.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

3. What recent discussions he has had with the Northern Ireland Executive on improving public services.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)]

11. What discussions he has had with stakeholder groups on Northern Ireland's legacy.

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

As I set out on 4 December, the Government have now begun the process of repealing and replacing the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 through a proposed remedial order, and we will bring forward primary legislation, including to reform the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery. In preparing for that, I will continue to talk to all interested parties.

[Claire Hanna]

Nobel laureate Seamus Heaney described Sean Brown as a man of “goodwill and integrity” who represented something better than we have grown used to. We meet the day before his family are forced back to court, and in the week of the anniversary of the Kingsmill massacre; the sole survivor, brave Alan Black, is waiting for a long-overdue ombudsman report. Those two incidents were among the most nakedly sectarian in a squalid conflict, but decades on, those in and out of uniform who created victims—rather than the victims themselves, who have lived with the consequences for decades—are still driving the process. Will the Secretary of State commit to ensuring that his forthcoming proposals, which I know he is working on intensively, remove the NIO veto under the guise of national security? Will he commit to root-and-branch reform of ICRIR and to exposing collusive behaviour, and will he hold to the standards agreed by all parties in both Governments at Stormont House?

[Hilary Benn]

I have met both the Brown family and Alan Black, the sole survivor of the Kingsmill massacre. The trauma they have been through is hard for anyone else to appreciate. We all look forward to the publication of the ombudsman’s report on the Kingsmill massacre. I want to see a full investigation into the murder of Sean Brown, but there is an appeal on wider matters and I cannot comment further. I am committed to fundamental reform of the independent commission.

[David Smith]

My first full-time job in the early 2000s was setting up and running a peacemaking programme for young people in Northern Ireland, so I am pleased that the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery was salvaged from the remains of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. However, I am concerned that in the discussions around legacy the goal of cross-community reconciliation is being treated as secondary to information recovery for individuals, important as that is. How will my right hon. Friend ensure that ICRIR works with key stakeholders to foster cross-community reconciliation in Northern Ireland?

[Hilary Benn]

My hon. Friend raises a really important point. Enabling families who have suffered for so long and who have not found answers to what happened is a fundamental part of facilitating the process of reconciliation in Northern Ireland. The truth is that we have to work on both aspects.

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

The Secretary of State knows that I agree with many aspects of the repeal of the legacy Act, but the Policy Exchange report this week, as the newspapers have reported this morning, raises significant concerns about the repeal of sections 46 and 47. May I urge him to return to the previous cross-party position that we have to block compensation payments to terrorists such as Gerry Adams?

[Hilary Benn]

I have indeed seen that report. The problem is that the approach set out in the legacy Act has been found, in that respect and many others, to be unlawful. Of course we will continue, as the previous Government did, to see whether we can find a lawful way of dealing with the issue that the right hon. Gentleman has identified. That work will continue.

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

Does the Secretary of State agree that the job of the commission in helping people to deal with the past is made much more difficult when we have reprehensible incidents such as Sinn Féin First Minister Michelle O’Neill attending and speaking at a commemoration of three IRA terrorists who died when the bomb they were transporting through County Londonderry in 1971 exploded prematurely, killing them rather than the innocent people they intended to murder, and when we now have the possibility that the former Sinn Féin leader and terrorist Gerry Adams may be about to receive compensation?

[Hilary Benn]

As I said a moment ago, the process of reconciliation and coming to terms with the past is a difficult and itself a troubled process. Lots of people have been on a journey and we need to continue to see that journey followed. People will express their views about the stance that different people have taken, but since the hon. Gentleman has mentioned the First Minister, I welcome the fact that, for the first time, she attended the Remembrance Sunday commemorations.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

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

I would like to return to the question that has just been raised by the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith). When the previous Government passed their legislation, the Labour party was in favour of the amendments made in another place that ruled out compensation to people such as Gerry Adams and others similarly detained in the 1970s. Why have the Government now changed their position?

[Hilary Benn]

The courts have found those clauses to be unlawful. The last Government passed legislation to enable terrorists to get immunity. The last Government passed legislation to deny people in Northern Ireland the right to bring civil claims, including against terrorists. The Conservative party has never apologised for doing both of those things. It is about time that it did.

[Alex Burghart]

Let us return to the matter of Gerry Adams. I am sorry to say that I must correct the Secretary of State. The High Court found that those provisions of the legacy Act were unlawful, but it is well within the Secretary of State’s power to appeal that judgment. He has dropped that appeal. I do not wish to teach the Secretary of State to suck constitutional eggs, but he will know full well that it is also within the sovereign power of this Parliament to give legal basis to the Carltona doctrine, which has been in place since the 1940s. Or would he rather pay compensation to Gerry Adams and people like him?

[Hilary Benn]

Nobody wants to see that. The Supreme Court judgment that ruled that the interim custody orders following internment were not lawfully put in place, in which the Carltona principle was much discussed, was in 2020. The last Government did nothing about that for three years, until they belatedly accepted an amendment in the House of Lords that has now been found to be unlawful. It is a complex and difficult question—the last Government found it difficult—but we will continue to follow the same path to see whether it is possible to discover a legal means of dealing with the problem that the hon. Gentleman has identified.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

5. What steps his Department is taking to help grow the economy in Northern Ireland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Aldridge (Weston-super-Mare) (Lab)]

10. What steps his Department is taking to help grow the economy in Northern Ireland.

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

The Government’s mission is to encourage growth in Northern Ireland through increased investment, job creation and higher living standards. The Government are working closely with the Northern Ireland Executive to develop Invest 2035, the UK’s modern industrial strategy.

