Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

Jim Allister Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

You will be aware, Ms Ghani, that we not only had that debate yesterday, but voted on it last night. First, I want to make it absolutely clear that nobody drafted the Bill with the date of the Good Friday agreement in it in some sense to placate the Irish Government. That was not the consideration at all. I simply note that it is the same date that was used by the previous legislation, which was advanced by the Government that the right hon. Member served in. If he does not mind, I gently suggest that that is a better date to land on than another arbitrary date.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Chris Bryant]

Well, all right.

[Jim Allister]

Good grace. [Laughter.] Is not the truth of the matter that the Secretary of State feels his hands are tied by the agreement that his Government reached with the Dublin Government that they would settle on April 1998 rather than any later date? Is that not what he is holding to for that very reason?

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. and learned Member really must stop calling me Grace. I know that a variety of different conspiracy theories are flying around here. No, we landed on the date of the Good Friday agreement because it is a pretty solid date to land on. It is as simple as that. I do not think that people need to search for any other. We already had this debate and we voted on it last night. The House has already decided in relation to the date.

Let me continue. Under the joint framework, the Irish Government are committed to bringing forward their own legislation to ensure the fullest possible co-operation of the Irish authorities with the reformed commission, as of course is required under their constitution. In the summer, they published the general scheme of their Bill, and I want to ensure that our respective pieces of legislation come into force in lockstep.

I recognise the interest across the House in ensuring that the Irish Government abide by their commitments. That is why I tabled amendment 251, which will require the Government to make a written ministerial statement on the actions that the UK and Irish Governments have taken in pursuance of the commitments in the joint framework prior to commencement of key aspects of the Bill. That reflects the intent behind amendment 46, tabled by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), so I hope that he will support our amendment.

The House should be reassured that the key provisions of the Bill will not be commenced until it is clear that the Irish Government are honouring their commitments. That will not in any way affect the commencement of provisions required to ensure compatibility with the European convention on human rights, which are crucial to giving families confidence in the commission. More importantly, as I said yesterday, I have spoken directly to both Jim O’Callaghan and Helen McEntee, and both have assured me and stated publicly that we will work in lockstep so that their legislation and ours will come into force simultaneously.

However, I want gently to take issue with some colleagues who have suggested that we are pandering to the Irish Government, or indeed appeasing them. Some have used particularly robust language. To be absolutely clear, the Irish Government are co-guarantors of the Good Friday agreement. They are close partners of ours, and if we are to ensure that there is peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland, we absolutely have to work with them to secure answers for families.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I note that the right hon. Gentleman says thank you. Secondly—[Interruption.] I will do my “secondly”, if he does not mind, because otherwise the logic of my speech will fall apart. [Interruption.] Ms Ghani, you are not meant to look at me as if the logic of my speech has already fallen apart.

Secondly, to provide greater assurance, confidence and consistency in decisions to prosecute, we are introducing a requirement for the Attorney General, who is also the Advocate General for Northern Ireland, to provide consent for prosecutions of serious troubles-related offences. To be clear, when making such decisions the Attorney General must act quasi-judicially and independently of the Government. There is precedent for that approach. Some have questioned it, but it was recommended by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and since most troubles-related deaths occurred in Northern Ireland but some were in Great Britain, that will provide a single and therefore consistent last determinant. Let me be clear: that in no way obviates the role of the Public Prosecution Service in Northern Ireland or the Crown Prosecution Service in England and Wales—in fact, we are strengthening their role—but I think it gives the right balance.

I trust that the Government amendments address the concerns raised by various Members in respect of the decisions to prosecute, including those of the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar, who tabled an amendment to insert additional steps in the investigative and prosecutorial processes. I am now coming to my final “finally”, so perhaps the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim would like to intervene.

[Jim Allister]

I want to take the Secretary of State back to new clause 49 and press upon him again a point I raised with him yesterday. In new clause 32, which became part of the Bill last night, the Secretary of State introduced protections when it comes to inquisitorial investigations of veterans by the legacy commission. New clause 49 deals with the guidance that the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland will have to develop. Surely it is appropriate to have that guidance consistent with what was in new clause 32.

--- Later in debate ---

[Suella Braverman]

It is in response to discussions by various colleagues. The point is that the contents of the measures that I have talked about are wholly unacceptable. They do not answer the fundamental question about this Government continuing the prosecutions and allowing inquests, investigations and inquiries to continue many years after the act. The Government cannot guarantee that our brave veterans will not be hauled again in front of the courts after they have been exonerated or allowed to proceed. I am afraid that because the Government cannot provide that guarantee, the Bill and the clauses are not fit for purpose.

As Attorney General, I worked to build some of the measures contained in the legacy Act. It was challenging to make it compliant with the European convention on human rights, particularly article 2, and it was working on that legislation that convinced me that the UK needed to withdraw from the European convention on human rights. The legacy Act was not perfect, but it was progress because it brought finality to a lot of the investigations and prosecutions. The reality is that jurisprudence from the European Court of Human Rights, such as the cases of McCann, McKerr and Finucane, has meant that the interpretation of article 2, on the right to life, has been expanded, extended and, frankly, distorted beyond all recognition, which has given grounds to these endless and repetitive claims 30 years later.

[Jim Allister]

Does the Loughgall case not indicate just how out of control the European Court of Human Rights has become? It ruled that the human rights of those eight wanton terrorists, who were on a murder mission and who got their just desserts, had been breached because of the lack of a proper investigation. There they were, shooting up a police station and the special forces responded, but it was the human rights of the terrorists that had been denied. Is that not an illustration of just how ludicrous and out of control the European Court of Human Rights has become?

--- Later in debate ---

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

Portsmouth is home to serving personnel, veterans, military families and many who carry the memories of operations undertaken in the service of their country. I want to take this opportunity to thank all those who have contacted me and spoken to me about the Bill and the amendments, and to thank all those who have served and who are in the Gallery today.

