Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over)

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Carry-over motion
Monday 27th April 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That if, at the conclusion of this Session of Parliament, proceedings on the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill have not been completed, they shall be resumed in the next Session.

This motion will enable the House to progress the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, which is essential to remedy the failure of the previous Government’s Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. I am grateful for the careful scrutiny of the Bill by both the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights. If dealing with legacy was easy, this aim of the Good Friday agreement would have been resolved a long time ago. It is not easy; it is very difficult, not least because there are many different and opposing views. We have a responsibility to do this for those affected by the troubles, including the many people who lost loved ones and are still searching for answers. I believe there is recognition across the House that we need to address the legacy of the troubles, because, after so many attempts, this is our last chance.

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for the way in which he has carried out his work on the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill with such sensitivity to all parties. However, I would also like him to explain and give more detail on the responsibility to the victims and survivors of the troubles, as well as the special duty of care to our veterans.

[Hilary Benn]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who chairs the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee with such distinction, and I will come directly to addressing the two questions she has just asked.

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

I represent a very large number of veterans. What are they to make of the remarks made by the Attorney General, who has suggested to his human rights lawyer friends that they have done more for the sum total of human happiness than the brave, highly decorated men and women of our armed forces, many of whom I have the honour and privilege to represent?

[Hilary Benn]

I would simply say that I think the whole House acknowledges the brave service of our veterans in many, many difficult circumstances, and that is one reason that this carry-over motion is necessary.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Hilary Benn]

I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear with me.

Whatever its intentions, the legacy Act did not work. Its central provision—immunity—had no backing in Northern Ireland, has been found by our domestic courts to be incompatible with our international legal obligations and was never commenced by the previous Government. Immunity has been rejected by victims and families. Immunity is not supported by the three veterans commissioners, who have said that they do not call for immunity from the law, but fairness under it.

[Dr Mullan]

The Secretary of State will have to work extremely hard to secure the trust of veterans on both sides of this argument. If he cannot clearly condemn what are clearly outrageous remarks about our armed forces personnel, how does he expect them to trust him?

[Hilary Benn]

I hope that our armed forces personnel will listen to what I am about to say and see both the protections that are currently in the Bill and the commitment the Government have made to bring forward further such protections. Indeed, the Bill will put in place a means of dealing with legacy that is legally compliant and will hopefully, in time, command broad public support in Northern Ireland and across the United Kingdom. It will also result in the unprecedented sharing of records by the Irish authorities with the new Legacy Commission as a result of the framework agreement reached with the Irish Government.

Since its introduction in October 2025, the troubles Bill has been welcomed by a significant number of victims’ families and representative groups. Many recognise that while it cannot be the perfect Bill for them, it balances many of the different interests and provides a basis on which families’ cases can be taken forward sensitively and lawfully.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I spoke to the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland before the debate started to check in on what he was putting forward. There is some indication that protections will be put forward that Ministers hope will support the armed forces, but there are no similar protections whatsoever being offered to personnel of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and other branches of service in Northern Ireland. Some 319 RUC members gave their lives during the troubles, while thousands were injured; they deserve the same protection and help. Can the Secretary of State indicate what protections will be offered to the RUC personnel who gave so much for us, for their freedom and liberty?

[Hilary Benn]

The protections that are contained in the Bill currently will apply to RUC personnel and others who served the state, and the hon. Gentleman will see the further amendments that we will bring forward.

I would point out that every Member of the House has just received a letter from Joe McVey, the Commissioner for Victims and Survivors for Northern Ireland, urging us to vote for this motion tonight and making the argument that

“beyond every clause and every amendment there are people whose lives have been shaped by loss”.

One important part of the Bill is the consideration it gives to those who served the state so bravely in the form of protections for veterans and police officers to ensure that they are treated fairly and with dignity and respect. In recent months, as I set out in my written ministerial statement last week, my ministerial colleagues and I have been consulting widely on the legislation. We have been very grateful for the time that veterans groups have spent with us, explaining how they think our legacy processes need to be improved. That is why we are putting in place new protections: no repeated investigations; an end to cold calling; requiring consideration to be given to the age and welfare of veterans; and enabling any veteran asked to give evidence to do so remotely and anonymously.

In Committee, I will be bringing forward a substantial package of amendments to further strengthen those safeguards, including clearly differentiating between the lawful actions of soldiers and police and the unlawful actions of paramilitary terrorists, and to put in place arrangements to oversee how those protections operate in practice. Without the Bill, all those new protections—which were not in the legacy Act—would not be there for veterans while the commission continues its work, including investigations. That would be a complete abdication of our responsibilities to families and veterans, who would face continuing uncertainty. Is that really what those who have expressed concerns about the Bill want to see happen?

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

For several months now, including when the Secretary of State has appeared before the Select Committee, he has in all good faith promised these amendments. Does he understand that his case this evening would be assisted if the House were to see those amendments? The motion effectively asks us to sign a blank cheque on a promissory note when we have no idea what it might contain.

[Hilary Benn]

The best way to ensure that the hon. Gentleman and the whole House see the amendments is to pass the carry-over motion tonight.

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

Will the Secretary of State be absolutely clear that if the Bill is not passed, veterans will have no protection whatsoever moving forward?

[Hilary Benn]

That is self-evidently the case, because the protections that I just read out, which the Government have put in this legislation, would not exist. That is a powerful argument why the Bill should carry over.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

rose—

[Hilary Benn]

I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will forgive me; many Members want to speak.

I will turn briefly to some of the arguments that will be made against carrying over the Bill, because I think it is important that we conduct this debate on a shared understanding of the facts.

First, on prosecutions, in the last 28 years just one soldier of the 250,000 who served in Operation Banner has been convicted of a troubles-related offence. During all that time there have continued to be inquests and cases investigated. The truth is that the chances of prosecutions are rapidly diminishing. Secondly, I remind the House that the basis on which any decision about a prosecution is made rests, as it always has done, with independent prosecutors. No one who has done their duty lawfully has anything to fear. Thirdly, on the claim that paramilitaries—in particular the IRA—were given amnesty by the on-the-run letters, they were not. At the moment, there are eight troubles cases in which suspected paramilitaries have been charged with murder or attempted murder, including of soldiers and members of the RUC.

Let us not forget that, when in government, the Conservative party wanted to give immunity to terrorists. That is what the legislation said. Members and colleagues will be aware that there are many unsolved killings of British service personnel, whose families deserve answers, including of those in a number of the most deadly IRA attacks, such as Guildford, Warrenpoint and the M62 coach bombing. The Opposition’s argument against the motion rests on their wish to return to immunity, which never existed and is wrong in principle.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Hilary Benn]

I will conclude my remarks, because many Members want to contribute.

I am acutely aware of the stress that many have described in going through legacy processes, which is precisely why we will put the strongest possible safeguards in the Bill. If this motion is carried, the Bill will be brought back to the House early in the new Session for a Committee of the whole House, where I will welcome the scrutiny of all Members to ensure that we get this right. This Bill is about creating a legacy process in which all involved can have confidence. I hope that we can work together constructively and with the care that the families of all those who were killed or seriously injured deserve, to ensure that this legislation and the further amendments that we will make are given careful consideration in Committee.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)]

The Bill is a betrayal of our veterans. It is a betrayal of the men who put on a British uniform and served their country, risking their lives to protect people of all communities in Northern Ireland during the period of the troubles—men like David Griffin, who I had the privilege to meet: an 84-year-old Royal Marine veteran who lives out his life at Royal Hospital Chelsea. He is a man who, half a lifetime ago in 1972, in a split-second decision when he was ambushed by terrorists, made a call. That call should not haunt him in the last years of his life. He should not have to wake up every morning worried that a letter will drop through his letterbox telling him that he is going to be prosecuted.

Old men like David Griffin have been hounded for far too long. That is the reason why—belated, yes, but belatedly it did happen—the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 provided a degree of immunity to those brave men. This Bill rips that up. It will be open season for men like David Griffin. Men like David Griffin deserve better than this Bill.

Men who are serving this country now do so as well, because this is not just about the past—it is about the present and future, too. What signal does the Bill send to those who sign up to serve our country? That half a lifetime from now, new laws may come in, and they will be hounded through the courts, living out the last days of their lives worried about a knock on the door or a letter through the post? No. That is wrong. That is not the country that I want to live in.

When I hold this Bill up to the light, I see all over it the fingerprints of Lord Hermer—a man who frankly hates this country. Let us be honest with ourselves. I never thought I would see the day that Gerry Adams’s lawyer was sitting around the Cabinet table of the United Kingdom, in the very room that the IRA tried to blow up when I was a child.

The men who serve our country deserve better than this Bill, better than Lord Hermer and better than this Government. I will be voting against the Bill. I hope it dies tonight.

[Hilary Benn]

I will do my best to respond to as many of the points that have been raised in the debate as possible. I listened very carefully to the speech from the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), but I am sorry to say that he did not address the central problem, which is that the previous Government’s legislation failed and needs to be replaced. He also appeared to suggest that he knows that victims and survivors will find out nothing from the very process that that legislation put in place, which I am keeping in the form of the legacy commission—[Interruption.] Well, that is what he said. Was the hon. Gentleman arguing that judicial review should be removed from legacy cases? Is that his argument? If that is his argument, it would not have been available to challenge the Clonoe inquest—a challenge that the Government are supporting.

The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) shares the Government’s opposition to immunity. I must confess that I was disappointed by his party’s stance on the Bill, because if there is no Bill, we cannot get it right.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba)—himself a distinguished veteran—made a powerful appeal for reason in order to try to get this right.

The hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) was listened to in absolute silence, rightly, as he described a number of the children who were killed during the troubles. That silence was in marked contrast to some of what we heard earlier.

Notwithstanding what the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) said in most of his speech, I welcome the fact that at the end he made it clear that he is opposed to giving terrorists immunity, and that his party, which he leads, has always been clear that it did not support the immunity provisions in the previous Government’s legacy Act, which is indeed this Government’s policy.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

The Secretary of State suggested in his speech that no comfort letters were ever issued by Tony Blair, but a court case collapsed specifically because of one of them, so could he clarify that? More specifically, the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) said that a member of staff hired by the Northern Ireland Office is having meetings about the early release of IRA dissidents. That worries the House intensely. Will the Secretary of State confirm that no such requests have been made by the Northern Ireland Office, or, if any such requests have been made, that they have been immediately denied very clearly, both in writing and verbally?

