Police Service of Northern Ireland Training College

Jim Allister Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I commend the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) for securing this debate. I support both the concept of and the need for a proper training facility of modern standards for the PSNI. As has been referred to, some years ago, there was a proposition to have the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service, the Prison Service and the PSNI on a joint training site at Desertcreat. Frankly, that would have cost a lot less than the cumulative cost now facing the PSNI alongside what was spent at Desertcreat for the Fire and Rescue Service. It was, perhaps, rather short-sighted not to have proceeded with that expenditure at that time.

Policing is now a devolved matter, and the Minister will no doubt tell us today that the responsibility for it lies with the Stormont Executive. Maybe the devolving of policing, as some of us said at the time, was not such a good idea after all; if it had not been devolved, then there would be no hiding place for the Minister. There would be no batting this away and saying, “That is for Stormont.” The obligation would be—as I think it always should have been—with the Minister and the Northern Ireland Office.

We are now in a situation where the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland is bidding for £116 million but, from what I can see, there has been no positive response from the Department of Finance in Stormont. She can make as many bids as she likes, but until the money is granted, nothing is going to happen. Is something going to happen under a Sinn Féin Finance Minister, who would far rather squander money on net zero madness, needless and expensive Irish language signing, and useless north-south bodies? I would dare to say that the PSNI and its needs are pretty far down the Sinn Féin Finance Minister’s list of priorities.

It would be far better if policing had never been devolved. Then, if this need had still existed, we could have come here today and really put it to the Minister that it was his responsibility and his Government’s obligation, and that they were the ones who were failing. Instead, he can rightly say, to a significant extent, that it is Stormont that has failed to provide the policing facilities. That was one of many mistakes made in respect of devolution.

Yes, we need a training centre, but what will the training there encompass? I ask that question in light of the controversy last week in this place about the need to readjust the training directives for police officers in the United Kingdom, which had gone overboard in terms of their political correctness. Is the same thing going to happen in respect of the PSNI?

I suspect that it is, because when I look at the PSNI’s “Race and Ethnicity Action Plan 2025-2030”, I read about matters such as:

“mandatory… cultural competence training to all…officers”.

What on earth does that mean? In paragraph 3.3.2 of the plan, I read language that speaks of:

“Interacting…in an…appropriate and culturally sensitive way”.

What does that mean?

In Great Britain, we have seen training that reduced the scandal of what happened to Mr Nowak, when police arrived and, on the playing of the race card, automatically looked for the white man. That is what happened in that case. Is that what will happen in Northern Ireland under this PSNI training? If it is, we can do without it. We want policing based on training that is fundamentally fair and equal for all. Frankly, it is no comfort that this “ethnicity action plan” is to be overseen by our highly politicised and politically perverse Equality Commission. If that body has anything to do with the plan, then it will definitely head in the wrong way.

There need to be lessons learned right across this United Kingdom, including from the attack on young Mr Nowak. There need to be lessons learned about the abomination of what has become a corrupting political correctness, which is affecting training for our services. People just want policemen who act fairly, who act swiftly, who act correctly and who are not constantly looking over their shoulders and wondering whether or not, when they do the right thing, they are offending some madness in some ethnicity action plan.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I certainly agree with all that the hon. and learned Member has said with regard to ethnicity.

In relation to the police, we have to commend those young officers who go out daily and put themselves in harm’s way to protect our community. However, does the hon. and learned Member agree that there is a real disconnect with the senior leadership of the PSNI with regard to community engagement? We only have to look at the weekend event in Scarva, when political representatives had to step in and ensure that the PSNI dealt with protesters in the same way—with equality—when they were dealing with a parade that was highly political, in which people were carrying “From the river to the sea” banners, which are highly offensive and constitute a hate crime. Does he agree that the PSNI needs training around dealing with the Protestant Unionist Loyalist community, and start to listen to their concerns on the ground, and engage with them on the issues that matter to them?

[Jim Allister]

I absolutely agree. I think that Saturday at Scarva was an object lesson in how not to do public order policing, because the mentality that seemed to infect all that was to inhibit, and even to seek to provoke—what I saw seemed to be of that order—those who were legitimately exercising a peaceful protest. Even in that regard, the changing of the designation and determination of the Parades Commission on when and where a protest was held seems to me to be ultra vires of the police powers that surround that. The police need to take a long, hard look at themselves in how they conducted those public order policing matters on Saturday.