I was surprised not to have received more correspondence from local veterans about the Bill. I do not think that is because they are not interested, or because they are fully satisfied with the Bill. I fear that for some it is because confidence has been worn down over many years. They have heard assurances before and they have been misled by those trying to score political points. Too often they have experienced uncertainty, repeated processes and a system that they did not feel was designed for them.

New clauses 49 and 50, and yesterday’s amendments, will, I hope, start to rebuild some of that trust. In the tone struck by the Secretary of State yesterday, he recognised the important truth that peace without justice is not truly peace and that, equally, justice must be pursued in a way that is balanced, credible and capable of commanding confidence across the community. I particularly welcome the Government’s efforts to address long-standing concerns raised by veterans organisations. Many of those organisations have, quite rightly, argued that there must be a clear recognition that there is no moral equivalence between those who sought to uphold the law and those who sought to destroy it through terrorism. Personally, I am sorry for the time it has taken, and the pain and the agony that has caused. As the Secretary of State reminded us, we honour the overwhelming majority who served with distinction not by defending the indefensible, but by being honest about the past.

We must also honour our current serving personnel, and our cadets and future cadets, the men and women who will serve our country. Although it is not related to the Bill, I am moved to note that I do not recognise—in my city, in Government data or in Government policy—the picture painted by the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman). I am the proud mum of serving personnel. The work we have done as a Government to support our armed forces with pay, housing, legal changes to their court system and so many other things about family life are not as she represented them. Those members of the armed forces are proud to serve their King and their country. They are what we call patriotic.

I also need to set the record straight so that people can see that the previous Government left a legacy Act in 2023 that made false and undeliverable promises, which left veterans in legal limbo and which could have enabled immunity for members of terrorist groups. That was not okay and they should be sorry for that, too.

I know that this Government do not believe there is any equivalence between the lawful service of our military personnel and indefensible acts of terrorism. It is my Prime Minister who has said that we must sometimes put aside political point scoring and have problem solving. To be fair, the majority of the debate in this Chamber has been conducted in that way. I welcome the contributions from across the House and I am proud to be a part of this debate. This is a challenging area that was left unworkable. This Government have had to work hard to fix what was left. I would like to have gone further, but I recognise that we have moved in the right direction and I want to address some of those points.

The overwhelming majority of those who served during Operation Banner did so honourably, courageously and under extraordinarily difficult conditions. More than 300,000 members of our armed forces served in Northern Ireland. They operated under sustained threat from terrorist organisations. They faced split-second decisions in circumstances that few of us in this Chamber can fully comprehend. Any process examining actions taken during the troubles must, therefore, take proper account of the operational context in which those decisions were made.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), I am concerned about the number of amendments and the time that we have had to review them, but I welcome the Government’s determination to ensure that the operational context is reflected in the legislation.

I also welcome the Government’s amendment 240, which is intended to prevent unnecessary repeated investigations where matters have already been thoroughly examined. One of the concerns that I hear most from veterans in Portsmouth is not opposition to accountability but frustration at the prospect of being repeatedly drawn back into processes concerning events that have already undergone intensive scrutiny. Veterans are asking for a system that distinguishes between a genuinely new line of inquiry and the unnecessary repetition of work that has already been completed. That is a reasonable request, and one that the legislation must answer clearly.

Many veterans are now elderly, and some have spent years believing that matters were resolved, only to face renewed uncertainty. Their families carry that burden. Providing clear safeguards against unnecessary repetition is therefore both humane and sensible. Amendment 277 would widen the definition of family members to nephews, aunties, uncles and grandparents.

Consideration of the removing provisions is an opportunity to ensure that the safeguarding that Parliament intends is clear, workable and capable of giving veterans confidence that they will not face repeated investigations. We see that in the wording of amendment of 240. However, I would welcome clarification from the Minister on where the bar will be set, what criteria will be used, what guidance will be published, how veterans will be able to understand whether the test has been met, what assurance will they receive that an early investigation will be properly considered before a new one begins, and when they will know how long it will be before new evidence is brought.

The manner of contact matters as well. Veterans should not be cold called about events that may have taken place decades ago. Initial contact will instead go through the Ministry of Defence, so that the individual is informed and supported. Evidence may be given without travelling to Northern Ireland, and anonymity may be requested. Decision makers will have to consider the person’s age, health and wellbeing—all things that were made important to me. I was pleased to see that addressed in amendments yesterday.

I would welcome an assurance from the Secretary of State that the support will be proactive rather than merely available on request, and that veterans will have a clear and consistent point of contact. It cannot become a new procedure to be followed; veterans and their families must be treated with dignity, clarity and care throughout the process.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) so eloquently put it, we must avoid framing the debate as veterans versus victims’ families, because in many cases those categories overlap. As the Secretary of State rightly said yesterday, veterans have families seeking answers as well. Service personnel were themselves killed, injured and traumatised during the troubles. Their widows, children and relatives deserve truth and dignity just as much as any other family affected by that conflict.

No legislation dealing with the legacy of the troubles will satisfy everyone—the wounds are too deep and the experiences too varied for that—but I believe the Government have moved significantly towards a more balanced framework. I welcome the conversations that I have had with Government Ministers and my veteran community. Although not perfect, as the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) said, the Bill is a last chance for something that is needed.

From the perspective of a constituency with a large community of veterans, I welcome the Government’s recognition of the unique role played by those who serve, their commitment to ensuring that operational realities are properly considered and their efforts to prevent unnecessary repetition, while continuing to pursue truth and accountability.

We all know that for too long it has been empty promises and words on a page. Veterans will and should judge the Bill by not the promises made about it, but their experiences of the system it creates. We therefore have a continuing responsibility, in this place and the other, to listen to them, explain the changes honestly, and ensure that safeguards approved by this House are honoured in practice for all who have been affected.

