Oral Answers to Questions

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Patrick]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, we totally support our fishing sector, and I am interested to hear more about that proposal. If the Immigration Minister is speaking with the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby, I will, of course, try to be part of those meetings to hear whatever I can hear.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

6. What discussions he has had with representatives of the logistics industry on the cost of trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

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

I regularly meet representatives of the logistics sector and businesses trading between Great Britain and Northern Ireland—for instance, through the Northern Ireland business stakeholders group—to discuss how we can make the Windsor framework operate as smoothly as possible.

[Sammy Wilson]

The Secretary of State will be well aware of the importance of the logistics industry in Northern Ireland, and also of the burdens that are falling on it at present because of the Brexit arrangements, which have pushed up costs, led to delays, and resulted in many containers coming back empty from Great Britain. On top of that, we now have the added costs of a carbon tax on ferries coming to and from Northern Ireland. Does the Secretary of State recognise that this industry is important to Northern Ireland, and is being strangled by the arrangements with the European Union and the net zero policies? What steps does he intend to take to address those issues?

[Hilary Benn]

In respect of the EU emissions trading system, yes, we are applying a carbon charge to boat movements between Great Britain and Northern Ireland—the same charge that is being applied between Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland. The purpose of that is to ensure that the carbon border adjustment mechanism does not hit businesses in Northern Ireland, which the right hon. Gentleman would be very cross about if it were to be the case. Let me simply say this to him: if things are as bad as he suggests, why is Northern Ireland one of the fastest-growing parts of the United Kingdom economy?

Northern Ireland Office

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention about the local growth fund. In our Committee session today, we grilled the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who is sitting on the Front Bench, about this funding. On numerous occasions, we have noted our disappointment that the relevant Department has been able to shift the spending, but I am sure that the Secretary of State will give the hon. Member an explanation later.

Given the potential impact of having no agreed budget on the delivery of public services if the situation continues into the autumn, does the Secretary of State foresee a circumstance in which he would step up and step in to set a budget for Northern Ireland, should the Executive remain unable or unwilling to do so?

Linked to this are concerns about the Executive’s overspending and budget sustainability. At the end of the last financial year, the Government provided the Executive with a £400 million reserve claim loan to cover departmental overspends in health and education. That follows the £559 million Executive debt write-off by the Government in 2024 as part of the financial package accompanying the restoration of power sharing.

The Northern Ireland Fiscal Council warns that overspending is now becoming normalised, and it describes how repeated bail-outs

“could dull the Executive’s incentive to take difficult fiscal decisions”.

Overspending against available budgets by devolved Governments amounts to serious financial mismanagement, according to Treasury policy. Would the Secretary of State describe the Executive’s actions in the same terms?

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Member accept that the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council has also said that, if spending allocations to the Executive were based on need, the Executive would be entitled to receive between £1 billion and £3.5 billion extra, which is part of the reason for this problem?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I want to start by thanking the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), for the work of her Committee and for the diligence she has applied to the job she has taken on. It is deeply appreciated by Members from Northern Ireland that we have a Chairperson who is totally interested in the work that she is doing. I would not always agree with everything that comes out of the Committee, but she has nevertheless shown a desire to try to get things sorted out in Northern Ireland.

First, as has already been emphasised by a number of speakers, we are approaching this debate at a time when —a quarter of the way through the year—we do not actually have a budget in Northern Ireland, and not for the first time. I do not know, as the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) has said, whether this is a co-ordinated political plan or an example of the incompetence of Sinn Féin Ministers. If it is a co-ordinated political plan, it is a very stupid one, because not having a budget and not having money allocated to Departments does not just affect the Unionist population in Northern Ireland—it affects everybody. It affects both Sinn Féin voters and Unionist voters. While it may add to Sinn Féin’s argument that Northern Ireland is not a viable state, I nevertheless do not believe that they should be punishing they own constituents to prove that.