[Hilary Benn]

It is a matter of public record that there has been no early release of any prisoners at all, and there have been no negotiations. I have said it in the House before, and I will say it again: there have been no negotiations with dissident terrorists at all. I did not say that no letters of comfort were issued; what I said to the House was that the letters of comfort did not grant immunity from prosecution. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) refers from a seated position to Mr Downey. As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, it is a matter of public record that he is currently facing prosecution for the murder of two individuals.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker) gave us a moving reminder of those whose lives have been lost. My hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) called for seriousness and respect in this debate. I say to the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) that he is wrong. This Bill does not rip up immunity.

[Robert Jenrick]

indicated dissent.

[Hilary Benn]

It is no good him shaking his head. The provision was never commenced by the last Government, and it has been found to be incompatible with our legal obligations. In conclusion, we need to deal with this, and I have heard lots of arguments as to why—

Dunmurry Police Station Attack

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the car bomb attack outside Dunmurry police station on 26 April 2026.

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

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) for her question.

Shortly before 11 pm on Saturday 25 April, a vehicle was abandoned just outside the front gate of the Police Service of Northern Ireland station at Dunmurry. The vehicle had been hijacked in the Twinbrook area of west Belfast a short time before, where a gas cylinder was placed in the boot of the vehicle and the driver was ordered to drive to the police station. When he got there, the driver informed the police, who immediately and very bravely evacuated nearby homes. A number of residents, including two babies, were being taken to safety when the device exploded. I know that the thoughts of the whole House will be with all those affected—residents who had to leave their homes, the police officers who were helping with that evacuation when the device exploded, and the delivery driver, who has been through a traumatic experience. It is incredibly fortunate that nobody was killed or injured.

A similar attack on the police station in Lurgan was attempted on 30 March, when a fast food delivery driver was also hijacked by two masked men, who placed an object in the boot of the car and ordered him to drive it to Lurgan police station or be killed. Mercifully, on that occasion ammunition technical officers were able to carry out a controlled explosion. They confirmed that it was a crude but viable improvised explosive device, and the New IRA later claimed responsibility. This was a shameless and cowardly attack on the brave men and women who work so hard to keep our communities safe in Northern Ireland. Urgent investigations into both incidents are, of course, continuing and I urge anyone who has any information to contact the PSNI.

Over the decades, Northern Ireland has been transformed into a much more peaceful society. However, a very small number of people who represent no one but themselves remain determined to try to cause harm to our communities. I join with the Prime Minister and all those from across the political spectrum in Northern Ireland who have condemned what happened on Saturday, and I know the House will join me in paying tribute to the extraordinary efforts of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, led by Jon Boutcher, and to our security partners. It is their tireless work that keeps our communities safe, and this Government will continue to support those efforts as together we seek to bring to account those responsible for terrorism.

[Sorcha Eastwood]

I am sure the whole House will join me in sending a message that terrorism never succeeds—neither in the past nor in 2026. I too wish to put on record my thanks to the Police Service of Northern Ireland for the work that it does every day, keeping communities safe in the face of ongoing threats. In particular, I pay tribute to those police officers who were in Dunmurry police station on Saturday evening and who were helping to evacuate babies as the device detonated.

I also pay tribute to the officers at Lurgan police station who were there on 30 March when a viable device was driven through the front gates of the station. My thoughts are also with the two delivery drivers, one of whom was held at gunpoint as their vehicle was hijacked. It is only by the grace of God that we are not dealing with fatalities. The people who commit these acts of terrorism have no support from the decent people of Northern Ireland—they do not now, and they did not in the past. This is not representative of who we are.

National security is a reserved matter, so will the Secretary of State commit to ensuring that the PSNI is adequately resourced to deal with tackling Northern Ireland-related terrorism, along with the other categories of extreme right-wing terrorism, extreme left-wing terrorism, Islamic terrorism and those acting without ideology? Those are stated national security priorities. It is clear that the PSNI is already operating within a challenging budget, and I am sure the Government will want to ensure that it is adequately resourced to tackle this threat.

[Hilary Benn]

I join the hon. Member in her expression of thanks to the police and in her expressions of concern for all those who have been affected. As she well knows, PSNI resources are determined by the Northern Ireland Executive, but it is our job as a Government to play our part. We have given a record settlement to the Executive in the spending review last summer, and we have implemented the first increase in the additional security funding in more than a decade; it will be £130 million over three years.

I also draw attention to the fact that there is a Home Office counter-terrorism policing grant. The level of funding per head is the same as that given by the additional security funding. Northern Ireland received Barnett consequentials on top of that as a result of the announcement of the Home Office counter-terrorism policing grant. It is for the Executive to determine how much it chooses to devote to policing out of the record settlement that we give.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

The two incidents in Lurgan and Dunmurry are of deep concern to us and to my Committee. I give my sincere thanks to the PSNI officers who have kept their communities safe. Does the Secretary of State agree that those responsible should face the full force of the law?

[Hilary Benn]

I certainly do. That is why anyone with any information has a responsibility to provide it to the PSNI so that people may be called to account.

The police and our security partners work hard every single day of the year to try to identify those responsible. For reasons that the House will well understand, a great deal of that work is unseen by the general public, but I assure my hon. Friend and the House that it is taking place, and we have seen that in recent times. In December, two men were sentenced to lengthy jail terms for preparatory acts of terrorism. PSNI investigations into drug criminality linked to the New IRA led to a man being sentenced last month in relation to the supply of drugs.

We have also acted against the New IRA and two individuals associated with the group through the Treasury’s counter-terrorism financial sanctions regime, which in effect takes control of the finances of those individuals. It is a very powerful tool to use, and, as my hon. Friend will see, we have already applied it on two occasions.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Opposition spokesperson.

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) on having secured this urgent question. I associate myself with her remarks and those of the Secretary of State, although I gently say that it would have been better if this had been a Government statement. I cannot help but feel that had that car bomb been placed outside a police station in Westminster or Birmingham, Government Ministers would have come to the House with a statement.

It is, of course, profoundly depressing that we should be discussing this issue at all. However, it is an enormous relief that we are not today talking about casualties. As the hon. Member for Lagan Valley said, but for the grace of God, we would have been; but for the bravery of local people, we would have been. I pay very deep tribute to all those brave men and women in the Police Service of Northern Ireland who serve and keep our country safe. They were the target of this despicable operation, and it will be their hard work that brings its perpetrators to justice.

The people who have attempted to break the peace in Northern Ireland have no mandate and no public support—they represent only themselves, and are seeking to serve only their macho egos. The silver lining is, of course, that we are watching people in Northern Ireland from all communities come together this morning, united against them. We have come an incredibly long way, but as the Secretary of State referenced, this does appear to be the start of a pattern of new and deeply concerning behaviour. That is reflected in what happened in Lurgan last month, but also in the marching of masked paramilitaries in Easter parades. Will the Secretary of State confirm to the House that the PSNI is going after those people who broke the laws that were laid down during the peace process, just as I know they will be going after those who tried to blow up the police station in Dunmurry?

The attack on Sunday raises a number of questions to which I hope the Secretary of State can provide answers, because he has responsibility for national security in Northern Ireland. Can the Secretary of State assure the House that the Chief Constable has the resources he needs? I say that because, notwithstanding his remarks about funding, the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill is going to put a huge additional financial burden on the PSNI. Even if the Chief Constable believes he has the resources he needs today, he will not have them tomorrow.

[Hilary Benn]

I join the hon. Member in his tribute to the Police Service of Northern Ireland, and agree with him that the response from all communities in Northern Ireland to this terrible attack is a sign of the new Northern Ireland and shows that those responsible have no support at all. Sadly, though, they do have some capacity. As he knows, the enforcement of the law is a job for the police service, and if criminal offences have been identified, it is for prosecutors to take decisions. I hope the hon. Member will agree that my answer to the question from the Chair of the Select Committee about recent convictions and steps taken, shows that there certainly is capacity within the PSNI to go after people and—if the evidence can be found—to enable a prosecution to take place.

On the question of legacy, under the previous Government’s Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, which established the commission, every request for disclosure and information falls to the police service and other partners. That was already the case, regardless of anything contained in the legislation that we are currently taking through the House.

[Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The people who planted this bomb in Dunmurry have set their faces against the people of Ireland, who made the decision long ago that the only route to constitutional change is a democratic one. They have attacked and tried to kill Irish police officers, they have murdered a young journalist in Derry, and just last weekend they have put children and babies in harm’s way. Will the Secretary of State confirm to the House today that the only route to achieving the united Ireland that some of us want to see is the democratic route laid out in the Good Friday agreement, and that it is up to those of us who want to see that happen to make the argument for it? These people are only an impediment to that change.

[Hilary Benn]

I say to my hon. Friend that the huge significance of the Good Friday agreement is that it charted a way forward and made clear the peaceful means by which those who wish to seek constitutional change in Northern Ireland can pursue it, but I also make the point that there never was any justification for the violence. There was always an alternative to the violence, and that was shown in the negotiation of the Good Friday agreement.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

I begin by praising the bravery of the police, the fire and ambulance services, and the delivery driver, all of whom put themselves in danger to prevent a tragedy.

I am sure the Secretary of State recognises that, as an act of terrorism, this is a matter of national security, which is the responsibility of the central Government. Unfortunately, whenever asked about funding to combat dissident republican terrorism, the Northern Ireland Office repeatedly points to general funding allocated to the Executive, as though the responsibility to combat such terrorism lies with them. Admittedly, some extra funding, as we have heard, is given for additional security funding, but that is intended to cover all forms of terrorist activity. It ignores the special circumstances in Northern Ireland, and has been described by the Police Federation for Northern Ireland as “minuscule”.

I want to press the Secretary of State on the same two questions. What additionally is he doing to ensure that the PSNI has adequate funding and resources to respond to the threat posed by dissident republican groups, and what discussions has he had with the Chief Constable, Jon Boutcher, and the Northern Ireland Executive to address their repeated concerns about PSNI funding?

[Hilary Benn]

Yes, it is a reserved matter, but there is a shared responsibility across Northern Ireland to defeat terrorism. That is a political responsibility and it is a policing and security responsibility. As I have set out to the House, the budget of the PSNI is determined by the Executive. We as a Government are playing our part by making sure there has been a record settlement. As I said, we have increased additional security funding for the first time in a decade, and the Home Office counter-terrorism grant was Barnetted across to the Northern Ireland Executive. It is for the Northern Ireland Executive to take the decisions about how they choose to spend the significant resources we are making available.

