Oral Answers to Questions

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Patrick]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. I am very happy to ensure that that features in our conversations with Executive Ministers. Northern Ireland is leading the way in so many of these areas, so I will continue to have those conversations.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

Happy new year, Mr Speaker.

Policing numbers in Northern Ireland are at their lowest ever level. Both the Police Service of Northern Ireland and Policy Exchange have warned that reopening cases from the troubles will place a huge additional financial burden on the police, which would mean risks for both policing numbers and national security. Is the Minister happy with that situation? Will he let it happen, or will the Secretary of State be compensating the PSNI for the decisions made by his Department?

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

All the political parties in Northern Ireland that expressed their profound opposition to immunity have welcomed the fact that immunity will go under the legislation that we have brought before the House—that includes the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), the DUP leader, who supports its removal. That is a sign that the Government have been listening to views in Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, the Legacy Act failed to do that.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

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

Happy new year, Mr Speaker.

Over Christmas, seven former senior SAS officers wrote in The Telegraph:

“In this Troubles Bill, the Government is complicit in this war on our Armed Forces.”

A few days later, the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner, appointed by this Government, said that the Bill treats veterans “worse than terrorists” and is

“eating at the very fabric of the Armed Forces”.

Can the Secretary of State tell the House which former senior officers support the Bill?

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

The Government had to do something about the previous Government’s failed legacy Act, which had no support in Northern Ireland. If one is seeking to help the people of Northern Ireland to deal with the continuing consequences of the troubles, the legislation has to have that support, and the previous Government failed to do that. On the impact on recruitment, as the hon. Gentleman will have heard when the Minister for the Armed Forces answered the urgent question on Monday, inflows continue to improve. Indeed, inflow is up by 13% this year compared with September 2024.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

Happy new year, Mr Speaker.

The Secretary of State was sitting alongside the Minister for the Armed Forces on Monday, when I asked him whether he was listening to the concerns of veterans regarding the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. The Minister convinced me that he is listening, and we just heard the Secretary of State do likewise, but is anyone acting on those concerns? Before Christmas, at the Dispatch Box, the Secretary of State promised to write to me detailing which veterans groups he had met, but I have heard nothing since. I also wrote to the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to request a meeting to discuss veterans’ ongoing concerns, but I have heard nothing since. Will the Secretary of State please detail all the veterans groups he has met, and meet me to discuss their continuing concerns?

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

I agree with my hon. Friend. We need to remember that it is the Human Rights Act that gives all of us access to the rights and protections contained in the European convention on human rights. To leave it would put us alone in Europe, in the company of Russia and Belarus. Is that really where the Opposition want to be—welcomed with a pat on the back by President Putin?

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

I do not agree with that assessment. I have had many discussions with the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner, and if one looks at the facts, including at the prosecutions that have taken place, there have been more prosecutions of paramilitary terrorists than of soldiers. Indeed, there has been one conviction of a soldier for a troubles-related offence in the past 27 and a half years.

[Mr Speaker]

Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I extend a warm welcome to the President of the House of Representatives of the Netherlands and his delegation, who are with us in the Gallery today.

The Prime Minister was asked—

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. We are taking serious action to deliver the homes that the country needs, and to provide homeowners with greater rights, powers and protections. We will publish the draft Bill as soon as possible, and I will update the House. More protections are already coming this year, of course, because we passed the Renters’ Rights Bill, which provides stronger protection for 9 million renters and abolishes no-fault evictions. That is the change we are delivering, and who voted against it? The Tories and Reform.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

[Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)]

May I welcome the Prime Minister’s efforts to advance peace in Ukraine, and his joint statement on Greenland? The last few days have seen significant international events, with the US operation in Venezuela, threats towards Greenland, and an agreement to put British troops on the ground in Ukraine. It is therefore frankly astonishing that the Prime Minister is not making a full statement to Parliament today. No Prime Minister—Labour or Conservative—has failed to make a statement to the House in person after committing to the deployment of British troops. His comments about making a statement in due course are frankly not good enough. It shows a fundamental lack of respect for all of us here, and for the people we represent.

The United States is Britain’s closest military ally. However, we are clear that the sovereignty of Greenland is sacrosanct, so can the Prime Minister tell us what influence he is bringing to bear on the United States Administration to ensure that that is respected?

[Mrs Badenoch]

Why is today not the earliest opportunity? The truth is that the Prime Minister does not want everybody in this House to be able to ask him questions, so he leaves that just to Prime Minister’s questions, which last for half an hour. At least on Monday his Foreign Secretary stood up to speak for two hours and 15 minutes. It was a non-event, but at least she did that. The Prime Minister is scared of our being able to ask him questions—six questions. [Interruption.] Yes, he is here—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I have also requested an early statement; the House should always be informed first. I do not like the chuntering; let the questions continue.

[Mrs Badenoch]

Someone said, “He is here.” The Prime Minister has no choice but to be here for Prime Minister’s questions. That is why he is here. We know that if he could skip this, he would.

Let us return to the matter in hand. All of us, or at least most of us, agree that NATO is the bedrock of our security. The future of Greenland is of fundamental importance to the future of the alliance, and I am sure that the Prime Minister agrees that it is essential for NATO leaders, including and especially the United States, to meet. Will he call for an urgent meeting of NATO leaders?

[The Prime Minister]

The Leader of the Opposition says that she wants to hear about Ukraine. She has six questions, and she is not even asking a second question about what we did yesterday. She has the opportunity.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I help the Prime Minister? He does not need to worry about responsibility for the questions from the Opposition. That is their job.