Having said all that, we do need a police force. We need those who serve our community, but we need them to serve it even-handedly—to serve everyone with equality and not to have anyone think that they are above the law or, indeed, to have anyone perpetuated in that view by a pandering to them. There are lessons there to be learned.

Let us get a proper training course and training location for our police. Let us also get our numbers to where they should be. Chris Patten told us that we were to have 7,500 police officers. Today, I think we have 6,200. That is way short, and again I think that is a failure of the devolution of policing. Certainly, as Members of Parliament we would be in a much stronger position to really hold the Minister to account if policing had never been devolved. For me, this is confirmation of the folly of that action.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Mr Robinson, I know that due to duties in the Chamber you had, entirely properly, to arrive after the start of the debate; if you wish to speak, we can accommodate you.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Patrick]

I hear the right hon. Gentleman’s comments. Securing locally agreed arrangements for managing parades in Northern Ireland is the best option for sustainable, long-term reform. The UK Government are committed to continuing to work with local parties and others to secure the restoration of those institutions. Until such time as alternative, locally agreed arrangements are forthcoming, the Parades Commission remains the only legally constituted body that can adjudicate contentious parades in Northern Ireland. Ensuring that communities in Northern Ireland can peacefully celebrate and demonstrate their culture in an environment of respect and tolerance is of the utmost importance.

I will draw my remarks to a conclusion.

[Jim Allister]

Has it come to this? The Labour party-sponsored Patten report recommended 7,500 police officers and a new training centre. Do this Labour Government feel no connection or commitment to that? Are they happy to wash their hands of it?

[Matthew Patrick]

Not at all: I feel a connection and commitment. The way to deliver that commitment is to respect devolution and give a record financial settlement—more than at any time in the history of devolution—so that the Executive can make that determination. That is important, in terms of both showing respect and funding.

I again thank the hon. Member for North Down for securing the debate and all right hon. and hon. Members for how it has been conducted. This year marks 25 years since the establishment of the PSNI, following the recommendation of the Patten review of policing. That is a significant milestone for the PSNI and for Northern Ireland. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the brave men and women who have served in the PSNI for their tireless work in keeping people safe in Northern Ireland and across the UK.

It is right at this anniversary to take stock of policing in Northern Ireland and celebrate the dramatic improvement in the security situation over the past 25 years. As we do so, there is not an ounce of complacency in this room or this Government about the threat that still exists. As others have said, it is right to look back at the Patten review of policing, which was such a crucial step in realising the goals of the Good Friday agreement. Important recommendations made in the review had the commendable aim of creating a police service that could attract cross-community support and legitimacy. I understand that, according to the PSNI, around 90% of the Patten recommendations have been met.

One outstanding recommendation is the establishment of a new police training college. Progress is clearly being made in realising that goal; I suspect the hon. Member for North Down will be pushing that along each and every step of the way. Given that policing and justice are devolved—a Patten recommendation—the next steps for the establishment of the training college are for the PSNI, the Northern Ireland Policing Board and the Department of Justice to determine. I am sure that they will have heard the powerful and compelling arguments in this debate about the importance of a new training college and the service it would give the PSNI in its duties to keep the people of Northern Ireland safe and do its crucial work.

Let me reiterate the importance of the Executive agreeing and delivering a sustainable, balanced, multi-year budget. The hon. Member for North Down has made a strong case for continued investment and development of the site in his constituency. Others have invited me to ask other Departments of this Government to step in. It is important to note that the money available to the Executive is a record settlement—more than at any point in the history of devolution. That gives the means to the Executive to make these decisions and to fund the Department of Justice and the PSNI as they see fit.

I believe that all the decision makers, whether the Policing Board, the Executive, the Department of Justice, the Chief Constable or the PSNI, will have heard, and not just in this debate, the calls for funding from the hon. Member for North Down and others. I am sure that we will also hear those calls in future debates.