[Jim Allister]

The Secretary of State is not known for selling himself short, but even he would have to acknowledge that the Bill he has produced and amended has fallen well short of universal acclaim. It has unimpressed a lot of people and interests. It is not that there is no good in the Bill; it is a question in many instances of the balance, or lack of balance, that it strikes.

Indeed, one of the fundamental failures of the Bill comes from the inherent preferences that the Secretary of State has made within it. The most horrendous terrorist attack in Northern Ireland, in terms of the number of victims, was the Omagh bomb, yet the Secretary of State has chosen to draw a line in the Bill that excludes investigation of that bombing by the legacy commission. One of the most egregious and audacious IRA attacks was at Loughgall, where eight heavily armed IRA terrorists came to destroy a police station, with a bomb in the bucket of a digger and a vanload of terrorists to shoot up the station, yet the Secretary of State has chosen to include that attack within the special category of those who will be entitled to full inquests.

On the one hand, the Secretary of State excludes Omagh from the framework of the Bill; on the other hand, he includes within it the most audacious of the IRA attacks, giving the families of those IRA chosen terrorists the right to a full inquest, and then he proceeds with an amendment to prevent other inquests. It is by drawing such preferences that the Secretary of State has caused the Bill to suffer from both a lack of balance and a lack of appreciation and support across the entire community.

There can be no case more undeserving of an inquest than Loughgall, which involved hardened terrorists with dozens upon dozens of innocent victims to their account of murder, as we have heard from the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), under the leadership of Patrick Kelly and Lynagh, one of the most notorious IRA terrorists, who had already carried out a carbon-copy attack on Ballygawley police station, and then on the Birches. At Ballygawley they had murdered police officers. At Loughgall they came at the particular hour when they knew policemen would be leaving at the end of their shift. Their bomb was concealed in rubble in the bucket of a digger, and they had a load of terrorists to shoot up the station and repeat what they had done at Ballygawley and the Birches.

Happily—yes, happily—they met the SAS. Happily, the SAS ensured that they would never murder again. In that, the SAS saved countless lives, because that bunch of terrorists had already taken dozens upon dozens of lives. In 2017, declassified documents from ballistic tests showed that their weapons had been used in between 40 and 50 murders. These were not boy scouts on an outing; they were fully armed, dedicated, hateful terrorists coming to murder and kill. When they were dealt with as they ought to have been, what do the Government do? They say, “Oh, we will give you a special place within our legacy Bill—a special protection—so that your families will have what other families will not. You will have a full-blown inquest at public expense. It will cost whatever millions it takes. We will fully legally aid all of you to be represented so that you can try to pick at the lawful actions of the SAS soldiers.”

Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

Jim Allister Excerpts

Monday 19th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I am happy to listen to the speech that the right hon. Member will doubtlessly make—if he manages to catch your eye, Ms Ghani, though I am fairly confident he will—and I will respond towards the end.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Chris Bryant]

Let me make a little progress and then I will come back to him.

Government new clauses 36 to 39 on pages 68 to 71 of the amendment paper introduce provisions that require regular inspections of the legacy commission by His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services, which will ensure that any emerging problems with the effectiveness or efficiency of the commission investigations are spotted quickly and that those in charge are aware of those problems and take corrective action. That should ultimately improve the experience for families going through the process of an investigation.

As many of us have heard who have listened to families in Northern Ireland, one of their key demands is that the new legacy commission should be very much focused on families themselves. I have also tabled amendments 193, 158, 265, 266, 247, 248 and 246. These will ensure that where a person seriously injured in the troubles has subsequently died, their family will be kept involved in the investigation.

Similarly, many families have been unable to receive death certificates. New clause 42 on page 74 will change that, enabling the commission’s judicial panel members to send the particulars of a death to the appropriate registrar of deaths at the conclusion of inquisitorial proceedings. That seems basic to many of us, but I know families in Northern Ireland will particularly welcome it.

A vital change we are also introducing is the victims and survivors advisory group, modelled on Operation Kenova’s successful victims focus group. However, some hon. Members have expressed understandable concerns about the composition of the group. To meet the amendments tabled by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), the right hon. Member for Belfast East and the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), I have tabled new clauses 33 and 34, making it a statutory requirement that the group cannot include former paramilitaries and must include at least one member from a police or army background, or someone representing their interests.

I note amendment 52, tabled by the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton), which would restrict membership on the basis of political party membership, past or present, and which I do not believe would be proportionate or fair.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

Much as I am fond of the right hon. Gentleman, I need to give way to the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim first.

[Jim Allister]

The Secretary of State refers to new clause 32, which introduces certain protections in respect of the security forces in regard to the legacy commission and to inquests. For example, it allows their training and experience to be taken into account, the orders that they had to be taken into account, whether it appeared that they were at risk of harm, and so on. All of that is good, so why do the same provisions not extend to cover any trial of such a person, should that occur? If it is right for the legacy commission and coroners to take those matters into account, why is it not right for a Diplock court also to take them into account, if it were investigating a criminal trial?

[Chris Bryant]

I am holding on to the fact that the hon. and learned Gentleman said that something that the Government are doing is “good”. I hope that means that he will be supporting our amendment, although I am hopeful that it will not come to a vote since it mirrors some of the work that he was doing. I think he is asking me to change the criminal law, which would be outside the scope of this piece of legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Robinson]

My hon. Friend is right. Máiría Cahill was defending me from outrageous suggestions directed towards me in a tweet by Michelle Gildernew, who had the temerity to do so knowing that Máiría Cahill had confided in her in the 1990s and she did nothing. I thank Máiría for her steadfastness and her courage over many years on the issues that she has raised.

New clause 21 is another attempt by the official Opposition, among many others on the amendment paper, to ensure that any process understands the context of operations, the environment in which people served, the rules of engagement, the pressure and the threats. How often do we hear people talk of Bloody Sunday and never mention the days that preceded it—I say that not as an excuse or a challenge for what happened—and the two police officers who were murdered? Those two police officers, patrolling that city on a cross-community basis, were murdered on the streets.