[Chris Vince]

Northern Ireland’s economy has strong and dynamic sectors, from agrifood to aerospace, and from shipbuilding to cyber-security. Does the Secretary of State agree that Northern Ireland has a vital part to play in the industrial strategy?

[Hilary Benn]

It certainly does. My hon. Friend alludes to a number of the great strengths of the Northern Ireland economy. The deal with Harland and Wolff, which I mentioned earlier, is another sign of the Government’s commitment. Of course, the Northern Ireland economy has access to both the EU and the UK markets.

[Alan Gemmell]

Does the Secretary of State share my optimism that UK Government funding for all four of Northern Ireland’s city and growth deals, confirmed in the autumn, provides a great basis for all of Northern Ireland to generate growth and opportunity?

[Hilary Benn]

I certainly do, and I have been greatly impressed by the commitment of those involved in developing the growth deals to investing in boosting economic growth in their areas.

[Jayne Kirkham]

Could the Secretary of State update the House on what recent discussions he has had with the Executive about steps to increase revenue, in order to help to deliver longer-term financial sustainability and grow the economy in Northern Ireland?

[Hilary Benn]

I have had a number of discussions with the Executive on that subject, and I am pleased to see that the draft budget for next year contains a plan to raise further revenue to meet the £113 million requirement that was part of the budget restoration agreement. It is really important that the Executive raise additional funds to meet the challenges of improving public services.

[Dan Aldridge]

There are many dynamic tech and digital companies at the vanguard of the mission for economic growth in Northern Ireland. Does the Secretary of State agree that these industries are critical to Northern Ireland’s economic future? What steps are the Government taking to support these industries in growing to their full potential?

[Hilary Benn]

There have already been discussions with businesses in Northern Ireland about the part they can play in the industrial strategy. Cyber-security is a really good example of the huge strength of the Northern Ireland economy; many companies, including from the United States of America, are investing in Northern Ireland because of the skill and expertise to be found.

[Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)]

I thank the Secretary of State and the Minister for their responses so far. One response highlighted Northern Ireland as having dual market access. On that basis, do they agree that initiatives such as the Dublin-Belfast economic corridor in my constituency need support so that we can make the most of our economic opportunities?

[Hilary Benn]

I do indeed think that the Belfast economic corridor is a really good thing. We support it, and I look forward to seeing it develop and succeed.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

Agriculture is really important to the economy of Northern Ireland. In Scotland, we breed excellent bulls, but it is very hard to sell them and get them into Northern Ireland because of the regulations and red tape, and vice versa for Irish bulls coming to Scotland. Will the Secretary of State see if we can make it easier for farmers on both sides?

[Hilary Benn]

I will look into the matter that the hon. Gentleman raises and I will come back to him.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

This week, the Prime Minister has spoken of the unbridled economic opportunities from developing artificial intelligence. It is not an unbridled opportunity for Northern Ireland, because instead of living under British regulations on AI, we live under much more restrictive EU regulations. When will the Secretary of State move to release Northern Ireland from the restrictions, under the EU, of foreign jurisdiction?

[Hilary Benn]

The substantive provisions of the EU AI Act do not currently apply in Northern Ireland, and they would apply only following agreement by the withdrawal agreement joint committee. Any decision would be subject to the democratic safeguard mechanisms in schedule 6B to the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

In his Union connectivity review, Lord Hendy, now a Minister in the Government, identified that upgrading the A75 would have significant economic benefits, not just for Northern Ireland but for the whole of the United Kingdom. There was another fatal accident on that road in my constituency last week. Will the Secretary of State join the Secretary of State for Scotland in putting pressure on the Scottish Government to finally move on upgrading that vital economic route?

[Hilary Benn]

It is indeed a vital economic route, and like the hon. Member, I look forward to seeing it improve, not least in the interests of safety, as quickly as possible.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

6. What steps he has taken with Cabinet colleagues to prevent disruption to the supply of goods to Northern Ireland from Great Britain since the introduction of the EU general product safety regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)]

12. What progress his Department has made on securing the future of Harland and Wolff in Northern Ireland.

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

I welcome the industry-led deal that will see Navantia UK purchase Harland and Wolff’s four shipyards in the UK, including that in Belfast. The Government have worked closely with Navantia UK to secure the future of the yards, the fleet solid support ship programme, and around 1,000 jobs across the UK.

[Chris McDonald]

Does my right hon. Friend share my optimism that now that the future of the Harland and Wolff yard has been secured, the yard will be able to secure future orders?

[Hilary Benn]

I certainly do. That is one of the great benefits of the commercial agreement that has been reached with Navantia on buying Harland and Wolff, and the adjustments made to the contract to ensure that the fleet solid support ships could go ahead. This is a great facility, and it is open for business, including for other orders.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

A company in my constituency of Strangford is among those that will suffer because of Harland and Wolff being in administration. This small family firm—I will not put its name in Hansard—will lose half a million pounds. The impact on that company and others is quite catastrophic. What can be done to help those companies that, through Harland and Wolff being in administration, will either not be able to trade, or risk losing out entirely?