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

I associate myself with the comments made by the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) and the Secretary of State about the bravery of the PSNI and the delivery driver. This attack serves as a timely reminder that, for a handful of individuals in Northern Ireland, a return to violence is never that far away. Given the unique challenges to their own safety that members of staff and police officers in the PSNI have to face on a daily basis—and tomorrow is International Workers’ Memorial Day—would the Secretary of State work with the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure that nobody should be going to work and not coming home?

[Hilary Benn]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend’s last point. I meet the Justice Minister, the police and security partners on a very regular basis, and we discuss all of these matters and review what has been happening. All I would say is that the reduction in the number of bombings and shootings in the past decade is very marked, and that is testament to the efforts of the police and security partners. In fairness, I should also remind the House that the threat assessment at the moment remains substantial. It was previously severe in the wake of the attempted murder of John Caldwell, but it is currently substantial, which means that an attack is likely.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Following two car bomb attacks in one month, what my constituents want to know is what will be done to snuff out this terrorist threat before it develops further—and that must include dealing with the underfunding and the understaffing of the PSNI. Today the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland called out some Northern Ireland political parties for their failure to give unconditional support to the PSNI, which means that many young PSNI officers cannot live in nationalist areas. Does the Secretary of State agree that those parties need to do more, and that, in particular, Sinn Féin must match its pious words with actions of unconditional support for the PSNI and cease lauding its former car bombers, which only gives support to the current generation of car bombers?

[Hilary Benn]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is the responsibility of all political leaders—indeed, of all in society in Northern Ireland—to give their full-hearted support to the Police Service of Northern Ireland, which is there to protect everyone from all communities and stands against those who would do the people of Northern Ireland harm. I think that that is a fundamental part of the responsibility that all of us have as political leaders.

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

Jon Boutcher has been fairly critical of a number of political parties, including, it must be said, the party of government. He is clear about the fact that his force, the PSNI, is not funded like other forces across the United Kingdom, and he believes that that is partly due to legacy issues—a position that will be made far more acute by the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. Does the Secretary of State agree with the Chief Constable or not?

[Hilary Benn]

I have had many conversations with the Chief Constable about funding and other matters. I would just point out, as I did a moment ago, that as a result of the provisions of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, which is the existing law under which everyone is operating at the moment, and the establishment of the legacy commission, the more cases the commission takes on—the number of cases is now over 100—the more there will be a requirement for disclosure anyway. What the Bill seeks to do is win the confidence of all communities in Northern Ireland so that this body, reformed, can hopefully enable all the families who are still looking for answers about how their loved ones died to find them.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Let me say on behalf of my party that we condemn the bombing at the weekend and we thank the police for their actions, which ensured that there were not the casualties that we would otherwise be lamenting here today.

It is significant that the bomb was set off at the same time as Sinn Féin was holding its party conference, at which bombers of the past were being praised. That glorification of terrorism only stimulates terrorism again today. The logic is clear: if we can praise the bombers of the past, why can we not bomb in the present? While the First Minister has condemned the bombing, does the Secretary of State agree that the schizophrenic attitude that Sinn Féin has developed towards past terrorism and present terrorism is only perpetuating terrorism in our society, and continues to pump the poison of violence into our society? Will he call on the First Minister and her party to stop being ambivalent towards policing and stop being ambivalent towards past terrorism, and make it clear that terrorism has no place in society?

[Hilary Benn]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks. I have already said that I think that all politicians, in Northern Ireland and throughout the United Kingdom, have a responsibility to encourage support for the work of the PSNI. I also welcome the condemnation that has been heard from those across the political spectrum in Northern Ireland—including Sinn Féin, which has made it very clear, as has everyone else, that those who were responsible for the attack on Saturday and the previous attack in Lurgan have no support and no place in the new Northern Ireland.

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

Given what the Secretary of State said about the nature of the Lurgan bomb, it sounds as if these weapons are unsophisticated and presumably not detonated remotely. This must mean that the delivery drivers were in exceptional peril, because such crude devices could have gone off at any time. Will the Secretary of State confirm that he is liaising closely with people in the Republic of Ireland, and that their attitude is nowadays one of complete support for the discovery and prevention of a new version of the terrorism of the troubles?

[Hilary Benn]

For reasons that I hope the House will understand, I am not going to speculate about the nature of the devices, but the right hon. Gentleman is right: given that the device on Saturday did explode, the lives of the two delivery drivers were self-evidently in great peril at the time they were forced to convey the devices to the respective police stations. The condemnation of terrorism is seen right across Ireland—in Northern Ireland, as we have just been discussing, and in the Republic of Ireland. These people have no support whatsoever, and it is important that we find out who did it and hold them to account.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

I pay tribute to the courage of the delivery driver and to PSNI officers, whose bravery saved lives in this deplorable attack. I also want to use this opportunity to pay tribute to one of my predecessors, Ian Gow, who was murdered by the IRA in a car bomb attack outside his Eastbourne home in 1990. His memory is enshrined in this Chamber via a shield above the door.

As well as ensuring that the PSNI is resourced to ensure that terrorists face the full force of the law, can the Secretary of State tell us what assessment has been made of the threat that dissident republicans pose to the British mainland, with a view to ensuring that no community anywhere in the United Kingdom suffers what has scarred the people of Northern Ireland and the people of Eastbourne?

[Hilary Benn]

I join the hon. Member in remembering the late Ian Gow, who gave such distinguished service to this House and was killed in that terrible attack—one of a number of Members who suffered at the hands of terrorist violence in the past. The assessment of the nature of the threat—which is currently substantial and has previously been severe, as I am sure the hon. Member will know—is carried out by the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre and is formally reviewed twice a year. I can assure him that JTAC’s staff take their job extremely seriously, and any information about any threats is circulated to all those who need to know.

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

We can all agree that the public should be protected from anybody who is willing to use violence against innocents and the police to get what they want, but I wonder how the right hon. Gentleman intends to enforce that. What message does he think it sends to those who have had the courage to protect the public, including British soldiers during the troubles, when this Government are making it easier for them to be dragged through the courts decades later?

[Hilary Benn]

I do not accept the hon. Member’s characterisation of what is in the troubles Bill that we will be discussing later, because the threshold consideration for prosecutions remains absolutely unchanged in the legislation currently before the House. However, I recognise that veterans are concerned about the impact that any changes may have on them. That is why the Government have put protections in the Bill and will bring forward further such proposals in Committee.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

What price does the Secretary of State put on a Northern Ireland life? What price does he put on the lives of PSNI officers, whom we have praised in this House today for saving so many lives at the weekend? The majority of his answers at the start of this session referred to Barnett consequentials and budgets, not the people who went out of their way to save lives. Why do he and this Government believe that if terrorists in Northern Ireland are attacking Northern Ireland people, it is only a Northern Ireland problem?

[Hilary Benn]

Well, I do not accept that I said that it is only a Northern Ireland problem. The reason I answered questions relating to the funding is because I was asked by hon. and right hon. Members about the funding that the Government make available to the Executive in Northern Ireland, out of which the Executive take decisions about the funding of the PSNI. That is their responsibility. I simply say to the hon. Member that the lives of everyone in Northern Ireland—be they police officer or ordinary citizen—are beyond price.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

It is hard to believe that it was 34 years ago that one of these proxy bombs was driven into my checkpoint in west Belfast. I remember it like it was yesterday. I agree with the Secretary of State that we must find the perpetrators of this evil act, and I, too, encourage the community to come forward, because that is where the answer lies. Will the Secretary of State ask the Chief Constable how many Police Service of Northern Ireland detectives are allocated to investigating legacy issues, versus those allocated to finding the perpetrators of the Dunmurry police station attack?

[Hilary Benn]

I will take the hon. Member’s question away. The allocation of resources is a matter for the Chief Constable. This is a very urgent investigation. I point out to him that one of the consequences of the legacy Act that the last Government passed was that responsibility for investigating troubles-related cases departed from the PSNI; it does not rest with the PSNI today, but with the legacy commission. It is the commission that does investigations in respect of the cases that have been referred to it, not the PSNI.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I, like every right-minded person, utterly condemn the abhorrent attack on Dunmurry PSNI station and the one on Lurgan in my constituency. I commend PSNI officers for their bravery in dealing with these attempts on their lives. Does the Secretary of State agree that Sinn Féin’s response drips with rank hypocrisy, condemning the bombers of today while glorifying, lauding and even erecting illegal statues to the bombers and terrorists of yesterday? Does he agree that the decision to put forward Órlaithí Flynn MLA—daughter of Patrick Flynn, convicted of an IRA bomb in Dunmurry—to condemn this attack was a calculated insult to victims and a grotesque reminder that Sinn Féin’s words condemn terrorism, but their politics still romanticise it? Surely the Government should reflect on their decision not to strengthen the legislation on glorification of terrorism and act to legislate against it immediately.

[Hilary Benn]

The hon. Member, quite rightly, speaks with great sincerity and anger about what has happened. On the very last point that she raised, she will be familiar with the provisions of the Terrorism Act 2006. As she will be aware, the Government have recently agreed to ask Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorist legislation, to undertake a review of section 1 and report back.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

In the last year, there have been nine bomb attacks aimed at the PSNI from the men of darkness, who hide behind dark doors, in the dark and behind balaclavas. What action can the Secretary of State take to ensure that the PSNI has adequate funding? It is 700 police officers down, and the funding is still not in place. Will he agree to meet me and the Chief Constable to listen to those concerns about funding, so that we can beat the men of evil and not return to the past?

[Hilary Benn]

I know that the Police Service of Northern Ireland is treating this particular investigation with the urgency that it requires. Referring to the question from the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp)—I thank him once again for his service in Northern Ireland—what would help the police to bring the men of darkness to the light of justice is information that somebody probably knows. That information would enable people to be arrested and, if there is sufficient evidence, prosecuted for what they have done. That is the single most important contribution that can be made to assist the PSNI in trying to find out who was responsible.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his answers. Police numbers, intelligence, CCTV, IRA infiltration, people sending information—those are all issues. It is beyond disappointing that this same New IRA was able to plan to hijack and deploy a second device in west Belfast without any prior interception. The Chief Constable of the PSNI and the Police Federation for Northern Ireland have continually highlighted a lack of resources for policing. Will the Secretary of State please explain whether the lack of ability to combat this group of murderous, terrorist thugs is due to failures in intelligence sharing—MI5, MI6, special branch—or to a lack of police service on the ground that affects patrolling in high-risk areas? More importantly, what steps will the Secretary of State undertake to address those issues?