I often remember a gentleman who was in the end very senior in the Reserve Forces and Cadets Association for Northern Ireland saying to me, “Gavin, I remember one day being out the top of the Land Rover. I heard a clink, turned around and thought I was going to be shot because two of my friends had been killed the day before. I nearly shot until I realised it was an elderly lady putting out two milk bottles.” What he was trying to indicate to me was that as a young, 20-year-old man he was so perplexed, scared and petrified—knowing he had lost friends yesterday, wondering whether he would get home that afternoon and not knowing the answer—that when he heard that clink first thing in the morning, he thought he was next and he nearly shot an unarmed civilian. Thank God he did not, but he shared that story with me so that I could understand. So I support new clause 21 entirely when it talks about “contemporaneous Rules” and the environment in which people operated.

The Government have tried to meet us on equivalence in some ways in their new clause 31, which replicates amendment 56 tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and amendment 10 tabled in the name of the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim. New clause 9 has been proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart), who has put in efforts about “on the runs” and putting those beyond the pale. I understand that the Government have moved their position on that, but they could engage and support rather than always tabling their own new clauses.

New clause 5 deals with support for former members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I make no apologies for saying that support for the Royal Ulster Constabulary should be before this House. We talk all the time about veterans, and rightly so. My grandfather served in the Royal Ulster Constabulary, although not during the troubles. He served his community. Some 302 officers of the Royal Ulster Constabulary served their community and paid the ultimate sacrifice. It is was right that they were honoured with the George Cross, but it was wrong that they were so disgracefully dishonoured through the changes that were brought about in policing. Yet here we are, just weeks away from celebrating or acknowledging 25 years of renewed policing in Northern Ireland, with questions around support for the police.

I listened very carefully to the right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn). I acknowledge that he has engaged with many victims, but while he was speaking I received a text message from a member of a victims’ group who had hoped for a visit from him when he was Secretary of State. He did not visit, although he sent a junior Minister. I remember visiting that same victim on the main street in Omagh. He served as a police officer on 15 August 1998. He showed me the shop where he was laying bodies that day—28 people lost their lives, as well as two unborn children. He then took me into the entry next door, where he had had to bring other bodies because there simply was not sufficient room in the front of the shop. He and his colleagues have been demonised for years, but this RUC man was weeping when he was sharing with me the pain he still had, although that was not his intention, and the pain he still harboured from those days. He has asked the Government to support him and his colleagues whenever they engage with the Omagh inquiry. He has lamented the fact that the Omagh inquiry is but a partial piece of the jigsaw.

The Omagh inquiry has only the terms of reference that allow it to answer the question, “What could the British state authorities have done to prevent Omagh?” What could we have done to prevent an act of terror? Omagh was blown up because dissident republicans from the Republic of Ireland sought vehicles in the Republic of Ireland, moved through the Republic of Ireland and came to Northern Ireland to destroy that market town. And so they did. But our inquiry will answer only what we could have done to prevent that. Time after time we have raised the issue about the legacy commission’s dates. Why are we, as a House of Commons, still prepared to pass legislation that says that the troubles ended in April 1998, when we know the Omagh attack occurred on 15 August 1998?

Whenever we raise these issues, it is, “Oh, you are just having a go at the Irish. The Irish have promised that they are going to give information,” but no, they have not. As the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) said earlier, this issue was raised at the Omagh inquiry last week in evidence given by John Ware, a “Panorama” journalist. He made reference to a call that was received by the Finner Irish army camp in Ballyshannon on 14 August 1998. Colleagues may remember me raising this last week, and the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim raised it as well. The reason John Ware made those comments was that he and core participants felt that the details he was about to outline in the inquiry were with them mistakenly, and that had he not read them out—and had the Irish Government realised they had let them slip—they would have been rescinded. That is why I got a call four weeks ago giving me the details on a similar basis, so that they could not be rescinded.

[Jim Allister]

Further to that, much was publicised and lauded about a memorandum of understanding with the Dublin Government on how they were going to co-operate in the Omagh inquiry, yet we find they were sitting on information and when 50-plus questions were sent to them, they answered two.

[Gavin Robinson]

There is a recurring theme. We were told that the Irish Government would have a Garda legacy unit and that they would answer this mythical telephone, but they do not answer. They do not provide answers, they do not respond to emails and they still have an inter-state case against our Government—they expect much of us but give nothing in return.

On 14 August 1998, a telephone call was made to the Finner camp. According to an Irish army document—handwritten—the call came in at half-past 10, and a male caller,

“who sounded reasonable and did not appear to be drunk”,

said:

“Pay attention to the back roads around Kinlough”—

border control checkpoints 197 and 198—

“Inform the GS and NISF”—

Garda Síochána and Northern Ireland Security Forces—

“road leads to Enniskillen, Irvinestown and Clogher.”

Then he stopped and said:

“Forget Clogher, Omagh, Omagh, Omagh”.

Garda Síochána spoke to the barracks orderly sergeant and the barracks detachment staff, whose names are redacted, on 16 August, when they decided for themselves that it was not a warning—it was—with the most devastating consequences. Ten days later, there was another effort to try to retrofit the call. But why am I mentioning any of this? I am mentioning these things because there was Government knowledge, Garda Síochána knowledge and intelligence service knowledge of the call that came in on 14 August, yet Baroness O’Loan in the other place, who was the first Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, conducted an inquiry into Omagh. For two years, she investigated the Omagh bomb. Was she aware of those calls? No, she was not. The revelation last week was a revelation to her.

--- Later in debate ---

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Judith Cummins)]

As Members will have seen, quite a lot of Members wish to speak in the debate, so please think of each other.

