North Belfast: Violent Attack

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

I agree with everything the hon. Gentleman said. I know that the PSNI is working hard to provide reassurance to the local community and to make arrangements for that reassurance to be visible in the face of those who, let us be frank in this House, will wish to use this terrible event to stir up trouble and disorder on the streets of Northern Ireland. I say that because we have seen it before. We do not wish to see it again. That is why all community leaders, politicians and others have such a responsibility to call for calm, as he so eloquently did.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his well-chosen and wise words, and for his answers. Tensions are inflamed, and I am aware of protests planned throughout my constituency. I am also aware that many of those who intend to attend do so not because they are frightened for their families alone, but because they feel that their fears are ignored when they make a good and grand statement. How can the Secretary of State and this Government ensure that people from Portavogie to Newtownards know that their right to peacefully protest is respected and, more than that, that their Government—my Government—will make changes for safety reasons as a matter of urgency?

[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?

Police Service of Northern Ireland Training College

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Thank you, Sir Roger, for allowing me to speak. I thank the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton), my friend and colleague from many a year ago on the council and as Members of the Legislative Assembly, for his ceaseless passion to ensure that our community has the best police service possible. He has put that on the record and I congratulate him.

It is also a pleasure to see the Minister in his place. He is a friend of Northern Ireland and he has proven that to be the case. We will now test how far his friendship goes—no, it is not fair to say that. I know that he will give us some encouragement in how we can move forward to support the hon. Member for North Down. It is also a pleasure to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), in his place—he is a friend of Northern Ireland and of all of us in this House—as well as the hon. Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane) who will speak for the Lib Dems.

I express my sincere gratitude and thanks to the PSNI for all it has done and does for us in Northern Ireland. I thank Chief Constable Jon Boutcher for his commitment and his actions on behalf of the PSNI. I also give special thanks to Superintendent Johnston McDowell, whom I share with the hon. Member for North Down, and all his officers for what they do. The hon. Member for North Down and I are both very committed to community policing. It is one of our good points in North Down and Strangford where we have an excellent community policing workforce.

This year marks the 25th anniversary of the Police Service of Northern Ireland training college, responsible for the delivery of the organisation’s training and development. This year’s recruitment round received more than 4,000 applications for student officer, demonstrating the willingness of people from a broad range of backgrounds to join the service and contribute to the safety of our communities.

I can cast my mind back to the introduction of the 50:50 rule, which, by its nature, stopped those who could have been good officers in the PSNI from being recruited. I will tell a story about my oldest boy Jamie who applied to join the PSNI through the 50:50 programme. It is no reflection on his best friend in Kircubbin, who also applied at the same time. It just so happened that my Jamie was a Protestant and that the other wee boy was a Roman Catholic. That does not take away from his capability, energy and commitment to the police. They did all the same recruitment tests and application forms. I know about this, because boys share stories. The wee boy, who was a good friend from Kircubbin he went to school with, did not score as highly as my Jamie, yet my Jamie did not get the job in the PSNI, but the other wee boy did.

The reason I tell that story is because of the imbalance. That young boy from Kircubbin is an excellent police officer today who has done really well. We admire him and he has all the qualities that we need, but there is something grossly unfair about a 50:50 system that stops somebody getting a job when he scored better than someone else, just because he happened to go to a different church on a Sunday. That is a disappointment. We do not have the 50:50 any more, thank the Lord. That is a good thing, because it means people will get the job they applied for because they have the capability, experience and aptitude to do it well.

In recognition of the commitment of these future officers, investment in their training should be prioritised to ensure that their willingness to serve is matched by the skills and knowledge required to police effectively. The PSNI is part of the great police forces in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for North Down hit on that point clearly. Those in the PSNI sometimes bear the weight of other public services in times of crisis. We are the only part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland with a land border. That is one of the massive issues we have to recognise.

I hope when the Minister responds he will recognise the extra tasks we have on the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, such as immigration. Rural theft is also a massive issue in which the PSNI has been very active recently. There is also a terrorism threat, as well as international gangs with money laundering, people trafficking and international crime. Those all add to the PSNI’s financial burden.

I like certain films, such as those starring Liam Neeson and Denzel Washington. They are the guys who can sort everything out in the 90 minutes a film takes from beginning to end. That is not how life is in the real world we live in. Life in the real world means that the PSNI has to work long and hard with the Garda Síochána in the Republic of Ireland, the police forces in mainland Scotland, Wales and England, and as far as the EU, to ensure that they catch criminals. That is real life, not the one that lasts 90 minutes, where the good person always beats the baddie, who is either dead or in prison when they have finished with them.