We have to look at the context of Northern Ireland. Getting a budget agreed anywhere is always going to be difficult, because there will always be competing priorities and there are always people wanting more. I suspect that the Chancellor has had similar problems and difficulties even in this Parliament, where she is dealing with only one party—there may be a lot of factions within that party, mind you, but it is only one party. It is much more difficult in a four-party coalition where the parties have totally different outlooks and they have to decide how the money is going to be allocated. We have only to look at the current and previous Sinn Féin Ministers, because do not forget: every time a budget has not been agreed in Northern Ireland, Sinn Féin have been in charge of the finances. I think that has happened on three occasions. The latest crisis has been caused because the Minister responsible did not consult with anybody before simply deciding on a budget—did not even consult with his fellow Ministers—and Ministers from his own party are now disagreeing with it.

I have some experience of this process, because I served in that post in the Northern Ireland Assembly for four years. The Conservative party gained power here in Westminster in May the year after I took over, and in June the reserves that we had, which were about 3% of the budget, were taken back by Treasury, and we were then given a 2% reduction, so there was a 5% reduction in the budget for that year. The budget had already been agreed, and it therefore had to be rewritten. It was not easy, but it was possible because there was a willingness to work. We consulted and consulted, compromised and everything else, and we managed to get a three-year budget, even against that background. That is why I do not accept the argument that they cannot get an agreed budget just because there are financial difficulties. I do not accept the excuses.

However, I would point out that Northern Ireland has for many years been underfunded, as has been confirmed by the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council review. I am pleased that our current party leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), was the first person to raise the requirement to have budgets in Northern Ireland determined on need, and not just on the Barnett formula. There has been some success in that, as we now get the 124%. I accept that the Government took that argument on board, although they had not done so until my right hon. Friend persisted in pushing for that at all kinds of levels. However, even with that increase, there is still an historic backlog.

I am not here to simply say, “Give us more money.” I understand that there are fiscal restraints right across the United Kingdom. However, where a fiscal deficit has been identified, I think it is incumbent on the Government to look at how that can be addressed. I am sure that some people back home will not be very happy with me for saying this, but I think it would be wrong simply to say, “The Fiscal Council has identified between £1 billion and £3.5 billion, depending on whether you compare it with Scotland or Wales, so there’s the money.” If additional money is to be given, it should of course be allocated on the basis that something is given back in return.

Many people will say that interferes with the devolution settlement, because it means telling people how to spend the money. But I think it should be conditional: if people are looking for additional money, let us see how they are going to use it—to reform public services, to cut expenditure in the longer run, to make services more efficient. The money is given on that condition, and those conditions are measured, and the money is released on that basis. That would be one way out of the current difficulties facing the Executive.

The money would be conditionally given, and it would be given for things that have been promised for some time, I think, but have never been done, either because it was too hard to do them or there was not the money to do them. Reform does require some expenditure up front, even if it is only getting rid of some of the surplus staff or reviewing some of the estate. Looking forward in the estimates, that is one way that the Government should be considering dealing with this particular issue.

Secondly, the Northern Ireland budget is divided between what goes to the Executive—the bulk of it—and the Northern Ireland Office. We have to look at need. Let me just give some examples. On money allocated for agriculture, four times more is spent per head spent in Northern Ireland than in other parts of the United Kingdom, but that is not always reflected in the allocations. That is not because we are giving more generously; it is simply that Northern Ireland has a bigger agricultural industry, and that is reflected in the money that is given. Very often what is happening is that we are simply treated as if we were the rest of the United Kingdom, so we get much less per head, even though the industry is much more important. My hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) indicated in his intervention that poverty levels will impact the amount of money spent on health. Hence, the needs-based expenditure is more important than simply the block grant.

There are three things I want to raise about the Northern Ireland Office expenditure. First, there is a 25% uplift in the DEL spending—the departmental expenditure limit. According to the papers we have been given, that is attributed mostly to the additional money required for the Finucane inquiry. I have to say to the Secretary of State that there are people who feel really sore about the way that moneys can be allocated to the investigation of one particular death because Sinn Féin has made it such a big issue, while hundreds of families across Northern Ireland have never had a proper investigation into the death of their loved ones.