[Jim Allister]

There have been many valuable contributions in this debate, but I do not think any were more pertinent than that of the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson), who brought a dose of reality to the House about what it was like to serve in our armed forces in Northern Ireland. I thank him and all hon. and gallant Members who have served in Northern Ireland for their service, and indeed our entire armed forces, who saved so many lives in my part of the United Kingdom. A deep debt of gratitude is due to our armed forces and our police. Too often they are vilified when they should be appreciated. We thank them for their peacekeeping work, saving us from the worst of the onslaughts of terrorism.

It is relevant to consider the genesis of this Bill. It is infected by the fact that it emerged out of the framework agreement with the Dublin Government. In agreeing that framework, the Government no doubt anticipated good faith reciprocation from the Dublin Government. Well, they have done that before and been disappointed. We have already heard how the memorandum of understanding reached on the Omagh inquiry was lauded. Indeed, the previous Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), said at the time:

“This is a very positive step that will help enable the independent inquiry to do its job and provide answers for families.”

Yet this day last week we saw just how empty that promise of co-operation was, when the fact emerged—not handed over by the Dublin Government until then—that the very night before Omagh, the Irish authorities had a warning about that bomb, but it was not passed on to the police in Northern Ireland. Forgive me, then, but I come to the subject of co-operation from the Irish Republic with great scepticism, remembering that this was the territory that spawned, sanctioned, armed and gave sanctuary to terrorists. Hundreds of people died at the hands of IRA terrorists who crossed the border and retreated again after they had carried out their dastardly acts, yet in all that time, 97% of extradition applications were refused—think about that. And this is the Government who, we are told, are going to co-operate with us in respect of reciprocating information about the troubles in Northern Ireland. The Government may have confidence in them. I and my constituents have none, for very good reason—because of what we have experienced in the past.

I want to come on to a couple of specific amendments. I made an intervention on the Secretary of State with regard to new clause 32. There is much to approve of in new clause 32, which is headed:

“Principles concerning the investigation of conduct of the security forces”.

It is the one that records the fact that we

“must not regard lawful action taken in the course of duty as equivalent to action taken for terrorist purposes.”

It goes on to state that in assessing a person’s

“conduct for the purposes of the investigation, proceedings or inquest, a relevant person must have regard to all of the circumstances in which the conduct occurred, including”

the soldier’s “training and experience”, the duties they were undertaking, the orders or other instructions given to them, the information available to them, whether it appeared to them that

“any person was at risk of harm from unlawful violence”,

whether it appeared that the

“immediate use of force was required to prevent that harm”,

and the extent to which they

“acted in accordance with any rules of engagement or guidance regarding the use of force.”

Good. But the question still remains: if that is right for legacy commission director of investigations inquiries, right for inquisitorial proceedings by the judicial panel member, and right in relation to inquests, why is it not right when it comes to the question of prosecution? Why is it not right that, if you are going to prosecute a serviceman, you do not, by this amendment, have to have regard to the moral equivalence issue, the training, experience, duties, orders or instructions—none of that? Why is that? If it is right to give that shield of protection to those investigated by the legacy commission and by the coroner, why is it not right to give that same shield of protection when it comes to bringing a prosecution?

We know that there is a requirement in the Bill for the issuing of guidance in respect of prosecutions. New clause 49 states that guidance on prosecutions will be developed by the Director of Public Prosecutions and that

“The guidance must, in particular, set out evidential matters and public interest factors that are likely to be relevant to a decision”.

Why are the matters I have just cited from new clause 32 not relevant to that guidance? Why does new clause 49 not repeat the standards that are imposed in new clause 32? Why are they not written into new clause 49? If we are serious about protecting our veterans, then we do not just have to protect them in respect of the commission and in respect of inquests; we have to, equally and on the very same basis, protect them in respect of prosecutions.

The Secretary of State said earlier to me, “Oh, but that would be getting into criminal law.” Sorry, but this Bill is about dealing with the consequences of the legacy.The authorities in this House have deemed new clause 21 to be within the ambit of the Bill. If that new clause falls within the ambit of the Bill, so should what I am talking about. I say to the Secretary of State that he needs to address this flaw, and take the necessary step to provide equality between those investigated by the commission and those investigated by the coroner, and those who might be subject to prosecution. It is a matter of completing the circle. I can think of no good reason why, if those protections fit one circumstance, they would not fit another. I say to the Secretary of State, let us do that in the Bill: let us complete the circle of protection, rather than retaining the void that currently exists.

There are other points that I wanted to make, but mindful of your exhortation to be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker—and I think that I have been— I will leave it there for now.

Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over Extension)

Jim Allister Excerpts

Carry-over motion
Tuesday 13th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I will, in just one second. That is for the precise reason that sometimes people popped over the border, did the killing and then returned. That is why it is very important that one of the things that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South secured in the agreement with the Irish Government was their full co-operation in this process.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

rose—

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I am going to come on to some of the answers to precisely those questions in just a moment, but I have spoken to Helen McEntee myself repeatedly and made some of those points, as well as to Jim O’Callaghan in the Irish Government. It is very important that the Irish Government play their part; otherwise what is the point? The right hon. Gentleman makes very strong points. He has made them to me before, and I have made them to the Irish Government.

[Jim Allister]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I will give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman, and then I ought to make progress.

[Jim Allister]

The Secretary of State lays great store by the southern authorities in the Republic of Ireland co-operating, but did we not have a classic example yesterday of the duplicity of the Dublin Government? In the Omagh inquiry, it emerged that they had sat for 28 years on an intelligence document that indicated that the night before the Omagh bomb, there was a phone call to the Irish army’s Finner Camp indicating that the bomb was coming, with the declaration “Omagh, Omagh, Omagh.” That was never passed to the RUC that night. It was sat upon until now, allowing the narrative to grow that it was the RUC that had been negligent, when it was quite clear that the southern authorities had held back information that could have avoided that horrendous bomb.

[Chris Bryant]

I too have read the reports that the hon. and learned Gentleman refers to, which of course are very disturbing. There is an ongoing inquiry, and it is not my job to do the work of that inquiry, but it is absolutely the job of the Irish Government to provide all the information the inquiry needs to do its work effectively.

