Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Commons Chamber

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

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to make a statement on the draft Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 (Remedial) Order 2025.

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

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. This remedial order is a clear signal of the Government’s commitment to legislation that can command support across Northern Ireland. Its purpose is clear: to formally remove some of the provisions in the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 that were found by the courts in Dillon to be incompatible with our human rights obligations. Specifically, this means removing the provisions on immunity from prosecution and the bar on troubles-related civil cases. Although the immunity provisions never commenced, it is essential that we formally remove them from the statute book.

It is the Government’s belief that there are compelling reasons for proceeding with this order, and this is a view shared by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which in its report on 9 December agreed that the Government have such reasons and recommended that Parliament approve the order. The Committee stated that

“in these exceptional and unusual circumstances…the Government has sufficiently compelling reasons to proceed by way of remedial order.”

I want to set out what the Government believe those reasons to be. First, we must provide clarity on immunity and remove the bar on civil claims as quickly as possible. This is essential for all involved—victims, survivors and veterans—and is a prerequisite for building trust. Secondly, providing this clarity is vital to enable the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery to continue its work. It is my view that while immunity, a key plank of the 2023 legacy Act, remains on the statute book, it will be difficult for the ICRIR to obtain the confidence of all victims and survivors.

As the JCHR rightly noted, the legacy of the past continues to have a profound and lasting impact, and we know that families and political parties were vehemently opposed to the immunity provisions. While the repeal of immunity is only one aspect of reforming the arrangements put in place by the 2023 Act, I am confident that its repeal will result in a greater confidence for referrals to be made. Given that many individuals are elderly, they cannot keep on waiting. It is the Government’s view that these changes should therefore be made through the remedial order as soon as possible.

The Government have a clear mandate, compelling reasons and a procedural basis which the JCHR has endorsed, and the House will have an opportunity to debate the order in the new year.

[Alex Burghart]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question, which I have asked because I think there is a very real danger that the Government may be about to break the law. It is very important that the House is aware that the Joint Committee on Human Rights was not in possession of all the facts when it wrote its report. [Interruption.]

Last year, the High Court in Belfast found parts of the legacy Act to be incompatible with the European convention on human rights. At the time of the election, the Conservative Government were appealing that highly disputable decision. The incoming Labour Government, for reasons they have never disclosed, chose to drop that appeal, and have subsequently laid a draft remedial order to amend the legislation.

The problem is that earlier this year the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement was granted permission to intervene in the case before the Supreme Court. On 15 October, Lord Wolfson KC, acting for the movement, did just that and made written and oral submissions that the Court is now considering. Consequently, it is entirely possible that the declarations of incompatibility relied on by the Secretary of State to lay the remedial order will be quashed. The case is very much live. That is very important, because under section 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 a Government have the authority to use a remedial order only unless and until all appeals in relation to declarations of incompatibility have been “determined or abandoned”. That test is not met.

If the Government decide to push ahead with their remedial order, not only will they be acting ultra vires, but they will be setting a terrible precedent that will mean that future Governments may use remedial orders in ways they were never intended to be used. To avoid that, all the Government need to do is commit to not pushing their remedial order to a vote until the Supreme Court has finally ruled. Will the Secretary of State make that commitment?

[Hilary Benn]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the point he has raised, but the argument he puts is not correct. The appeal was abandoned by the Government in July 2024—he says for reasons that have never been disclosed, but the Government have been absolutely clear from the beginning that we disagree with immunity, and that we are committed to repeal and replace the legacy Act. Section 10 of the Human Rights Act gives a Secretary of State the ability to make a remedial order when a declaration of incompatibility has been made and any appeal

“has been determined or abandoned”.

It has been abandoned by the Government.

The hon. Gentleman suggested that the ongoing Supreme Court appeal in Dillon means that the conditions have not been met, and therefore that we might lack the vires to lay the order. I do not agree with his assessment and have made the position clear to him in the correspondence we have had—I think an exchange of two emails and two letters. I can confirm to the House that in July 2024 the Government formally abandoned their appeal concerning the declaration of incompatibility relating to immunity from prosecution. That declaration was not part of the appeal that is now before the Supreme Court, and the fact that the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement was granted permission to intervene does not alter that legal reality.

[Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)]

Last month, the House debated the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, and we heard many moving contributions about the devastating loss experienced by families, including military families, many of whom are still seeking answers. Does the Secretary of State agree that the voices of those the Government’s legislation is for should be at the forefront of our minds when we debate it and every time we debate it?

[Hilary Benn]

I do agree with my hon. Friend. It seems that the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) and the Conservative party remain wedded to immunity. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) says, as he does in all these debates, “Conditional immunity.” I think the last time we debated it, I reminded him that the previous Government’s legislation said that the commission must give immunity—must give immunity—if the conditions for giving immunity are met, which are, quite clearly—[Interruption.] Opposition Members have not reminded themselves of what their legislation said. All that was required was for somebody to come forward and say what they had done, and if what they had done was an offence, the commission must grant them immunity.

I say to those on the Opposition Front Bench that at some point they need to recognise that that provision for immunity for terrorists—because the last Government said, “We wish to give immunity to terrorists”—had no support in Northern Ireland. I am sorry that they do not recognise that. As I have said on many occasions, we cannot make progress in dealing with the problem of legacy when the provision in the current legislation, which we are committed to repealing and replacing, has no support in the place that suffered more than anywhere else during the troubles.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. You had exactly one minute and you have gone over. My apologies—I call the Secretary of State.

[Hilary Benn]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he says and for his support for what we are seeking to do in the remedial order. I acknowledge the responsibility that the Government have. These are quite unusual circumstances. The reason why we are debating this matter is because the Joint Committee on Human Rights has acknowledged the unusual circumstances and, despite having made other comments in its report, which we will all have read, has come to the conclusion that it gives its approval to the order and recommends that the House support it. I welcome what the Joint Committee on Human Rights has said.

I will point out one other thing. I acknowledge that the Government did take a bit of time between the report on 28 February and producing the revised draft remedial order on 14 October. That was because we listened to the representations that had been made, particularly by the Opposition, on the subject of interim custody orders in respect of sections 46 and 47, and in relation to the Supreme Court judgment in 2020. After reflecting on that, we found what we think is an alternative way of achieving the same objective, which is to be found in clauses 89 and 90 of the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, which is currently before the House.

I simply point out that the previous Government tried for two and a half years to find a way of dealing with the Supreme Court judgment in the Adams case and were not able to do so, and eventually accepted the amendments moved in the other place, which became sections 46 and 47. It was acknowledging the arguments that had been made that led the Government to amend the remedial order, which we then put before the House on 14 October.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a member, published our second report on the Northern Ireland remedial order on 9 December. The Standing Orders of both Houses require the JCHR to scrutinise all remedial orders. The Committee concluded that the vires of the order were satisfied and that all statutory requirements were fulfilled. However, the Committee also felt that, under the circumstances, it was appropriate only because the Government gave compelling reasons as to why it would have to come forward in this way, with a Bill progressing through the House and a Supreme Court case ongoing. Does the Secretary of State agree that although the circumstances and the timing are not ideal, this is the best way forward?

[Hilary Benn]

I do agree. Although the circumstances are unusual, the Government believe we have a compelling case, and the JCHR has agreed with the Government’s assessment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

A lot of very complex legal arguments have been alluded to today, but I think what concerns the public—and what concerns me—is the state of mind of our veterans, some of them quite elderly, who sought only to serve their country decades ago. The Secretary of State is a very moderate, clever and reasonable person. Given that there is, in reality, no chance of a successful prosecution, and that people would be horrified if there was one, what comfort can the Secretary of State give to our veterans?