Yesterday evening I attended a memorial service for Ulster Defence Regiment victims in Northern Ireland: 192 UDR soldiers were killed during the troubles, and 62 were killed after they had retired or left the UDR, and many of their widows and families have never had any proper investigation into the death of their loved ones. Yet for the Finucane family we have had three Stevens inquiries—I remember those from when I was on the Policing Board. Then there was a review of those inquiries to see if they were adequate—the Cory review—and now we have another bout of the inquiry, with a nearly 25% increase in the budget of the Northern Ireland Office to facilitate that. That is not regarded as fair. When inquiries are driven by the political push of one particular party and the Government’s desire to keep them happy, to me that is first of all a waste of funds and, secondly, unfair.

Secondly, part of the budget has been increased to deal with the ICRIR reports and investigations. As has already been pointed out, while there has been an increase for the ICRIR, there has been no equivalent increase for the police service. The police service reckons that it is costing about £24 million per year to facilitate providing the information, yet no allowance has been made for that. That puts pressure on a budget that is already predicted to be in a deficit of £58 million this year. That means fewer police officers on the ground and so on.

Thirdly, as was pointed out by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim, one of the roles of the Northern Ireland Office is to promote the internal market. I do not blame the current Government totally from the mess that we are in; they inherited botched negotiations by the previous Government, but little or nothing has been done to remedy that. When the Assembly was going back, negotiations went on and we got a document called “Safeguarding the Union”, which was totally endorsed by the current Government, even though they were then in opposition.

Part of that was about finding ways to promote the internal market. One thing that was recognised was that if there was disruption to trade, we would need to improve the trade routes, and so a ports fund of £10 million was agreed. Yet in a recent letter from the Secretary of State, it was accepted that although extra money was found for the Finucane inquiry and for the ICRIR, no funding has been allocated to the ports fund, which was designed to improve sea routes across the Irish sea and make them more efficient, so that goods could flow in and out of Northern Ireland in a less costly way.

Will the Secretary of State tell us what exactly is the status now of that £10 million commitment? I met with the port authorities in Larne, who were hoping that they would benefit from that funding. It would have meant that they could widen and lengthen the ramps, take in bigger ships and bring down the cost of transport. It would also have opened new routes to GB. The port authorities put in £10 million, expecting—under the promise that was made—that match funding would be made available from the Government.

Other actions have been taken by the Government that have made the routes more difficult, including the imposition of the carbon tax on shipping. That will be implemented from 1 July, and it is estimated to increase the cost of bringing goods across the Irish sea from GB to Northern Ireland, or vice versa, by around 7%. That, again, makes the route and the bringing of goods in from GB less competitive, on top of all the other reasons why companies do not want to sell to Northern Ireland now anyway—namely, the additional paperwork.

In conclusion, I just say to the Secretary of State that, yes, we do have a budget crisis in Northern Ireland, but I believe that there could be some inventiveness from the Government. My colleague Gordon Lyons, who is the Communities Minister, has suggested to the Treasury that he will lean hard to get efficiencies and savings from fraud in the benefits budget. But he has asked in return that some of those benefits be shared with Northern Ireland. Sinn Féin, which does not seem to wish to attack fraud, has been holding that up, but will the Secretary of State push with the Treasury the case for those savings from fraud that might be identified in Northern Ireland to be shared with the Executive to help reduce its financial pressures? Will he commit to working with Ministers to ensure that any additional funding is used in a productive way so that Northern Ireland can become much more sustainable fiscally than it is at present?

None of us wants to be here. Certainly as a Unionist, I do not want to be here with a begging bowl year after year, but I believe that there is a responsibility on both sides: the Government must recognise that there is a deficit that needs to be dealt with, and that deficit must dealt with in a way that makes positive changes for the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

I absolutely acknowledge the work that Mike Nesbitt has been doing in health, and it shows what can be achieved if minds are put to it. It is a difficult balance between, on the one hand, running the services today and keeping them going and, on the other hand, investing in transformation. In the end, however, investing in the transformation is the way in which we will be able to deliver better public services for the people of Northern Ireland.