[The Prime Minister]

NATO is the single most important and effective military alliance that the world has ever seen. In the 18 months for which we have been in power, I have done everything in my ability to strengthen NATO. We had one of the strongest NATO meetings last year at the summit, when we had more members of NATO and more unity. When I arrived back at the House to make a statement, which of course the Leader of the Opposition had asked for, her position was that I should not have missed Prime Minister’s questions; I should have empty-chaired the NATO summit. That is how serious she is about NATO.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

On the serious issue that the right hon. Lady puts to me in relation to security guarantees, the American role and our dialogue with the Americans, I can assure the House that I spoke to President Trump twice over the Christmas period in relation to this specific issue, along with members of the E3 and European allies. That has been a constant in the course of our discussions. There is no question of acting on this without full discussion with the Americans. Their senior negotiators were there yesterday at President Trump’s request and on his instructions, and they were talking to him during the course of yesterday as we negotiated. To assure the House—because it is a serious position that she puts to me—on the question of security guarantees, there is nothing between the UK and the US, and we have been constantly discussing this over many, many weeks and months. We have made huge progress, and I have personally spoken to President Trump about this on two occasions since we were last in this House. I want to reassure her and the House in relation to that really important issue.

On defence spend, I am proud that we are investing to keep our country safe. We have increased the defence spend; that is provided for in the Budget. It is the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the cold war, and that means better kit and better housing for our forces, and better defence as an engine for growth. Compare that with the Conservatives’ record. Ben Wallace, who was on the radio this morning—the longest-serving Conservative Defence Secretary—admitted that on their watch, the armed services had been, in his words, “hollowed out”. Our defence—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Mr Cartlidge, you expect a lot. I expect something back, and that is silence.

[The Prime Minister]

Hon. Members shout “shame!”; I will pass that on to Ben Wallace. The defence spending that we have put in place comes in three years earlier than the unfunded plan that the Conservatives left behind at the last election would have done.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question; I know that he is working on this scheme. As he knows, land investigation works are currently taking place to help establish the final costs. The Roads Minister is looking closely at the scheme, alongside about 40 others. We will prioritise schemes that deliver faster journeys, and allow new homes and jobs.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

[Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

Mr Speaker, may I wish you and everyone in this House a happy new year? I welcome the progress made on security guarantees for Ukraine yesterday. Geoffrey Robertson KC is a respected authority on international law. He is also the head of the Prime Minister’s barrister chambers and he could not be clearer: President Trump’s actions in Venezuela are illegal. He says the United States:

“is in breach of the United Nations charter”

and

“has committed the crime of aggression, which the court at Nuremberg described as the supreme crime”.

Does the Prime Minister agree with his old mentor, or has he got it wrong?

Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the urgent question on the draft Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 (Remedial) Order 2025. I remind the House that on 19 November 2024, I granted a waiver from the House’s sub judice resolution in respect of the related case of Dillon and others v. the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. As such, reference may be made to the case during proceedings. I call the shadow Secretary of State to ask his urgent question.

Northern Ireland Troubles: Operation Kenova

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before we come to the urgent question on Operation Kenova, I remind the House that there is an ongoing waiver to allow limited reference to any active legal proceedings relating to the historical troubles-related deaths. Any references to such cases should be limited to the context and to the events that led to the cases, but not to the detail of the cases themselves or the names of those involved in them. Members should always take special care to avoid saying anything that might interfere with the course of justice.

May I say that I thought this would be done not as a written ministerial statement but as a statement to the House? When all the news channels are carrying such a major subject, I really think this House should have had that benefit. That is why I granted the UQ.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

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

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

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

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

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

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

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

[Hilary Benn]

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

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

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

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

Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) on asking it, and on his excellent contribution.

This is a very significant and highly detailed report, which I know hon. Members will want to take some time to digest, but on behalf of the Conservative party, I thank all those who have contributed to it. I also want to remember all those who suffered during that very difficult time. The last Conservative Government apologised for collusion following the de Silva review of the murder of Patrick Finucane, and while it is sobering to read further accounts of collusion between a small number of agents of the British state and paramilitaries, it is important to set this alongside a number of findings in the Kenova report.

First, as the Secretary of State mentioned, there is an understanding that legislation has changed dramatically since the time in question, under both the last Labour Government and the last Conservative Government. Secondly, it is important to highlight that although the review found that there were a small number of rogue actors, it did not find “any evidence” that collusion occurred

“at a political or strategic level”,

and there was

“no evidence which indicates that the RUC at an organisational level was involved or complicit with the activities of extremists or terrorists.”

It is very important that those findings are not lost.

Thirdly, as the right hon. Member for Belfast East said, the review found that there was no specific intelligence that, if acted upon, could have prevented the 1974 Dublin and Monaghan bombings, and it did not manage to find any evidence indicating that British security forces colluded with the UVF in those attacks—again, these are historic findings.

I would be very interested to hear from the Secretary of State whether he would be prepared to come back at a later date and tell us more about the Government’s future position on “neither confirm nor deny”. I understand that there is a case going on at the moment, but I believe that once that is done, it will be important for the Government to be clear with the House about how they see that policy going forward.

As has already been mentioned, there have been a number of detailed and necessary reviews of collusion between agents of the British state and paramilitaries, but as yet there have been no such reviews on the Irish side. Will the Secretary of State tell us whether the Irish Government have told him by when they intend to present their own legislation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

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

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

[Mr Speaker]

Final question—Jim Shannon.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

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

[Hilary Benn]

The hon. Gentleman—

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

I apologise, Mr Speaker.