[Hilary Benn]

I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. This is a product of the failure of the old Harland and Wolff. It now falls to Navantia to decide which of the invoices it wishes to pay, but it will want to secure a relationship with suppliers contributing to the fleet solid support ship programme.

[Mr Speaker]

Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, may I welcome the Speaker of the Assembly of the Republic of Albania, Elisa Spiropali, who is in the Public Gallery?

Independent Review of the Windsor Framework

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2025 Written Statements

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

On 10 December, the Northern Ireland Assembly held a vote on the continued application of articles 5 to 10 of the Windsor framework. On 12 December, the Speaker of the Assembly formally wrote to me confirming that the motion passed with a majority of the elected Members voting in favour, but not with cross-community support.

As set out in schedule 6A to the Northern Ireland Act 1998, this obliges me to commission an independent review into the functioning of the framework, in accordance with paragraphs 7 to 9 of the unilateral declaration of October 2019. I have today commissioned the right hon. Lord Murphy of Torfaen to conduct this review.

Lord Murphy previously served in government as Minister of State for Northern Ireland, Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and Secretary of State for Wales. In his many years of public service, he has shown a deep understanding of the bonds between the nations of the United Kingdom, and an appreciation of the operation of all three strands of the Good Friday agreement, to which the Government are committed. This experience and knowledge, and the high regard in which he is held across communities in Northern Ireland, will be valuable as he undertakes the review.

Lord Murphy will work to provide me with a report of the review’s conclusions, no later than six months from today, on the functioning of the Windsor framework and its implications for social, economic and political life in Northern Ireland, and on the UK internal market, including any recommendations. I have today placed a copy of the review’s terms of reference in the Library of the House.

Following receipt of the review’s report, I shall lay a copy of it before Parliament and respond to its recommendations in accordance with my duties under the law.

[HCWS358]

Northern Ireland Act 1998: Consent Process Outcome

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Wednesday 11th December 2024 Written Statements

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

Following my written ministerial statement of 2 December (HCWS277), I can confirm that the Northern Ireland Assembly held a vote on the continued application of articles 5 to 10 of the Windsor framework yesterday. The motion passed with a majority of the elected Members voting, but not with cross-community support.

As set out in both schedule 6A to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and article 18 of the Windsor framework, this result means that the next of these votes will take place in four years’ time and not eight years’ as cross-community support was not forthcoming.

I am now under a legal duty to commission an independent review into the functioning of the framework. The review will report to me with its findings within six months, after which I shall be required to lay a copy of it before Parliament and then to respond.

The Government are, separately, obliged to inform the European Union of the result of the vote and the Minister for the Cabinet Office will shortly do so in line with the terms of the Windsor framework. I shall continue to keep the House updated on these matters.

[HCWS295]

Northern Ireland: Legacy of the Troubles

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 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 in Northern Ireland. The timing of the statement was chosen so as not to take time away from the Opposition day debates we have just had, while also enabling the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal to be updated today.

Addressing the legacy of the troubles was one of the aims of the Good Friday agreement, but this task remains incomplete. Too many families I have met have had to wait too long to find out what happened to their loved ones. I have found it difficult to listen to their stories about the brutality of the killings, the way some of them were treated afterwards, and the passing of the years without finding answers.

The approach taken to legacy by the last Government was wrong. It was rejected by the Northern Ireland political parties, victims’ groups and the Irish Government, and it was opposed by the Labour party when we were in opposition. Aspects of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 have now been found by the courts to be incompatible with our obligations under the European convention on human rights. This must be remedied, and the Government are committed to repeal and replace that legislation, as set out in our manifesto.

I am today laying a remedial order under the Human Rights Act 1998 to take the first steps to honour that commitment. This order will remedy all of the human rights deficiencies in the legacy Act identified by the Northern Ireland High Court in February in the case of Dillon and others, and one issue from the Court of Appeal judgment in September. Specifically, the order, if adopted by Parliament, will remove all provisions from the Act relating to the immunity scheme, which—let it not be forgotten—would have enabled any of those who perpetrated the most appalling terrorist crimes to seek immunity from prosecution from the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, although, as many victims’ families recognise, with the passage of time the prospect of successful prosecutions is increasingly unlikely.

The order will also enable all civil proceedings that were prohibited by the legacy Act, including future cases, to proceed. This means that individuals will once again be able to bring troubles-related cases to the civil courts—a basic right denied them by the legacy Act.

In addition to laying this remedial order, I can also announce today that I will introduce primary legislation when parliamentary time allows. This legislation will implement our promise to restore inquests, starting with those that were previously halted by the legacy Act. It will also, in direct response to the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal’s findings, amend the disclosure regime so that it is fair, transparent and, crucially, allows for the greatest possible disclosure of information, following very closely the model for statutory inquiries and other established processes.