I share the concern that has been expressed right across the House at the absence of an agreed multi-year budget, which is creating, above all, significant uncertainty for the funding of public services. I have been talking regularly with the Minister for Finance, who clearly faces a huge challenge in trying to get an agreement, and those conversations will continue this week, because we need to get to a multi-year budget as quickly as possible. I said about a month ago that the Executive needed to come towards the Government and meet us halfway, and there are two essential requirements.

The first relates to the fact that the amount of money currently being forecast as the overspend for this year is going up, beyond the level that we saw in the last financial year. The word “pressures” is heard frequently in Northern Ireland. People say that they have budget pressures. Well, everyone has budget pressures. Quite reasonably, the Government have asked what the nature of those pressures is. Are they absolutely unavoidable legal commitments, are they things we would like to do or are they things in between? Trying to interrogate and understand the nature of those pressures and to see what the Executive tell the Government about that is the first requirement.

The second requirement is a plan for how we will move from this year-to-year crisis—which was very clearly articulated by the right hon. Member for East Antrim in his contribution—because we need to see something that will address this in the longer term. I am much struck by what the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council said in its report on the sustainability of the finances, published on 16 June. It said that

“these immediate issues facing NI’s public finances reflect an unsustainable trajectory resulting from the underlying structural problems in the Budget. These structural issues are visible in the relatively high public sector pay bill, limited revenue-raising”—

a point just referred to—

“and persistent overspends.”

Whatever the size of the budget that anyone has, we have, in the end, a responsibility to find a way of living within that and to raise more revenue if that is open to us. That is what all Governments must do. The current Government have done it in relation to the public finances, and the same is true for the Northern Ireland Executive. In addition to the funding I have already described, there is the £617 million from the UK Government that is going into the city and growth deals, as well as the defence growth deal, which the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick), has spoken about in the House; the enhanced investment zone; and the local growth fund.

A point was raised about the local growth fund. I recognise and accept that the change in the profile from revenue to capital has created a difficulty for the voluntary sector. That is why I met representatives of the voluntary sector and said to them, “There is unspent money in the PEACEPLUS programme; you can make a bid to that.” I think about £12 million is available in revenue. The Exec came to the Government and said, “We would like to keep £3 million of that for Go Succeed; we think it is a great programme, and we’d like you to carry on backing it.” We said, “Fine.” That left £9 million available in revenue for the economic inactivity programmes that the voluntary sector has been running. I said to the Executive, “How about putting the extra Barnett consequentials that you now have, including £373 million in the current year that you were not expecting, together with the £9 million? We could then enable those projects to continue.” That is an example of what can be done if we put our minds to it.

The extra capital allocation in the local growth fund may in part be the answer to the question asked about the ports fund. A number of commitments were made in the “Safeguarding the Union” document. I remember a large commitment that Casement Park would be fully funded so that the Euros could be hosted. Well, no money was allocated for it at all. The previous Government were very free with the promises, but they did not do the work to find the money. No funding has been identified for the ports fund, but there is money in the local growth fund. I also point out that Belfast harbour has a masterplan, which I understand it is looking to self-fund, and that the Government have made available an increase in capital funding to the Northern Ireland Executive. If the Executive wish to put money into port infrastructure, they are entirely able to do so.

Let me turn to PSNI funding. I once again pay tribute to the officers of the PSNI who, every time there is disorder in Northern Ireland, show extraordinary courage in protecting the public from those who are setting fire to buses, throwing bricks and burning people out of their houses. I had the chance to thank some of those officers when I returned to Northern Ireland the week before last, following the disorder. They are very brave. From memory, I think some 42 officers were injured in the recent disorder.