[Hilary Benn]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we have only to look at the figures to see that the prospect of any prosecution in any case is increasingly remote, because of the passage of time and the difficulty of obtaining evidence. The Government, having listened very carefully to the representations made by veterans, have set out in legislation the protections—this will return to the House when we consider the Bill in Committee—including protection from repeated investigation, the right to stay at home and to seek anonymity, protection in old age, protection from cold calling, and the right to be heard. I hope that when veterans get a chance to see the protections in the legislation and precisely how they will work, they will be reassured that the Government are looking out for their interests.

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

It is always important for Northern Ireland to be discussed on the Floor of the House—we are, after all, one United Kingdom—so I thank the shadow Secretary of State for securing the urgent question. We must never forget the people of Northern Ireland. Can my right hon. Friend say what recent engagement he has had with victims, survivors and the organisations representing them as part of his work to address the legacy of the past?

[Hilary Benn]

I have had many such meetings. I have met the Victims and Survivors Forum, for example, twice in the recent past to explain the legislation that the Government have published. There is a great lack of trust on the part of victims and survivors in Northern Ireland, who feel they have been let down many times before, and trust undermined is very hard to rebuild. They are taking account of the legislation the Government have passed. It will not surprise the House if I say that I believe it provides a foundation for moving forward, but it is really important, as my hon. Friend says, that the voices of people in Northern Ireland are heard, and heard loudly.

[Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)]

On 12 November, I raised with the Prime Minister the alarming statement from nine former generals who attacked the Government’s approach on lawfare against our armed forces, which they said would erode trust in the justice system and is a threat to national security. Can the Secretary of State confirm whether the Prime Minister has met with those nine former generals and whether that has changed his approach to attacking veterans?

[Hilary Benn]

I do not accept the characterisation that the hon. Member puts before the House. The Government are not engaging in lawfare against veterans.

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

That’s what the generals said.

[Hilary Benn]

Well, I have read that letter and many others, and I refute the suggestion that the Government are engaging in lawfare. We have met a very large number of veterans organisations—I myself have met the SAS Regimental Association and others, and Ministers in the Ministry of Defence have met others—and we are listening. When the troubles Bill reaches Committee stage, the House will see the results of our considerations. The Government are absolutely determined to ensure the proper protections, in recognition of the hugely important and dangerous role that those who served in Operation Banner performed in trying to keep the people of Northern Ireland, and indeed the United Kingdom, safe.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

As a member of the JCHR, I am concerned that the shadow Northern Ireland Secretary may have inadvertently misled the House when he suggested that our Committee did not discharge our roles seriously and consider all the evidence in this case when we produced our report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

What are you talking about, you idiot!

[Hilary Benn]

I say to my hon. Friend, who is a distinguished member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, that I am grateful for the support that the Committee has given for the remedial order and the Government’s assessment of the compelling reasons. Personally, I am not accusing anybody of anything. I want to try to get this legislation right, as I have said to the House many times before, and I will work with all hon. Members who will join me in that task.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

The Secretary of State is perfectly entitled to pursue a policy desire of removing immunity. Indeed, he knows that my colleagues and I support that position and we found it quite difficult that yet another Government were prepared to offer a different variation of immunity for the perpetrators of terror in Northern Ireland. We found that repugnant, so we support the notion that immunity should not stand.

But that is not the question before the Secretary of State today. The question is whether the Secretary of State should misappropriate a remedial order process, which is about dealing with the incompatibility of human rights law—not incompatibility with his policy objectives. For as long as the question still remains before the Supreme Court—which it does, though it is not his appeal but that of the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement—given that he has acknowledged that there is an issue of trust on this issue, does he not think it would be better if he at least just waited?

[Hilary Benn]

I would say two things to the right hon. Gentleman. First, I reject the suggestion that I or the Government have misappropriated a remedial order or misapplied section 10 of the Human Rights Act, and I would cite in aid of that argument that the JCHR, whose job it is—[Interruption.] He is shaking his head, but it is the Committee’s job to scrutinise. If it had come the House and said, “We don’t think the case is made”, the Government would of course have respected that. That is not what the JCHR said.

The second point is that time is not waiting for the victims. There are those I have spoken to who say, “As long as it is still on the statute book, even though it has been declared incompatible, we doubt whether we can trust the process.” Having decided to keep the commission but to reform it, I think it is right that we remove that uncertainty as swiftly as possible. That is what the remedial order seeks to do.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has already confirmed that under the legacy Act the immunity provisions were never commenced, so it is important to say that nobody was ever granted immunity under those provisions. Sticking with the subject of immunity, the three Veterans Commissioners for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales have all said that they are calling not for immunity under the law but for fairness under the law. Does the Secretary of State agree?

[Hilary Benn]

I agree with that statement completely, which is why I must confess my disappointment that the Opposition are still clinging to the notion of immunity, including immunity for terrorists. The Veterans Commissioners are quite right; they want fairness, and that is what the Government are determined to deliver.

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

I simply say to the Secretary of State that it does seem like ridiculous haste when the Bill is going through the House right now. Surely to do this when he knows for a fact that there is already an appeal going on does, as has already been said, become abusive of the real purpose of a remedial order. I suggest to him that all the stuff about people being let off and the whole point about immunity is not the issue. The issue today is whether the Government are misusing their powers to rush something through that they could have dealt with through the passage of the Bill.

[Hilary Benn]

I will make two points to the right hon. Gentleman, who served with such distinction in Northern Ireland. First, as we have just heard, immunity was never commenced. It was declared incompatible, and it was struck down under article 2. Secondly, I reject again the suggestion that the Government are somehow abusing the process. If that was an argument, one might have expected the Joint Committee on Human Rights to have agreed with it, but it did not. The Committee heard all the points that have been put and concluded that in these particular circumstances it was right to proceed, and that is why it recommends that the House should support the remedial order.

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

This week’s exhibition in the Upper Waiting Hall is a memorial quilt produced my members of the South East Fermanagh Foundation. It is a very moving way to remember the innocent victims of terrorism. The dates on the quilt panels remind us of how long the families have been fighting for justice. Can I ask the Secretary of State what message he wants to send out to every person who has produced one of the quilt panels for SEFF and to all the other families?

[Hilary Benn]

On Monday night I met the families who had come over for the unveiling of the quilts. I would urge all Members who have not yet had a chance to go up to the Upper Waiting Hall and have a look to do so, because the story that the quilts tell is profoundly moving and a reminder of the continuing search for justice that so many people in Northern Ireland are going through. I would say that those quilts are an argument for what we are trying to do to secure legislation that can help find those answers for all the people who are remembered on the quilts.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

Regarding the accusation that the Secretary of State is rushing this through, he will be conscious of an Irish Government who are not rushing anything through with regard to support. Yesterday the Justice Minister in the Republic of Ireland received permission from the Government to draft priority legislation to enable state bodies to give oral evidence to the Omagh inquiry. That was only because the Omagh families are taking legal action. What engagement has the Secretary of State had with the Irish Government about bringing forward legislation that matches what he is bringing forward in this place? Can I also ask him who he is dealing with at the minute? It used to be the Tánaiste, Simon Harris, who has now been promoted. Is it the Justice Minister, who is bringing this forward, or is it the new Foreign Affairs Minister?

[Hilary Benn]

I have many meetings with Irish Ministers and discussions with the Tánaiste and the Taoiseach. My most recent meeting was with Helen McEntee, who has just taken over from Simon Harris at the Foreign Affairs Ministry. I very much welcome the fact that the Irish Government have announced that they are preparing to draft the legislation, as Simon Harris had committed to do while standing next to me, in time for the next hearings of the Omagh bombing inquiry. That is evidence that the Irish Government intend to fulfil the commitments they made in the joint framework.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

I commend the Secretary of State for the care that he is taking to work as fast possible for the victims, survivors and veterans families, who need to hear answers, while making sure that this is legally correct. I echo the comments about the South East Fermanagh Foundation quilts, which remind us of the need to get those answers for families. Can he confirm that he is as concerned as I am that the Opposition are just interested in making political points rather than really building peace, which is what we need to do together as Members of the House? Will he confirm that the remedial order removes what would have been immunity for terrorists?