The training college has a demanding 22-week selection process to ensure the best for the job are selected. Due to the intensive nature of the job and the border with the Republic of Ireland, officers should be equipped physically and mentally to perform their role. That requires greater investment and tailored support services, with improved access to professional expertise from the beginning of the training programme.

Although the security situation in Northern Ireland has improved since the PSNI was established in 2001—I thank God for that—the threat of paramilitarism persists and gang warfare is also very real. The incident in North Belfast on which the leader of my party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), secured an urgent question today is also an example of the things that we all have to face in this modern world that we live in. I think the Secretary of State gave us as many answers as he could today, because there is to be a PSNI conference this afternoon that will disclose some other information pertinent to the investigation.

Investment in the police training college should reflect the higher level of training required to deal effectively with the distinct risks that officers in Northern Ireland face. We still have a small but very significant threat. The PSNI indicates that through the Real IRA, or Official IRA, or whatever they call themselves now—the three letters always maintain their focus—about 200 people in Northern Ireland are involved in a terrorist campaign. Now, 200 people can keep things boiling for a long time, so there is still a relevant IRA terrorist campaign in Northern Ireland that has to be faced down.

The expertise that comes from experience cannot be overestimated, and the need for training cannot simply be a paper exercise; a mirroring image of those who are in the job is essential. The training college—the very thing that the hon. Member for North Down, I and everyone including the Minister and the shadow Minister want—offers all of that despite its budget not being fit for purpose.

Regardless of the rapidly changing needs of the training college, the PSNI budget has been cut year on year since 2011. The financial decline takes away the PSNI’s ability to recruit, train and regularly service their vehicles, along with all the things needed as part of its work, including helicopters, drones and search teams. A police force is not just the bobby walking up and down the street; it is much more than that. That is why it is so important that we keep things going.

This problem has been further compounded by the collapse of the Executive and the one-year budget settlement. I just cannot work out why we have a budget that rumbles or slumbers along and does not address the issues but instead seems to put them off for another day. Simultaneously, legacy investigations and legal action are draining the PSNI’s resources as well. There are lots of pressures from all sides on the PSNI. A dedicated and protected funding allocation for those costs would help ensure that police training and development is properly sustained and delivered to the high standard required: that of a modern police force able to deal with all the circumstances that it has to—sometimes those that come out of the blue like last night—but that is also equipped and ready for others.

That is especially needed as the demands placed on the PSNI continue to evolve with cyber-crime. That is very technical and we have spoken about it here in the Chamber on other occasions. It is really important that our PSNI can engage with the police forces in Scotland, Wales and England and ensure that those things are taken care of. It must also respond to mental health incidents. I sometimes wonder about the pressure on the young officers who are called out to see somebody who has had a domestic incident, an attempted suicide or a car accident, and the effect these things have on the police officer’s mental health. It is not just about the mental health of those they meet; it is about the mental health of the police officers. These are all the demands that are on our police officers today and it presents a really complex challenge for them.

The rewards of a policing career can be immense, but officers give a great deal in return, and we thank them sincerely for that. It is therefore essential that they enter the role as fully equipped as possible. Support must be given to the development of officers’ foundational skills to ensure that they can confidently adapt to the changing needs of the role, and to ensure that they, as police officers, can fulfil those.

I am long enough in the tooth to look back and remember the police forces back in the time of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I remember the management and people skills that those seasoned officers had and which they were able to pass on to the new officers coming in. Many of those police officers have now retired, so it is too late to take advantage of those social skills and the things that they learned from others over the years.

If we want a safe and cohesive police service, the bottom line is that it must be funded. That is what I am asking for, like the hon. Member for North Down, and it is what others will ask for shortly, too. If we want equal opportunity for all races, sexes and creeds—and we should, we must and we will—it must be an attractive job with potential for the future. If we want to guard our streets, guide our young people and keep them right and give them opportunities, we need officers who are well trained, well paid and well equipped. This starts with the funding designated by Westminster—in Westminster Hall today, in the main Chamber and in Parliament.

I look to the Minister to recognise the vital role that the PSNI training college will have over the next 25 years in society in Northern Ireland. That is why it is so important, why the hon. Gentleman raised it and why we in this House need to push hard for it. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response and others who will contribute. We see the need for it; let us make sure it happens.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Burghart]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. I will turn to it in a moment.