[Hilary Benn]

There is a huge amount of effort going in, as I indicated earlier, and most of it is unseen by the general public for reasons that everyone in the House will understand. As much information as can be gathered on what these people are seeking to do, we seek to acquire, but we either have to catch people in the act or get information from those who know who was responsible in order to see them prosecuted. It cannot be just left to the PSNI and our security partners, who once again I pay tribute to; they do a truly extraordinary job on behalf of us all, but they need some help from others who have information that they can bring to bear, so that people are held to account for what they have done.

Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Written Statements

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

I wish to update the House on the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill and the Government’s commitment to put in place legislation to address the legacy of that terrible period in our history.

In the 28 years since the Good Friday agreement, there have been numerous unsuccessful efforts, in London and in Belfast, to deliver on this crucial but still unrealised aim of the agreement. Victims of terrorist violence across the United Kingdom, families of many of those who were killed, former members of our security services—and many more—have been affected by this collective failure. So the troubles Bill, and the reformed legacy commission it will create, must be capable of commanding the confidence of all communities while enabling answers to be found for those who seek them. This final chance to get legacy right has fallen to us, in this Parliament, and we will deliver it.

Since its introduction in October 2025, the troubles Bill has been welcomed by a significant number of victims, families and representative groups. Many recognise that, while not providing everything they may have sought, the Bill will enable families’ cases to be taken forward sensitively, efficiently and lawfully. The prospect that the Bill will enable information sharing by the Irish authorities with the legacy commission, as a result of the framework agreement reached with the Irish Government, is a major step forward. And the fact that, unlike the false promise of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, the troubles Bill does not offer immunity including for those who committed heinous acts of terrorism, and will be compliant with our Human Rights obligations, has been welcomed by all the main Northern Ireland political parties and indeed by many Operation Banner veterans.

The new safeguards the Bill will put in place for veterans and other former service personnel have also been broadly welcomed. It has been clear, however, that we must do more through the legislation to safeguard our veterans community. It is vital that those who served the state, to whom we owe so much and to whom we have a particular duty of care, are able to have confidence in the legislation.

In recent months I, along with the Prime Minister, the Defence Secretary, the Attorney General and the Armed Forces Minister, have been consulting widely on the legislation, including with veterans, on potential improvements that might be made. I have also considered the many amendments that have been tabled from across the House, and the important recommendations of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and others.

The result of these deliberations is that the Government will bring forward a substantial package of amendments designed to improve the process for victims and families, further safeguard our Operation Banner veterans and ensure oversight of their protections, and clearly differentiate between the role played during the troubles by our brave security forces and the actions of paramilitary terrorists. These amendments will be tabled for consideration in Committee.

Taken together with the large number of amendments already tabled by MPs and the strength of feelings on all sides of the House on these issues, it is important that there is sufficient time for scrutiny. Owing to the time it has taken to ensure we get the amendments right, and the clear need for the House to have longer to scrutinise them, the Bill will now return to the House early in the next session.

[HCWS1536]

Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery Review

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Written Statements

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

The Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery commenced its work in May 2024 under the last Government’s Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. Since then, under the leadership of Sir Declan Morgan, the ICRIR has worked hard to build trust so that it can start delivering answers for victims and families. More than 270 cases have already been referred to the ICRIR, with more than 100 active investigations under way.

This Government have been clear from the beginning that we are committed to the fundamental reform of the ICRIR, which will become the Legacy Commission. The Northern Ireland Troubles Bill will significantly reform the governance of the ICRIR to build wider confidence in its vital work.

Following a number of concerns about corporate effectiveness and culture raised directly with the Northern Ireland Office, Peter May was jointly commissioned by the NIO and the ICRIR board to deliver a review of the corporate effectiveness and cultural health of the ICRIR. I am grateful to him for this work. His findings, submitted to me at the end of February, identified that the organisation is facing a number of problems resulting, in his view, from a combination of the 2023 legacy Act itself, internal governance shortcomings and the culture of the organisation at senior levels.

Since receiving the findings, I have met each of the commissioners individually to seek their response. I have established a joint ICRIR-NIO oversight committee to ensure that the review’s recommendations are addressed. I have also provided additional dedicated sponsorship resource to support the organisation.

I now plan to commission a section 36 review of the ICRIR and its performance of its statutory functions. As set out in the 2023 legacy Act, this must be completed no later than 30 April 2027. I will make a further statement in due course following the appointment of a chair and publication of its terms of reference.

Many of the ICRIR’s dedicated staff participated in the review by Peter May. They did so on an understanding of anonymity. It is right, therefore, that we ensure that the correct processes are being followed, and that the findings are shared by the ICRIR with its staff in the first instance. Once this has been done, I will place these findings in the Library of the House, along with our response and joint action plan.

It is vital that the Commission’s important work continues on behalf of victims, survivors and their families, as they seek to find answers after so many years. The internal challenges faced by the ICRIR, as a new public organisation tasked with a complex statutory role, must not detract from this. I will do everything I can, including through the important reforms set out in the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, to ensure that the ICRIR is appropriately supported to deliver for those families.

[HCWS1516]

Independent Reviewer for National Security Arrangements: Report 2025

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Written Statements

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

The role of the independent reviewer of national security arrangements in Northern Ireland is to monitor compliance with annex E of the St Andrews Agreement 2006, reviewing the relationship between MI5 and the Police Service of Northern Ireland in handling national security matters.

Dr Jonny Byrne, the independent reviewer of national security arrangements in Northern Ireland, has sent me his report for 2025. Due to the classification of the report, I am unable to lay a copy in the Libraries of both Houses, but I am able to provide the House with a summary of its content. What follows is a summary of the main findings of the report covering the period from 1 January 2025 to 31 December 2025. I am very grateful to Dr Byrne for his report.

Dr Byrne states:

“My role is to monitor compliance with Annex E of the St Andrews Agreement (2007) reviewing the relationship between MI5 and the PSNI in handling national security matters. The role seeks to provide assurance that MI5 and PSNI operate together within the letter and the spirit of the St Andrews agreement.

In order to meet the terms of reference I have reviewed documents, and had a series of meetings with senior members of the PSNI and MI5 along with political and policy-maker stakeholders.

There were no national security attacks in Northern Ireland in 2025. This is compared to none in 2024, and one in both 2023 and 2022. There were none in 2021 and 2020, five in 2019, one in 2018 and five in 2017. Although it is important to recognise that armed groups retain the intent and capability to conduct national security attacks.

Throughout 2025 there were no security related deaths, compared to one in 2024. There were 12 bombing incidents and nine shooting incidents in 2025, compared with six bombing and 17 shooting incidents in 2024. There were 21 casualties of paramilitary style assaults, compared with 23 in 2024. There were three casualties of paramilitary shootings, compared to five in 2024. There were 21 security related arrests under section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000, with eight persons subsequently charged. This is compared to 67 arrested with nine charged in 2024.

On 6 March 2024 the Northern Ireland-related Terrorism (NIRT) threat level in Northern Ireland was lowered from SEVERE—an attack is highly likely—to SUBSTANTIAL—an attack is likely. Prior to this the threat level was SEVERE from September 2010 to March 2022, lowered to SUBSTANTIAL between March 2022 and March 2023, and then rose to SEVERE until March 2024.

Through my discussions and review of documents I would like to make the following observations.

For the reporting period I requested PSNI data relating to the use of schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000, specifically relating to its use by PSNI Ports Examining Officers. The power allows an examining officer to stop, question, search and detain a person at a port or the border area in Northern Ireland for the purpose of determining whether the person appears to be someone who is, or has been, involved in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism. It also allows for the examination of goods for the purpose of determining whether they have been used in the commission, preparation or instigation of the acts of terrorism. The data revealed that there had been 40 examinations and 51 detentions over the reporting period. These 91 examinations and detentions related variously to domestic extremism, NIRT, International Counter Terrorism, Crime and other (no clear ideology attributed to the usage of the schedule).

The data suggests that the PSNI are dealing with, and responding to, a range of threats, with only 34% of the power being used on those specific to Northern Ireland. However, I believe there remains a public view that National Security and terrorism more generally is a localised and narrow issue, similar to what people experienced throughout the Troubles.

Alongside this, on 16 October 2025 the Director General of MI5, Ken McCallum, in his annual threat update noted the following: ‘Finally on terrorism, Northern Ireland. Communities there are now living through the longest period without a national security attack since the start of the Troubles. We will continue, with the police, to bear down on residual threats and degrade terrorist capabilities.’

Furthermore, in December 2025, the PSNI in their written evidence to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, policing and Security Inquiry noted the following: ‘Any reduction in the threat is wholeheartedly welcomed by the PSNI but in practical terms, there is no difference in the operational policing response during periods of SEVERE or SUBSTANTIAL threat. It will take years of continued progress in driving down the threat and degrading terrorist capabilities before the threat reduces to an extent where the Police Service is able to make significant changes to how it operates to keep people in Northern Ireland safe’.

In May 2025, Deputy Chief Constable Singleton stated that ‘Northern Ireland is one of the safest places to live, work and raise a family’.

Why is all this relevant? There is a mixed, often contradictory narrative around Northern Ireland’s security status. There are two points worth making. Firstly, there is a lack of public debate or focus on what ‘normalisation’ is or how it should be measured. There is some optimism that the Northern Ireland threat level may be reduced to MODERATE at some point in the future. Inevitably, once sustained, this must have implications in terms of how the public view security alongside a reassessment of financial costs incurred to keep the public safe. However, there has been a distinct lack of debate and focus around what normal means in a society approaching the 30 year anniversary of the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement (1998).

Secondly, the topic of national security is rarely discussed at a Northern Ireland political level and institutions such as the Northern Ireland Policing Board rarely (if at all) engage constructively with the subject. Overall, this is concerning. Threats and risks are constantly evolving and given Northern Ireland’s unique status in terms of borders there should be a more mature and transparent discussion around managing, preventing and addressing current and future national security issues.

Platforms for this conversation could involve the Northern Ireland Policing Board along with the Northern Ireland Justice Committee.

Annex E sets out five key principles identified as crucial to the effective operation of national security arrangements between PSNI and MI5. My conclusions in relation to these are as follows:

a. All Security Service intelligence relating to terrorism in Northern Ireland will be visible to the PSNI.

It is evident that the PSNI have sight and access to all Security Service intelligence relating to terrorism in Northern Ireland. It is clear that PSNI and MI5 value the relationship and recognise the importance of working collectively to achieve the same goals. There is compliance.

b. PSNI will be informed of all Security Service counter terrorist investigations and operations relating to Northern Ireland.