North Belfast: Violent Attack

Jim Allister Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

I join the hon. Member in reasserting the right of every citizen of our country to protest peacefully, but we have seen in the past that there are those, provoked by others, who have sought to use that opportunity to then promote violence and disorder. I join the hon. Member in saying that of course everyone has the right to express their view through peaceful protest, but if we want to support the PSNI, the last thing people should be doing is stretching its resources across Northern Ireland to deal with protests that are not going to help anyone, and that are not going to assist in the furtherance of the investigation so that the perpetrator can be brought to face justice. That is the way we do things in our country, is it not?

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

We are all shocked by the sheer savagery of this attack. Indeed, the only bright spot in this orgy of violence was the brave intervention of local citizens, whose courage we salute. What I want to know, and what I know that my constituents want to hear, is what will be done to stop the importation of an alien culture that thinks it is appropriate to try to behead someone within the United Kingdom.

On the immigration status of this person, did they hold a visa before they came to the United Kingdom? Did they obtain a visa having come illegally to the United Kingdom? I think we are entitled to know. This House should be getting its information from the Secretary of State, not from a chief constable’s press conference. The House is entitled to know, because truth and transparency are the greatest antidote to rising tensions, so can we have the answers?

[Hilary Benn]

I am sorry that the hon. and learned Gentleman used the words “alien culture”; what exactly is he referring to? What the British people have had enough of is anyone, from wherever they come and whatever their background, who seeks to commit violence against citizens of the United Kingdom. That is what we together are strongly opposed to.

There is a proper procedure that needs to be followed in relation to the release of information. It is a live investigation and it is right and proper that the police lead on that, which is why it is the police who have been in touch with the Home Office and will provide further information. As soon as I am able to update the House, I will do so. I am in favour of as much information as possible being provided, once process has been followed to make sure that it can be confirmed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Allister Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

I will certainly join the hon. Member in expressing those thanks to all those who served with such distinction in Northern Ireland during the troubles to keep people safe. The Dillon judgment has provided extremely important clarity about the correct interpretation of the Windsor framework, as I said a moment ago. It also reinforces the case that the Government make: that we need to put protections for veterans, which were not contained in the last legacy Act, on the statute book.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

I welcome the rebuff in the Dillon judgment for the article 2 expansionist demands of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and of the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland. Does the Secretary of State accept that rights in Northern Ireland must evolve according to United Kingdom law, not European Union law? Thus, on the gender issue, does he accept that the ruling of the Supreme Court on the supremacy of biological sex must prevail?

[Hilary Benn]

That is indeed what the Supreme Court found in that particular important case. The Equality Act 2010 applies in only limited ways in Northern Ireland, as the hon. and learned Member knows. I agree with him on his first point. The Government took the appeal because they felt that the interpretation of the Windsor framework, particularly article 2, by the Northern Ireland courts was too broad. The Supreme Court has agreed with the Government and said that it is a much more narrow interpretation, relating to the troubles, not the expansive interpretation that we have previously seen.

Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over)

Jim Allister Excerpts

Carry-over motion
Monday 27th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Burghart]

I am sad to say that I am not surprised by either of those things. I am not surprised that the Government are living on vague promises to table amendments—despite having had six months to do so. I am sorry to say that I am not surprised that certain Government Front-Bench Members have chosen to absent themselves while expecting Labour Back Benchers to turn up and go through the Lobby without them.

[Jim Allister]

The Member refers to the absence of publication of any amendments by the Secretary of State—promised, but not delivered. Might that be because this Secretary of State, who has embarrassingly shown himself to be wholly beholden to the Dublin Government, has not yet got their approval for those amendments? Might that be the truth of the matter?

[Alex Burghart]

I fear that the hon. and learned Gentleman is right. This morning, we saw that Sinn Féin have spoken out in opposition to the very idea of amendments, so we wonder how it will be possible for the Secretary of State to table amendments without the agreement of Dublin, without the agreement of Sinn Féin, and without the whole framework he has built collapsing beneath him.

The Bill promises victims the earth. It raises their hopes, but I am afraid that in practice it will offer nothing in the way of conclusion or finality. That is because although there will be court cases, inquests, trials, reviews and challenges, as the Secretary of State himself has said, the prospect of conviction now is vanishingly small. The number of answers that victims will get will be minimal. All the while, veterans will be hauled before the courts, investigated for years and subjected to all the pain and ignominy that that will bring. The process has become the punishment. That is why none of the amendments that the Government are speculating to the press about tabling will do anything to solve the problem before us.