We will also ensure that, in specific circumstances—namely, in cases that are unable to proceed as an inquest—the independent commission is able to hold public hearings, take sworn evidence from individuals and ensure that families have effective representation. Although the courts have found the commission be sufficiently independent to conduct article 2 compliant investigations, the confidence of families in its work is paramount, so we will make further changes to reform and strengthen the commission’s independence, powers and accountability. As part of this work, we will consider provisions previously included in the draft Stormont House agreement legislation, as well as learning from the experience of Operation Kenova.

The steps I am outlining today seek to correct the mistakes of the previous Government’s approach, ensure compliance with the ECHR and deliver on what this Government have promised: the removal of conditional immunity; the reinstatement of legacy inquests halted by the legacy Act; restoring civil cases; and reforming ICRIR, while enabling it to continue working on behalf of the growing number of families who have already sought its help.

The many conversations that I have had with interested parties in recent months have been invaluable in the development of this approach. I will now undertake further discussions on specific measures to be included in primary legislation so that, together with the remedial order, the Government fulfil our commitment to repeal and replace the legacy Act. This will include families, victims and survivors groups, Northern Ireland parties, civil society and the veterans community, recognising the dedicated service of the vast majority of police officers, members of the armed forces and the security services who did so much to keep the people of Northern Ireland safe during the troubles. I want to take the opportunity to reassure the House that the Government are committed to ensuring that veterans receive the right welfare and, where appropriate, legal support.

I will, of course, also continue to have detailed discussions with the Irish Government, who, as co-guarantors of the Good Friday agreement, are an essential partner in this process. I hope that the UK and Irish Governments will be able to agree a way forward that is underpinned by the principles set out in the Stormont House agreement.

I am sure that everyone recognises that, as time passes and families grow older, we need to get on with enabling them to obtain the information, accountability and acknowledgement that they have long sought. In parallel, the Government also need to set out the grounds for appeal on elements of the Court of Appeal judgment. As I have said, the Government will use primary legislation to respond directly to a number of the Court of Appeal’s findings on disclosure. However, the primacy of the Executive in decisions relating to the security of the state is a principle long recognised by UK courts and is a crucial element of our ability to keep people safe. For this reason, we will appeal the Court’s specific finding relating to the Secretary of State’s power to preclude the disclosure of sensitive information in circumstances where such disclosure would prejudice the national security interests of the United Kingdom.

Furthermore, the Court’s findings relating to effective next-of-kin participation in cases that would otherwise be inquests raise issues that could reach far beyond the scope of the legacy Act. It is important that the Government seek legal clarity from the Supreme Court, and that is why we have decided that the Government must seek to appeal on this particular issue as well. The Government will also pursue an appeal in relation to the findings on article 2 of the Windsor framework, for reasons I set out in my written ministerial statement of 29 July.

I would like to say as clearly as possible that these decisions on appeal are to address wider concerns and their potential impact far beyond the legacy Act and Northern Ireland. They will not slow down our efforts to seek agreement and bring forward legacy legislation so that the ICRIR, which has begun its work, can demonstrate its capacity to assist victims and families.

Finally, what is all this for? It is to ensure that families who have lost loved ones—families who above all should be in our hearts and minds today—can finally learn what happened. Nothing will ever ease the pain that they endure to this day, but we must hope that society in Northern Ireland, which has come such a long way since 1998, can begin to heal the terrible wounds of the past and look to a better future. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call shadow Secretary of State.

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

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, for giving an oral statement on this very important subject, and for scheduling the statement at such a time as would not interfere with the Opposition day debates—that was very decent of him.

I do not intend to rehearse all of the long debates that were had in the last Parliament over the legacy Act. The Labour party won the general election on a manifesto that included a number of measures that the Secretary of State has just discussed, and it has a mandate to make the changes it wants to make. But I will say this: there was an attempt by the last Government—a desire from the last Government—to draw a line under many difficult things that had happened, and with the actions the Government are now taking that line is being erased.

I will remind the House of the central reasons why the last Government legislated. They did so to try and protect some elderly people, including servicemen, who were being brought before inquests to discuss events that may or may not have happened very many years before. This was a process inevitably weighted against the police and the armed forces, who kept records and whose servicemen were easily locatable and contactable. Tonight there will be many such men harbouring a sense of dread. I know the Government are taking a different approach, but I do ask them to spare a thought for those men this evening and to think very deeply about what they can do to support them and what help they can offer them.

I have a number of questions for the Secretary of State. I appreciate that he may not be able to answer them all this evening, so I would be grateful if he would undertake to write to me on these very important matters.

The first issue I would like to touch on is the ICRIR, which was set up by the legacy Act. Indeed, for all the Government’s current talk of wanting to replace the legacy Act, a very large part of that legislation is concerned with its establishment. I was very pleased earlier in the year that the Secretary of State affirmed his support for the ICRIR and for Sir Declan Morgan, who is doing an admirable job of overseeing it.

In his statement, the Secretary of State said that he will

“reform and strengthen the commission’s independence, powers and accountability.”

I would be grateful if he could set out exactly how and why he intends to do that, given that in September Sir Declan made it clear that he already had the necessary independence and powers to do his job.

Secondly, I was pleased to hear that the Secretary of State intends to appeal the Court’s specific finding regarding the Secretary of State’s power to preclude the disclosure of sensitive information in circumstances where disclosure would be prejudicial to national security, but will he confirm that, in the event that his appeal is unsuccessful, the Government will legislate to ensure that national security is protected? If he does so, he will have our support.