It was evident from the discussions that both operational and strategic approaches to security were underpinned by the need for joint-working arrangements and co-ordinated processes. There were no independent terrorism investigations taking place in Northern Ireland. There is compliance.

c. Security Service intelligence will be disseminated within PSNI according to the current PSNI dissemination policy, and using police procedures.

All Security Service intelligence is disseminated within PSNI according to the current PSNI dissemination policy, and using current police procedures. All of the material passes through the intelligence branch hub using PSNI grading and intelligence briefing documents. There is compliance.

d. The great majority of national security CHISs in Northern Ireland will continue to be run by PSNI officers under existing police handling protocols.

According to both PSNI and MI5 the majority of ‘national security Covert Human Intelligence Sources’ (CHISs) in Northern Ireland continue to be managed by PSNI under existing handling protocols. The PSNI is regularly audited by the Investigative Powers Commissioner’s Office around HUMINT compliance. There is compliance.

e. There will be no diminution of the PSNI's ability to comply with the HRA or the Policing Board’s ability to monitor said compliance.

There has been no diminution of the PSNI’s responsibility to comply with the Human Rights Act or the Policing Board’s ability to monitor said compliance throughout 2025. The PSNI ACC for Crime Operations meets regularly with the board and members have the opportunity (with support from the Board’s Human Rights Advisor) to probe, ask questions or seek clarification on police approaches, tactics, processes and operations relating to national security. There is compliance.



I wish to note the full co-operation extended to me by both MI5 and the PSNI and the support of the NIO in compiling this report.

It is my conclusion that there is full compliance with Annex E of the St Andrews Agreement between MI5 and PSNI.”

[HCWS1507]

Northern Ireland: Legacy of the Past

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), who chairs the Select Committee with such distinction, on securing the debate. I thank the members of the Select Committee who have come today, including those who I know have made a very special effort to be present. The Government have published their response to the report. I will not rehearse all those arguments and details today, but I will do my best, in the limited time I have, to respond to many of the points that have been made.

As we have heard, not least from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), the legacy of the troubles still affects the lives of many people in Northern Ireland. We need to get this right. We know how we got here: the previous piece of legislation, whatever its intentions, did not work, and that is why we have the troubles Bill before us. I am confident that the provisions contained in the Bill will bring about the necessary reform to the commission. I think it is fair to say that it had a reasonably positive response from victims and survivors and others in Northern Ireland, although there is still a deep lack of trust in what has happened.

We undoubtedly owe our Operation Banner veterans an enormous debt. I will be clear: there will be no rewriting of history. The Bill is not going to change the way in which people view the troubles. As we have hard, terrorists were responsible for the vast majority of deaths. There was always an alternative, and there never was—never will be—any equivalent between our brave armed forces and those who set out to kill their fellow citizens.

The Bill includes strong safeguards for veterans that were not in the legacy Act. They have been introduced to try to ensure that veterans have fair treatment, but I am, with the Secretary of State for Defence and the Armed Forces Minister, looking at what more we can do to build greater confidence. The House will see the result of those considerations in Committee, and the date will be set in the normal way. I have to be frank in this debate, however, that we are not going to accept any proposals that seek to reintroduce the immunity provisions. The Government disagree with immunity as a matter of principle and there is no support in Northern Ireland. Equally, there is no question of anyone who followed the rules being prosecuted.

To respond to the points raised, on funding, as I said to the Select Committee, there will need to be further discussions as the caseload of the commission unfolds. The victims and survivors advisory group has a very specific role. I made it clear that I am looking to ensure veteran representation on it. I agree with what Joe McVey said about the nature of some of our debate, but I think we have had a more balanced debate this afternoon.

On close family members, which was raised by the Chair of the Select Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray), we have to strike a balance. Clearly, if there are no close family members, other family members—for example, grandchildren—can bring cases, but the House needs to think about what happens if one family member says, “I want it investigated,” and another says, “I do not.”

On the appointment of judges, the point was made that Ministers appoint judges to public inquiries and I do not hear people saying, “That means the judges are not independent,” but of course the holder of this office will take advice from judicial experts. On disclosure, which was raised by the Chair of the Select Committee and the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), we are making two changes: there will be a duty to conduct a balancing exercise and to give reasons where possible, and it will be open to anyone to judicially review.

On the point about the Irish commitments that many Members have raised, the Irish Government have said that once our legislation is in place, they will give the fullest possible co-operation to the legacy commission. They had already established by the end of December the Garda Síochána unit and it will pursue potential investigative opportunities. I was in Dublin to discuss that earlier this month. The Irish Government have now published the legislation to enable witness evidence to be given to the Omagh inquiry. I take the point about the separation, but I think that shows good faith because I have no doubt in my mind that the legislation to give effect to that fullest possible co-operation will appear soon.

I have great respect for the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis). I do not think I have ever insulted anyone in any debate about legacy, and I respect the point that he advances. However, with respect, there are no vexatious prosecutions—please can we not use that phrase? If we go down that road, it says something about independent prosecutors that I think is not justified by the evidence. I would draw to his attention and that of the House the protected disclosure arrangements under the Independent Commission on Information Retrieval that the troubles Bill will introduce, which were negotiated by the last Government under the Stormont House agreement.

My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) made a powerful point about investigations that were shut down. I say to the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) that the protections were designed for veterans—that is why they are in the legislation—but they apply to all, mostly for the reasons that the right hon. Member for New Forest East set out: we have to treat people fairly under the law.

On sexual crimes, the Bill will deal with the gap that the legacy Act created, because there will be no alleged sexual offences that occurred during the period of the troubles that cannot be investigated, and that is extremely important. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch, who serves on the Select Committee, that this is probably our last best chance to get this right. No Member of the House shows more clearly the effect that the troubles have had on individuals and families than the hon. Member for Strangford. I agree with the hon. Member for Wimbledon that victims need to feel heard.

I say to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), for whom I also have enormous respect, that it is not a case of reopening old wounds. The wounds have never healed, which is why so many people are still searching for answers. I agree that attitudes towards the ICRIR are beginning to change; the growing caseload is a sign of that. I would, however, suggest that the fact that there will be further changes to the way it works—I took the decision not to abolish it, because I have confidence in Sir Declan, as the hon. Gentleman does—gives people greater confidence in coming forward, because that is what this is all about.

Given the wide range of views held by so many people, it will not be possible—let us be honest—to give everybody everything they are looking for. As I have said before, if dealing with legacy were easy, we would not be sitting here this afternoon debating it; it would have been done a long time ago. It is the unfinished business of the Good Friday agreement, and we have to find a balance.

I pledge to the House that I will continue listening to everyone who has views to express, including the Select Committee, because every single one of us is only too conscious of the passage of time. For families, time is running out and they still do not have the answers. That is why the Government are determined to sort this out and build the trust that has been so absent for victims, survivors, those who serve and wider society in Northern Ireland. We really must make every effort we can to get this right, above all for the families who have waited far too long for answers.

Patrick Finucane Inquiry

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Written Statements

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

On 11 September 2024, I announced the establishment of an independent statutory inquiry into the murder of Patrick Finucane in February 1989, under the Inquiries Act 2005. This decision was in response to the 2019 judgment of the Supreme Court, which found that the previous investigations into the murder had been insufficient to enable the state to discharge its obligations under article 2 of the European convention on human rights.

Today, the Government have published the terms of reference for the Patrick Finucane inquiry. This follows the appointment of the right hon. Sir Gary Hickinbottom as Chair of the Patrick Finucane inquiry and the Baroness O’Loan and Francesca Del Mese as assessors to the inquiry, which I announced on 13 June 2025.

The terms of reference have been developed following formal consultation with Sir Gary, as required by the Inquiries Act. Sir Gary, in turn, consulted the family of Patrick Finucane who provided very helpful feedback and observations. I would like to thank Sir Gary and the Finucane family for their engagement and feedback throughout the process.

Patrick Finucane was brutally murdered in his home in Belfast in front of his wife, Geraldine (who was also wounded), and his three children. This was a barbaric and heinous crime. I commend the tireless campaign of Mrs Finucane and her family over the course of 37 years in seeking answers about the brutal murder of their loved one, and I am pleased that the inquiry will now finally be able to get under way.

I am satisfied that the terms of reference, as set out below, will enable the state to discharge its obligations under article 2 of the ECHR.

I have placed a copy of the terms of reference in the Library of the House.

The Patrick Finucane inquiry is now formally established. Its terms of reference are attached.

Attachments can be viewed online at: http://www. parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2026-03-09/HCWS1387

[HCWS1387]

Oral Answers to Questions

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

6. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of Government policies on the economy in Northern Ireland.

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

The Government are supporting Northern Ireland through the four city deals, the local innovation partnerships fund, an enhanced investment zone and greater economic stability. Economic activity in Northern Ireland increased by 2.9% over the year to quarter 3, and it has the lowest unemployment in the UK.

[Joe Robertson]

The Government are giving a 50% reduction to the emissions trading scheme levy on ferries crossing between Northern Ireland and Great Britain in an apparent effort not to negatively impact the economy there. Scottish islands are getting a 100% reduction, yet the Isle of Wight is getting no reduction. What economic assessment has been done to arrive at those figures, or are they simply plucked out of thin air?

[Hilary Benn]

The figures are based on the assessment that there are particular requirements for the Scottish islands in terms of services, access to essential care and so on. That is why that exemption has been applied for Scotland. The impact of this measure on trade between GB and Northern Ireland will be very small in light of the overall costs of moving goods and transportation.

[Blake Stephenson]

While the rise in the agricultural property relief threshold to £2.5 million is a welcome step for farmers, does the Minister recognise the broader economic concern shared by the Ulster Farmers Union that inflation and steadily rising asset values will over time pull more family farms into inheritance tax liability, even when their real wealth and income may not increase?

[Hilary Benn]

As the hon. Member will be aware, the Government announced that the allowance for 100% rate relief will be increased from £1 million to £2.5 million. That means that a couple will now be able to pass on up to £5 million tax-free between them, on top of the existing allowances such as the nil-rate band. The president of the Ulster Farmers Union, William Irwin, welcomed the changes. In fact, he said:

“We are in a better position today than we were yesterday”.

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

The local growth fund was a UK Government policy that had been working to support some people outside of the labour market into decent work, helping to address Northern Ireland’s low productivity rates. The UK Government have changed that policy and the capital revenue split in a way that works for the Treasury, but not for organisations in Northern Ireland. Funded groups are being directed to PEACEPLUS, but its funding criteria does not work for most. Why are voluntary and community sector groups being asked to distort Special EU Programmes Body rules, rather than UK Government policy adapting to local needs?