The Opposition have long argued that a different approach is necessary: one that draws a line under the conflict, draws a line under the legal conflict that has subsequently followed and builds a new system that builds on the strengths of the peace process as it was defined in 1998. In 1998 it was understood that there could be immunity in return for information; it underpins the legislation brought forward to support the peace process. That is why we have legislation on the destruction of weapons; it enables forensic information to be destroyed. It is why we have legislation that enables people to come forward and reveal where bodies are buried without fear of prosecution; that is immunity. It is why we had letters of comfort and royal pardons of mercy. It was understood that immunity would be an essential part of the peace process, for everyone who was not a veteran.

Dunmurry Police Station Attack

Jim Allister Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[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.

Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

Jim Allister Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Commons Chamber

[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.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

On the first Sunday of this year, I stood with the families of the innocent victims of the Kingsmill massacre as they marked 50 years since that horrendous event. It would have been fitting if the Secretary of State had been there —he was not. Last Sunday there was another commemoration, to mark the equally horrendous sectarian murder of more Protestant workmen at Teebane.

The common denominator of victims and families such as those is that they not just feel but know that they are the forgotten ones. They know that they are not the priority of this Government, and they know that it is the country that gives shelter to the murderers of their loved ones that is the priority of this Government. Dress it up as he will, the Secretary of State’s remedial order is motivated by one thing and one thing only: appeasing the Government of the Irish Republic, who want to drag this United Kingdom before the Bar of the European Court of Human Rights. That is what this remedial order is about.

This remedial order is not about ceasing to implement laws with which the Government disagree, because those aspects of the legacy Act have already been removed from effectiveness. Just look at paragraph 6.7 of the explanatory memorandum to the remedial order:

“Although the provisions declared incompatible with the ECHR by the High Court in Northern Ireland have also been disapplied”—

they are gone!—

“the Government considers it important to remove all these provisions from the statute book swiftly.”

Why? The answer is the one that I have given: to appease the Dublin Government.

Indeed, the Secretary of State came pretty close to confirming that when he said in this House this afternoon that if and when the remedial order goes through, it is his view that there would be no basis upon which to continue the Republic of Ireland’s action. That is the problem. We have a Secretary of State who is genuflecting to the Dublin Government. That is the feeling of innocent victims in our country. They are forgotten, but worse than that, they are way down the queue when it comes to a Government that are interested primarily in facilitating those who give shelter to their killers.

There is no legal justification for this. It is quite clear under section 10 of the Human Rights Act that there is a live issue before a live case in the Supreme Court. It is the issue of whether article 2 of the Windsor framework, which, as I demonstrated in my interventions, was used by the court to require the provisions to be disapplied, was a valid basis for disapplication. That is a live issue, therefore there is no legal justification—quite the reverse—for this remedial order, which drives us to the conclusion that it is for the reason that I have said.

Northern Ireland Political Institutions: Reform

Jim Allister Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of reforming Northern Ireland’s political institutions.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Ms Vaz. I was talking briefly to colleagues on the way over here and I said, “This time a year ago, almost, we had the exact same debate.” That was a 30-minute debate on the reform of the institutions of Northern Ireland, and I was absolutely petrified of causing any controversy, so I did not take any interventions. This will be a 60-minute debate and I would much rather we have a conversation—rows, warts, fights and all, in good faith and in good spirit—and try to come together. I am really pleased to see colleagues in the Chamber from across the House; that really means something to me.

My motivation for this debate is not based on party politics. I feel that the people of Northern Ireland are looking at us, and they are calling for something better. I am not questioning the bona fides of any representative. I think that every single one of us is here to represent our constituents across Northern Ireland in good faith, and every single one of us does that as best we can. However, where I feel we run into difficulties is that we have a system of government that enables or permits—whatever we want to call it—collapse, and that becomes a difficulty. I do not need to rehearse the reasons why. My colleagues from Northern Ireland understand fully how we arrived at this situation and the system that it is based on.

Governing under the constant threat of collapse discourages long-term decision making; it entrenches short-term decision making and paralyses reform. Probably one of the best examples that we can give of that is that we are currently attempting to set a three-year budget for Northern Ireland, for the first time in at least 10 years, and it is extremely difficult to do so. Unfortunately, with the historical muscle memory of what has happened with our governance before, there is a real risk—and a concern and a worry among the public—that we simply cannot have difficult and challenging conversations that really challenge party positions in such a way that there is no fear of collapse.