[Jim Shannon]

When the Conservatives were in power, they committed to a review of the moneys going to Northern Ireland under the Barnett formula, but nothing happened. When the Labour party came into power, a similar commitment was made. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, on which my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) sit, recommended that the Barnett formula should be reviewed. Given all the commitments made by the previous Government and this Government, and as the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee is pushing for change, does the shadow Minister think that the Barnett formula needs to be reviewed and changed, to find the extra moneys to fund the police training college?

[Alex Burghart]

As ever, the hon. Gentleman makes an extremely astute observation. I suggest that we perhaps try to find the time to have a full Westminster Hall debate on the Barnett consequentials and formula with particular regard to Northern Ireland, as there are a great many technicalities that we could go into.

Returning to the point made by the hon. Member for North Down, I simply mean something along the following lines: if the Treasury was minded to honour its 1998 obligation to provide a new training college, it would only be fair to require, in return, a very solemn undertaking by the Northern Ireland Executive that, within a short and fixed term, we would make up the current deficit of 1,000 officers.

I think it would be quite wrong if a new facility were built at considerable cost—a necessary investment, in my opinion—but we were still here another 10 years down the line, with the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, and people across the United Kingdom, saying, “Why are the numbers in PSNI much lower than they should be?” If the Treasury chooses to enter into such negotiations, as I very much hope it will, there will need to be some reciprocal element from the Executive to ensure that any new facility is used to its maximum extent for the benefit of people not only in Northern Ireland but across the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Patrick]

I appreciate the frustration behind the hon. Member’s words about the time it is taking to secure the budget. I hear that and I will commit to raise with the Executive the training college he is advocating for, as we continue to press the importance of securing a multi-year and sustained balanced budget.

The October budget delivered a record £18.2 billion for the Northern Ireland Executive in the last financial year. That is the largest settlement in real terms in the history of devolution. It is clearly a matter for the Executive to make decisions on the allocation of resources in line with its own priorities, and it is therefore a matter for the Department of Justice to allocate that funding to the PSNI. How it is used is clearly an operational matter for the PSNI and the Chief Constable.

It is not just the block grant that the UK Government support the PSNI with.

[Jim Shannon]

The facts of the matter are—to be fair, most people have mentioned it—that the PSNI budget has been affected by the legacy costs, which I understand are in excess of £200 million. That takes a big chunk out of the PSNI budget every year. Although we understand that the Barnett consequential and extra moneys will be given to Northern Ireland—I say this respectfully to the Minister, because I think much of him—the fact is that the PSNI is already £200 million down because of the legacy. Will he consider some other methodology for the legacy funding, which would take the burden away from the PSNI and enable it to put some of that money towards the training college?

[Matthew Patrick]

If it is okay with the hon. Member, I will come to that point later. I will definitely address it, and I invite him to intervene on me if I do not—I may live to regret that.

The PSNI was previously provided with £32 million a year in additional security funding. That had been static for almost 10 years, since the 2015-16 financial year. Upon coming into government, we increased that to £37.8 million. The UK Government are also investing £235 million in the transformation of public services in Northern Ireland.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Patrick]

Of course. The dedication and professionalism of our armed forces is respected across this House, the country and the world, and we must have a strong defence industry standing behind them. Through the defence industrial strategy, businesses right across the United Kingdom can play their part in taking our defence industry to the next level.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Taking into account the world-class engineering capabilities already proven by industrial icons such as Shorts, Harland & Wolff and Thales in Northern Ireland, will the Minister ensure that the defence growth deal specifically leverages the existing high-tech supply chains and advanced manufacturing skills base across areas such as Strangford, to supercharge our regional private sector growth and ensure that this rising tide lifts all the manufacturing ships in Northern Ireland, which have the capacity to do so much more?

[Matthew Patrick]

I will do all that I can to ensure that. I have met many of those businesses and many small businesses from across Northern Ireland to discuss the defence growth deal. The hon. Member will be pleased to see there is a focus on skills and supply chains to support more of those businesses.