“Soldier F” Trial Verdict

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 3rd November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before we begin, it may be helpful for me to remind the House that the trial of Soldier F in relation to the events on Bloody Sunday is no longer sub judice and that it is the focus of today’s urgent question. There remain live cases in respect of other soldiers. On 14 July 2025, I granted a waiver to allow limited reference to active legal proceedings related to historical troubles-related deaths. However, references to live cases should be limited to the context and to the events that led to the cases, but not to the detail of cases themselves, nor to the names of those individuals involved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

Having promised the House in two statements since the Government were elected in July 2024 that I would bring forward proposals, I did so when the Government published the Bill on 14 October. Since then, I have met political parties and organisations representing victims and survivors, and this week I will again meet the victims and survivors forum that I met on the day that the agreement with the Irish Government was published. As I acknowledged to the House when I made my oral statement, no proposals put forward will be greeted with approval by everyone, but I have been much struck by the fact that those I have met and talked to have said, “Well, we will need to consider the detail.” I believe that the proposals provide a basis for moving forward, and I hope that the House will recognise that.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his responses so far. We welcome the resolution of this trial and the clarity that the law has afforded. The Liberal Democrats extend our deepest sympathies to the families who still seek justice and answers. The legacy Act of 2023 may have been driven by the instinct to protect veterans, but it fails to comply with our international legal obligations and, through its conditional immunity, created a false equivalence between those who valiantly served in the British armed forces and those involved in acts of terrorism. That approach was both morally wrong and offensive to veterans and victims alike. The violence carried out by terrorist organisations during the troubles caused deep suffering across Northern Ireland, and we believe that the need to uphold the rule of law must apply to all without exception, but prosecution should never become persecution. This case focuses our attention back on the Government’s new attempt to deal with the legacy of the past. Is the Secretary of State absolutely confident that the Bill will deliver strong enough protections for British veterans? What has he done to try to secure support from veterans’ organisations? What has he done to ensure that victims and families can finally access the truth and justice that they deserve?

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

All those families, including military families, are at the centre of what we seek to do. What are the Government trying to achieve? We are trying to create a legacy system that more people in Northern Ireland can have confidence in. The last legacy Act failed to command sufficient confidence from the people in Northern Ireland; that is a fact that no one can dispute. I agree with my hon. Friend that prosecutions are increasingly unlikely with the passage of time—I think the judgment and the judge’s summing up in the case of Soldier F made that extremely clear—but even where they are not possible, we want to put in place arrangements, and to be able to provide information about what happened to the families.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Whatever the wrongs committed on that day, does the Secretary of State understand that it beggars belief that a former IRA man can, in his old age, be lolling on a sofa, despite all his torturing, kneecapping and executions? I am thinking of Captain Nairac, who was abducted, tortured and killed; his perpetrators were never brought to justice. Does the Secretary of State realise that this whole process is deeply wounding to the morale of the British Army? He can take refuge in independent prosecution, but he can give his own opinion and say that it is surely time that Northern Ireland moves on into a better age.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Davis]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Yes, if it relates to the urgent question.

[David Davis]

During his responses today, the Secretary of State has said two things: on the one hand, he said that letters of comfort do not give immunity; and on the other hand, he accepted that letters of comfort stopped the prosecution of Mr Downey for the Hyde Park bombing. It seems to me that those two statements are inconsistent. What way is available to him to correct Hansard and put one of them right?

[Hilary Benn]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. What I said was absolutely accurate, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows. On the circumstances of the trial of Mr Downey in relation to the Hyde Park bombing, the reason why the judge called that to a halt was set out. But subsequent statements made it quite clear that those letters of comfort did not constitute immunity, as the subsequent events—not least the impending prosecution of Mr Downey—demonstrate.

[Mr Speaker]

Thank you.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

A number of the core provisions of the previous Government’s legacy Act have been deemed by the Northern Ireland courts to be incompatible with our human rights obligations. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is little wonder that the legislation was so widely opposed, and does this not make the task of repealing and replacing it even more important?

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

That is no doubt an issue that the House will discuss as the Bill is considered in detail. I think that “compelling” and “essential” is a pretty high bar. It will be for the commission to interpret that, but no doubt we will continue to discuss it.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

Further to the Secretary of State’s comments on the adequacy of the legacy and reconciliation Act, I would like to turn to the role of the European convention on human rights. As he will be aware, the Leader of the Opposition seems more interested in the views of the Member for Mar-a-Lago and Moscow than the vision of her predecessor Winston Churchill and is now calling for withdrawal from the ECHR. May I therefore ask the Secretary of State what assessment his Department has made as to the effect that ceasing to be a signatory of the convention would have on the Good Friday agreement, the Windsor protocol, the new legacy framework and Northern Ireland’s institutions in general?

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. To take another example of the protections, it was put to us by veterans in our discussions that no veteran should have to return to Northern Ireland to engage with legacy processes, and we are legislating for that in the Bill.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

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

This morning, unusually, I congratulate the Government on having admitted a terrible mistake. Earlier this year, we on this side of the House voted against Labour’s draft remedial order, which would have allowed Gerry Adams to sue the taxpayer, so we welcome the fact that Labour amended that order yesterday. But the question remains: why did it ever bring forward such a ridiculous policy in the first place?

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

I say to the hon. Gentleman and those who advocated that we should leave the European Union: this is the consequence of it. There was an open border and two different jurisdictions—how were we going to deal with trade in those circumstances? Secondly, the goods are flowing; the goods are moving. Look at the evidence: the Northern Ireland economy in the second quarter grew by 2%. That is not indicative of a problem.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

On 26 November last year, the Health Secretary assured this House that the Tobacco and Vapes Bill will apply in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State will know that the age-based sales ban affects the placement of tobacco products on the market and so is potentially in breach of the EU’s tobacco products directive, so can the Secretary of State repeat the Health Secretary’s assurance and also tell us whether the Government have confirmed with the European Union that the ban will stand in Northern Ireland?