I do not need to tell colleagues around the table today the price of collapse and constant interruption of government. Such a situation would not be acceptable anywhere else in the UK. Northern Ireland is part of the UK, and we should be treated as such. It would not be acceptable in a mayoralty anywhere in the north of England. Likewise, in the Republic of Ireland, this situation simply would not be tolerated, either after an election or during the course of a Government, where, to be fair, there is a real comparator, in that they have to form coalition Governments.

We are not exceptional and we are not unique in being asked to govern with people who have completely different views from ours. Many, many Governments around the world do that. I think that nearly 30 years after the Good Friday agreement being signed, the public at large—we all serve at their pleasure—are simply saying that enough is enough. The evidence is now overwhelming. I used to say to people 10 or 15 years ago that reform was a niche Alliance party talking point. I do not think we really reserve that luxury any more. I am not picking on any colleagues, but there are colleagues here from the SDLP and from other political parties who really have gone some way to advancing those arguments about reform of our institutions, and have expounded on those points very well.

We are not the only ones making this point. People within Unionism are saying the same thing. When it comes to people living in Northern Ireland, right across nationalism, Unionism and people like me who are neither of those things, there is now a real groundswell of opinion. We have seen constant evidence in polling from various surveys that shows people in Northern Ireland simply do not want to have this system any more.

I do not feel that I am better than anybody else because I do not designate as Unionist or nationalist—part of me is Unionist and part of me is nationalist, but all of me is united community. I feel strongly about that point. We need to bear in mind going forward that the desire for reform is not the preserve of any one political tradition or viewpoint in Northern Ireland, or the solution offered by them. It is felt right across the political spectrum.

The Assembly has now spoken. Just before Christmas, for the first time, it formally backed Alliance’s call for institutional reform. It is not symbolic; it is a historic milestone, and Members across the Legislative Assembly acknowledge that the ability of any single party to veto decision making is untenable. Misuse of mechanisms such as the petition of concern has damaged trust and stability, and reform is now necessary, not optional.

I remember the previous collapses. In December 2019, whenever we were convening all-party talks on how to restore the institutions, there was a viewpoint that it was not the right time to have a discussion about how to reform them. I did not agree with that at the time, but with hindsight I understand why those points were made and why some held those views.

I understand that it is simply not good enough for me to say, “I want these changes done tomorrow in this prescriptive way, and that is the end of it.” That is not how we will move forward in any meaningful way, if no one gets what they want. That was what the entire Good Friday agreement was about.

To colleagues who might take the position that this pulls at the fabric of the Good Friday agreement to the point where it breaks, I would dispute that completely and utterly. It was not good enough to simply have the agreement signed to enable peace. That was very much hard-won and hard-fought and something that we need to jealously guard, but it is not enough any more to say to people that we can forgo the difficult job of governance.

I want this to be a positive and productive conversation. I am willing to hear different viewpoints and to accept that others will disagree about how we do this, but where there is consensus, we owe it to the people of Northern Ireland to say that enough is enough. We need to honour them and their wishes. The reforms remain modest but are essential: removing the ability of any one party to block the formation of an Executive, replacing parallel consent with arrangements that encourage genuine cross-community participation, and restoring the petition of concern to its original purpose of protecting rights, not blocking progress. We have seen, even in recent weeks, how veto mechanisms continue to be abused. That is not safeguarding democracy; it is corroding it. These reforms would not dismantle power sharing. They would make it workable. They are the bare minimum.

To Unionist colleagues in particular, I want to make a plea, or at least make my own views known and quite plain. I completely understand why some people in the community, given the different political make-up across Northern Ireland, now see discussions about reform as being couched in some sort of ulterior motive of majoritarianism and exclusion. It would trouble me greatly, to my core, to the extent that I would not participate, if any Government or Administration simply excluded Unionists because they did not feel that there were enough of them to—in a crass way—make up the numbers.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

The hon. Member very piously tells us what would offend her, but of course it did not offend her in December 2024 to be a cheerleader for the Secretary of State railroading through a protocol that treats Northern Ireland as a colony of the EU, and to continue support without cross-community consent on a basis of majoritarianism. There is quite a gaping void between what she is saying today and what her party did in December 2024.