Supreme Court Dillon Judgment

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 14th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

The estimates are that between 25,000 and 35,000 paramilitaries were convicted for offences, including murder, bombings and other things, during the course of the troubles. There were four soldiers convicted of troubles-related offences during that time, one of whom was freed on appeal. Since the Good Friday agreement, there has been one conviction of a member of the armed forces, who received a suspended sentence. There are currently 10 live prosecutions, eight of which relate to paramilitaries, including people accused of killing members of the police and our armed forces. That lays to rest the argument that I have heard from some that the paramilitaries are not being pursued any more—that is not the case. Of the two other cases, one relates to the Royal Ulster Constabulary and one relates to members of our armed forces. That gives a very clear indication of where the balance of evidence and effort currently lies.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for his and his Government’s clarity, which is helpful. This Parliament is the supreme lawmaking body of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and courts must interpret laws, not rewrite them or strike them down based on political sensitivities. That has been made clear and the Windsor framework overreach, weaponised by the courts to override domestic UK human rights and criminal justice legislation, has been rightly stopped, and we thank the Government for that. When will the Northern Ireland Office instruct every Government Department to cease their political games and to do their job and apply the law correctly?

[Hilary Benn]

I have the greatest respect for the hon. Gentleman, but I do not accept his characterisation or that it is right to accuse the courts of weaponising anything. The courts looked at the case before them and reached a judgment, but the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land and, in the Government’s view, its interpretation of article 2 of the Windsor framework was right: the courts did not have the power to disapply the immunity provisions. That is separate from whether immunity continues to be incompatible—as it does—with the European convention. Secondly, I cannot think of any case where Government Departments are not following the law as it is and as we now understand it to be as a result of a very clear finding by the Supreme Court. That is why I have welcomed that finding on behalf of the Government.

Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over)

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Carry-over motion
Monday 27th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

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

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

[Hilary Benn]

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Burghart]

I genuinely respect the hon. Lady and the work that her Committee does, and she will remember that I was at that Westminster Hall debate. I must respectfully say that my outrage is not faux; I feel this very deeply. I have spent a lot of time talking to the people who are affected by this.

When the peace process was going through, when Labour was in power, it had no problem at all with creating immunity, and in 2005—as the Secretary of State will remember, because he was in the Cabinet at the time—Peter Hain, the then Secretary of State, brought forward a Bill that would have given immunity to terrorists, and terrorists alone. It was removed only when, under pressure from the Conservative party, the Government agreed to introduce immunity for veterans and Sinn Féin pulled its support, so the Government pulled the Bill.

Immunity is one of the things on which the peace process was founded, yet now in government, the Labour party has forgotten all about this and said it cannot possibly apply to anyone again. The Labour party has said that it cannot support immunity, and yet it used to. Similarly, the Government have said that they cannot support our legislation on the grounds that there was no support for it in Northern Ireland, but I am afraid that by that criterion this legislation has also failed, because where is the support for it in Northern Ireland? It is not there among Northern Ireland Members, and it is not on the streets of Belfast. This is an unloved Bill. There are lots of people who appreciate that this is the wrong way of going about things.

[Jim Shannon]

One thing that really concerns me is that this carry-over motion has been pressed by the Irish Government. That absolutely boggles my mind. The double standard is entirely shocking. The Irish Government need to be held to account for their role in protecting IRA murderers across the border. We think of all those ones who were murdered: Kenneth Smyth, my cousin; Daniel McCormick, his comrade; Lexie Cummings, and Stuart Montgomery. They were just four, but there were many, many more. Whenever there were murders, the murderers raced across the border. Does the hon. Gentleman share my anger on behalf of my constituents and my family, who want to know why the Irish Government have more say in this than the victims of Northern Ireland, my family and others?

[Alex Burghart]

My hon. Friend always speaks incredibly powerfully on this point.

The Government have also argued that our Bill was found to be incompatible with human rights legislation, but that is only partly true. The truth is that the Government failed to challenge the findings in the courts, and those findings themselves were highly questionable. There are high-level, highly credible legal arguments that show that the legacy Act may well have not been incompatible, precisely because the same logic around immunity had been used in 1998. So unless we are prepared to say that the legislation passed during the peace process is itself potentially incompatible with human rights law, the argument on the legacy Act falls. This is what is being considered in the case of Dillon before the Supreme Court now. The Government cannot argue that that legislation was incompatible with human rights, because they failed to see the process to its conclusion.

All of that has been made clearer and clearer over the lifetime of this law’s delay. In the time that it has taken the Bill only to get through its Second Reading, we have seen, starkly and painfully, regular real-life examples of the problems it will perpetuate. I will give a few small examples. In February, this House debated the terrible ruling in the Clonoe case. This was the case from February 1992, when four men—known terrorists armed with semi-automatic weapons and a Dushka machine gun capable of firing 600 rounds a minute at a range of 1,100 yards—attacked a Royal Ulster Constabulary police station and were in transit to commit further crimes. They were confronted by members of the armed forces, who killed them. Those terrorists called themselves an army, carried weapons of war, sought to kill and operated entirely outside the bounds of any law, yet we were asked to believe that the use of lethal force against them was not justified. I am afraid that that case is now being challenged, and the men involved are being subject to unjust and unfair scrutiny of decisions they made in a split second, decades ago. Nothing in the amendments that the Secretary of State has discussed with the press will do anything about that.