I appreciate the financial pressures faced, but this is a devolved matter. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim said that he thought it was a profound mistake to have devolved responsibility for policing and justice. I respectfully disagree with him. The trouble with the call for ringfencing, which we have heard from other sources this evening, is this: we either believe in devolved Government—the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland taking decisions about how the money is spent—or begin to move back towards a ringfence; once we have a ringfence for the PSNI, it will not be long before someone says, “Can I have a ringfence over here?” In the end, we have a choice to make. I believe in devolved Government in Northern Ireland, and the Government believe in devolved Government in Northern Ireland. There is a matter of principle here: the funding is available to the Executive; it is for them to decide how much they allocate to policing as opposed to other priorities.

[Sammy Wilson]

I accept the argument that the Secretary of State is making. I served on the Northern Ireland Policing Board during the change from the Royal Ulster Constabulary to the PSNI, and was on the finance committee of the board. We had continual battles with the then Secretary of State, who was no more generous or flexible than a devolved Minister would have been. Devolution or no devolution, the fiscal and the financial situation is the same. I suppose the difference is that, when it comes to putting on pressure, the Secretary of State here is perhaps a bit more remote than the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland.

[Hilary Benn]

I will reflect on that point. I do not know in what sense the right hon. Gentleman uses “remote”; if it is geographical, I agree with him entirely. I acknowledge that, as he said from experience, agreeing a budget is difficult in a power-sharing system. It is difficult. He told the House an interesting story about being faced with reductions in budget and it being possible to come together and agree one. All Governments have to deal with the financial and fiscal circumstances they find, but when we take office, we have a responsibility to fulfil the tasks that are in front of us, which include balancing the budget. He also made interesting points about conditionality. How do we ensure, in return for whatever support a Government give—we have seen a long history of lumps and bumps of money, restoration after collapse, and so on—a consistent, measurable path to balanced budgets year after year, and an end to boom and bust in times of crisis?

We have increased the additional security funding, which, from memory, I think was flat for about 10 years under the previous Government. This Government came in and decided to increase the additional security funding. The point has been raised in the Select Committee about the comparison with the counter-terrorism policing grant that is available in England and Wales. However, if we divide the grant by the population, we get £19.42 per head of funding; if we divide the additional security funding for Northern Ireland by the population of Northern Ireland, we get £19.61 per head. When people ask why Northern Ireland is not eligible for the counter-terrorism grant, the answer is that it is getting the same funding per head from the additional security funding. It is for the Chief Constable to decide how best to use that money.

Let me turn to legacy funding. The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar, speaking for the Opposition, is right that the sum was identified some time ago. It is actually £232 million, because £18 million of the £250 million has been set aside for part 4 of the legacy Act. In addition, the framework agreement, to be given effect by the troubles Bill, will enable the Irish Government to commit a further €25 million for legacy mechanisms. We are talking regularly to the ICRIR and the Treasury on a business case, but I say to the hon. Gentleman that the caseload faced by the legacy commission is entirely the product of the piece of legislation that the previous Government passed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

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

[Sammy Wilson]

Would the right hon. Member accept that international trade is much different than trade within the country that we belong to? If the impediments are stopping trade within our own country, of course that is much more serious than companies deciding that they are not going to sell to countries abroad.

[Hilary Benn]

I would indeed accept that point, if it was not for the fact that a decision had been made to leave the European Union when there is an open border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. That was the fundamental problem that had to be solved, and none of the alternative suggestions would enable us to do this.

I want to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) about the Muckamore hospital report. I think that every single Member of the House was deeply shocked by what we read in that report, and our hearts go out to all those who have been affected by the mistreatment that has been revealed. I think the answer to the very reasonable question that she put is that we all hope to see all the many recommendations in that report implemented.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Patrick]

I have not read the report from techUK, but I look forward to reading it. I think the right hon. Member might mean the defence investment plan, which we are hoping will be published next month before the NATO summit.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Northern Ireland has skills, technology and infrastructure to contribute to the defence industry across the United Kingdom, but the Sinn Féin Economy Minister does not want defence jobs. Will the Minister assure us that the attitude of Sinn Féin will not be a deterrent to those vital jobs coming to Northern Ireland?