[Sorcha Eastwood]

I thank the hon. and learned Member for making his point. I see where he is coming from. I believe that Brexit was a fundamental act of self-harm. I think it caused damage to relations, and certainly I think that most people in Northern Ireland—Unionist, nationalist or other—regret Brexit. I completely understand where Unionist colleagues are coming from, because there is a difference, and it is incumbent on all of us to work to ameliorate and patch up issues that pertain to this day in terms of the operation of the protocol, but I do not want to get sidelined on that.

In conclusion, I want people to understand that this is a genuine and heartfelt appeal for constructive work. We are now calling on the UK and Irish Governments to no longer sit back and wait for that crisis and collapse. That is not the time to have these conversations at all. We are calling on the Secretary of State to immediately convene a process of institutional reform, to engage the co-guarantors of the agreement in both Governments, and to move beyond the delay and prevarication that are simply not honouring the wishes of Northern Ireland.

People who are Unionist, nationalist and other voted for a Government, and we simply cannot sit here and say that we do not see fit to provide one for them. This is not controversial. This is not new. It is not part of other polities—it is not part of anywhere else in the UK or the Republic of Ireland. I simply ask that we try to move forward today in good faith and in accordance with the wishes of the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland, who simply want to have a Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I commend the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) for securing this debate. That is probably where the consensus largely ends, although I suppose I could agree with her—indeed, I would put it much more robustly—that our system of government at Stormont has lamentably and demonstrably failed. The Executive eventually scraped together what passes for a programme for government; they now cannot agree a budget, and we have individual Ministers locked in litigation, one with the other. Of course, all that is against the background of the Executive almost more often being down than up.

The elephant in the room, to which no one has been prepared to refer, is this question: why is this system of government not working? It is very simple. If the only form of devolution we can have is one based on the prerequisite that a party that does not even want Northern Ireland to exist, never mind succeed, must be at the heart of the Executive, it should not be a surprise to anyone that that Executive stumbles and fails. You cannot say, “We will make a success of Northern Ireland, yet we need an all-Ireland.” The very raison d’être of Sinn Féin is, first, not to believe that Northern Ireland should even exist and, secondly, to ensure that it is not a success. There is no better place from which to make sure it is not a success than from the inside of Government. That is the fundamental reality.

Day and daily in Northern Ireland, we hear very clearly from the so-called First Minister that everything they are doing and everything they are working towards is about getting a referendum to destroy the United Kingdom and take Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom. If we create a system where those with that motivation, who have no desire to make Northern Ireland work, must be at the heart of government, and we cannot have a Government without them, it should not be a surprise that the system fails. It is not rocket science.

[Sorcha Eastwood]

Actually, I agree: I want Northern Ireland to succeed and I do want to be a success for Northern Ireland. Does the hon. and learned Member not agree that the constant collapses are destroying the premise of a successful Northern Ireland and we should do everything we can to stop that happening?

[Jim Allister]

If the hon. Member had been listening more carefully, she would have understood why it is failing. It is failing because at its heart is a party that does not want Northern Ireland to succeed and, if it has the levers of power, will never permit it to succeed. That is the fundamental point.

What do we do? It is quite clear to me that the Executive is the failing side of devolution in Northern Ireland. It is the Executive that has collapsed multiple times. We need to distinguish the various strands of devolution. We have the Executive devolution, we have legislative devolution, and I suppose we have the scrutiny side of devolution. The latter two have actually worked, within limits, relatively well. The lamentable failure is on the side of the Executive.

If the only type of Executive that can be formed has at its heart a party that wants Northern Ireland to fail, the obvious answer is not to have an Executive of that type. We should sustain the legislative devolution and the scrutiny and pass the Executive powers to the central Government, but we should make their Ministers pass their legislation through the Assembly and make their Ministers’ actions subject to the scrutiny of the Assembly. Indeed, it would be far more vigorous scrutiny than at present, because at the moment the scrutineers who sit in the Assembly Committees scrutinising Ministers are members of the same parties that they are scrutinising. If Assembly Members were scrutinising Ministers from the Northern Ireland Office, it would be a lot more vigorous, I assure you.