[Hilary Benn]

I think that all Members of the House have a shared commitment to trying to ensure that the peace that Northern Ireland has enjoyed since the signing of the Good Friday agreement is maintained—I think all of us do. We have a difference of view in some respects about the right way of seeking to do that, and I am always willing to be challenged on the arguments that I put on behalf of the Government and to challenge the arguments that I hear from the Opposition Front Benches. In the end, we know that we have to deal with this, because the last bit of legislation, whatever its intentions, failed to achieve its purpose. It did not command support in Northern Ireland, and that is why we have to make progress.

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

May I ask the Secretary of State to clarify whether his earlier remarks mean what I think they do, which is that even if it had not been for the guidance of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Government would have wanted anyway to have repealed the legislation of the legacy Act? It is a political decision. Given that he said that he did not believe that there would be convictions at the end of the process, does that not mean that there will be several, if not many, trials? If no one is convicted at the end of the process, how does that help anyone? How does that avoid just torturing the people put through a trial?

[Hilary Benn]

If I may, I will correct what I think is the interpretation that the right hon. Member has put on what I had said. I made it clear a moment ago that had the Joint Committee on Human Rights reached a different conclusion about the appropriateness of the remedial order, the Government would of course have respected that. I also made it clear in my earlier comments that the Government came into office committed to get rid of immunity—we have been quite clear about that from the start—and the remedial order will seek to give effect to that.

We have discussed prosecutions of veterans. If one looks at the figures, one sees that there has been one successful prosecution of a veteran since the signing of the Good Friday agreement. The point I was making, if one looks at the figures—[Interruption.] Well, there are currently nine live cases before the courts relating to the troubles; seven of them relate to paramilitaries, and six of those relate to the Provisional IRA. I have heard the argument from Opposition Members that, “Oh, none of the paramilitaries are getting prosecuted.” That is not the case. It is really important that we have these debates on the basis of facts.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

The Secretary of State does not need me to tell him that he and the Government are struggling to command veteran support for his Bill. In order to address that deficit of support, should he not consider an amendment to clause 3 to have the Veterans Commissioner for Northern Ireland serve on the legacy commission? Would that not be a token of making good on his affirmation that this is about capturing the confidence of veterans and not pursuing lawfare against them?

[Hilary Benn]

As I have indicated, I reject the suggestion that the Government are in any way engaging in lawfare against veterans, in the same way that I reject any suggestion that there are such things as politically motivated or vexatious prosecutions. [Interruption.] I hear “Oh, come on” from the Opposition Front Bench; I have heard that from Opposition Members in previous debates on these questions. There will no doubt be a number of amendments and suggestions made when we come to detailed consideration of the Bill, and we will consider them at that time.

[Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and Tavistock) (Con)]

I wonder whether the Secretary of State can assist me with this problem. The Supreme Court is at the moment seized of the issue as to the lawfulness of the declaration of incompatibility. The fact that the Government have withdrawn their appeal does not prevent the Supreme Court from ruling on it. Let us suppose that the Supreme Court rules that the declaration of incompatibility is void. The legal position is that the declaration of incompatibility would then be void, and therefore the basis on which the Secretary of State is proceeding with the order would be removed. Surely it would be prudent to wait to see if the Supreme Court rules on it. Otherwise, we will be proceeding with an unlawful order. I ask in the spirit of genuine curiosity and inquiry, not political partisanship. It would bring the entire process into disrepute if he is in fact acting on an unlawful basis.

[Hilary Benn]

Once again, I do not accept that the Government are acting on an unlawful basis. Given the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s distinguished legal credentials and experience, I say to him that I note he encourages me to speculate on a potential outcome—[Interruption.] Well, he does. The Government have to deal with the position as we find it. I have already set out to the House why the Government are absolutely clear in our view that, because the appeal was withdrawn, we are able to make use of section 10 of the Human Rights Act in order to remove conditional immunity.

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

Yesterday, Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Knighton highlighted the need to recruit people to our armed forces to protect this nation. How does the Secretary of State expect to do that when those who served gallantly in Northern Ireland face prosecution? Why would young men and women join our armed forces with the risk of that happening to them? What message does that send to those young people?

[Hilary Benn]

I meet many young people in my constituency and on other duties who are keen to come to serve the nation in the armed forces. I am not aware of any figures that suggest there has been a decline in recruitment. If the hon. Member has seen them, perhaps she could draw them to my attention. Trying to deal with the past correctly, particularly given the threats we face in the modern world, should not affect the willingness of young people and others to come forward and serve the nation, as people have done over the centuries.

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

The Secretary of State has spoken of additional protections in his legislation. Why does he think that Operation Banner veterans, some of whom I represent, remain unconvinced and troubled? Why does he think that the Irish Prime Minister believes there are no additional protections? While he is about it, can he do something to reassure veterans who are feeling very unhappy about this situation, perhaps along the lines of saying categorically that no former terrorists or members of proscribed organisations will serve on the legacy commission?

[Hilary Benn]

I have already made it clear to the House that as long as I am in this post I have no intention of appointing those who have engaged in paramilitary activity to any of the posts contained in the Bill. On the protections, we all have a responsibility to explain and point out that they are in the draft legislation in clauses 30, 31, 36, 91, 84, 54, 56, 69 and 8. They are real, tangible protections, and they respond directly to the concerns that veterans have raised with the Government. We have introduced them because of our determination to ensure that veterans are treated properly.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

Secretary of State, the official Opposition are saying to hold off the remedial order until the Supreme Court judgment. Have you sought any legal advice on that? Can you share it with the House?

[Alex Easton]

I apologise. Has the Secretary of State sought any legal advice on the issue, and can he share it with the House? Will he also update us on making sure that the Irish Government produce all legal papers on their role, on the IRA and on the involvement of the Garda Síochána?

[Hilary Benn]

As the hon. Gentleman will be well aware, there is a long-standing tradition that the Government do not reveal the legal advice they receive. All Governments receive legal advice, but we do not share it, because that is part of the business of government. I have already made reference to the Irish Government’s announcement in respect of legislation to enable witnesses to give evidence to the Omagh bombing inquiry, which I welcome.

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

Will the Secretary confirm whether the remedial order will have to be voted on in the other place?

[Hilary Benn]

Yes, it will be voted on in both Houses in the new year.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Despite what the Secretary of State continues to say in the House, the prosecution of elderly veterans has been vexatious. In the Soldier F trial, the judge agreed with the submissions of the defence that the threshold to prosecute was far from being reached; political interference brought that matter to court. If the Secretary of State cannot even accept that there have been vexatious prosecutions, how will he ensure that the remedial order will give a clear distinction between the bomber who presents him or herself as a victim and the ordinary man, woman or child who was murdered or maimed by the actions of terrorists?

[Hilary Benn]

There is the clearest distinction between the two groups of people that the hon. Member refers to, and I have made that clear from the Dispatch Box on a number of occasions. There is absolutely no equivalence between those who sought to protect the public and those who committed the most appalling terrorist atrocities. I have respectfully to disagree with the hon. Member, because if she is arguing that prosecutions have been vexatious, she is saying that our independent prosecutors are working on a basis that is outwith their task, which is, in all cases, to look at the evidence and to ask whether there is a reasonable prospect of conviction and whether it is in the public interest to prosecute. If we undermine the independence of independent prosecutors—the separation between the Government and the court system—we are sunk as a nation. That is why I am so firm in saying that there is no such thing as a vexatious prosecution.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Notwithstanding the fact that the Secretary of State has said that the chances of a successful prosecution are very limited indeed, the punishment is in the process of investigation and trial in the first place. Will the Secretary of State look sympathetically at appropriate amendments to the Bill to make sure that the bar is raised very high, so that it is almost impossible for one of our brave veterans to be prosecuted in our courts?