Oral Answers to Questions

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

Goods flow freely from Northern Ireland to the rest of the United Kingdom. Further, one of the great advantages of the trade agreements that have been negotiated with India, the United States of America and the European Union is, in the case of India, a significant reduction of tariffs on whisky, which will benefit producers in Northern Ireland, and being able to sell lamb into India. The deal with the United States of America will allow Northern Ireland farmers to sell their beef.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

Contrary to what the Secretary of State has just told the House, two weeks ago, the Federation of Small Businesses in Northern Ireland published a report suggesting that a third of small businesses that move goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland have ceased supplying customers or partners either in Great Britain or in Northern Ireland. Under the Northern Ireland protocol, if the UK experiences diversion of trade, we are entitled to take unilateral action to safeguard our internal market. Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether he thinks that a third of small businesses ceasing trade in that way amounts to a diversion of trade? If not, perhaps he could tell us what would.

[Hilary Benn]

There are other small businesses that are able to trade perfectly—[Interruption.] The point that the hon. Gentleman needs to recognise is that if some small businesses manage to move their goods from GB to Northern Ireland, others can do so. In the end, it is a decision for an individual business where it chooses to sell its goods. It is the Windsor framework that applies now, not the Northern Ireland protocol, and I think he will accept that the Windsor framework represents a significant improvement on what was there before.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

The Federation of Small Businesses has warned that small and medium-sized enterprises in Northern Ireland continue to face disruption under the Windsor framework and, more importantly and sadly, that the Government have failed to effectively communicate the supposed benefits of dual market access so far. If dual market access is indeed a competitive advantage, as so many people across this House think it can and should be, can the Secretary of State specifically identify what concrete benefits it is providing to Northern Ireland businesses right now? How does he respond to the growing criticism from firms across the UK who are burdened with red tape and the fog of uncertainty?

--- Later in debate ---

[Fleur Anderson]

The hon. Member is an excellent representative for his constituency and the opportunities there. I am sure his plea and bid has been heard.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

As Chair of the Select Committee and the ITV all-party parliamentary group, last night we hosted an event in Parliament with ITV and UTV there. What conversations is the Minister having with public sector broadcasters like ITV about future investment in Northern Ireland?

--- Later in debate ---

[Gurinder Singh Josan]

Thank you for calling me, Mr Speaker—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is no need to run through the Chamber, Mr Morgan—that is in very bad taste.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Stephen Morgan)]

I apologise, Mr Speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

The Government make funding available to the Northern Ireland Executive through the block grant. As the hon. Gentleman will know, it is for the Northern Ireland Executive to decide how they distribute the money between all the needs in Northern Ireland, including health, where of course there are significant pressures. The public services transformation funding that the last Government made available is now beginning to be used to reform some of the ways in which the health service works.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

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

The spending review settlement for the Northern Ireland Office explicitly covers the Finucane inquiry, but so far the Government have refused to say how much money has been set aside for that inquiry. Will the Secretary of State please tell the House how much do the Government expect the inquiry to cost?

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

If the right hon. Gentleman just bears with us, I hope we can see progress on that in the not-too-distant future.

[Mr Speaker]

Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I welcome to the Gallery His Excellency Ahmad Safadi, the Speaker of the House of Representatives in Jordan, and his delegation.

The Prime Minister was asked—

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

This Saturday—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There seems to be a bit of a challenge over who can cheer the most. I have never known one Prime Minister get as much cheering. [Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I am really proud that we extended free school meals for another half a million children, including Laura’s. It is people like Laura and giving children the best start in life that we have in our mind’s eye. I think the child poverty taskforce visited Rochdale recently and will continue to back parents like Laura. We have already started rolling out not just free school meals, but free breakfast clubs, and extending childcare. That is real change under this Labour Government.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

[Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)]

First of all, can I take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) on being the toady of the week, helping the Prime Minister? [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There are a load of people wanting to catch my eye today. There are some free hits on the Government Benches—hon. Members should not waste their opportunity.

[Mrs Badenoch]

It has been a difficult week for the Prime Minister, so let us start with something simple. Can he tell the House how much his welfare Bill is going to save?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me start by saying that free school meals matter on this side of the House. In relation to welfare, what we delivered last night was a Bill that ends mandatory reassessment of those with severe disabilities. That is the right thing to do. It rebalances universal credit—that is long overdue—and it sets out a pathway to reform of the personal independence payment. It is consistent with the principles I set out throughout: if you can work, you should work; if you need help into work, the state should provide that help—the system that the Conservatives broke does not do so; and if you cannot work—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There are one or two Members who I can spot immediately: the usual voices, the same names. Please—it is too early to leave the Chamber.

[The Prime Minister]

If you cannot work, you must be supported and protected. The reformed welfare system that we are putting in place will be better for individuals, better for the taxpayer and better for the economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Badenoch]

I will tell the Prime Minister what we did on welfare. [Interruption.] Why are Labour Members laughing? They do not know. My party delivered the biggest reform of welfare in government. We got record numbers of people into work, including millions of disabled people, and we cut the deficit every year until covid. The fact is that we are not scared of doing difficult things. We got people back into work. What the Prime Minister forgets is that since the election—since he became Prime Minister—an additional 1,000 people a day are signing on to incapacity benefit. That is 50% more than under us.