[Matthew Patrick]

We are very proud of the investment we are making in the Northern Ireland economy and in an already booming defence sector. I think people from right across Northern Ireland welcome that investment in good jobs.

Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over)

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Carry-over motion
Monday 27th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Burghart]

My hon. Friend is quite right. The process has become the punishment. The process is being used to continue the conflict by other means.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Would the hon. Member accept that when the process exonerates the soldiers and the veterans at the end, the whole point of the process and taking them to the court in the first place is to give the daily headlines in the paper to allow Sinn Féin and the IRA to rewrite the history of the troubles?

[Alex Burghart]

I must agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is clearly what vexatious litigation looks like. This is vexatious litigation moved against men who did nothing wrong but are now confronted with a legal framework that creates endless potential for challenge against them.

Dunmurry Police Station Attack

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

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

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

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

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

[Hilary Benn]

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Patrick]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. Some of the apprentices whom I met just last week told me that, over four years, they were more than £100,000 better off as a result of taking their apprenticeships. It is good for them, good for businesses and good for the country.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Yesterday I met two apprentices who were engaged in firms delivering defence contracts in Northern Ireland and were enthusiastic about the skills and their prospects, but Northern Ireland benefits minimally from defence contracts across the United Kingdom. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that more contracts are awarded to Northern Ireland, and will he ignore the comments of the First Minister, who does not want that to happen?

[Matthew Patrick]

This Government are supporting businesses in Northern Ireland. The work that I am doing with them on the defence growth deal is designed specifically to ensure that this will benefit them and all their supply chains, and I will continue to do that work.

Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Commons Chamber

[David Davis]

I encourage everybody to read it. I am not saying that people should take my word for it; I am saying that they should read this report, because we can see the tension in the Committee.

Of course, as the Secretary of State said, there are a number of real innocent victims who are seeking some sort of succour or recourse, which he is aiming to help. But he started by talking about the huge number of people who were killed by paramilitaries in Northern Ireland. I warrant that when this order goes through, there will be a massive differential between those who were killed by paramilitaries and those who are asking for information.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The figures given by the Secretary of State bear out the right hon. Gentleman’s argument. Of the 200 additional civil cases, 120 are directed towards the Ministry of Defence. Does that not bear out his point that this will be a one-sided outcome and a one-sided operation?

[David Davis]

The right hon. Gentleman has a long and honourable service in this area. He is exactly right, and he understands, as everybody on this side of the House does—well, most people on this side of the House—that asymmetries are built into the system that handicap, and indeed sometimes terrify, the people on one side of the argument while favouring those on the other.

I want to talk to that because, obviously, as we have heard, the remedial order will allow new civil cases to be brought and, we are told, bring justice to victims. Government policy, as we have heard time and again, does not differentiate between real victims and terrorists. It will allow IRA sympathisers to continue their campaign of vexatious lawfare, hauling our brave veterans into court.

I remind the House that in 2006 the Blair Government passed a law that said that anyone hurt in the troubles is classed as a victim. That means a proven murderer—a proven serial murderer—killed in the process of carrying out another murder, is classed as a victim. Imagine that happening in the rest of the UK. Imagine a bank robber, already a murderer, who is shot while trying to rob another bank. Do we think he is a victim? That is outwith the politics of Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland, however, he is classed as a victim.

When the Secretary of State talks about victims’ families, he is, in many cases, referring to the families of IRA terrorists. Frankly, if the Government’s legislation matched their rhetoric, the word “victim” would always be preceded by the word “innocent”. If we were talking about innocent victims, many of our differences would evaporate.