The Irish Government have set out the framework for their own legislation, and we want to see that progress swiftly in parallel with ours. In previous debates, there was some question about whether we had to complete our legislation before the Irish Government were going to do their legislation. To give further assurance, we will require the Secretary of State to lay a written ministerial statement before the full commencement of the troubles Bill, outlining the progress made by the UK and Irish Governments. I have spoken directly to Minister McEntee, and she has now said repeatedly in public that the Irish Government will march in lockstep with us when it comes to legislation, with the aim of having both of our sets of legislation come into force on the same day.

The Bill’s Committee stage will be next week, and colleagues will want to consider all these matters in depth, but I want to end by urging everyone not to underestimate the importance of us enabling families to get the answers they require. We have already heard in this Chamber from our own Members the pain, grief and anguish—and sometimes the sense of revenge and anger—that comes with the fissures that opened up many, many years ago. I cannot tell Members how many times I have heard those same calls, often from people who lost members of the armed forces serving under Operation Banner, and often from people who served in the RUC. When the Good Friday agreement came about, I suppose there was a moment when everybody thought, “We’ve done our work now. Peace has come.” The last couple of weeks have shown that peace can sometimes be a very thin veneer, and sometimes the people who bore the biggest brunt of that peace—who had to sort of suck it up—were the families who had lost loved ones. Those families have never managed to get answers. I do not think we can ever really build a strong future for Northern Ireland unless we fully understand the past, and understanding the past means making sure that we get answers for people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Robinson]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman—and I am pleased to see that there is a new Deputy Speaker in the Chair, so I do not have to hold myself to the commitments I made earlier. [Laughter.]

I say to the Secretary of State that I am pleased that the Labour Government have accepted that they will legislate on the matter of on-the-runs—again, it is a statement of fact, and I could never comprehend why the Labour Government were resisting such an amendment. So, too, will they legislate to ensure that paramilitaries and former paramilitaries—people who sullied themselves and tried to destroy our society—will not form part of any advisory board to the commission. That is right. I could not for the life of me understand why the Labour Government were resistant to that approach. I am grateful—[Interruption.]. No, it was always indicated that it would not happen in practice, but they would not legislate on the face of the Bill. I say “they”; I mean the Labour Government. I am glad that at least that concession has been given.

I am grateful that the Prime Minister is here, because I want to make a fundamental point, which draws on comments that were opened earlier. It is not often that I agree with the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), but I am pleased that he referred to what happened yesterday in the Omagh inquiry. It is beyond me—I hope it is beyond every sensible Member of this House—that the Government are still resisting the dates for the legacy commission. The legacy commission has to stop its work on a given date—the date the Belfast agreement was signed—yet the largest atrocity of the troubles occurred just three months later in Omagh. The Government are resistant to allowing the legacy commission to consider the case of Omagh.

Why is that important? It is important because the Omagh inquiry is set up, and its terms of reference allow the inquiry only to look at what the British state could have done to prevent the largest atrocity of the troubles, yet the Irish Government have questions to answer. Yesterday when John Ware, the former “Panorama” journalist, opened up his evidence in court, he referred to the Irish soldiers who received a bomb warning the day before—on 14 August—in Finner base, as has been mentioned. I have every word of that. Will the Secretary of State ask immediately for a copy of that document? He knows that it goes further; he knows that it says clearly that on 14 August they have to inform the guards and the Northern Ireland security forces and that they have to place people on border checkpoints 196 and 194. It was very clear and precise. Why was it opened up yesterday? Because the belief is that, in a 1,500-page bundle, the Irish did not know that they had given it, and they were worried that it was going to be taken back and not opened up.

If the Irish Government had information the night before, at Finner base, that the Omagh bomb was going to be placed in Omagh, as was opened yesterday in the inquiry, that needs to be explored. Yet it falls outside the terms of reference. All we ask in the amendments is that we legislate for ourselves to say that the legacy commission can at least consider the largest troubles-related incident that sits outside the dates of the troubles.

[Jim Allister]

Is the right hon. Gentleman’s point not strengthened by the fact that the Dublin Government, despite a recommendation from the Northern Ireland High Court, have refused to hold an inquiry into their role and knowledge of the Omagh bomb? Therefore, the fact that the legacy commission can never investigate it means that it will never be investigated anywhere.

[Gavin Robinson]

It was Mr Justice Horner, as he was then, who declared in 2021 that there should be an inquiry on both sides of the border to deal with the jurisdictional issues. I say this to the Prime Minister: the legacy commission will have the ability to look at the issues, provided the dates are moved from 21 April 1998 to 31 August 1998. It is easily done, and it is so fundamentally important for those victims and families who suffered at Omagh and who require truth and justice. I make the plea, knowing that I am going beyond the bounds of a carry-over motion debate, that this is so fundamental that we cannot allow this point to pass and for the Government fail those families yet again. Yesterday’s revelation is as stark and as telling as it needs to be. The information shared yesterday falls outside the terms of reference, and yet the legacy commission should and could take on that work.

I intend to revisit this matter next week, but in the interim I implore the Secretary of State, with whom I have raised it on numerous occasions, and the Prime Minister, who I am grateful is here, to consider the import of what was shared yesterday in the inquiry and what was withheld from the Sir Peter Gibson review in the past, when it was emphatically said that the Irish had no warning when they did. The inquiry’s chairman is incapable of drawing conclusions from that because it falls outside his terms of reference. The legacy commission could do that work; it needs to be done.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

The right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) put his finger on this matter. The genesis of this is important. The previous Secretary of State went to Dublin and entered a legacy framework agreement in September 2025—in good faith, I am sure, on his part—where the Dublin Government promised the fullest possible co-operation. Yet we saw exposed yesterday just how meaningless that is when it comes to the most serious and extensive terrorist attack there ever was, when they sat on the intelligence from the night before that there was a bomb heading to Omagh. “Omagh, Omagh, Omagh,” is what the message said, and it was ignored.