Astonishingly, because of the mess that the Government made yesterday—because there are no more savings—sickness benefits alone are set to rise to £100 billion on the Prime Minister’s watch. He cannot reduce that now—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr McKee, I think we have had a run-in before. I certainly do not want any more. Seriously—you are obviously not getting your timing right, because I can hear your voice every time.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right to speak of the importance of banning these despicable weapons. I know how much she cares about this issue. The ban on zombie knives and machetes came into effect last year, and the ban on ninja swords will come into effect this August. The Crime and Policing Bill will increase penalties for illegal sales and will give the police new powers to seize knives. What did the Conservatives do when we put that Bill before the House to take those measures? They voted against it. Knife crime soared on their watch, and they have clearly learnt absolutely nothing.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

[Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

Yesterday, the Government were asking the House to vote for a law that would mean that someone with a condition such as Parkinson’s or multiple sclerosis would qualify for a personal independence payment today, but someone diagnosed with the same condition, with the very same symptoms, in a few months’ time would not. We all know that the cost of welfare needs to come down, but that was not a fair way to do it. Until he lost control yesterday, the Prime Minister was arguing for that approach. Has he changed his mind on this, or not?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

It is right that we do both, and that we do support agriculture. The right hon. Lady says that people across the country are concerned about solar, but they are also concerned about their bills coming down, after they went up under the previous Government. The only way to get them down is on renewables, and that is what we are doing.

[Mr Speaker]

For the final question, I call Jessica Morden.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

This morning in Westminster Hall, Centenary Action presented sashes handmade by a team of wonderful women working out of ReMake Newport to every one of our 264 women MPs to mark today’s 97th anniversary of the Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Act 1928. Will the Prime Minister join me in welcoming this initiative, which celebrates the contribution women make in public life? Although we now have a record number of women MPs, does he agree that we must continue to break down barriers for women on our way to achieving the mission of a gender-equal Parliament?

Oral Answers to Questions

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 21st May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

I thank my hon. Friend for his service in our armed forces, alongside all those who served. He is absolutely right about the flawed piece of legislation that this Government inherited, and we are working hard to put that right.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

The agreement on the application of sanitary and phytosanitary measures that was reached with the European Union on Monday is extremely significant. As the hon. Member will know, it has been widely welcomed by businesses throughout Northern Ireland, including supermarkets, retailers and farmers, because of the assistance it will give in getting rid of many of the elements associated with the SPS arrangement. It is the fruition of this Government’s determination, when we came into office, to negotiate a closer relationship with the EU, which is exactly what we have done.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

As we have just heard, since last we met in this place for Northern Ireland questions, we have had the announcement of the UK-EU SPS agreement. That comes as a great reassurance to many Northern Irish agrifood retailers, but the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce and Industry has cautioned that key trade barriers remain, particularly around broader regulatory divergence across supply chains and ongoing customs issues under the Windsor framework. In the Secretary of State’s opinion, how will the latest arrangements ease east-west trade in practice? What specific customs reform does he intend to pursue to further cut red tape and unlock the full potential of dual-market access and latent economic growth in Northern Ireland?

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

I agree with what the former Defence Secretary said in 2019. He said:

“The British Army uphold British values, which is the rule of law, and that’s what we stand for.”

I advise the right hon. Gentleman to be a little bit careful about using the phrase “politically motivated” prosecutions—I hope I have correctly quoted him. Let us be clear: decisions about any prosecutions, in any cases, are taken by the independent Public Prosecution Service, which is entirely separate from the Executive.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

I strongly support the petition brought forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis). As of this morning, it has more than 90,000 signatures, showing the strength of public feeling on this issue. Almost a year ago, the Labour party published its manifesto, saying that it would scrap the legacy Act, yet it has still presented no alternative. Victims are in limbo, and veterans are in limbo. The last Labour Government handed out letters of comfort for terrorists, but nothing for elderly veterans. When will the Secretary of State finally show the House his plans, and how can veterans have confidence that they will get the protection they deserve?

[Hilary Benn]

We have begun the process of repealing and replacing the legacy Act in the proposed draft remedial order. It will deal with the conditional immunity that was struck down by the courts, and which we came into office committed to remove because it did not command support across Northern Ireland, as it would have given immunity to terrorists, including those who killed the soldiers to whom the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) referred earlier. I intend to bring forward legislation to complete that process when parliamentary time allows, because this Government inherited a completely hopeless piece of legislation, which has been found time and again to be incompatible with our international obligations.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the leader of the DUP.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

The Secretary of State will know that, as part of a Northern Ireland Affairs Committee inquiry, we have been engaging with victims across Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom to assist them in their quest for some personal closure, truth and justice on legacy. Veterans, like many other victims, have indicated to us that while they are listened to, they have not been heard. Will the Secretary of State confirm that he intends to announce his proposals on legacy in parallel with the Irish Government before the summer recess?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

We all know that the economy was left in an absolute mess by the Tories. We had to stabilise the economy with tough decisions, but they were the right decisions. Because of them, the economy is beginning to improve: there were those growth figures last year—we had the highest growth in the G7; there were four interest rate cuts in a row; and there have been three trade deals. However, I recognise that people are still feeling the pressure of the cost of living crisis, including pensioners, and as the economy improves, we want to make sure that people feel those improvements each day as their lives go forward. That is why we want to ensure that more pensioners are eligible for winter fuel payments as we go forward. As you would expect, Mr Speaker, we will make only the decisions that we can afford, and that is why we will look at that as part of a fiscal event.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

[Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)]

It was extraordinary listening to that last answer from the Prime Minister. Inflation was 2% when the Conservatives left office; it is now nearly double that. When will he recognise that it is Labour’s Budget that is driving up inflation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Badenoch]

This is a Prime Minister who says he is taking measures, but the jobs tax is killing jobs, inflation is up, and business confidence is down. Everyone is worried. He promised to cut bills, but today we see that they are rising because of his policies. He promised not to raise taxes on working people, but his jobs tax means that people are losing their jobs. Every week, we come here with a new company that says it is shedding jobs, and that is on his watch. He promised to protect pensioners, but his winter fuel cut has driven thousands into hardship. His MPs hate this—he cannot see them, but they all look sick just hearing what it he is going to do. [Interruption.] They are laughing—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I expect better from Whips, and to Boyzone at the back, I have my eye on you.