[Hilary Benn]

As I have said to the House before, I will, of course, look carefully at all the amendments tabled when we come to debate the Bill in Committee and on Report. The test for prosecutions, as I indicated in answer to the previous question, is the same now, and will be the same in future, as it has been for the last 30, 50 or 70 years—those who have greater legal experience can tell the House how long that has been the case. It will not change, because it depends on the evidence. We are setting out in the Bill that to reinvestigate things the commission has to be of the view that it is essential to do so. That word “essential” is a very high bar.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

For the final question, I call Jim Shannon.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Kenova report was clear in proving that there was no evidence of state collusion or machinations. Yet the republican drum still bangs to cover the sound of the voices of the innocents calling for justice and to be heard. How will the Secretary of State respond to the lack of protection for the service personnel and the perpetual and deliberate focus on them, and will he look at the 2,057 murders carried out by republicans and the 1,027 loyalist murders that have not received any justice at all? Will there be yet another whitewash over the blood of the innocents that has been shed and the impact that that still has on all those families throughout the Province?

[Hilary Benn]

I have the greatest respect for the hon. Gentleman. I think that he, I and, I hope, the whole House share the desire to enable answers for all those families who are living with the pain of not knowing what happened to their loved ones. The Kenova report has made an important contribution to seeking to uncover the truth. In drafting the legislation, we have drawn on a number of the lessons of Kenova, including that of the victims and survivors advisory panel, because many people said that that was one of the great things about the way Kenova went about its job. It is in the draft Bill that the House will consider again shortly.

Paul Thompson: Supreme Court Judgment

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Written Statements

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

I would like to make a statement to the House regarding the Supreme Court judgment today in the Thompson case.

The Government welcome the unanimous judgment handed down by the Supreme Court. This is a highly complex case with wide-ranging implications.

The Government will therefore take time to fully consider all aspects of this judgment, including those relevant to the request made by Operation Kenova for the Government to name Stakeknife.

I will return to the House on this as soon as the Government have come to a final view.

[HCWS1194]

Independent Review under Schedule 6A Northern Ireland Act 1998: Government Response

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Written Statements

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

Following the Northern Ireland Assembly’s democratic consent motion on the trading arrangements under the Windsor framework, on 9 January 2025 I commissioned Lord Murphy of Torfaen to lead an independent review on those arrangements. I received his final report on 9 July 2025, and I can confirm to the House that the Government have now responded in line with schedule 6A to the Northern Ireland Act 1998. I have placed a copy of this response in the Library of the House.

I was very grateful that Lord Murphy agreed to conduct the independent review, as an experienced former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. He has my utmost thanks for the detailed consideration that he has given to these issues, and for the engagement he has conducted, including with the Northern Ireland parties and the relevant civic and business organisations.

The Government’s response reflects their clear aim of ensuring that Northern Ireland’s trading arrangements command the broadest possible confidence among communities. In preparing this response, I have taken into account the views expressed in the Northern Ireland Assembly and in Parliament; and those expressed by other public bodies and stakeholders, including the Independent Monitoring Panel and the Federation of Small Businesses, as well as Intertrade UK and civic organisations with whom the Government have engaged. Given the number of reports that have been published within a six-month period examining similar themes, I have concluded that a single, comprehensive response is the most appropriate and timely way to set out how the Government will be taking action.

In particular, the Government are committing to legislation that will better support scrutiny of relevant regulations by the Northern Ireland Assembly and, as part of the measures announced at the Budget, we will be delivering a £16.6 million programme to boost trade within the UK internal market. This funding will, in particular, answer the call from business for an enhanced one stop shop service, and provide a single place for businesses to get guidance on how to trade across the UK and the opportunities for businesses in Northern Ireland to trade across two markets.

The Government are clear about wanting to deliver practical solutions for businesses and traders, on the basis of agreed arrangements with the EU. This has underpinned the Government’s approach in the 12 months since I commissioned the independent review, including in the form of new arrangements for human medicines and freight and parcels. We have taken action where the Assembly has expressed concerns, including to safeguard the supply of certain dental fillings. The Government have also put in place a set of measures to safeguard the supply of veterinary medicines from 1 January 2026, and we will continue to monitor those arrangements into the new year.

The response outlines the Government’s continued commitment to work collaboratively with businesses, civil society, the Northern Ireland Executive and our partners in the EU and its member states, across all of these issues as relevant. As we look ahead, we will continue to be guided by our commitment to implementing the Windsor framework in good faith while ensuring the protection of the UK internal market, and will seek to secure a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement with the EU from which Northern Ireland’s traders and hauliers benefit.

[HCWS1185]

Independent Reporting Commission: Eighth Substantive Report

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Written Statements

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

I have received the eighth substantive report from the Independent Reporting Commission, and have laid a copy before the House.

The commission was established following the Fresh Start agreement of November 2015 to report on progress towards ending paramilitary activity in Northern Ireland. That agreement set out the Northern Ireland Executive’s commitments around tackling paramilitary activity and associated criminality, and led to a programme of work to deliver a Northern Ireland Executive action plan. It also provided the framework for the UK Government, the Executive and law enforcement agencies, alongside partners in Ireland, to work together to tackle the challenges of organised crime, paramilitarism and terrorism. In the New Decade, New Approach agreement in January 2020, a commitment was made to ongoing work to tackle paramilitarism, and this work continues, including through a second phase of the NI Executive programme.

The commission’s eighth report primarily considers activity undertaken to tackle paramilitarism in the financial year 2024-25. It highlights progress in a number of areas. It notes that Police Service of Northern Ireland statistics indicate that 2024-25 was the first year since records began in 1969 in which there were no security-related deaths, and that violent crime linked to paramilitarism appears to be on a downward trajectory. The report also notes law enforcement successes in tackling paramilitarism and welcomes progress across the justice system in embedding trauma-informed approaches. The report also highlights significant progress in the development of a co-ordinated response to child criminal exploitation.

The report points out that security statistics only tell part of the story. There is still much work to be done on tackling paramilitarism in Northern Ireland. The commissioners note that intimidation, coercive control, and threats linked to paramilitary groups persist, and that paramilitary structures continue to be used to facilitate organised crime and other forms of violence.

The commission has made a number of recommendations on how the approach to paramilitarism can be strengthened and on ways in which a focused effort on paramilitarism can be maintained beyond the life of the Executive programme on paramilitarism and organised crime. We will consider recommendations for the UK Government through engagement with representatives of Northern Ireland political parties, the Executive, the Irish Government, civic society and community representatives in Northern Ireland, and the Independent Reporting Commission. The commissioners also note the scoping exercise that is now under way by Fleur Ravensbergen, the independent expert on paramilitary group transition to disbandment. We look forward to receiving her report on this work next year.

Paramilitarism is a scourge on society in Northern Ireland. The UK Government remain committed to working closely with our partners to support efforts in tackling the enduring threat and harms posed to communities by paramilitary groups. The Executive programme has demonstrated how progress can be made in tackling these harms, and the UK Government look forward to continuing work with the Northern Ireland Executive as they develop plans to build a sustainable, long-term approach for addressing multiple types of violence and harm for the period beyond March 2027.

I would like to extend my thanks to the commissioners for their work in producing this report on progress made towards ending paramilitarism.

[HCWS1145]

Northern Ireland Troubles: Operation Kenova

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the latest publication from Operation Kenova and the Government’s response to its findings.

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

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question. I inform the House that I will lay a written ministerial statement on this matter later today.