Thirdly, I must ask the Secretary of State about the new regime that is emerging—it seems rather more by accident than design—and how it will work. We will have inquests, the ICRIR and inquiries. Who will decide which route a family goes down? Will it be the family, the Government or the courts? What criteria will be used? How will disputes about the route chosen be adjudicated? One of the qualities of the legacy Act was that it greatly simplified the system. The system is now being returned to complexity.

Finally, I must ask the Secretary of State to give the House some clarity on the Government’s position on article 2(1) of the Windsor framework. I am pleased that he is continuing his appeal against the Colton judgment handed down in July. That was a decision in which the Court of Appeal sought to disapply statute, and in his statement in July he referred to it as a technical point of law, but it is quite some technicality. Article 2(1) of the Windsor framework is very important in this judgment, and I would like him to be able to give clarity on the Government’s position. Is it, as the last Government’s position was, that the rights available to the people of Northern Ireland under the Belfast agreement should not be diminished as a result of our leaving the EU, or is it that a broader range of rights available at the time of our departure from the EU should not be diminished as a result of leaving the EU, or is it that the rights of the Northern Irish people should keep pace with EU law as it develops? Those are incredibly important points of law that will have a long consequence in British courts. I would be grateful if he could give the House clarity on those matters.

[Hilary Benn]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the manner of his response and for acknowledging that the Government have a mandate to introduce the changes I have set out today, although he did not comment on the fact that a number of elements of the legislation that the last Government put in place have been found to be incompatible with our international obligations under the European convention on human rights, and that alone is a demonstration of the failings of that particular legislation.

I acknowledge the point that the shadow Secretary of State raised about veterans, and we hold them very close to our hearts, as I know does the Defence Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey), who is in the Chamber this evening.

The shadow Secretary of State asked about the ICRIR. Indeed, the courts have found it to be independent, and it has considerable powers. It is currently investigating a first case that I referred to it yesterday, following a report from the Police Service of Northern Ireland. The purpose of the changes that I will be discussing with all the parties I set out in my statement will be to further build confidence in ICRIR. Part of the reason ICRIR does not currently command the confidence of all survivors and victims groups is because it was created in an Act that closed off any other route of remedy. People were told, “You cannot have a civil case. You cannot have an inquest. If you are having an inquest now, we are cutting it short on the 1 May deadline, and the only place you can then go is ICRIR.” If I may say so, that damaged confidence in ICRIR. I have great confidence in Sir Declan Morgan, and people have now started coming to ICRIR, and I want to build confidence. That is the basis of the further changes that I propose to come to later on.

On the hon. Gentleman’s question on disclosure, I have to say that, if we get leave to appeal, we will have to wait and see what the Supreme Court has to say about that. When it comes to the different regimes, as he will know, for ICRIR, families can approach it and say, “I would like there to be a review or, if you think it appropriate, an investigation.” Certain people have powers to refer cases to ICRIR—I have just done so in the case I have outlined. It is for the Government to decide whether to launch public inquiries.

Yes, there is some complexity, as the hon. Gentleman might say, but it does give people a choice, and it does give them their rights. How could we say to citizens in one part of our important United Kingdom that they could no longer have the right to bring a civil case? That is what the legacy Act did, and that is what the Court of Appeal has recently found to be incompatible.

Finally, on article 2, I am not a lawyer but I think the hon. Gentleman set out quite well the range of issues that arise out of the way in which the courts have thus far interpreted article 2 and its application. As the courts have taken what I might describe as an expansive view of what article 2 means compared with what some people might have thought when it was originally written, it is important for the Government, and indeed for the country, to go to the Supreme Court and ask, “Which is the right interpretation?”

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

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. Earlier this week, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), visited Northern Ireland, where it was clear from our discussions with many stakeholders that real progress has been made since 1998 but that there is much more to do so. First, how does the Secretary of State think this announcement will bring people in Northern Ireland together? Secondly, will he tell us when he plans to bring forward the primary legislation to which he referred?

[Hilary Benn]

The answer to my hon. Friend’s second question, as I have already indicated, is when parliamentary time allows. In answer to his first question, I hope that people will see a Government seeking to address the evidential shortcomings of the legacy Act, but it is my wish to achieve as much consensus as possible. I am not naive, and I am not going to stand before the House today and think that in the end I will get everybody to back the proposals that I have already brought forward and will bring forward in due course, but all of us in all parts of the House should have that aim.

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

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. It has long been recognised that it is neither wise nor sustainable to simply draw a line under the past in Northern Ireland; there is too much hurt and there are too many demands for truth and justice.

The Liberal Democrats believe that Northern Ireland must be able to deal with its past in a manner that promotes reconciliation and is consistent with a shared future. The approach of the previous Government was wrong. We opposed the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act, as did every political party in Northern Ireland. Just as working closely with Northern Ireland political parties is crucial to helping Northern Ireland deal with its past, so too is having a constructive relationship with the Republic of Ireland. To that end, we welcome the Government’s new and constructive approach and the announcement of new legislation. I welcome the Northern Ireland Secretary’s meeting with Micheál Martin earlier this week.

Does the Secretary of State believe that we might be making progress towards the Irish Government withdrawing their legal case? He said that legislation will be introduced when parliamentary time allows. Will he offer further insight on when that might be?