In November, we debated the findings in the case against Soldier F from Bloody Sunday. He was found not guilty after the longest and most intricate inquiry in British legal history. Indeed, Judge Patrick Lynch told Belfast Crown Court that the evidence even then fell “well short” of the standard required. He said:

“A 53-year-old statement cannot be cross-examined, nor can I assess the demeanour of a sheet of A4 paper”.

The House must see again that it is becoming vanishingly difficult to get convictions, because the 1998 agreement was 27 years ago and the ceasefire began 31 years ago. Nothing in the Secretary of State’s proposed amendments or in this Bill will do anything to right that situation.

Several times the case of Soldier B, a former SAS officer, has been raised in the Commons. In October, the case was thrown out by a court in Belfast, where the judge described it as “ludicrous” and said it should never have come to his court—but not before the man in question had been investigated for four years. A further challenge was then mounted despite the judge having said it was “ludicrous”, and only recently has the veteran in question been freed from the weight of that.

I am afraid that if the Government’s Bill goes ahead, we will see a return to this repeat investigation of innocent men who will be dragged through the courts, and then at the end the legal cavalcade will move on, leaving them bearing the emotional burden of being investigated for having done nothing wrong. Nothing that has been speculated about in the press this weekend will do anything to right that wrong.

Dunmurry Police Station Attack

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

[Hilary Benn]

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

Northern Ireland: Legacy of the Past

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Eight minutes of brevity, Dame Siobhain. I will try and squeeze it into eight minutes, but it will be difficult. I am very pleased to be here. I thank the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, and particularly the Chair, the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), for her hard work on this topic, which is a complex issue with numerous concerns. I understand that it is impossible to please everyone, but we must always please the tenets of truth and justice. I do not believe that this has been achieved. I say that with great respect to the Committee and the Secretary of State.

The hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) has just reminded us of the murder of the two corporals. I remember where I was: it was Saturday, I was sitting watching the TV, and it felt like a film, but the brutality and violence of the despicable murder of those two soldiers was happening in real life.

My party has deep concerns that the Government have chosen to press ahead with their intent to restore provision for inquests without a fundamental appraisal of how the coronial system in Northern Ireland approaches troubles-related cases, specifically the actions of the security forces.

One need only to look at the disgraceful coroner’s report on the Clonoe inquest, where the coroner exceeded his remit by questioning the honest belief of ex-SAS soldiers during the 1992 ambush, where four IRA members were killed after attacking Coalisland Royal Ulster Constabulary station. That disgracefully politically motivated overreach of the coroner merely confirmed the view that those inquests are not designed to meet the obligations of truth and justice, but can ignore the actions of the terrorists and make victim-makers into victims.

The Government have taken no steps to rectify the system that allowed the Clonoe inquiry to report as it did, and therefore the right-thinking people of Northern Ireland—those who lived through the troubles: my generation and my parents’ generation—have no faith in the system, which they believe exists as a sop to terrorism, aiming to rewrite the evils we lived through as though they were understandable and excusable. Ask those burnt at La Mon, whose scars receive medical attention to this day, if they understand or excuse the bomb that murdered innocent people. If God spares me and I get home in time, I will be at the La Mon Hotel tonight, and it will be a reminder of what happened there.

The balance in the focus of investigations towards members of the security forces is in itself a barrier to fairness. Inquest proceedings have often enabled legal representatives to use high-profile public hearings to aggressively examine witnesses, including ageing veterans, and to push spurious and unchallenged narratives of the troubles.

The Democratic Unionist party does not agree that legal aid should be provided to the next of kin in an inquest —nor does it agree with the form of what Government have called “enhancing inquisitorial proceedings”, the bulk of which will focus on state involvement—but not to witnesses to those proceedings, or to those seeking answers and redress for their loved ones via legacy investigations. Many families bereaved through terrorism faced the ignominy of tick-box inquests, with little in the way of information provided and no state funded legal representation. That should not be compounded by sustaining a deep inequality in how inquests are dealt with going forward.