[Mrs Badenoch]

Mr Speaker—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Which one of you wants to leave first? [Interruption.] There we are, we have the first volunteer. Are you going to behave? I call the Leader of the Opposition to respond.

[Mrs Badenoch]

His MPs are laughing, just as they laughed at the Budget. Hands up who here wanted winter fuel cuts? Not a single one of them. The fact is, this Prime Minister is destroying them. They need to look at what they are doing to the country. The truth is, and we all know it, that it is this Prime Minister, this Labour Government and their policies that are shafting the country, is it not?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend; we are united by a shared focus on creating better life chances for our children, and I am delighted to hear that her constituents are already benefiting from our changes. Thanks to our plan for change, we will deliver free breakfast clubs in every primary school in England. I am determined to support parents to give every child the best start in life. That is why we are rolling out free childcare, expanding the first 300 school-based nurseries, and delivering more family hubs.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

[Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

Can I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks about the terrible fire in Bicester last Thursday? I know from my hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) how deeply the close-knit community there has been affected by this tragedy. The firefighters Martyn Sadler and Jennie Logan were true heroes, as was Dave Chester. I hope that the prayers and thoughts of the House are with their loved ones and the two firefighters still in hospital.

The Prime Minister has rightly said that his new trade deals will give a much-needed boost to economic growth, and thus the public finances, but will he make sure that struggling families and pensioners see the benefits of this growth? He teased the House in his answer to the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen); will he commit now to reversing his cuts to the winter fuel payment in full?

EU Tariffs: United States and Northern Ireland Economy

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. As the Prime Minister has said, tariffs are not good news for anyone and no one wants a trade war. The Government are doing everything possible to keep Britain secure during this new era of global instability, and we will always act in the best interests of businesses in Northern Ireland. As part of our customs territory and internal market, Northern Ireland exporters are facing a general 10% US tariff and a 25% tariff on steel, aluminium and cars, like other exporters across the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland is not therefore uniquely disadvantaged. We are, of course, preparing for the EU’s next move and any possible retaliatory tariffs that it may or may not introduce, as well as considering the impact that new EU tariffs would have on Northern Ireland businesses importing from the United States of America, because under the Windsor framework, the EU tariff would apply.

As hon. Members will know, however, because of the Windsor framework, businesses can reclaim any such tariff through the existing duty reimbursement scheme in cases where US imports into Northern Ireland do not then enter the European Union. The customs duty waiver scheme also allows duties to be waived entirely, subject to an overall limit. These schemes work in our national interest, and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is continuing to talk to and support any businesses that might be affected, to help them understand how to use the duty reimbursement and customs duty waiver schemes. The Minister for the Cabinet Office has talked about all this with EU counterparts in recent days, because the Government are fully aware of how sensitive this issue is for businesses in Northern Ireland. What we need in these circumstances is a calm and considered response, and that is what the Government will continue to provide.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Alex Burghart]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. It is incredibly important that this House has the opportunity to question the Government on this issue before the Easter break and before the implementation of these tariffs. I have enormous respect for my opposite numbers in the Northern Ireland Office, but it is totally unacceptable that we should have got to this stage in proceedings without a Minister coming to the House to update us on the likely impact on businesses in Northern Ireland of this emerging tariff war between the US and the EU. As the House will know, this comes off the back of the considerable damage done to the economy in Northern Ireland by the Budget last year, by the increases in national insurance contributions and by the changes to the national minimum wage, which have completely undermined business confidence and which are driving unemployment in the region.

I ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer the following three questions. First, a week on from the United States’ announcement and some time after the EU’s publication of a 99-page draft of its tariff responses, have the Government now done an impact assessment of what this means for the Northern Irish economy and for businesses in Northern Ireland, and will he publish it?

Secondly, he rightly mentions the duty reimbursement scheme, which would allow businesses taking goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland and having to pay the EU tariff to reclaim that tariff. That scheme is now going to be put under enormous pressure. It is going to have to deal with volumes not foreseen when it was originally put together. Does the Secretary of State have complete confidence that it will be able to reimburse businesses in a timely fashion so as not to disrupt trade?

Thirdly and finally, because Northern Ireland remains within the EU customs code, affected Northern Ireland businesses buying affected goods will have to pay EU tariffs, but the same competitive businesses in GB will not. What are the Government going to do to ensure that such businesses are not left disadvantaged, and that we do not see serious distortions of trade? With that in mind, will the Secretary of State confirm to the House that in the event that we see a major diversion of trade, his Government will be prepared to use article 16 of the Windsor framework, which allows the Government to take decisions to ensure that businesses in Northern Ireland are not damaged? It is incredibly important that businesses hear from the Secretary of State that the Government are prepared to protect them in the event that this tariff war creates a diversion of trade for business there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

Indeed, but we touched on this matter in Northern Ireland orals last week, and the Business Secretary made a statement to the House last week.

To answer the hon. Gentleman’s questions, of course the Government have been preparing for and looking at all eventualities, but until we know what the EU retaliatory tariffs are, it does not make much sense to publish speculation about their potential impact.