The Secretary of State referred to the fact that there are many cross-border dimensions to this. Yes, there are. The killers of hundreds of people crossed the border, took sanctuary south of the border and were supplied from the south of the border, and yet we are talking about a legacy arrangement where no answers will come from the Dublin Government. They were sent 52 questions by the Omagh inquiry. They answered two of them. That is the extent and scale of the good faith, and yet that Government are still suing the United Kingdom Government in the European Court of Human Rights—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order.

Drumcree

Jim Allister Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Member is nodding, so I got that right. Maybe we can agree with each other, because I want the Northern Ireland Executive to continue in operation. I certainly do not want to be in a position where I am running all of Northern Ireland.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

I begin by paying tribute to Portadown district, which abided by the law to the letter and yet had the response of being kicked in the teeth while those who broke the law were rewarded. I also commend the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart), who represents the district of Portadown, on her stand, her leadership and her courage. I utterly condemn the shocking demonisation and abuse to which she has been subjected.

As for the Secretary of State, it is sad to say it, but his shameful surrender to mob rule and the threat of violence has trampled the rule of law into the gutter in Northern Ireland. Tonight, we still have not only a First Minister of lawlessness—because of the inaction of the DUP—but a Secretary of State who chose to back the lawbreakers. What a travesty. My question is this: how can the rule of law recover when the Secretary of State undermines it so spectacularly?

[Chris Bryant]

I am fond of the hon. and learned Gentleman, although he does remind me of the John Lewis line, “Never knowingly undersold”, because his arguments are never knowingly undersold. He called me pathetic on the television yesterday and he keeps on referring to mob rule. Every time people use this term “mob” about people on the other side of the argument, it makes it more difficult. I would also say that the use of the word “sanitising” was particularly inappropriate. It behoves us all to moderate our language, because people look to us to provide leadership. In a situation where compromise is normally the best outcome for everybody—for all communities—it is best if we double down on compromise ourselves.

Business, Innovation, Science and Trade

Jim Allister Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2026 Written Corrections

The following extracts are from the urgent question on Steel Tariffs: Northern Ireland on 30 June 2026.

[Jim Allister]

I am grateful to the Minister for coming to the House…

Thirdly, last Thursday the Minister said that 74% of steel imports to Great Britain will not be covered by the UK trade measure. Can the same be said of Northern Ireland? Is it the same level of exemption—if we want to call it that—in respect of Northern Ireland, given the import of the EU governance? I ask those questions because in Northern Ireland we do not make steel; we rely exclusively on importing it. Many businesses in Northern Ireland depend very much on steel imports, yet here they are facing a new regime tomorrow and only hearing about it today.

[Chris Bryant]

I am sorry, but I think that the absurdity all lies with the hon. and learned Member…

Seventy-three per cent of steel imports into the whole of the UK, which includes Northern Ireland, are completely excluded from the measure, and the tariffs only apply above the quota levels.

[Official Report, 30 June 2026; Vol. 788, c. 765.]

Written correction submitted by the then Minister for Trade, the right hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant):

Robert Hamill Inquiry Report

Jim Allister Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

It is often very difficult, including for a well-resourced inquiry, to get to the truth. I will read out another clause of the report:

“We are left in no doubt that the decision by so many to have no recollection was by no means always spontaneous but was the result of suggestion, cajolery and in some cases threat. This has added to our difficulties.”

The truth is that sometimes sectarianism leads not just to the murder, but to the cover-up. That is why I am very keen to ensure that we do everything we possibly can to diminish that. There is a Purcell anthem that I used to have to sing a lot when I was at school and at university. It includes the line:

“Let your moderation be known unto all men”.

Perhaps that should be our motto.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

I should declare that in a previous life I was one of the defence counsel in the murder case that arose from the shocking death of Robert Hamill. So there was a murder trial and there was a due verdict of not guilty, and we should not forget that either.

May I ask the Secretary of State, after £33 million and more, what is it that we now know from this report that we did not know from the public murder trial, and that we did not know from the public appearances and reporting and trial of Robert Atkinson? We have spent over £33 million, and most of what is in this report was already in the public domain.

Perhaps what was not in the public domain was the fact that the audacious, constant propaganda that the police officers had colluded in the murder has now been wholly debunked, and the report quite properly finds that they did no wrongful act or omission facilitating that murder. That is a big price to pay to arrive at that conclusion and the conclusion that there was no collusion, contrary to the constant refrain of some for almost 30 years. I welcome the fact that that at least has been laid to rest.

[Chris Bryant]

First, just because nobody has been convicted of murder does not mean that a murder was not committed. Indeed, one of the most painful aspects of all of this is that, clearly, as this report finds for the first time, there was a murder. The cause of death was at least three beatings to the head that Robert Hamill received—possibly two or more being kicks to the head when he was already lying on the ground, and possibly a third from a bottle. It beggars belief that in this country we can all decide that somebody was murdered but nobody ends up facing justice for the murder. I suppose that is one of the pains that arises in many of the cases that we deal with here.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Allister Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Patrick]

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend; many opportunities are arising from the defence growth deal, on which I have worked closely. Many businesses, small and large, across Northern Ireland have dual-servicing capability and they have a real opportunity here. We are supporting them every step of the way.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Ministers from the Northern Ireland Office talk rather glibly about these matters, but the lived reality of the supply chain is very different: a full international customs border that is now inflicting damage on the import of steel; tightening import control system 2 checks; a parcels border; a plants border; and £192 million spent on building border posts—all to placate a European Union to which the Secretary of State and others seem totally beholden. When will the Secretary of State actually stand up for Northern Ireland? Can we please not have the usual trite reply that it is all the fault of Brexit, when it is the very opposite? The denial of Brexit is the altar upon which our supply chains are being sacrificed.