Subsequently, we cannot and will not support this approach, which gives power and funding to those who wish to paint blood on to the hands of RUC and service personnel who were held to account at the time and since, and yet allow republicans to be painted in glowing colours of glory. That is unbearable, and we will not ask our people to bear it. Neither can we allow to go unchallenged the repeated refusal of the Irish Government to admit their collusion, and continuing to be a haven of safety for republican terrorists, who knew they could skip across the border and not a question would be asked, not a car would be searched, and not a murderer of babies and women would be held to account.

I remember the murder of those two superintendents that the hon. Member for South Antrim referred to. Superintendents Breen and Buchanan were murdered by the IRA on the border. They had been at a meeting in the Republic of Ireland, when, coming back up north, the two of them were blown up at the border. This question has often been posed, and I pose it again today. The Garda Síochána had a mole who gave the information, the intelligence, to the IRA who then murdered those two guys at the border. The Republic of Ireland—forgive me for pointing the finger—has a case to answer in relation to those two men. They were murdered because they were RUC personnel, and yet the Garda Síochána never had an inquiry into the intelligence breakdown, or compassion for the families. I make that case.

I also make a case for Daniel McCormick and Kenneth Smyth—people might know that Kenneth Smyth was my cousin—murdered in December ’71. I also think of Lexie Cummings, murdered in Strabane. The people who murdered him escaped across the border. Where did the people who murdered Winston Donnell, the first UDR man ever to be killed, go? Across the border. Why did they go to the border? Because they could get away with it. I want accountability, so let us make the Garda Síochána and the Republic of Ireland accountable in this process. We hear about collusion in the RUC and the armed forces, with spurious allegations put forward, and yet the truth that the dogs on the street know about the Garda Síochána and the Irish Government is their shelter of murderers, and that is left as just the way things are. Well, that is not for me, and not for anyone else.

I remind the Westminster Hall Chamber that my family knows at first hand about that collusion, and we understand it. We know about the future of Unionists in the Republic of Ireland—it is a dark, cold and unforgiving place for Unionists. I hope they are listening down in the Republic of Ireland, because that is how my people see it. That is how my family felt, who left there to go north, because that was where they had a future. There was no future for my family, for my mum and dad, and those others from the Republic of Ireland who came north.

That is why any form of Irish co-operation with any inquiries can only begin with sincere apologies. Let us get those apologies. Let the Republic of Ireland apologise to us for giving sanctuary, security and a haven to those murdering scum that they were. That is what I want to hear about. Any form of Irish co-operation with any inquiries can only begin when that happens, and when we get some information leading to the prosecution of murders. Until that day comes, there can be, and should be, no co-operation with those whose hands are as bloody as some, such as Gerry “I was never in the IRA, by the way” Adams—we know him, as he is the one.

I said at the outset of my comments that we cannot satisfy everyone, but we must satisfy truth and justice. My mother was about truth and justice, always about what is right. This approach does neither, and merely further alienates the true victims of the troubles. That is why we ask any right-thinking Member of this House to refuse to allow legislation to pass that lets the murder of two unborn children in Omagh be painted as part of a glorious cause. It was not—it was evil and wicked. We stood for many years against that evil in Northern Ireland, so I stand against it today, together with others in this House. It cannot be permitted. I ask all Members present to join me and others in satisfying truth and justice, which is what it is always about. Eight minutes is almost done, so thank you, Dame Siobhain, for giving me the chance to speak for that wee bit longer.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Patrick]

We support integrated education, and integrated schools are a really important part of that. I was recently at some shared education schools, at the request of the Minister, and I was impressed by some of the work being done there, but I do not think there is just one route for schools in Northern Ireland.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his answers. The Education Minister in Northern Ireland, Paul Givan, has been keen to introduce restrictions on students using smartphones in schools, and he has a pilot scheme in place. The Government here are happy to do the same thing. Has the Minister had an opportunity to encourage the Education Minister in Northern Ireland to bring in smartphone restrictions in schools? One party in the Executive wishes to stop that, but the will of the people is to make sure it happens.

[Matthew Patrick]

I was with the Minister for Education recently but this topic did not come up. Obviously, these matters are devolved and are for the Northern Ireland Executive, but I would be happy to speak to Minister Givan, as the hon. Member suggests.

Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

I will continue.

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

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Hilary Benn]

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

[Jim Shannon]

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

[Hilary Benn]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Burghart]

I would have been very open to that idea, but I believe that the previous Administration did not feel that there was the opportunity to proceed in that way. If we are thinking about the future, I think what the hon. Lady proposes is a perfectly sensible idea.