Operation Kenova has published its final report, which covers the activities of the alleged agent Stakeknife, as well as other investigations referred to it by the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Let me begin by commending the Kenova team, led by Sir Iain Livingstone and Jon Boutcher, for the exemplary way in which they carried out their work, built trust with families, put victims first and provided many answers about what happened to their loved ones.

Operation Turma, which was part of Operation Kenova, resulted in the prosecution of an individual now extradited from Ireland and awaiting trial for the murder of three Royal Ulster Constabulary officers in 1982. Operation Kenova has set a standard for future legacy investigations, and we have drawn on a number of those lessons in drafting the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. I wish to express my heartfelt condolences to all the families who lost loved ones in the appalling circumstances described in this sobering report.

Operation Kenova was asked to establish whether there was evidence of criminal offences by the alleged agent known as Stakeknife or their alleged handlers. The behaviour described of the alleged agent and their role in the Provisional IRA is deeply disturbing, and it should not have happened. In recent decades, there have been significant reforms to agent handling practice, including through legislation. The use of agents is nowadays subject to strict regulation, overseen by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and the Investigatory Powers Tribunal.

On Operation Kenova’s request to the Government to name Stakeknife, I told Sir Iain Livingstone in August:

“Due to ongoing litigation relevant to the Neither Confirm Nor Deny [NCND] policy, namely the Thompson Supreme Court appeal, a substantive and final response to your request will be provided after judgment has issued in that case.”

The Government’s first duty is to protect national security, and identifying agents risks jeopardising that.

Today’s report also makes public the high-level findings of Operation Denton, which looked at killings carried out by the Ulster Volunteer Force Glenanne gang. The behaviour reported on, including collusion by individual members of the security forces, is shocking. The Government will respond to the full Denton report when it is published, bearing in mind that related legal proceedings are ongoing in this case and in the case of Stakeknife.

The Government responded to a number of the other recommendations in the interim Kenova report in August. That is available in the Library and is also addressed in the written ministerial statement.

[Gavin Robinson]

I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. I thank the Secretary of State for his response, and for being in the Chamber this afternoon to discuss Operation Kenova. I know that since he was appointed, he has spent an inordinate amount of time on legacy, and I know he is committed to the principles of not rewriting the past and of ensuring that issues can be explored to the fullest degree. He knows that in Northern Ireland, peace was only secured because of the actions of our intelligence services, our armed forces and brave members of the RUC. He knows that the IRA were brought to their knees by the activities of our intelligence services, and he also knows that the IRA were riven by agents of the state—both Denis Donaldson, director of operations for Sinn Féin, and Freddie Scappaticci, head of the internal investigations unit, also known as Stakeknife.

Does the Secretary of State welcome the finding of Operation Kenova that there was no high-level state collusion between loyalist paramilitaries and members of the Army or the security forces? Does he recognise the important role that our intelligence services played in securing peace in Northern Ireland? Does he recognise that the IRA were riven by informers? Does he realise the absurdity of maintaining the position that Operation Kenova could not name Freddie Scappaticci as Stakeknife? Does he recognise that the findings relating to the Dublin and Monaghan bombings were that the UK state authorities had no information or intelligence that could have prevented those bombings?

Finally, in the context of the debate we are having about legacy, does the Secretary of State recognise that he is letting too many inquiries pass by without highlighting the lack of accountability of the Dublin Government— of the Republic of Ireland—for their role in supporting the IRA? We cannot wait until his legislative process concludes, or for inquiry after inquiry, for the Dublin Government to open their books, share their stories and, on the basis of truth and justice, indicate the role they played in our troubled past.

[Hilary Benn]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for those points. I join him in recognising the huge contribution that was made by the intelligence services, the Army, the RUC and other security forces during the troubles to try to keep people safe and defeat those who were trying to destroy society through their terrorism. We all recognise that. The responsibility for the murder of around 1,700 people, often in the most brutal circumstances—in some cases killing people, burying them, and then for a long time providing no information as to where the remains of people’s loved ones could be found—rests with the Provisional IRA. I echo the comments that were made in the interim report and the final report about what they did.

I also note what the report has to say about not finding any evidence of high-level collusion between the security forces and loyalist paramilitaries, in particular the UVF in respect of the work of the Glenanne gang, as they have been called. However, I do notice what it says about individual collusion. I used the word “shocking” deliberately, because it is shocking to learn now that—as Operation Kenova reports—serving police officers and serving members of the armed forces were colluding with those who were murdering a very large number of people. Over 120 people were murdered by that gang.

On the right hon. Gentleman’s final point about us all wishing to learn from the past—and I think that in order to learn from the past, one has to try to tell the truth about it—I simply draw his attention to the framework agreement reached between the UK Government and the Irish Government in September. I draw his attention to the steps that have been taken by the Irish Government to co-operate with the Omagh inquiry, which he and I have debated many times before, as well as the commitment that the Irish Government have given to the fullest possible co-operation with a reformed legacy commission. The Government’s troubles Bill is seeking to put that reformed commission in place, with the consent and will of the House. I hope all Members will welcome that, because the more information we can get about what happened, the more families will be able to find out exactly what happened to their loved ones.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

As my Committee’s report on legacy last week outlined, information disclosure has been, and remains, one of the biggest challenges with legacy investigations. The Kenova report outlines the failure of MI5 to disclose all relevant material pertaining to Stakeknife in a timely manner. The chief constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland said today that he remains concerned that

“there continues to be an unhelpful, unnecessary and protectionist approach to the disclosure of official records.”

Given those comments and the significant concerns outlined in our report on the Government’s new approach to disclosure, how can families have confidence in the new process?

[Hilary Benn]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Select Committee, for what she has just said. She refers to the unfortunate episode in which MI5 discovered further files relating to the work of Operation Kenova that it had not previously been able to identify. The authors of the Kenova report say that they have no reason to believe that those files were withheld; MI5 was not able to find them, and the head of MI5 set up a process to review exactly what had occurred.

Under the current legacy Act, the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, which will become the legacy commission under our legislation, has the ability to request and see all information. That will remain the case for the reformed legacy commission, because the commission has the ability to deal with closed material; the coronial system does not, as the House is aware. Precisely as my hon. Friend has said, it is vital for the confidence of families that they know the bodies that are charged with investigating what happened in the past—the people who are trying to find out what happened to their loved ones—are able to see all the relevant material.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments, and for the spirit and the tone in which he delivers them in relation to this extremely serious matter. I do indeed acknowledge—as I think I have already indicated—what he said about the nature of the collusion that has been discovered, and what it was and what it was not, for instance in respect of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. Those are very, very important findings.

It is for the Irish Government to determine what information they reveal, but they have given commitments to me, to the UK Government and, indeed, to all of us about the co-operation that they will provide. The Tánaiste has said to me that the legislation to allow witness testimony to be given to the Omagh bombing inquiry will be in place by March, and we look forward to seeing, in due course, the outline of the Irish Government’s legislation that will implement the rest of the commitments when it comes to co-operation with the new legacy commission that we are seeking to establish by means of the legislation currently before the House.

I am always happy to return to the House to provide further information and to answer further questions, but we are waiting for the Thompson judgment, which is absolutely about the “neither confirm nor deny” policy. That is why, when I wrote to Sir Iain Livingstone on, I think, 13 August, I said to him what I quoted in my original answer to the question from the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson).

[Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Let me say first that the people responsible for the murder of innocent people in Northern Ireland over many decades were the people who carried out those murders, and the organisations of which they were members. However, it is also clear, from these reports and from previous investigations, that elements within the British state worked hand in glove with loyalist paramilitaries as they murdered scores, indeed hundreds, of innocent people in the north of Ireland, and also that the IRA were riddled with informers, including, clearly, at the very highest levels. Now that we know all that, has the Secretary of State made an assessment of how many lives could have been saved, and how much earlier we could have had peace in Ireland, if the British Government had acted properly?