But that is not the truth. Indeed, the other side of this argument—Sinn Féin and IRA sympathisers—know this. The DUP proved it last September when it moved a motion in Stormont to put “innocent” in front of the word “victim”. The motion was voted down by Sinn Féin and its allies because they know that they depend on this massive confusion, in the rest of the world, over what a victim really is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Ballinger]

My hon. Friend is right. It is important for everyone involved, including the many veterans concerned about the situation in Northern Ireland, that we end this legal wild west. The defective Act that led to more litigation, uncertainty and distress for victims and those who served on Op Banner should end.

[Sammy Wilson]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Alex Ballinger]

I will give way one more time, but then I must make progress.

[Sammy Wilson]

It is not about the rule of law. This is about the terrorist organisations seeking to rewrite the history of the troubles on an industrial scale, using the fact that the Army and the forces of law and order in Northern Ireland have all the records, and they have none. This is therefore a one-sided operation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Veterans will have heard the honeyed words of the Secretary of State at the start of his speech today, when he talked about the debt of gratitude we owe to those who served in Northern Ireland in very difficult circumstances. Yet this order is all about removing protections that would have been available to those very veterans against what is a continued terrorist campaign conducted not through guns, not through bombs and not through killings, but through the courts.

I have heard many people on the Government Benches say, “Oh, we’ve got to uphold the rule of law.” That is totally naive. This is not about the rule of law in Northern Ireland; this is about the abuse of the law by those who cannot accept that they lost in their terrorist campaign, who want to rewrite the history of that terrorist campaign, and who want to put the blame on the forces of law and order who stood between the citizens and the murderers and the criminals.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the people on this side of the argument who oppose what is happening today, do so not because we do not wish people who did wrong to face justice, but because we know that these cases will almost certainly fail, just as the case against Soldier F failed? As my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) said, the punishment is the process. People will be put through unnecessary hell before they are acquitted. That has nothing to do with justice.

[Sammy Wilson]

No, it has nothing to do with justice.

Although the Secretary of State and others today have argued that this is all about helping victims, innocent victims will not get any justice through this system, because it comes down to who holds the records. When cases go to the courts, there will be no documentation to bring from IRA campaigns and activities. Members should read the book written by Austin Stack, whose father was a prison officer in Portlaoise and who sought for 20 years to get justice. One line of the book that stands out is when Gerry Adams eventually took him to meet some of the IRA commanders, and in the car on the way there he said, “Don’t expect too much, because we don’t keep records.” That is the problem. The state kept records, but the IRA and the terrorists did not keep records, so the cases are going to be one-sided.

The Secretary of State told us today that, as a result of this measure, 200 new civil cases will be opened, 120 of them against the MOD. The statistics have shown quite clearly that most of the murders were carried out by paramilitaries, yet most of the civil cases will be taken against the MOD. That is because there is a deliberate campaign to rewrite history. The vast majority of people who take forward these cases want to ensure that they get a case into court, drag out all the information that is available—held by the state—and get a result that paints the picture that the IRA and the terrorists were the wronged parties.

If anything, this does not give comfort to victims but only rubs salt in their wounds. That is why this remedial order is wrong. It will present the chance to rewrite history, and it will lead to huge costs in compensation claims. As has been said, it will also be a warning to people who we call to serve this country in future that this tactic might be used against them. That is why this is bad.

The Secretary of State knows that he did not need to bring this measure forward. My right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), in his excellent speech, laid out the reasons why that is the case, so I will not go through them. Why is the Secretary of State going through with this? He knows the results, so why does he pursue it? I can only assume that he puts the adherence to the ECHR above the interests of veterans and victims, and that is a disgrace.

Northern Ireland Political Institutions: Reform

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. We have had a catalogue of reasons why there need to be changes to the arrangements for government in Northern Ireland. We have had collapses, difficulty in getting a three-year budget, the fallout and the use of veto powers by the parties.

The thing that strikes me is all these things have happened under different Administrations in Northern Ireland over the last 22 years. When the SDLP and the Ulster Unionists were in power, the Administration collapsed about five times—

[Claire Hanna]

Who collapsed it?