[Jim Shannon]

The reason we do not trust the Irish Government on legacy issues is clear. It was a murder haven for years. Many people who committed murders, some of which we might hear about later, escaped across the border. How are we going to rebuild bridges without honesty about state collusion that included IRA terrorists and the Irish Government? Quite clearly, their hands are dirty. When it comes to the legislation, I want to see the same accountability for the Republic of Ireland Government, their Ministers and the Garda Síochána officers. My constituents have never had justice. I want to see justice for them.

[Alex Burghart]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Myself and my party, the DUP, stand squarely—[Interruption.]

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Will the hon. Gentleman take an intervention?

[Jim Shannon]

indicated assent.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I am grateful. I am sure that what the hon. Gentleman is about to tell us will be very important. I wonder if he would just take a deep breath and give us his counsel.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention.

The door to justice must remain open. No equivalence can or should be drawn between the innocent victim and the perpetrator. Every family deserves a full and fair investigation into the death of their loved one, and there should be appropriate safeguards against vexatious troubles investigations.

I am here today to speak on behalf of all those families who seek justice. My family seeks justice, and the right hon. Gentleman seeks justice for his friend and comrade. It is for them that I underline the major flaws in this remedial order. It does not provide protection for service personnel. There is the recent history of members of the security forces being maligned and dragged through the courts as a result of vexatious allegations. Let us never forget that those stem from an attempt to whitewash the history of the troubles, which was overwhelmingly about paramilitaries murdering and maiming at their unjustifiable will. Let me be clear: I talk about those with clean hands.

The announcement of the Irish Government’s role in the process, considering their perceived inaction on legacy issues within their own jurisdiction, which includes a parallel inquiry into the Omagh bombing, is yet more salt in the wound of those who watch murderers skip over the border with impunity. The reason that we do not trust the Irish Government on legacy issues is clear and warranted: it was a murder haven for years.

Without information, there can be no Irish influence. Anything less is the gravest insult to the memory of those murdered and to the families who grieve them. The fact of the matter is that we can never equate the death of a terrorist killed when carrying out murder—[Interruption.]

[David Smith]

The hon. Gentleman will know the respect with which he is held in this Chamber for raising attention to the matters of terrorist atrocities over many years. On both sides of the House, we are keen to hear his stories, so we would just like him to take a moment and we look forward to hearing them.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend for that. My cousin Kenneth Smyth and his good friend Daniel McCormick were murdered in an ambush on the way to work on 10 December 1971—54 years ago. There is no justice for my family and no justice for young Daniel McCormick. Their only crime was to wear the uniform of this nation, because they were in the Ulster Defence Regiment. They dared to cross the religious divide—Daniel was a Roman Catholic; my cousin Kenneth was a Protestant—and protect their communities from evil men. On 10 December they were slaughtered, leaving their wives and three young children behind. Those men escaped across the border to that murder haven in the Republic of Ireland.

Stuart Montgomery, 18 years old, was murdered by the IRA at Pomeroy. There was never any accountability for his family. Winston Donnell was murdered by the IRA on 9 August 1971 while manning a checkpoint outside my aunt Isobel’s farm down at Clady. They shot him with a Thompson submachine gun, they drove across the road, they cleared the bridge and where did they go? To the Republic of Ireland. I do not know whether Raymond McCord is watching this. I am sure he is, back home. His son was murdered by the UVF because he stood up to them. He seeks justice as well. I seek justice for him, and I put that on record.

The Bill does nothing for those mourning families. It does nothing for the families of the Ballydugan Four. On 9 April 1990, near Ballydugan, Downpatrick, a Provisional IRA bomb blew up four men, three of whom I knew. I worked with Private Michael Adams in a butcher’s shop and I served with him in the Territorial Army. He joined the UDR. I remember the day Private John Birch was born. He died as well. I did not know Lance Corporal John Bradley from Dundalk, unfortunately, but he deserves justice. Then there was Private Steven Smart from Newtownards. I knew his dad and the family really well. The four men were killed. The explosion was massive, killing the four men in the second vehicle instantly and creating a crater some 50 feet long.

The point I want to make is that the Bill does not protect the RUC officer who shot the man who pushed the button and who blew up those four men. I will put it on record in this House that Colum Marks was the murdering scum of an IRA commander in Downpatrick who killed those four UDR men. Was he ever held accountable? No, he was not, but he did get held to account at one time. In Downpatrick, when he tried to set up a horizontal mortar bomb, he was shot by an RUC officer who was then taken and charged. The investigation found that he was not guilty, but the point I want to make is that we need protection. We need to make sure of that.