[Hilary Benn]

I should say to my hon. Friend that I have not made such an assessment, but Operation Kenova itself had something to say in relation to the activities of the alleged agent Stakeknife. Its view was that the balance—I hate to use the term “balance sheet”—of lives lost and lives saved was not quite as it had been described by others. What I think is particularly important about the report published today is its confirmation of a point made by Jon Boutcher when he published the interim report: he said that in the absence of information about what happened, people form a view about what they think happened, and as a result what is finally produced—there is an example of this in relation to the final Operation Kenova report—may turn out to be not quite what everybody thought it was, and that is the argument for trying to be as open as possible about what happened. However, I wanted to make clear in coming to the House today that what has been revealed is, as I have said, disturbing and deeply shocking and should not have happened, and it is really important that we learn the lessons.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

I thank the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) for his question, and I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. I have three questions. First, do the Government accept the Operation Kenova report’s findings of “serious organisational failure” on the part of MI5, and if so, what concrete steps will they take to address those failures? Secondly, is the Secretary of State satisfied that his proposed legacy legislation contains adequate safeguards to ensure that honourable former service personnel who served lawfully and with integrity and followed orders in good faith do not fear persecution on the basis of the unlawful actions of either rogue individuals or the state? Thirdly, does the Secretary of State agree that the “neither confirm nor deny” policy must be exercised in a proportionate and necessary manner, and should not be used to protect agents who commit gross serious crime or to hide any serious misdeeds of the state?

[Hilary Benn]

Our legislation contains a number of very specific safeguards, which are in the Bill because of our commitment to the veterans who served with such bravery in the most difficult circumstances. However, I have indicated to the House that, as the Bill progresses, I am open to a continuing conversation with Members in all parts of the House, and with the Royal British Legion and the other organisations representing veterans, so that we get this right.

The “neither confirm nor deny” policy is important for our national security. The ultimate responsibility of Governments is to protect national security, and the moment that the “neither confirm nor deny” policy starts to be eroded—although in a small number of cases it has been set aside for particular reasons—that undermines the confidence of those who are serving the state today to keep us safe. They may start to ask themselves, “Will the Government still uphold that lifelong commitment not to reveal anything about what I have done?” The “neither confirm nor deny” policy is a really important protection for those who do very dangerous things in order to try to protect all of us.

As for the hon. Gentleman’s question about MI5, I responded to the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), in respect of the information that was subsequently discovered, but, of course, the use of agents— covert human intelligence sources—is nowadays subject to regulation under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Act 2021. Both those pieces of legislation show the determination of the House to learn from what has gone wrong in the past.

[Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

We know that this was a brutal, murderous conflict, but, as we are reminded today, it was internecine as well at times. “There’ll be days like this”, in the words of one of Northern Ireland’s famous sons, but does the Secretary of State agree that, even on days like this, we should continue to keep victims and families at the forefront of our thoughts?

[Hilary Benn]

I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. In one sense, the great contribution that Operation Kenova has made to doing precisely that has been the way in which it has dealt with the families, keeping in touch with them, telling them what it was and was not able to discover. We have adopted the idea of a victims and survivors advisory group, because all the people I spoke to said that it had worked very well during Operation Kenova. We have included it in the Bill that the House is currently considering, because learning the lessons means not just reflecting on the horror that this report reveals, but learning from the way in which Operation Kenova went about dealing with families. It is important that the commission—and I know it is working hard to do this at the moment—is able to win the confidence of families, so that when people say to them, “I can tell you this, and I cannot tell you that, and I have not been able to find out the following”, the families will feel confident that they have done their darnedest to discover what really went on.

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

I am sure the Secretary of State will agree that running any double agent inside a murderous organisation is bound to be a moral nightmare. The justification for such action is always—as it should be—that many more lives will be saved as a result, even if the agent is implicated in illegal and, indeed, murderous activities. What is unusual about this case is that it appears that more lives were not saved by this particular operation. Can the Secretary of State say whether the agencies accept that this particular operation was counterproductive, even in its own terms, and if he cannot share that with us openly, could it at least be shared confidentially with the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament?

[Hilary Benn]

The Intelligence and Security Committee may well wish to look at the Operation Kenova report and ask questions. The right hon. Gentleman put an important hypothetical point about the difficulty of balancing the considerations, but there is no doubt that the contributions that agents make are very important to protecting our national security and, as several Members have indicated to the House, were very, very important in the fight against those who were trying to destroy society in Northern Ireland and who were responsible for killing so many people during the course of the troubles.

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

I commend the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) for securing the urgent question. We have talked about the experiences of the Kenova families in terms of having confidence in the process, and we recognise the complexity of the 28 years of the troubles. The Secretary of State has highlighted how the lack of transparency and answers leaves a void for relatives that is filled by their worst fears. That makes the provisions on the grounds of disclosure in the troubles Bill, which is currently going through the legislative process, even more important. How will we make sure that the best experiences of Operation Kenova are built into the next stages of the legislation?

[Hilary Benn]

We are doing that in a number of respects, including through the advisory committee to represent victims and survivors, the fact that there will be a new oversight board, and the changes the Bill is making to the provisions relating to disclosure. My hon. Friend made such a powerful point when she said that the lack of answers creates a void. It is a void that the families have had to live with for many, many years, which is why the whole House has an obligation to do everything we can to create a system that all families can have confidence in, so that it can look into all cases.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

On a day like today, it is important to remind ourselves that our security and intelligence forces saved hundreds of lives in the face of murderous terrorism. Terrorists, of course, kept no records to be pored over years later. Does the Secretary of State agree that Scappaticci was, first and foremost, a ruthless IRA murderer? Does he agree that the RUC and the Ulster Defence Regiment—whatever the renegade actions of a very tiny number of members, some of whom have rightly faced justice—were organisations of immense integrity, whose members’ service and bravery preserved many lives? Does he agree that the Denton report finally lays to rest the republican myth that the security forces were implicated in the Dublin and Monaghan bombings?

[Hilary Benn]

On the hon. and learned Gentleman’s latter point, that is indeed what the Kenova report says. That is one of many reasons why it is so important. I am not going to comment on the alleged agent with the name Stakeknife, for the reasons that I gave in answering the urgent question at the beginning. The Thompson judgment that we are currently awaiting is really important in respect of “neither confirm nor deny”. I have already indicated to the House that I join all right hon. and hon. Members in paying tribute to the work of the intelligence services and the security forces in trying to keep people safe in the face of murder and mayhem caused by many people—not only the republican movement, but the loyalist gangs who also killed a lot of people—during the troubles.

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

I thank the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) for securing his urgent question. Like him and others across the House, I think today about the victims of terrorism who lost their lives, and their families. I want to acknowledge and commend Sir Iain Livingstone and Chief Constable Boutcher for their work, which is a demonstration of how important independence is.

The reports for families that Operation Kenova has produced demonstrate the value of independent and effective legacy investigations. With that in mind, I acknowledge the Secretary of State’s reference to his openness and urge him to think about appointments to the judicial panel of the new Legacy Commission. I believe that they should be made by the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission, rather than by any Secretary of State, because Operation Kenova demonstrates that independence is key if we are to effectively address the legacy of the past.

[Hilary Benn]

Independence is indeed extremely important to building a sense of confidence on the part of families that their cases will be properly looked into. I note my hon. Friend’s point about the appointment of judicial panel members for the commission, particularly in respect of the inquisitorial proceedings. I suspect that we may return to that when the Bill is in Committee.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

The Secretary of State needs to go further. Several Members have pressed him on this point, but he still has not explicitly told the House. Given the extensive scrutiny directed at alleged agents within the UK establishment, what demands has the Secretary of State made of the Irish Government to disclose the extent and details of agents operating within the republican movement, particularly in the light of the irrefutable evidence of collusion that enabled the murder of RUC officers, UDR members and Protestant civilians, particularly in the border areas? Unlike the Secretary of State, I am not prepared to accept their say-so when for decades they have covered up, housed and protected terrorists, and denied innocent victims truth and justice.