Northern Ireland Office

Jim Allister Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

In introducing the debate, the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, lamented the failure of the Northern Ireland Executive to agree a budget; indeed, for any of the parties in the Northern Ireland Executive to even agree with their own party on a budget. That, clearly, is a difficulty in terms of providing the services for the people of Northern Ireland.

It would do this House well to ask more probing questions on how, not for the first time, the Northern Ireland Executive have failed to agree a budget. Are there political influences at stake? Sinn Féin controls the Department of Finance. Sinn Féin does not even want Northern Ireland to exist, never mind succeed, so is it really any great surprise that when it is in charge of the Department of Finance there is a stand-off about agreeing a budget? For Sinn Féin, the default position is always to blame the Brits, demand more money and turn that into a political campaign on how Northern Ireland is being treated unfairly. Even if it had all the money imaginable, Sinn Féin would not seek to make Northern Ireland work. It cannot make it work and then say, “But none the less, we need the fundamental constitutional change” which is its raison d’être and what it demands. There are at play bigger issues than a mere failure to balance the books.

On balancing the books, many of the parties that form the Northern Ireland Executive bear much responsibility themselves. When devolution was down and coming back at the beginning of 2024, there were parties now in the Executive who had no interest in getting a durable financial settlement. They had such a stampede mindset that they just wanted back into government. They did not support negotiations to enhance what could have been the ongoing sustaining financially of the Northern Ireland Executive. There were others who just wanted back into the Executive for the very sake of power and preferred to lie about what they had achieved in terms of safeguarding the Union. This was an Executive restored on the basis of the biggest lie for generations in Northern Ireland: that the Irish sea border had been removed. It patently has not been removed. There was much that should have been done by the Northern Ireland Executive parties at the time of going back into devolution to extract the financial settlement that was needed.

Now we have reached the situation where overspend is the norm in Northern Ireland. That overspend is built on an expectation that in due course there will be a bail-out. That has been the pattern throughout the years and that is the expectation of this Executive: in due course, there will be a bail-out or a writing-off of the moneys that have been overspent. It has happened before and that is the essence of the demand again. Are the Government going to do that once more? We have had occasions when past Governments have said to the Northern Ireland Executive, “If we’re going to bail you out, you have to transform and do all sorts of things to save money. Maybe you have to raise some money yourself.” None of that has happened. The absence of that engendered a belief that yet again they can produce the begging bowl and have the overspends written off. I look forward to hearing from the Secretary of State how clear he is about whether or not that will yet happen again.

Reference has also been made to policing. Yes, policing is grossly short of funding and it is a scandal that, in my constituency and others, if you can muster together three or four community constables you are doing well for a town and multiple villages. It is a scandal, but it does bring one back to the absolute folly of ever having devolved policing and justice. The Government’s attitude today is, “Policing and justice is devolved, so you find the money.” The allocations are wholly inadequate. If policing and justice had never been devolved, the Secretary of State would have had no escape route in terms of finding the money to give policing to the citizens of Northern Ireland. It was a moment of folly, just over 10 years ago, to devolve policing and justice.

There is a real burden that I wanted to come to, and it is this. The Northern Ireland Office’s promotional website states that the Northern Ireland Office has three priorities, and within the second priority are the wonderful words,

“protecting the UK internal market”.

That, of course, is the one thing that this Government have lamentably failed to do. Instead of protecting the UK internal market, this Government have wrecked it, because we now have an internal market that is partitioned by a full international customs border down the Irish sea, courtesy of the very lies I referred to earlier and the Windsor framework. Far from protecting the UK internal market, the Northern Ireland Office has gleefully presided over the sabotaging of the UK internal market.

In a recent survey, the Federation of Small Businesses found that 38% of GB businesses that used to supply Northern Ireland have stopped supplying it. Why? Because of the unbearable paperwork and burdens that are put on businesses in order for them to trade with Northern Ireland. Far from protecting the UK internal market, we have a UK internal market that has been riven by this Government’s actions.

When we look at the small print in these accounts, we see that the Government are going to give the mighty sum of £2.25 million over three years to a body called Intertrade UK, the purpose of which, as the name suggests, is to promote trade within the United Kingdom—and the Government are giving it £750,000 per annum to do so. Intertrade UK has no staff and no offices—nothing. Let me contrast that with InterTradeIreland: InterTradeIreland exists for the correlative purpose of promoting trade on an all-Ireland basis. It gets £5 million a year of British taxpayers’ money. It also gets southern Government money. It has over 40 staff, plush offices and a real programme of work. Contrast that with Intertrade UK—the Secretary of State thinks it is adequate to give that organisation no staff, no offices and £750,000 a year.

Intertrade UK is seeking to promote trade within an economy of 70 million people, and it gets £750,000 to do it. InterTradeIreland is supposed to be promoting trade on an all-Ireland basis for a population of 7 million, and it gets millions upon millions, 40 members of staff, and more. Where is the logic? Other than the logic of wanting to do down inter-UK trade, where is the logic of being so abundantly miserly with Intertrade UK in comparison to the funds being given to InterTradeIreland? When I read that the Government’s second priority in this area is this idea of “protecting the UK internal market”, I see it as a joke—not just a joke, but a very sick joke—because the very opposite has been done to my part of the United Kingdom.

I use this debate to draw attention to those facts and to say to this Government—more in hope than expectation—that one day they will realise that they are the Government of the United Kingdom, and that means promoting the United Kingdom, not promoting the partitioning of it. It means promoting the growth not of an all-Ireland economy, but of an all-UK economy. Sadly, this Government, deliberately and consciously, are failing in that fundamental mission.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I know this is an interesting debate and topic, but Members would be best to keep speeches 100% within scope.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Allister]

indicated dissent.

[Hilary Benn]

The hon. and learned Member shakes his head. With respect, I am afraid that it is a self-evident fact.

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.

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.