[Hilary Benn]

I met the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action and CO3 last week to talk about this matter. It is a difficult situation because of how capital and resources have been allocated through the local growth fund. Of the £12 million of available resource funding, we agreed with the Executive that £3 million would go to Go Succeed at their request, and £9 million would go to economic inactivity programmes. We are exploring other potential sources of funding, of which PEACEPLUS is one. Another source is the Northern Ireland Executive’s record settlement. They had £9 million yesterday in additional Barnett consequentials. They could choose to invest some money in these programmes.

[Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that Northern Ireland, like Scotland and Wales, shares the benefits of a united United Kingdom and its collective spending power, generating jobs and opportunities across the four countries of the United Kingdom?

[Hilary Benn]

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. All parts of the United Kingdom derive strength and benefit from being part of that Union. We can see in the figures I quoted a moment ago the benefit being obtained in Northern Ireland in terms of how the economy is doing.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

The Windsor framework was meant to give Northern Ireland the best of both worlds: unfettered access to the UK internal market and barrier-free access to the EU. Not so, according to a recent survey conducted by the Federation of Small Businesses, which reports that more than half those trading between Great Britain and Northern Ireland are having difficulties, with over a third having stopped trading altogether. The figures are stark. Fewer than one in six Northern Ireland businesses say that they benefit from dual market access, while nearly 80% rate Government support as poor or very poor. Will the Secretary of State commit himself to a specific time-bound plan to make dual market access work, or does he accept that Northern Ireland got the worst of both worlds?

[Hilary Benn]

I do not accept that Northern Ireland has the worst of both worlds. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the issue facing small businesses, highlighted by the FSB report and others, including Lord Murphy’s independent report. As he will have noticed, in the Budget the Chancellor announced a £16.6 million package which will include a comprehensive one-stop-shop regulatory support service to help precisely those businesses to trade more between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

[Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)]

3. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the defence industrial strategy 2025 on Northern Ireland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

4. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the autumn Budget 2025 on Northern Ireland.

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

The autumn Budget provided Northern Ireland with an additional £370 million, on top of the record spending review settlement, and will assist families with the cost of living by cutting energy bills, lifting the two-child benefit limit and raising the minimum wage.

[Sean Woodcock]

The Government’s child poverty strategy aims to lift over 550,000 children out of poverty by 2030. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the impact of the abolition of the two-child benefit cap for families in Northern Ireland?

[Hilary Benn]

The lifting of the two-child benefit cap in Northern Ireland will help more than 17,000 children and more than 48,000 people in Northern Ireland households. We are also increasing the national minimum wage, which will benefit 170,000 people, and increasing the state pension will benefit 330,000 pensioners in Northern Ireland.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Cancer is a thief and a home-wrecker. Sadly, Northern Ireland has the worst cancer outcomes across the UK. I recently lifted the lid on breast cancer referrals, with red-flag appointments taking in excess of 14 weeks. Although the autumn Budget has been helpful, can the Minister confirm whether conversations are happening with the Treasury to ask for transformational money to help us transform our health service, so that cancer wait times and medical pathways can be improved once and for all?

[Hilary Benn]

Like the whole House, I share the hon. Member’s wish to improve cancer treatment and cancer waiting times for those who are currently waiting too long. There is the public services transformation fund, and the first phase of projects was funded last year. Decisions are about to be taken on the second phase of funding, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick) mentioned, there also needs to be reform of the way in which the health service works. We are seeing progress under Mike Nesbitt’s leadership, and we need to see more.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister—welcome.

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

The increase in national insurance contributions is having a devastating impact on the hospitality sector in Northern Ireland, with over a quarter of businesses reporting losses and a further 20% only breaking even. How is the Northern Ireland Executive expected to achieve their target of doubling tourism in the next 10 years if the Chancellor of the Exchequer is putting pubs, restaurants and hotels out of business?

[Hilary Benn]

The increase in national insurance was a decision that the Government took to deal with the inheritance left by the last Government. [Interruption.] That is a fact, and no one can argue that it is not the case. We needed to put the economy on a stable footing. The fact that the Northern Ireland economy is growing, and that Northern Ireland has the lowest unemployment in the United Kingdom, is a sign of the fundamental strength of the economy in Northern Ireland.

[Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)]

5. What recent discussions he has had with the Northern Ireland Executive on education.

--- Later in debate ---

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

7. What steps he is taking to help ensure adequate accountability for troubles-era violence for members of the IRA.

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

There are currently six republican paramilitaries facing prosecution for troubles-related killings. The legacy commission is already investigating a number of IRA atrocities, including the M62 coach bombing, the Guildford pub bombing and the Warrenpoint massacre. Under the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, the commission will benefit from information sharing by the Irish authorities.

[David Davis]

Some 2,058 people died at the hands of republican paramilitaries during the troubles—2,058—but despite that fact, only 19 IRA members are currently in prison. The Secretary of State laughably claims there was no amnesty under the Good Friday agreement, and he gives us only the few he has just mentioned. Can he tell the House how many prosecutions of IRA members he expects to arise under his troubles Bill, and how many families of people murdered by the IRA will find out what happened to their relatives?

[Hilary Benn]

The answer to the right hon. Member’s first question is that it will depend, as he well knows, on the evidence in any individual case, and that decision will be taken by public prosecutors in the normal way. On his second question, he will be aware that between 25,000 and 35,000 paramilitaries were imprisoned during the troubles for a range of offences, including murder, and the purpose of the reform is to ensure that more families are able to find answers to the questions, which they are still asking, about what happened to their loved ones.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

On the subject of troubles-era violence, this week my Committee published a unanimous report calling on the Government to formally name agent Stakeknife. The Government have said that the Supreme Court judgment in the Thompson case has implications for their decision, but lead officers have said it does not. What is preventing the Government from naming Stakeknife, and when do they plan to do so?

[Hilary Benn]

I have, of course, seen the report that the Select Committee has published. There are ongoing civil proceedings and the Government, as I indicated previously, are still considering the implications of the Supreme Court’s Thompson judgment for this decision. I have promised the House that I will return when the Government have reached a decision on the request made by Sir Iain Livingstone, and I intend to honour that promise.

[David Davis]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In view of the inadequate response that I received from the Secretary of State on Question 7, I give notice that I intend to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Act 2022

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Written Statements

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

I wish to provide an update to the House regarding the Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Act 2022.

The New Decade, New Approach deal, which was instrumental to the restoration of the Northern Ireland Executive in 2020 (after a three-year absence) included an agreed legislative framework for progressing identity and language commitments: the Act.

The Act received Royal Assent in December 2022. Specific provisions in sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Act were commenced in May 2023, establishing the following roles: (1) director of the office for identity and cultural expression; (2) Irish language commissioner; and (3) commissioner for the Ulster Scots and Ulster British tradition.

I warmly welcome the Northern Ireland Executive’s decision in October 2025 to appoint Pol Deeds as the Irish language commissioner; Lee Reynolds as the commissioner for the Ulster Scots and Ulster British Tradition; and Dr Katy Radford as the director of the office of identity and cultural expression.

In order that they may now carry out their duties, I am today commencing further provisions in sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Act, following a request from the Executive Office.

Provisions being commenced in section 1 relate to the principles of national and cultural identity to which public authorities must have due regard, as well as the functions and responsibilities of the director of the office of identity and cultural expression.

Provisions being commenced in section 2 outline the functions and responsibilities of the Irish language commissioner in developing and promoting best practice standards in relation to the Irish language.

Finally, provisions in section 3 relate to the functions and responsibilities of the commissioner for Ulster Scots and the Ulster British tradition in promoting the language, arts and literature associated with Ulster Scots, as well as developing and promoting guidance in relation to Ulster Scots.

In commencing these provisions, we are continuing to ensure respect and tolerance for all of Northern Ireland’s diverse identities, cultures, languages and traditions.

[HCWS1282]

Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That the draft Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 (Remedial) Order 2025, which was laid before this House on 14 October 2025, be approved.

As every one of us knows, Northern Ireland continues to live with the legacy of the troubles. Over 3,500 people lost their lives during that period of brutal violence, including almost 2,000 civilians and over 1,000 people who were killed while bravely serving the state. We owe them, and always will, a huge debt of gratitude. Ninety per cent of all those who lost their lives were killed by paramilitaries. Each person was someone’s father, brother, sister, mother or child; each one a tragic loss of life.

In 1998, the people of Northern Ireland chose to leave this legacy of violence behind them when they voted for the Good Friday agreement, but for too many families of the victims, questions remain as to why their loved ones died and at whose hands. There have been many efforts to address the legacy of the troubles since, including the Stormont House agreement, reached between the last Government and the Irish Government in 2014, and, most recently, the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023.

It is now beyond doubt that that last attempt—the legacy Act—whatever its intentions, fundamentally failed. It failed because it has been found in many respects to be incompatible with our human rights obligations; the legislation simply did not work on its own terms. But even more importantly, it failed because it did not command any support in Northern Ireland among victims and survivors or the political parties.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

I commend the Secretary of State for the careful and thoughtful work that he has done to bring the House to this place today. Does he agree that, with this remedial order, he is doing the right thing for victims? That means ordinary people, including veterans and the wider armed forces community, all of whom were injured or lost loved ones. They are the people we have in our minds today. It was the Conservatives’ bad legislation that led us to have to pass a remedial order, for only the 11th time since the second world war. Does he agree that—

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

I agree with my hon. Friend that the legacy Act needed dealing with. Any Government that came into office in summer 2024 would have to be doing what we are doing.

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

It is worth bringing to the House’s attention again the fact that the legacy Act, whatever its legality or otherwise, was predicated on our membership of the European convention on human rights. Does the Secretary of State agree, and will he reflect on the fact, that there was an appeal against the supposed illegality of the Act at the time of the general election by the previous Government, and this Government decided to ditch it?

[Hilary Benn]

That is indeed a wholly accurate description of the sequence of events, because this Government do not agree with immunity as a matter of principle—I will go on to advance the argument a little later—but the Act was also, as the right hon. Gentleman points out, found to be incompatible with our obligations as a nation because we continue to be signatories to the European convention on human rights.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

I am extremely grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way; he is an immensely courteous Member of this House and always has been. He will be aware, however, that there is a live legal case by the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement, and that the very Human Rights Act he cited says that this kind of order ought not to be moved—indeed, it would be ultra vires—while a case is proceeding. How does he feel about that, and will he explain to the House why we are debating this at all given all that I have said?