[Hilary Benn]

In the light of what the hon. Member has just said, I hope that she would welcome the commitments that the Irish Government have given—

[Carla Lockhart]

indicated dissent.

[Hilary Benn]

She shakes her head, but she is saying—[Interruption.] Well, the past and what happened or did not happen in Ireland is a matter for the Irish state to deal with, but I hope the hon. Member would welcome the commitments that have been given to co-operate to the fullest possible extent with the new Legacy Commission, which is not the case in relation to the current commission established by the legacy Act, for reasons of which she and the whole House will be well aware. Whatever happened in the past, the most important thing is that we enable families who are still waiting for answers to get access to all the information that is available now. That is what the Irish Government are committed to.

[Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)]

On Kenova, I can express only the horror experienced by some of the victims, but the wider context of our security services is very important. I worked in counter-terrorism in the Foreign Office, on the anti-ISIS campaign. The Secretary of State speaks about strict regulation, and that resonates. He speaks about “neither confirm nor deny”, and I entirely agree with his points. Does the Secretary of State agree that the ethics around the handling, protection and recruitment of agents are incredibly complex? It is all too easy to criticise our security services, which in my experience do an outstanding—and at times simply unbelievable—job in saving lives.

[Hilary Benn]

I do agree with the hon. Member. From the contact that I have had with the security services since I took up this post, I know that the commitment, dedication, passion, ingenuity and determination to protect people today is quite something to behold. Some judgments are complex—there is no doubt about that—but it is also important that we learn from the past and what did not go right. Anyone who looks at the final Kenova report and sees what it reveals about what went on in some cases will recognise the importance of learning from the past. That is why the legislation that Governments have passed since has been so important: that legislation recognised the complexity, but reached the conclusion that we have to have a legal framework that governs it, with independent oversight. We now have that, but that was not the case in the 1970s and the 1980s.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

In the press conference this morning, the Chief Constable said that the

“investigation has demonstrated that murders that could and should have been prevented were allowed to take place”.

There was always an alternative to murder in Northern Ireland, so does the Secretary of State agree with me that it is now time for an inquiry to identify and hold to account those who directed terrorism and murder in Northern Ireland?

[Hilary Benn]

I say to the hon. Gentleman that we have the commission, established by the last Government in the legacy Act, which has the capacity to investigate all cases that are referred to it. When I came into office, I took the decision that we would retain but reform the commission, as opposed to abolishing it and starting again, as I was urged to do by some people in Northern Ireland. I think it was the right decision to take, not least because 100 investigations are currently taking place. However, we have to ensure that it is established and reformed in a way that gives all families confidence, and I would say that we are trying to achieve one mechanism to deal with finding answers to those questions. I have said to the House a number of times before that we are not going to be able to deal with legacy by a series of public inquiry after public inquiry. We need to establish the commission on the basis that it can do the job for everyone.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The report makes quite clear the extent of IRA brutality and murder in Northern Ireland, including murders within their own republican community. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that the First Minister of Northern Ireland can no longer remain ambiguous in relation to, first, her acknowledgment of and, secondly, her apology for what her fellow travellers did to people within their own community and within the wider community in Northern Ireland? Does he also accept that the real state collusion occurred when successive Governments in the Irish Republic hid terrorists; allowed them to store arms, train and cross the border; and then refused to extradite them? Instead of giving the Irish Government a role in the arrangements for the legacy of the past, will he commit to holding them to account for their sins of the past?

[Hilary Benn]

I say to the right hon. Gentleman that I certainly intend to hold the Irish Government to account for the commitments they gave in the framework that I announced jointly with the Tánaiste in September. Of course, there was always an alternative to what went on—always—and Northern Ireland eventually got there through the Good Friday agreement and the peace that has been revealed and sustained since 1998. It is for each individual to decide how they deal with that.

I say to the right hon. Gentleman that what we need to focus on now, because clearly there are things in the past that cannot be undone, is to learn from what we have learned—today’s report about what went on in all sorts of respects is an extremely important contribution to that—but also to make sure, as I have said a number of times, that families get the answers they are still waiting for. Kenova did a lot to do that for the families with whom it worked, but lots of other families still do not know. That is why we must have a commission that works for everyone.

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

This report covers the activities of one informer within the higher echelons of the Provisional IRA, but does the Secretary of State agree that there is a risk that the findings of this report, when taken in isolation, fail to fully recognise the contribution made by informants and agents inside the IRA in stopping countless killings?

[Hilary Benn]

I think it is very important that we take a balanced view, and that we acknowledge successes, bravery and determination—we saw that in abundance during the troubles—but where things happened that should not have happened, we need to acknowledge them, because how can we make progress now and in the future if we do not learn the lessons of the past?

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

In analysing the report and the Secretary of State’s statement, people will be looking to the future as we try to ensure that no one rewrites the past. However, in trying to do that, does he agree that the murky world people such as Scappaticci inhabited brought about the consequences of 1994, when both the IRA and loyalists declared ceasefires, and that now is the time for the leaders of the political republican movement to say that what happened in the past was wrong and should not have happened, and to issue an unequivocal apology for the actions of the Provisional IRA?

[Hilary Benn]

I simply say to the hon. Gentleman, who raises a very important point, that we as a House are clear that there was always—always—an alternative to violence: it was not justified; it was never justified. When we look at the number of people on all sides who were killed in the troubles, we know the grief, the pain and the suffering that was caused. However, we also need to recognise that there was a process that led to the ceasefires and political power sharing, which has resulted in peace and stability in Northern Ireland ever since the signing of the Good Friday agreement. That is the most important thing we should hold on to while, as I have said, learning the lessons from the past and providing answers to the families who remain to find them.

I think this is the final question, so I will just share with the House that, about three and a half or four weeks ago, I went to Bragan bog with the two brothers and the sister of Columba McVeigh. He was 19 years of age when he was murdered by the Provisional IRA, and information suggests that his remains lie in that bog. It is a desolate place, and the search for his body has been going on for a very long time. The Independent Commission for the Location of Victims’ Remains has done such an important job in helping to bring back the remains of people who were murdered in such circumstances, so they could be laid to rest with their families present. I, like I am sure all Members of the House, long for the day when the bodies of Columba McVeigh, Robert Nairac, Seamus Maguire and Joe Lynskey are finally recovered, so all of the disappeared can rest where they should rest, with the knowledge of their families, so they can have some peace.

[Mr Speaker]

Final question—Jim Shannon.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Mine is always the final, final question, Mr Speaker. I thank the Secretary of State very much for his answers. I also thank all of the security forces, the Army and the RUC for all they did to save lives. I think this House, the nation and Northern Ireland owe them a great debt for all they have done, and we should put that on the record.

When thinking of Kenova, my mind goes back to 1984 and the case of Jimmy Young, who lived in Portaferry in my constituency of Strangford. His case was part of the file sent to the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland that included a report on Stakeknife’s involvement, but no prosecution was ever initiated. What steps will be taken to ensure that the family members who are still alive and mourning Jimmy’s killing have access to as much information as legally possible and get some form of justice for his murder? I always ask for justice, and I am asking for justice for Jimmy Young and this family.

[Hilary Benn]

The hon. Gentleman—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) should please not walk in front of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) when the Secretary of State is answering his question.

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

I apologise, Mr Speaker.

[Hilary Benn]

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) always makes his contribution on matters such as finding answers for the families with real force and compassion. As he will be aware, Operation Kenova submitted a number of files to the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland. In only one case has a prosecution been taken forward, and I referred to that in my reply to the right hon. Member for Belfast East. In other cases, the PPS decided there was not a basis for a prosecution.