On the ICRIR, I think we all agree that it is vital to have a body that has the faith and trust of victims and their families, and I pay tribute to Sir Declan Morgan and his colleagues for the work that they have done in hugely challenging circumstances. I heard what the Secretary of State said regarding reforming the ICRIR, but will he keep on the table the option of replacing it entirely, should it turn out that such reforms do not deliver what we all want to see, which is families getting the answers they need in a manner that promotes reconciliation and an institution that commands widespread public trust?

[Hilary Benn]

I hope that it might be possible to reach agreement with the Irish Government about how we take this forward. Whether they withdraw the interstate case is, of course, entirely a matter for them, but only yesterday I had discussions with Micheál Martin, the Justice Minister Helen McEntee and the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, in which we discussed these matters. I regard that dialogue as very important to building confidence.

In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s second question on when the legislation will be forthcoming, I can only repeat myself: when parliamentary time allows. On his third question on keeping open the prospect of abolishing ICRIR, I simply say that one could do that—there are those who would argue for it. That would bring to a halt the cases that have already started, and to each of those families who have taken the decision to approach ICRIR, that case really matters. We would be saying to them, “Right. Forget that” and we would waste all the money that has been put into establishing ICRIR so that it has the capacity to do its work, and waste another year or two. As I have said, nobody is getting any younger.

In the end, in most of the discussions that I have had, I have asked people, “Do you think we need an information recovery function?” They have said yes. I have asked, “Do you think that we need a means of continuing investigation?” They have said yes. That is what was contained in the Stormont House agreement, and I am not yet persuaded that scrapping that, to recreate something that ends up looking not dissimilar from what we have at the moment, is a terribly sensible or pragmatic approach to take. However, I am open to conversations in the way that I set out about what more we can do on ICRIR to increase the public’s confidence in it.

[David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. I was in Belfast this week with other members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, and it was clear that all sections of Northern Ireland society were opposed to the legacy Act as it was constituted. Will the Secretary of State work with all stakeholders going forward, including the Irish Government, as he plans a new way forward on legacy and as he considers how to have full co-operation from the Irish Government in relation to information they may hold on legacy cases?

[Hilary Benn]

I am very happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. I have had a lot of meetings and discussions already, and to quote that phrase, I shall have further such meetings over the next few months, because I am determined to work as hard as I can to try, as I indicated a moment ago, to find a way forward. The discussions that we have had thus far with the Irish Government, who were resolutely opposed to the legislation that the previous Government put on the statute book, along with everybody else, and the fact that we have demonstrated our willingness to be open to a debate about changes that can be made, has been a real step forward.

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

I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. I disagreed with both the manner and the detail of the last Government’s Act. This tilts back in favour of the rule of law and in favour of families. Will he continue to manage the expectation of families, given the impact of the passage of time? Will he press the Irish Government on Omagh, on Dublin and Monaghan, and on specific terrorist atrocities that they have information on and we need them now to pass over?

[Hilary Benn]

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question. He played a distinguished role during his time as Secretary of State. He knows, as I know and we all know, the importance of trying to build a consensus to move forward. He raises the question of Omagh; I raised that with Micheál Martin only yesterday. I welcome very much the commitment that the Irish Government have given to co-operate with the Omagh inquiry, and I know that the inquiry looks forward to receiving that co-operation in the months ahead.

[Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for the decisive action that he has announced today and for bringing it to us in the House. Nothing can be allowed to jeopardise the progress that has been made in Northern Ireland. Will he confirm that the thread running through this action, and any future action, is the Government’s firm commitment to the victims and families, and to getting them the answers that they so richly deserve and finally need?

[Hilary Benn]

I am very happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. I have talked tonight about a lot of process, future legislation, remedial orders and so on. That is why I said at the end of my statement that, in the end, this is about the families—the families, whom many Members in the House will have met, who still do not know what happened and who carry the incredible pain from what they have been through with them to this day. The very least we can do is to try really, really hard to find a way of giving them the answers that they have been seeking.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I welcome the fact that the Government, as part of their appeal, will appeal the way in which the scope of article 2 has been extended, even to include overreach into national policy. I say to the Secretary of State that as long as article 2 remains, there will always be contention about how much say the EU will have—not only on law and activities in Northern Ireland, but on policy made in this House.

On the decisions he has made on inquests, civil cases and disclosure, the Secretary of State has to be honest with this House: that is not going to result in terrorists being taken through the courts or through the process in Northern Ireland. It will result only in ageing members of the security forces being dragged once again through the courts and suffering as a result of the service they gave in Northern Ireland. He said he intends to continue to speak with the Irish Government. The Irish Government have shamelessly taken our Government to court while doing nothing about the collusion and activities of the Irish state and Irish security forces in aiding and abetting the killing of soldiers and genocide along the border. Will the Secretary of State ensure that if there is a discussion on legacy, they address the past sins they are guilty of?

[Hilary Benn]

In dealing with the legacy of the troubles it is important that everyone faces up to the consequences of what happened and of what they did or did not do—everyone. It is a painful and difficult process indeed. The implication of what I have announced to the House today is that nobody can escape prosecution, because the immunity that was offered by the legacy Act has been removed. If there is evidence—although I acknowledge to the House that with the passage of time that becomes more and more difficult, for reasons the right hon. Gentleman alluded to—at least that possibility remains.