[Hilary Benn]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that point. If he will bear with me, I will come very directly to precisely that point a little later in my speech.

It is the Government’s view that there is both a legal necessity and an imperative for us to act, and this remedial order is the first step in that process. The remedial order will remove two key effects of the provisions of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 that were found by the courts in the Dillon case to be incompatible with our human rights obligations.

One of the main reasons for the failure of the legacy Act was its attempt to grant immunity, including to terrorists who murdered, in cold blood, soldiers and civilians in Northern Ireland and in towns and cities across England. In fairness, it probably seemed reassuring to veterans, and it was almost certainly reassuring to terrorists who had committed those acts, but it was a false promise that protected no one. It was never commenced, which is a very important fact. It was rejected by the courts as being incompatible with our legal obligations and, as a result, it was never implemented. No one ever got immunity, and while it may remain on the statute book, in practice it does not exist.

Nevertheless, while the Act has not been commenced, for many families any uncertainty about their loved ones’ killers being granted immunity has been a deterrent to coming forward to seek answers from the independent commission. There has also been opposition from some who served in Northern Ireland, because immunity undermines the rule of law that they were seeking to uphold.

David Crabbe, an Ulster Defence Regiment veteran who sits on the victims and survivors forum, said of immunity:

“The vast majority of veterans living in Northern Ireland did not want or feel as if they needed this protection. It was viewed as a perversion of the law, that went against the ethos of what those who served stood for, and what their role was in preserving law and order.”

And it was not only a false promise; it created a false equivalence between veterans on the one hand and terrorists on the other, and it still technically sits on the statute book today.

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

May I remind the Secretary of State—I know that he knows it, as he has heard it from me and others many times before—that there is nothing about creating a false equivalence between the two? Everybody is equal before the law. If anything created a false equivalence, it was the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, which said that no matter how many murders a paramilitary had committed, and no matter how many illegal acts, if any, a soldier had committed, neither of them would ever serve more than two years of a sentence. That equivalence is there. It is not moral equivalence; it is equivalence before the law, and the 2023 Act did not initiate it.

[Hilary Benn]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right when he describes the provisions of the 1998 legislation, but as he knows, that policy, along with the rest of the Good Friday agreement, was supported by just over 70% of the people of Northern Ireland in the referendum. It was a very bitter pill to swallow for many people in Northern Ireland, but it was a price to be paid for peace.

The point I am making in relation to this remedial order is that the last Government chose to legislate to give immunity to veterans and to terrorists on the same basis. The noble Lord Dodds said of the legacy Bill—which, by the way, he described as “rotten”—that it

“basically elevates terrorists and perpetrators of violence above their victims. That is fundamentally wrong.”

That is why we are bringing forward this remedial order to remove those provisions on immunity that have done so much damage to trust in Northern Ireland. Doing so will provide clarity and certainty ahead of the wider, significant reforms contained in the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill.

The remedial order will also remove the bar on troubles-related civil cases that stripped UK citizens of their right to seek redress. Section 43 of the 2023 Act left some 800 troubles-related civil cases involving the Ministry of Defence untouched.

[David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend may shortly be coming on to this, but civil cases have been raised as a concern given the potential for lawfare, notwithstanding that people like Gerry Adams are also subject to civil action in the coming months. Will he outline what he expects in terms of civil cases against those who served in our military or security services?

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. Those 800 cases were untouched and the Act allowed them to carry on—that is a very important point, given some very inaccurate press reporting at the beginning of this week, of which I am sure many right hon. and hon. Members are aware—but it did stop about 230 new civil claims proceeding. Those claims were lodged after First Reading of the legacy Bill, and about 120 of them are against the MOD. It also prevented any more claims from being brought in future. The point I am making is that there are 800 cases already there, left untouched by the last Government’s legacy Act, and 120 cases against the MOD that have been added since that will be enabled to proceed if the remedial order passes. As we know, that bar on new civil cases was found by the courts to be incompatible with our legal obligations.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

I intend to return to this matter in my contribution later on, but the issue of civil cases highlights most starkly the discord even between the courts. The High Court in Belfast focused only on the retrospective application of the provisions on civil cases, but the Court of Appeal then said that not only should it not be retrospective, but it should have no application in the future. There was a disagreement between the High Court and the Court of Appeal about the import of the measure, yet the Secretary of State, more determined to pursue his policy objective than the law, decided not to appeal that issue in the Supreme Court. That is why there are questions about the appropriate nature of this remedial order—does he accept that?

[Hilary Benn]

It is not unusual for higher courts to take a different view on a matter to that taken by lower courts—that is the way the law works. I would give the same answer to the right hon. Gentleman that I gave to an earlier intervention, which is that the Government’s view is that citizens of the United Kingdom should be able to bring civil cases as a matter of principle.

[Gavin Robinson]

indicated dissent.

[Hilary Benn]

The right hon. Gentleman may disagree, but that is the view of the Government, and that is why we withdrew the appeal in relation to that element of the judgments to which he just referred.

We should remember that civil cases have been brought by family members of victims who were murdered during the troubles against the paramilitaries who were responsible. In 2009, four individuals were found by a civil court to be responsible for the Omagh bombing. There has also been a civil case looking into the Hyde Park bombing, where John Downey was found to be an active participant in the killing of four soldiers, and—this was referred to a moment ago—a civil case against Gerry Adams is due to take place in London this year. Therefore, to vote against this remedial order would be to prevent any more such cases from being brought against paramilitaries in future.

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

As the Secretary of State well knows, the Blair Government handed out hundreds of so-called letters of comfort to alleged IRA paramilitaries following their release from prison. John Downey, the alleged Hyde Park bomber, produced such a letter during his trial at the Old Bailey, whereupon the trial was immediately abandoned. Our Northern Ireland veterans have no such letters of comfort. Does the Secretary of State agree that that letter of comfort let John Downey off on that particular occasion?

[Hilary Benn]

As I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is well aware, in that case Mr Downey was issued with a letter of comfort wrongly. The letter said, “We’re not seeking you for anything,” when clearly the state was seeking him for something because he had been charged with the Hyde Park bombing. As I recall, the judge said, “Well, I’m afraid this is an abuse of process,” and stopped the case. However, the letter that Mr Downey received did not give him immunity, because he is currently—this is a matter of public record—awaiting trial, charged with the murder of two soldiers in, I think, 1972. That proves what many have said, including former Prime Ministers, the chief constable and judges, which is that the letters of comfort—the on-the-run letters—never did, and do not now, grant anybody immunity.

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

The right hon. Gentleman changes the subject, from what the letter of comfort was given for to what it was not given for, which does not prove anything about the letter of comfort. What is the case is that the judge said at the time that he could not rule on the case because the state had made a promise to Mr Downey, and that prevented the case. We also have the Queen’s grant of mercy, which is an amnesty, and people were released early, which is another form of amnesty. For the Secretary of State to say that the Good Friday agreement did not involve amnesties is simply in defiance of the facts.

[Hilary Benn]

If we are going to get on to the facts, the early release scheme was part of the Good Friday agreement, and the people of Northern Ireland voted for that agreement knowing what it involved. The royal prerogative of mercy was granted, but it never gave pardons and the convictions of those who received it were never quashed. It was put in place to allow for those individuals who, for technical reasons, could not be eligible for the early release scheme—that is the history of that. On the letters of comfort, the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), who is very learned in these matters, has not challenged the basic argument that I have put, which is that the fact that Mr Downey is currently awaiting prosecution proves that the letter he received did not give him immunity from prosecution.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

On that point, will the Secretary of State give way?

[Hilary Benn]

I will make some progress.

We cannot and should not allow the victims of the troubles to be denied redress through the courts. That is our view of principle, although I recognise that the leader of the Democratic Unionist party, the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), takes a different view.

I will now turn to the argument that the House should delay the approval of the remedial order, which we heard advanced in the House before Christmas. Section 10(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 allows a remedial order to be made on two grounds: first, if there has been declaration of incompatibility in relation to a provision of legislation and an appeal against the declaration has been “determined or abandoned”—the word “abandoned” is really important here—and secondly, if there are “compelling reasons” to do so.

The High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland clearly made a declaration of incompatibility in relation to immunity, and in July 2024 the newly elected Government abandoned these aspects of our appeal. The Government are therefore clear that the issue of incompatibility for the immunity and civil claims provisions are no longer part of the appeal now before the Supreme Court.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

The Secretary of State needs to go back to what the High Court judgment said in the Dillon case. If he looks at paragraph 710, he will see that the basis of ruling that immunity was unlawful was not just in respect of the ECHR, but also in respect of article 2 of the Windsor framework. That aspect, which is wholly intertwined with this question, is the subject of an appeal presently before the High Court. How can it be that a challenge that caused the High Court to decree that something was non-applicable was based upon the applicability of article 2 of the Windsor framework, and there is an appeal on that point? How is that not something that rules this order out under section 10?

[Hilary Benn]

It does not rule it out under section 10 for this reason: there are two parts to the court’s ruling in relation to immunity. The first part was that the court found immunity to be incompatible with our international human rights obligations. The Government withdrew an appeal against that finding. That finding remains because the appeal was abandoned by the Government, and that gives the Government the right to proceed with the remedial order. The second part of the judgment was that, in addition to finding the immunity provisions incompatible with the ECHR, the court decided to strike them down under article 2 of the Windsor framework. The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite correct that the Government are continuing with the appeal in that respect, because there is a genuine argument, which the Government have advanced, as to whether article 2 is being interpreted in the right way, because it seems like rather an expansive interpretation.

The fact that the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement was granted permission to intervene in relation to the interpretation of article 2 of the Windsor framework—that is what the court allowed it to come in and talk about—and the fact that the court is considering the question of the interpretation of article 2, do not and cannot alter the fundamental legal reality that immunity has been found to be incompatible with the European convention.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Hilary Benn]

I will give way to the two Members I have seen standing, and then I will bring my remarks to a close so that others can contribute.

[Jim Allister]

May I refer the Secretary of State to what paragraph 710(ii) of the Dillon judgment says? It says:

“Pursuant to section 7A of the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018 article 2 of the Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol/Windsor Framework has primacy over these provisions thereby rendering them of no force and effect. These provisions should therefore be disapplied”,

because of article 2. Article 2 is before the Supreme Court, so it is inextricably linked to section 10.