That is of course frustrating, but the independence of our prosecutorial system is an absolutely essential safeguard for all of us. It has to make a judgment that the two tests, of whether there is a reasonable prospect of a conviction and whether it is in the public interest to prosecute, are met. However, that does not mean that the family mentioned by the hon. Member for Strangford cannot still seek to get answers. That is what the commission is for: that is work it is undertaking currently and that it will do in the future, under the new arrangements that I hope the House will agree to put in place. We should leave no stone unturned in trying to give families what they have been looking for for such a long time, and I wish that for the family he mentioned.

Northern Ireland Troubles: Operation Kenova

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Written Statements

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

I am making this written ministerial statement following the publication of the Operation Kenova final report earlier today.

The report covers the activities of the alleged agent Stakeknife, as well as other investigations referred to Operation Kenova by the Police Service of Northern Ireland.

The Operation Kenova investigators received the Government’s full co-operation and have completed a thorough investigation which, in the Government’s view, has been article 2 compliant.

The way in which the Kenova team, led by Sir lain Livingstone, and before him, by Jon Boutcher, have carried out their work and engaged with families has been exemplary. They were able to build trust with families, put victims first and provided many answers about what happened to their loved ones. Operation Turma, which was part of Kenova, resulted in the prosecution of an individual, now extradited from Ireland and awaiting trial, for the murder of three Royal Ulster Constabulary officers in 1982.

Kenova has set a new standard for future legacy investigations, and we have drawn on a number of those lessons in drafting the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. I wish to express my heartfelt condolences to all the families who lost loved ones in the appalling circumstances described in this sobering report.

Operation Kenova was asked to establish whether there was evidence of criminal offences by the alleged agent known as Stakeknife, or their alleged handlers. The activities of the alleged agent, and their role in the Provisional IRA, are deeply disturbing and should not have happened. The actions of the Provisional IRA led to the deaths of over 1,700 people, who were killed in the most brutal way, and whose remains—in some cases—were hidden in unmarked graves.

My thoughts are with all the families who lost loved ones to the Provisional IRA during the troubles, including as a result of the activities highlighted in this report. I would also like to commend the work of the security forces who operated at considerable personal risk in highly difficult circumstances.

On Operation Kenova’s request to the Government to name Stakeknife, I set out in a letter to Sir lain Livingstone on 13 August 2025, which I have placed in the Library, that

“Due to ongoing litigation relevant to the Neither Confirm Nor Deny policy, namely the Thompson Supreme Court appeal, a substantive and final response to your request will be provided after judgment has issued in that case.”

Judgment in the Thompson case is expected imminently, and we anticipate that this will provide some clarity on the use of NCND and the role of the courts.

The Government’s first duty is to protect the national security of the United Kingdom. When any agent—active, living or otherwise—is publicly identified by the state, that calls into question the whole premise of NCND and can deter future covert human intelligence sources from co-operation, while jeopardising the trust of current CHIS, even if such a confirmation of an identity were to happen decades after the events.

There have been significant reforms to agent handling practice, including through legislation, to ensure that lessons are learned from the past. The use of CHIS is nowadays subject to strict regulation under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and the CHIS (Criminal Conduct) Act 2021.

Compliance with this legislation and the related code of conduct is subject to rigorous scrutiny by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office. The investigatory powers tribunal also provides a forum for individuals to challenge the state if they believe CHIS have acted improperly or illegally.

As outlined in another letter to Sir lain in August 2025, the Government notes Kenova’s recommendation of a review of NCND and the security classification of past Northern Ireland legacy reports. Past reports are owned by a number of different bodies, including the UK Government, the PSNI and the Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland. The Government already follows a procedure for the declassification of historic material via the Public Records Act.

On the sections of the report regarding MI5’s discovery of material relevant to Kenova’s investigations of the alleged agent Stakeknife in 2024, it was deeply regrettable that the material was found after decisions were made by the Public Prosecution Service and the publication of the interim report on 8 March 2024. The Government are reassured, however, by former Assistant Commissioner Helen Ball QPM’s report, which found that none of the material was deliberately withheld from Kenova at an individual or organisational level. Helen Ball also found that much of this material had already been disclosed to Kenova during the original disclosure exercise. In its final report, Operation Kenova has said that MI5’s proactivity in volunteering the additional material is not consistent with a concerted attempt to conceal or cover up additional material. The Government are assured that MI5 has learned important lessons around information management and that proper procedures are now in place to reduce the risk of such a thing happening again.

The final Kenova Report also makes public the high-level findings of Operation Denton, which looked at killings carried out by the UVF Glennane Gang. The behaviour alleged in these findings, including collusion by individual members of the security forces, are shocking and would never be tolerated today. Checks and balances now exist to prevent such events from happening again. The Government will respond to the Denton Report when it is published in full, bearing in mind that there are related legal proceedings ongoing, as also in the case of Stakeknife.

In October, the Government brought forward the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, which will bring about much-needed reform to the way legacy is addressed. This follows the framework agreement with the Irish Government announced in September. This will fulfil the Government’s King’s Speech commitment to repeal and replace the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, acknowledge and address the suffering of victims and survivors, and take forward an unfinished part of the Good Friday Agreement.

We have drawn from the approach taken by Operation Kenova in drafting this legislation, particularly with regard to the formation of a new legacy commission, with statutory oversight arrangements to provide accountability and a statutory advisory group to ensure that the voices of victims, their families and survivors, including those who served, are heard as part of the commission’s work.

The Government responded to the recommendations in the interim Kenova Report in a letter to Sir lain Livingstone on 13 August 2025, which is available in the Library. On some of the matters raised, such as the recommendation of a state apology, the Government will not be considering this while litigation remains ongoing. Regarding Kenova’s suggestion that the longest day, 21 June, should be designated as a day when we remember those lost, injured or harmed as a result of the troubles, the Government are committed to recognising and supporting victims and survivors of terrorism. That is why the Government recently announced plans to introduce a national day, to be held on 21 August, dedicated to anyone in the UK impacted by terrorism—including terrorism related to the troubles. The Government are open to the suggestion of designating a day to specifically remember all of the victims of the troubles, as it is something that would carry significant weight. Our initial view is that this should be explored in consultation with the Northern Ireland Executive, victims and survivors groups and others.

Finally, I would like to pay tribute to Operation Kenova, and to Sir lain Livingstone and Jon Boutcher, for all of their work over the years. The investigations that they have led have been transparent and open to families who had many questions, and have always put victims first in everything they have done.

[HCWS1146]

Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Written Statements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[HCWS1063]

Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

Hilary Benn Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 18th November 2025 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

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

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

[Hilary Benn]

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

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

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

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

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

[Hilary Benn]

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

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

[Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)]

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

[Hilary Benn]

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

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

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

[Hilary Benn]

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

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

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

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

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

[Hilary Benn]

The commission is an independent body established—

[Dr Evans]

Ah.

[Hilary Benn]

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

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

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

[Hilary Benn]

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

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

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

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

[Hilary Benn]

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

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

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

rose—

[Hilary Benn]

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

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

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

[Hilary Benn]

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

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Hilary Benn]

I will make progress.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Hilary Benn]

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

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

Warrenpoint.

[Hilary Benn]

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

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

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

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

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

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

“a direct threat to national security”?

[Hilary Benn]

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

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Hilary Benn]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“with cautious optimism by victims and survivors.”

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

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

and encourages all of us as parliamentarians

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

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

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

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

Northern Ireland Troubles Legacy

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Thursday 13th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[David Davis]

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

He stated there is a

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

He could not be clearer. He concludes that

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

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

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

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

He is.

[David Davis]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“The ICRIR must grant a person immunity from prosecution”

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

Independent Monitoring Panel Report: January to June 2025

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2025 Written Statements

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

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

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

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

[HCWS1021]