On article 2, I would simply point out that this agreement was reached between the British Government and the European Union, and it is the British courts—not the European courts—that have interpreted it. That is why the Government are of the view that we should seek to get a definitive ruling on the nature of that interpretation from the Supreme Court.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

On 21 November we marked the 50th anniversary of the Birmingham pub bombings. That date will have been felt most heavily by the families of the 21 people who never came home, and by many more who still carry the mental and physical scars of that day. The Secretary of State knows that the announcement of the repeal of the legacy Act was welcomed at the time it was made. Will he agree to enter into correspondence on the potential implications of his announcement tonight for that campaign?

[Hilary Benn]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that appalling atrocity. When I was the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I met a number of the Birmingham families over video. They have lived for so long with the pain and suffering, and, of course, with the fact that the people who were put in jail for allegedly having done it had not done it, which has only added to their distress. Because it happened in Great Britain, it is a matter for the Home Office. However, I would say that ICRIR is now beginning to look at the case of the Guildford pub bombings. Why? It is because the families have approached ICRIR. I would just point out that it is open to the Birmingham families—if they wish—to approach ICRIR and ask it to look at what happened to their loved ones.

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

I am less enthusiastic than many people for this development. If, as the Secretary of State says, the purpose is for the families to find out the truth, can he confirm first of all that the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 remains in being, so that if somebody is prosecuted successfully for the most heinous of offences, they will not serve—whether they are from the armed forces on the one side or the terrorist forces on the other—more than two years in jail? Given that that is the case, which is the more likely to give the families the truth: trying to take people to court, where they will defend their position and try to cover up inconvenient facts; or trying to have an amnesty—that hated word—coupled with a truth recovery process, where the truth can be said because people know that they will not go to jail as a result?

[Hilary Benn]

Clearly, legislation on the statute book, and the provisions that it contains, remains in place until such time as it changes. On the right hon. Gentleman’s important point about what the families would prefer, the answer must lie with the families themselves. I, as I know he will also have done, have met a very large number of families. A lot of them acknowledge that a prosecution is unlikely but want the truth. Some of them still want there to be a prosecution for justice to be done. Our responsibility is to give families, and the bodies investigating on their behalf, the means to provide the answers that the families, after all these years, are looking for.

[Louise Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

As a veteran, I pay tribute to the service of those police officers, members of the armed forces and the security services who did so much to keep people in Northern Ireland safe during the troubles and in some cases paid the ultimate price. None the less, any solution that does not have the support of victims’ groups and political parties in Northern Ireland is not, in my view, tenable. Can the Secretary of State assure me that any veterans affected will receive all welfare and, if appropriate, legal support where necessary?

[Hilary Benn]

I can indeed give my hon. Friend that assurance. It is absolutely what we should do when we are thinking, in this particular case, of those who served in the armed forces—the 250,000 people who served in Northern Ireland as part of Operation Banner.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

In this place on 11 September, the Secretary of State made a statement with regard to another inquiry. At that point, I asked him whether, for those families who had lost loved ones to terrorism, he had closed down all the other options for an inquiry. He told me at that point that ICRIR would be the only option. My understanding tonight is that he has now put back on the table several cases, inquests and inquiries. What confidence do those families now have in ICRIR when the Secretary of State says tonight that it needs reform, that he will bring forward further proposals to reform it, and that he has not detailed them? On the Stormont House agreement, I remind him that the Ulster Unionist party did not support it.

[Hilary Benn]

On the one inquiry I announced to the House, in relation to the murder of Pat Finucane, I explained the unique circumstances that led me to reach that conclusion. If I may correct the hon. Gentleman, inquiries were never taken off the table as an option. They have remained on the table. It is for the Government of the day to decide whether a public inquiry is ordered or not. He is right that civil cases and inquests in due course will return. It is the case that some people do not have confidence in ICRIR. That is why I think it is important that we should take further steps to try to build that confidence, but I have no doubt about its capacity to do the job that is required on behalf of the families that seek its help. As I made clear in the House previously, in the end, ICRIR’s effectiveness will be judged by those families. Do they get the answers that they have sought for so long by approaching it? I know that Sir Declan Morgan is really committed to making sure that he can do that.

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

I, like a number of others, served in Northern Ireland. We did not ask to go, and I lost a very good friend there—and others, at the same time. That man’s parents died without ever knowing what had happened to him, but it turns out that he may well have been dismembered and disappeared completely. There is no closure for them, and there is no chance, unless Ireland opens up its books and looks into this, that we will ever get any justice for him. He had a family as well, and many friends who wonder what happened to that brave man, and there are many more like him. So I say on their behalf: yes, let there be justice for families, but let us not forget all those soldiers who will now, in some cases, be hounded for no reason at all—those who lost their friends and their children and who did not want to go there in the first place. Where is the justice for them?