[Hilary Benn]

With great respect, I disagree. In answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman’s first intervention, I tried to explain that he is right in what he reads out in relation to article 2; it is the subject of a continuing appeal. However, the declaration of incompatibility under the ECHR remains, because the court ruled both of those things. It is not at issue in the appeal, and that gives the Government the ability to bring forward an order under section 10. I will give way to the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), but then I will bring my remarks to a close.

[Lincoln Jopp]

This is all getting quite technical, so I want to come back to the fundamentals of justice. If the Secretary of State were able to, would he like to give immunity to our veterans?

[Hilary Benn]

I am of the view that I listen. I quoted what David Crabbe said earlier, and he was opposed to immunity. The Government have listened to what the veterans commissioners and many others have said, which is, “We do not want immunity, and we are not calling for immunity; we want fairness under the law.” I have made it clear to the House that the Government do not agree with immunity as a matter of principle. When our brave soldiers put on the King’s uniform, they are upholding the law and operating underneath it. As Ben Wallace, the distinguished former Defence Secretary, said, “We abide by the rule of law; that is what makes us better than the terrorists.”

Section 10 of the Human Rights Act also requires that I have “compelling reasons” to proceed. Although the Government have indeed introduced primary legislation, we are clear that these repeals need to happen as quickly as possible. Why? Because we need to provide clarity on immunity to build trust among victims, survivors and, indeed, veterans in the independent commission, because while immunity remains on the statute book, it will be harder for them to obtain the confidence of some victims and survivors.

[Lincoln Jopp]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Hilary Benn]

I will continue.

I have tried to cover the point that some have argued, particularly in the other place, that we should delay the remedial order until the Supreme Court ruling in the Dillon judgment. It is really easy to ask the Government to wait, but I think it is much harder to ask families who have endured unimaginable suffering at the hands of paramilitary violence, including forces families, to continue to wait while time marches on. As we know, many of them are elderly and have been waiting a very long time for answers.

In my view, and in the Government’s view, we should make these repeals as early as possible through the remedial order so that we have a legal framework that is fair, just and compliant with human rights. I have described it as a downpayment on trust ahead of the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, and I will do so again. That is why I am firmly of the view that the Government have compelling reasons for proceeding with this order. Even more importantly, this is also the view of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, to which I am grateful for its diligent consideration of this matter.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Hilary Benn]

Since it is my friend the hon. Member, I will give way one last time.

[Jim Shannon]

On the point of trust, just so that we get it on record, is there any guarantee that the Republic of Ireland will withdraw the inter-state case if this legislation passes?

[Hilary Benn]

The basis of the Republic of Ireland’s inter-state case, which is a matter for the Republic of Ireland—[Interruption.] Just let me answer the question; I will do my best to respond. The basis of the inter-state case was that the last Government’s legacy Act was incompatible with the European convention on human rights. It is correct in advancing that argument, because the courts in Northern Ireland have found the last Government’s legacy Act to be incompatible in a number of respects. The Government’s job is to ensure that the legislation is made compatible, so that everyone in Northern Ireland can have confidence in the framework that we are trying to put in place, with as much support as possible. At that moment, there will be no basis for the inter-state case any more. What the Irish Government do with that case is a matter for them, but it will have no basis and it will not be able to go anywhere, because the House of Commons and the other place will have remedied the incompatibilities.

I am grateful to the Joint Committee on Human Rights for its diligent consideration of this matter.

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

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Hilary Benn]

No.

[Mr Francois]

He is on the Committee.

[Hilary Benn]

Well, how could I resist?

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

I just ask the Secretary of State to acknowledge that the Committee’s opinion was not unanimous.

[Hilary Benn]

I was not about to advance the argument that it was a unanimous decision, but many a piece of legislation and many a report of a Committee throughout the history of this House has been passed on a majority vote. That is how we reach decisions, and the JCHR could not have been clearer in its second report: recognising the

“unique and delicate circumstances surrounding Northern Ireland legacy matters…the Government has”

sufficiently

“compelling reasons to proceed by way of remedial order”.

The Committee has recommended that this order be approved by both Houses of Parliament, and I urge the House to heed that recommendation by voting for the order tonight.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

We have had a very full and wide-ranging debate in which many different contributions have been made, demonstrating once again just how difficult it is to deal with legacy—I think that is a truth around which we can all rally. If it were easy, it would have been dealt with a very long time ago, but its difficulty does not mean that we should not attempt to deal with it.

The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) made his case. I gently say that I was slightly disappointed when he suggested at the end that the Government are doing this for reasons that are, in some way, hidden or unknown, or that may only be discovered in the years to come. I hope he would accept that the Government’s reasons are very clear.

First, the order will deal with the failure of the previous Government’s legacy Act, for the reasons that I tried to set out in my opening remarks: failure legally and failure because it gained no consent from people in Northern Ireland.

[Stuart Anderson]

The Secretary of State said there is no consensus in Northern Ireland. Having listened to tonight’s speeches, does he believe his approach has achieved that?

[Hilary Benn]

I have listened very carefully to every single contribution, and I think it is fair to say that the majority of people speaking in this debate do not agree with immunity. They might not all vote for the remedial order tonight, but they do not agree with immunity, and that is the Government’s position. I respect those who take a different view, but I think it is a failed policy—it does not exist. We are charged with taking away something that does not exist, was never enacted and was found incompatible by the courts.

[Alex Burghart]

The right hon. Gentleman is generous in giving way. Does he accept that conditional immunity, which is all that was in the legacy Act, is the very foundation of all the legislation passed after 1998? For the Labour party now to pretend that it is in some way morally abhorrent is utterly inconsistent.

[Hilary Benn]

What I am saying is that the Government do not agree with the conditional immunity contained in the legacy Act. The word “conditional” is always used as if it does not necessarily guarantee that immunity will be granted, but I urge Members who think that to go and read the legislation passed by the last Government.

If someone comes forward, whoever they are, and gives a full and truthful account that persuades the commission that it is a full and truthful account of what they did which would have been a criminal offence, the legislation does not say, “Well, you can make your mind up and decide whether to grant it or not.” The legislation passed by the last Government said that the commission must grant immunity. In those circumstances, it does not sound very conditional to me.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Hilary Benn]

I am going to make some progress because I am trying to respond to the many points raised in the debate.

The second reason we are doing this is that we want those who are still seeking answers to be able to seek them in a system that they have confidence in, and there has not been confidence under the previous Government’s legacy Act, for the reasons we have heard, including from Northern Ireland Members.

The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) made a very powerful contribution in defence of our human rights obligations, and I am grateful for his support and that of his party for the remedial order. We heard important contributions on both sides of the argument—I recognise that, and I recognise the sincerity and force with which those arguments were made. On the Government Benches we heard contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger), and for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey). If I may say so, the hon. Members for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) and for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) both made extremely strong and well-argued cases.

The right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) says that we should wait. He is perfectly entitled to advance that argument, but he is one of the majority of those who have taken part in the debate who are in favour of getting rid of immunity, which is what the remedial order does. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) said that nobody is interested in those who were affected by the Kingsmill massacre. I disagree with that. As he will know, the Kingsmill massacre is currently the subject of an investigation by the legacy commission, and I hope that, along with all those investigations, it is able to make progress.

[Gavin Robinson]

I understand why the Secretary of State focuses on amnesty, because it means that he does not have to focus on the things he did not include, which are also incompatible, or on other things that are included. Can he indicate to the House what he will do if the Supreme Court says that he is wrong, and therefore this remedial order was wholly inappropriate?

[Hilary Benn]

We are all subject to the decisions of the Court. The right hon. Gentleman asks a hypothetical question, and, like answers to all hypotheticals, I would say that we will cross that bridge if and when we come to it.

I am afraid that the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) is wrong on the question of interim custody orders, because he has not caught up with what the Government have done. The one difference between the first version of the remedial order and the one we are debating, is that the Government listened to arguments that were made, which said, “Why are you taking sections 46 and 47 off the legislation?” Those sections were added very late in the day during consideration of the legacy Bill in an attempt to deal with the consequences of the 2020 Supreme Court judgment. That did not uphold the Carltona principle—which, as the House knows, has long held that anything signed by a junior Minister has the force of the signature of the Secretary of State. In that case, the Supreme Court decided that it would not apply that to the signing of interim custody orders. We decided to leave that defence there, even though it has proved flimsy because it did not win out in the Fitzsimons case, and we are bringing forward legislation that we think will do the task of restoring the legality of those interim custody orders that were signed, whether by the Secretary of State at the time or by other Ministers. That is extremely important.

The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) spoke about his friend Robert Nairac, and we are all living in hope that his remains, and the other three sets of remains, will be found. The Independent Commission for the Location of Victims’ Remains said, “If you give information about the location of remains, anything that is found and the information you have given us cannot be used in a prosecution”.

[Lincoln Jopp]

rose—

[Hilary Benn]

I am not going to give way because I want to respond to the other points raised.

What the commission set out is what is known as a protected disclosure—a protected disclosure that the previous Government agreed to when they reached the Stormont House agreement and came up with the idea of the information recovery body. That is part of the troubles Bill that we have published, but there is a world of difference between a protected disclosure and immunity from prosecution.

It has been suggested that this is about relitigating who won, but the answer to that question is already crystal clear: peace won. Peace won in Northern Ireland because of the Good Friday agreement. This is not about placating anyone; it is about seeking to do the right thing. It is not about dredging up the past.

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

That is exactly what it is.

[Hilary Benn]

No, it is not about dredging up the past. Like many right hon. and hon. Members, I have met far too many people—the families of victims—who live with the past every single day, and have done for the past 20, 30, 40 or 50 years. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) laid bare the pain, the sorrow and the heartache that the loss of loved ones has caused to so many people across Northern Ireland. That pain, sorrow and heartache is as powerful today as it was, I suspect, on the day that they first heard the news of the death of their loved ones.

The Government are seeking to put in place a system in which more people can have confidence—because there was not widespread confidence in the previous Government’s legacy Act on the part of victims, survivors, political parties and others in Northern Ireland—so that, where it is possible, answers can be found. You only have to look at the figures for prosecutions to see that they are diminishing rapidly. There are nine cases that are currently live and, by the way, seven of them relate to paramilitaries and one relates to the Army. When it is said that these measures are only about the armed forces, that is not correct because that is not what the evidence shows currently; there are nine live cases, seven of which relate to paramilitaries.

We will return to the troubles Bill in Committee, and I hope that the House will be able to come together to fashion a system that more people can have confidence in, so that the people we have met and heard from, who are still tortured by the fact that they have not had answers as to what happened to their loved ones, may have the chance to find those answers. It is in that spirit that I ask the House to support this remedial order.

Question put,