If we are to get government that works, we have to face the reality that the current system is incapable of working. It will never work, because of the fundamental flaw that at its heart is a party that thinks that Northern Ireland should not even exist, never mind succeed. We have to circumvent that. If we cannot have an Executive that allows those who want Northern Ireland to work to govern, Executive powers must be vested where they will not be subject to that restraint and that flaw.

We should keep the part of devolution that is working. If we ever come to the point at which we are capable of forming a workable Executive, we should restore it, but we cannot go on as we are, limping from one crisis to another. Stormont is now a byword for failure in Northern Ireland. People just roll their eyes and laugh at the very thought of good government coming from there. We are only going to take politics further down the longer we cling to a system that is lamentably and totally failing. Let us get some new thought, which needs to be focused on getting an Executive system that can work. It does not need to be perfect, but I want to be very plain: flawed British rule, subject to the restraints of Stormont, would be preferable to destructive, malevolent Sinn Féin rule.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

That is the issue; my hon. Friend puts it well. It is better to have it in the hands of local people.

[Jim Allister]

On the childcare point, the childcare money was Barnett consequential. It was of the order of £50 million, but Stormont chose to spend only £25 million of it on childcare, so in fact under devolution we saw a diminution in what was available for childcare.

[Jim Shannon]

I am not going to get into a row, but under devolution we have seen the delivery of childcare. People see that in my constituency and every constituency in Northern Ireland, whether they like it or not. I tell you what: my constituents like it, and that is the point I want to make.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Patrick]

The work of the Committee could be quite important. It could provide an opportunity for agreement on these important issues in the future, and I welcome its work. I have met the Executive Ministers in Northern Ireland and there is consensus on the need to improve public services that people rely on. I know it is a priority for them, and indeed it is for this Government.

[Jim Allister]

The Minister has talked several times about consensus. Can he therefore explain why, when given the opportunity to live by the fundamental principles of the Belfast agreement and cross-community consent, his party eschewed and dismantled that when it came to this question: should people in Northern Ireland, for the next four years, be subject to laws in 300 areas that they do not make and cannot change, and which are imposed on them by the EU treating Northern Ireland as a colony? Why did consensus not matter then?

[Matthew Patrick]

The hon. and learned Gentleman raises a point about cross-community consent in the Windsor framework. The democratic consent vote is premised on cross-community support, and if the vote does not obtain cross-community support, that will require an independent review, and it will mean that the next vote is in four years rather than eight years. As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, this happened in December 2024. Ultimately, I would say that it is right that such a change to trading arrangements that addresses the unique circumstances in Northern Ireland should rely on a majority in the Assembly.

I turn to public service transformation. I am immensely proud that, through the last spending review, the Government secured a £19.3 billion settlement for Northern Ireland, which is the largest settlement in the history of devolution. The funding was secured so that the Northern Ireland Executive can deliver the public services that the people of Northern Ireland deserve. If that was not enough, a further £370 million was secured through Barnett consequentials just before the new year. I believe that that funding provides the basis—the very foundation —through which the Executive can transform public services in the months ahead.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Allister Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

I agree that it could have very wide-ranging implications for Northern Ireland in particular, as well as for the rest of the country. I have not made such an assessment, because that is not a policy that the Government advocate. It is for those proposing to leave the ECHR to answer the very fair question that my hon. Friend has just raised.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

It is plain wrong to say that the survival of the Belfast agreement is dependent on the ECHR. Why is the Secretary of State so selective in his Belfast agreement allegiance? It was he who implemented the jettisoning of the agreement’s cornerstone of cross-community consent when he invited the Northern Ireland Assembly to continue the imposition of the Windsor framework without cross-community consent. Is it only nationalist consent that matters to him under the Belfast agreement?

[Hilary Benn]

The steps that I took in relation to the vote on the renewal of the Windsor framework arrangements were absolutely in line with the provisions that were put in place by this House, and Lord Murphy produced his report as a result. The hon. and learned Gentleman will have seen the practical steps that the Government are taking in response to Lord Murphy’s very sensible recommendations.

Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

Jim Allister Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

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

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

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

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

[Hilary Benn]

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

Northern Ireland Troubles: Operation Kenova

Jim Allister Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

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

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

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

[Hilary Benn]

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