On the duty reimbursement scheme, I have met HMRC officials, because I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important that the scheme works effectively, depending on the number of Northern Ireland businesses that are affected, to reimburse tariffs. I would just say, however, that Northern Ireland imports about £800 million-worth of goods from the United States of America, which is about 2% of Northern Ireland’s total purchases. That impacts upon his third question. We are going to have to take this a stage at a time. The Prime Minister has made it quite clear that he will do what is in the national interest to protect our businesses, our companies and our economic future, but it is precisely because of the Windsor framework that the duty reimbursement scheme exists.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

As I indicated in answer to the Opposition spokesperson, of course the Government have been preparing for all eventualities, but as I also indicated, there is no point in publishing something that is not based on the actual tariffs that the EU decides to impose. Therefore, it is sensible to wait until that moment arrives.

Secondly, the EU will take such action as it determines to be in its interests in response to the 20% tariffs that the United States of America has imposed on the EU in addition to the tariffs on steel, aluminium and cars. Let us not forget that the Windsor framework gives Northern Ireland businesses unique access to the European market, which is not something that is enjoyed by businesses in Great Britain.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

As the Financial Times reported at the weekend—and as I think the Secretary of State has just confirmed—in the event of EU retaliatory tariffs, goods imported from the United States into Northern Ireland will by default be effectively forced down the red lane. That, of course, means additional customs checks, time and red tape and, in the event of their imposition, EU tariff rates for goods coming into Northern Ireland, irrespective of their ultimate destination. That risks a scenario where Northern Ireland importers are penalised more than almost any other businesses in either the UK or the EU, first at the border and then in administering the reclamation of those costs.

Let us be clear: this chaotic situation is entirely the consequence of Donald Trump’s destructive trade war. What are the Government doing to ensure that President Trump and the US Administration are alert to the deeply destabilising effects of their tariffs policy on the Good Friday agreement and the prospect of peace in Northern Ireland? What active steps are the Government taking to mitigate the potential disruption to Northern Ireland businesses that are now unwittingly caught up in Donald Trump’s trade war?

Oral Answers to Questions

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

We are going to have to wait and see what the US Administration decide. As I have already indicated, the Government will take the steps that are necessary in the national interest, but we are seeking to negotiate an agreement, and that work is continuing, notwithstanding what is announced later today.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

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

As the House has heard, we are expecting Washington later today to announce the biggest changes to its tariff regime in a generation. That may cause huge disruption to industry and business throughout the United Kingdom, and that disruption may be particularly felt in Northern Ireland. What guidance have the Government provided to businesses in Northern Ireland to help them prepare for different scenarios?

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

I would point out to the hon. Member that the previous Government left—[Interruption.] However much they may deny it, the previous Government left a fiscal black hole that had to be filled. The increase in expenditure resulting from the autumn Budget is helping to fund, in part, the record settlement that the Northern Ireland Executive have got for 2025-26.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

The Committee will soon publish our first report to the House on the funding of public services, and the issue of revenue raising by the Executive continues to be highlighted. What conversations is the Secretary of State having with the Executive to help deliver longer-term financial sustainability in Northern Ireland?

[Hilary Benn]

I have regular discussions with the Executive about the financial situation and about their plans. The truth is very simple: all Governments around the world, including the Northern Ireland Executive, have choices to make, with the resources available, as to whether they seek to raise revenue to fund more things, including further investment in health. Those are choices for the Executive to make, but if they do not make those choices, they will have less funds than would otherwise be available to them.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Hilary Benn]

Of course the increase in employer’s national insurance will be difficult for some firms—that is clearly the case—but, as I said, the North Ireland economy is growing faster than the rest of the United Kingdom and has low unemployment. The rest of today’s questions time has highlighted the huge areas of potential that the Northern Ireland economy has to continue to grow and create new jobs and businesses.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

The Northern Ireland Farming Minister estimates that three quarters of dairy farms in Northern Ireland could be hit by inheritance tax following the Chancellor’s disastrous changes. Given the particularly high cost of agricultural land compared with farming incomes in Northern Ireland, does the Secretary of State recognise that the Budget is a direct threat to family farms and thousands of livelihoods across Northern Ireland?

Clonoe Inquest

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before I call the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) to ask his urgent question, I must remind hon. Members of the House’s rule relating to matters sub judice: Members should not refer to any matter that is currently before the courts.

On 19 November, I granted a waiver in respect of the case of Dillon and others v. the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, given the issues of national importance raised by that case. The waiver is ongoing, and Members may refer to the case in the House. Given that the coroner’s verdicts and findings in relation to the Clonoe inquest have been published, I am content for that case to be discussed in the House. However, Members should take care to avoid referring to any other active civil or criminal cases.

--- Later in debate ---

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

On 16 February 1992, a heavily armed unit of the Provisional IRA carried out an attack on Coalisland police station armed with a 12.7 mm heavy machine gun and three AKM rifles. Approximately 60 rounds were fired, but thankfully no one was injured. Following the attack, the IRA unit proceeding to a car park where they were engaged by soldiers of the Army’s specialist military unit. This resulted in four men, Patrick Vincent, Sean O’Farrell, Peter Paul Clancy and Kevin O’Donnell, being shot and killed by the soldiers.

On 6 February, Mr Justice Humphreys, sitting as a coroner in the inquest into the circumstances of those deaths at Clonoe chapel, found that the use of lethal force by the soldiers was unjustified and that

“the operation was not planned and controlled in such a way as to minimise to the greatest extent possible the need for recourse to lethal force.”

The coroner further found that the soldiers did not hold

“an honest and genuinely held belief”

that the use of force was necessary to defend themselves or others.

These are clearly very significant matters that require careful consideration. I know that the Ministry of Defence is considering the coroner’s finding. Therefore there is, unfortunately, a limit to what I am able to say in relation to the findings themselves, particularly given that there is also an ongoing civil case relating to these events. However, it is clear the Government must take such findings very seriously. We owe a great debt to our armed forces—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is no sub judice to the case that you have just mentioned. We must be clear on that. So please let us not try to use that as a barrier. I just want to be clear on that.