I am going to finish with this. I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise for my tears. I find it very hard to express these things that have happened to people that I served with and knew. I am asking the Members of this House to ask themselves this: will this legislation do what the troubles legislation was intended for and provide justice? No, it will not. Will it help my cousin Shelley, my family and all the other families, including the family of Private Steven Smart, a lovely young boy, whose family I speak to down the street in Newtownards? No, it will not. Will this legislation enable the continued persecution of RUC, UDR and British Army veterans, many of whom have had their honourable service doubted and disputed, and who deserve better from this House? Will this Bill help to bring healing and comfort? The answer is no, it will not, and therefore I believe that tonight it must not pass.

Northern Ireland Political Institutions: Reform

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) for the way she presented the case. It is important that we do that in a measured way.

I was a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly for 12 years before I came to this place. Each of these institutions, whether it be the one here in Westminster or the Northern Ireland Assembly, has its complications and should be challenged. There is no doubt that we have yet to find a perfect political institution; that is a fact of life. Do I want to see some changes at Stormont? Yes, I do. Although I am not an apologist for the Northern Ireland Assembly, I want to highlight that there has been delivery. Has there been much delivery, and has it been at the pace that I want to see? No. I would have liked to see a greater pace.

I should have welcomed the Minister to his place. I wish him well in his role, and I hope that he will be able to give us some encouragement.

Nobody denies that there is much work to do to demonstrate the effectiveness of these institutions in making a positive difference to the lives of people across Northern Ireland, but to say that there has not been progress over the past 12 months is not only inaccurate but facetious. I do not want to overstate the Executive’s achievements but, just to give two examples, it is worth noting that Stormont has delivered significant investment in early years and childcare: 14,500 children now benefit from a subsidy that has slashed childcare costs for working parents. That is positive, because we can see the difference to people. My constituents have benefited from it.

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

My hon. Friend is outlining some of the benefits that have flowed from devolution, flawed as it is. Without denigrating the Minister, does my hon. Friend think we would have got those things if it had been down to the Northern Ireland Office, or did devolution deliver in the absence of the NIO?

[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.

[Sorcha Eastwood]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important to have a functioning Government in Northern Ireland, because the local growth fund and what the UK Government have done on that for Northern Ireland demonstrate that only Northern Ireland can look out for itself? We cannot expect others to keep doing it for us. That is why we need to change how we do things.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

I agree with the principle of what the hon. Lady says; there are things that we can take advantage of through having a working Assembly. Another way we have an advantage is the £100 winter fuel payment and the medication payment provided for our elderly.

There are certainly barriers to delivery, but one of the major ones, and the most important need for reform, is the unelected death grip of Europe on Northern Ireland. That is the reform that I, and probably most Members with a Unionist point of view in this Chamber, would like to see. There is an irony in those in certain parties raising concerns about democratic wellbeing, while Members faithfully went through the Lobby to vote for the continuation of arrangements that undemocratically foisted on us hundreds of areas of law governed by a foreign jurisdiction, without any role or input from them or those that they represent, in the formalisation of the EU interference in British Northern Ireland.

Let me be very clear. The DUP is not opposed to improving how devolution works from day to day. There are changes we need to see, and discussions need to take place on how that would happen. As has been the case since 2007, we are committed to increasing efficiency, transparency and accountability within the institutions. The DUP has supported the reduction of the number of Government Departments, special advisers and Members of the Legislative Assembly per constituency, and supported the creation of an Opposition.

However, in the here and now, the focus should clearly be on delivering the bread-and-butter issues and improving the life of everyone in Northern Ireland. That is what the electorate expects, and it is what the DUP is committed to achieving. Any programme of reform or any agreement should be led by the local parties with a primary role for the AERC, and be fully accountable to the Executive and the Assembly.

I am running short of time, but let me be clear: any reform of the Northern Ireland Assembly must be a cross-party reorganisation, and must begin with the removal of EU and, I believe, Irish interference in order ever to have the buy-in of the Unionist people and the nationalist grouping. That is the immovable foundation of democracy and democratic institutions in Northern Ireland.

To move forward, we must put the quality of our constituents’ lives above achieving political gain, regardless of how people live their life. In the interim, my party and I will continue to prioritise people over point scoring. I hope that that is replicated across all parties, but I have my doubts. What is my duty? My duty is to my constituents, to my country, to my wife and to my boys—my children.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

It is possible that there may be another vote shortly, so we will start with the wind-ups.