[Hilary Benn]

Let me first thank the right hon. Gentleman for his service in Northern Ireland. Let me also say how sad I am to hear about the case that he has just described. Justice information should be—must be —available to all. I would just point out, however, that there are service personnel who lost their lives in the conflict in Northern Ireland who did not support the legacy Act, precisely because it proposed to give immunity to people who had killed their loved ones. That is another reason why I think it is right to remove immunity from the statute book, which the remedial order that I have laid before the House today will do.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

I welcome the news that the Government are to pursue an appeal in relation to the findings on article 2 of the Windsor framework in the Dillon judgment. I trust that it is not just an academic pursuit to find out which is the right interpretation, but a determination on the part of the Government to resist the imposition on Northern Ireland, through the Windsor framework, of laws, rights and expectations that do not apply anywhere else in the United Kingdom. If the Secretary of State fails in his appeal to the Supreme Court, will he undertake to legislate to the effect that article 2 cannot have effect in domestic law in Northern Ireland?

The Secretary of State has said that he will be bringing to ICRIR the same disclosure rights that apply to statutory inquiries. Why, then, do we need the Finucane inquiry, if ICRIR will now have the same powers? He said that he would discuss the way forward with the Government of the Irish Republic. They are a Government who have been vigorous in demanding accountability from the British Government, but giving no accountability as to their own forces and a support for terrorism across the border for many years.

[Hilary Benn]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, the purpose of article 2 was to ensure that there was no diminution in the rights of people in Northern Ireland as a result of our withdrawal from the European Union. I certainly support that principle, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman does as well. The last Government thought it right to put it in place, because they negotiated that arrangement.

In respect of an appeal, we will just have to wait and see what the Supreme Court—if we reach that point and it goes there—has to say. I will not prejudge either a verdict or, indeed, what might flow from that. Let me just remind the hon. Gentleman, in relation to the Finucane inquiry, that there were very specific reasons. The previous Labour Government had made a commitment that in certain cases, if an independent judge determined that there be a public inquiry, we would hold one, and I believe that when Governments make commitments, we should keep our word.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I welcome the news that the Secretary of State will repeal the legacy Act. This is something that the previous Government—I say this with great respect—simply did not get right, and this Government now have an opportunity to get it right. The Secretary of State has outlined the greater scope for investigation and inquiry. I led an Adjournment debate in the last Parliament about the 10 Kingsmill workers murdered by the IRA in Newry, and I would seek an inquiry for them, for the victims of the La Mon massacre, in which the IRA murdered numerous innocent people, and for the four Ballydugan soldiers murdered on 9 April 1990.

Stuart Montgomery was three weeks out of police training college when he was murdered by the IRA in Pomeroy. My cousin Kenneth Smyth was murdered by the IRA on 10 December 1971. His friend Daniel McCormick was murdered beside him. Raymond McCord’s son was murdered by loyalists. I could mention many, many others. Will all those who seek justice be able to access that which they have requested in the past, which they have been denied so often—and equal to the decision for the Finucane family? Can the Secretary of State please further expand on the support that will ensure that there will be no witch hunt against armed forces and RUC officers, who served honourably for Crown and country? I apologise for the emotion.

[Hilary Benn]

The hon. Gentleman has no reason to apologise to anybody, because he has just demonstrated what I said in my statement about the pain that endures to this day on the part of families who have lost dearly loved family members. The way that he put his question, and the emotion that he was not afraid to show—I think he had no control over it; of course not, because this is how we feel when we reflect on these terrible incidents. He mentioned one of those killings, and here we are in December, which is a particularly difficult time of year. There are a number of anniversaries, and we are approaching Christmas, when we feel the loss of loved ones so greatly.

We have to work together as hard as we can to provide—if it is possible, because it may not be possible in all cases—the means through which the families can get some answers about what happened. But in the end, each family has to come to terms with the loss that they have endured in their own way. I cannot think of anything that is more difficult to do, but we need to stand with them every step of the way. I stand with the hon. Gentleman—he is my hon. Friend—in saying that.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the Secretary of State both for coming to the House to give his statement and, indeed, for the timing of it; it is hugely appreciated.

Northern Ireland Act 1998: Consent Process

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2024 Written Statements

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

Schedule 6A of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and article 18 of the Windsor framework provide Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly with the opportunity to consider whether articles 5 to 10 of the Windsor framework—concerning the trade in goods—should continue to apply.

The upcoming vote is a decision for the Assembly, in accordance with the law. However, under the terms of schedule 6A, where an MLA other than the First Minister and Deputy First Minister tables a motion on democratic consent, I am under a legal duty to take reasonable steps to provide MLAs with such explanatory materials as it is reasonable to provide in order to assist them when deciding the question.

In recognition of the short time window within which the motion would be tabled and the vote held, I have written to the Speaker of the Assembly today and enclosed explanatory materials that would discharge that duty. These materials have been published on gov.uk and I shall ask that a copy be placed in the Library of the House for the record.

More broadly, the Government have also set out our commitment to resetting relations with the EU and negotiating new agreements which can remove unnecessary barriers to trade for businesses in the UK trading with the EU. In the Government’s view, only the Windsor framework arrangements in place under articles 5 to 10 provide a credible basis to pursue those negotiations while also respecting Northern Ireland’s unique circumstances and its place in the UK’s internal market. The Government will listen carefully to the result of the vote, meet our legal duties flowing from that, engage fully with business, civic society and political leaders in Northern Ireland as that work continues, and update the House in due course.

[HCWS277]