[Hilary Benn]

I accept that entirely, Mr Speaker. I was merely pointing out, as I think your statement alluded to, that there is an ongoing civil case.

We owe a great debt to our armed forces. The vast majority of those who served in Operation Banner during the troubles did so with distinction. They operated in the most dangerous and difficult circumstances to protect the citizens of the United Kingdom. During the troubles, over 1,000 members of the security forces lost their lives in that endeavour. It is right that we hold our armed forces to the highest standards. We must also recognise the extreme circumstances that they faced. That is what sets them apart from the terrorist organisations who indiscriminately murdered over 3,000 people during the troubles.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

That is a judgment that individuals and communities will have to make, having regard to what the coroner had to say. There have been a very large number of inquest findings in relation to the troubles, and the Government and I understand the concerns that have been raised by the coroner’s findings in this case.

The fundamental problem in Northern Ireland remains the legacy of the troubles and the fact that so many people still do not have an answer to the question of what happened to their loved one. I am afraid the previous Government made, in my view, a terrible mistake in deciding that civil cases and inquests would be closed off.

I also have to point out that the legacy Act did not prevent the possibility of future prosecutions, because it is possible, even under the law as it stands today, for prosecutions to be undertaken if the independent commission finds evidence that it thinks should be passed to the independent prosecution bodies.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

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

Thank you for granting this UQ, Mr Speaker.

On a February night in 1992, 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 had already attacked a Royal Ulster Constabulary police station and were planning further attacks. These terrorists called themselves an army, they carried weapons of war, they sought to kill, and they operated entirely outside the bounds of the law. Yet we are asked to believe that the use of lethal force against them was not justified. I am not a lawyer, but if this is the state of the law, then the law is an ass, and it is up to Parliament to change it.

What if this had not been on the streets of Tyrone? What if it had been on the streets of Birmingham? What if it had been in Parliament Square? Would we be asking why those men had not been arrested? Would we find it acceptable that the courts subsequently sought to punish those forces that had risked their lives for ours?

The consequences of this ruling are potentially very severe: military morale weakened, military recruitment reduced, military effectiveness diminished, and more retired servicemen in their declining years dragged before the courts for trying to protect their countrymen from terrorists. For the record, there is no Defence Minister on the Treasury Bench to hear this urgent question.

The last Government took steps to ensure that a line was drawn under court actions like the one handed down last week. This Government have said they will repeal that Act, but seven months into their tenure, they have brought forward no plans. When will the House see that legislation? When we do see it, will the Secretary of State ensure that it includes provisions to protect servicemen, such as those affected by the ruling, from prosecution?

The Secretary of State will have seen this morning the excellent report by Policy Exchange, which puts the costs of repealing the legacy Act at hundreds of millions of pounds. The return to inquests and civil cases will severely hit the budget of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Without funding, that will inevitably reduce policing and affect national security. Will His Majesty’s Government commit to underwriting that liability?

I will end by saying that if we in this House think the law is not fit for purpose, it is our job, and ours alone, to change it. That is what parliamentary sovereignty means.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

As I have previously indicated to the House, I am committed in all my discussions with many of those affected, including veterans, to finding a way forward that can command a degree of consensus in a way that the last Government’s legacy Act failed to do. I understand the strength of feeling being expressed in the House today—I really do—but there needs to be some reflection on how a piece of legislation came to be passed that engendered almost universal opposition in Northern Ireland. The people of Northern Ireland, who, after all, lived through the troubles, did not feel that that was the right way to proceed, and time and again it has been found to be unlawful. In other words, we were left with a mess and we are doing our best to try to fix it.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

I thank the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) for bringing this issue to the House. The Liberal Democrats are firmly committed to the principles of truth, justice and accountability. The violence carried out by the IRA during the troubles was abhorrent and inflicted deep suffering on communities across Northern Ireland. At the same time, upholding the rule of law is a fundamental principle that applies to all, including the actions of state forces.

The findings of the Clonoe inquest highlight the importance of due process and transparency in dealing with legacy issues. It is vital that families seeking answers about the past are able to access justice and that all events are subject to rigorous legal scrutiny. That is the only way to build trust and support a lasting reconciliation in Northern Ireland.

There has been immense progress in Northern Ireland since the Good Friday agreement and that progress was built on the principles of justice, democracy and accountability. We—all of us—must continue to uphold those principles if we are to secure a lasting and peaceful future for all communities.

The Secretary of State recently said that legislation to revoke the deeply flawed legacy Act, which does not command confidence across Northern Ireland, will be introduced when time allows. Will he offer details on when that might be?

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Robinson]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not believe that the Secretary of State would have intended to mislead the House, but I suspect that he may have misunderstood the point being made, and it has filtered into a number of his subsequent responses. In relation to the coroner and his powers, the point being made was that there are aspects of the judgment released on Thursday that are outwith the coronial law in Northern Ireland and outwith what would be expected of a judicial officer. I give the Secretary of State an opportunity to say not that the coronial law needs to change, but that the judgment does not sit within the remit and powers of the coronial system.

[Mr Speaker]

Does the Secretary of State wish to reply to that?

[Hilary Benn]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. That is a judgment for others to make, if that is the view they take. I accept that the right hon. Gentleman has made that point, but it would be for others to consider it, and it may be a factor that the Ministry of Defence considers when it is looking at this set of rules.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Is there any way within the rules of order that I can point out how the divisiveness of the exchanges that we have just had illustrates what happens when a line is not drawn under bitter historical conflicts?

[Mr Speaker]

I think the right hon. Gentleman has just done that for us, and I think I have heard enough—let us move on.