[Sammy Wilson]

Well, it was collapsed by the parties that were in power at that stage, because they had the ability to keep it running—but they did not. It collapsed again when the distribution of seats changed. It collapsed for a number of reasons, but the important thing is that those arrangements were put in place to safeguard minorities. The Alliance party and the SDLP, which are now calling for reform, were the keenest to have that consensus requirement in the Belfast agreement.

[Sorcha Eastwood]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

I will give way in a moment. They are now proposing that consensus be removed and—here’s the thing—that we go to majority rule, albeit with a weighted majority of 66%. That is not reform; that is retreating to something that they condemned in the first place, and that they said required the arrangements in the Belfast agreement to be put in place.

[Claire Hanna]

Will the right hon. Member confirm whether he believes that the Assembly has or should have responsibility for international affairs, which is included in the Windsor framework, and can he outline where cross-community consent for Brexit was demonstrated?

[Sammy Wilson]

I find it rather odd that the hon. Member has talked about how dysfunctional the Assembly is but wants more powers for it. Either it is dysfunctional or it is not. If it is functional and she wants more powers for it, why do we need the changes?

Let us look at the words that are used. “Reform” is one, and I have noticed that another phrase—“keyhole surgery”—has come in. Of course, these are all euphemisms for removing the very safeguards that were required when nationalists were in the minority. That is why they were put in place. Now the arithmetic in the Assembly has changed, and we find that those parties that believed there should be safeguards for minorities no longer require those safeguards and want to revert to a form of majority rule.

[Sorcha Eastwood]

I am really glad that the right hon. Member is making this point, because there is a bit of an idea out there that this is about not protecting minorities. Does he not agree that the make-up of Northern Ireland is very different and that everybody is a minority, and therefore everybody—Unionists, nationalists and people like me who are neither of those things—deserves protection?

[Sammy Wilson]

If that is the case, the requirement for consensus rather than majority rule is even stronger, yet the proposed changes would remove those safeguards.

The difficulty of getting the three-year budget through has been mentioned. I served in the Assembly for a number of years; I was Finance Minister in the Assembly for a number of years. In the first year after I took over, we had an immediate 3% cut to our budget, and then we had a 2% cut year on year, under the coalition Government that existed at that time. We got a three-year budget through, despite the fact that the two biggest spending Ministers were outside with the unions protesting against any cuts.

How did we do that? Instead of thinking we could just drive it through, as the current Sinn Féin Minister is trying to do, we had hours and hours of negotiations, compromises and so on to get it through. That might be difficult, but that is no reason to remove the requirement for consensus and the safeguards for minorities. We now have a cabal in the Assembly of nationalists, republicans, the Alliance party and a bunch of individuals, who form a majority and would be able to drive things through if it came to a majority vote.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

My right hon. Friend is rightly alluding to the issue of consensus. Does he agree that the one fundamental building block to making any progress is some form of consensual approach to how we make politics in the Assembly work? I am not talking about vetoes, but we cannot make progress unless there is agreement among the divided communities that make up Northern Ireland.

[Sammy Wilson]

Of course, and we have seen how divisive some of the decisions made in the Assembly have been, whether on cultural issues or economic issues, as the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) pointed out. Alarm bells should ring if we are considering removing the fabric that is there to ensure proper discussion before final decisions are made.

I notice that there is not a great deal of interest in this debate from parties other than those from Northern Ireland—and selfish interest, as well. I do not care what has been said; this is selfish interest. In fact, we are now told that the Irish and British Governments should come together and try to force through the changes that the new majority cabal wish to impose on the Assembly. I think that is wrong, we will be opposing it, and there is certainly no logical, political or community reason why the changes that are being demanded should be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kohler]

I entirely agree. Compelling as many of the arguments are from all sides, a situation in which governance is not happening cannot be right and cannot be the solution. Surely, compromise must be reached.

[Sammy Wilson]

The hon. Gentleman asked why weighted majorities do not give the protection that the consensus requirement gives. There are two reasons. First, it depends at what level the weighted majority is set. Secondly, if the weighted majority were seen to be used in a way that prevented changes or things getting through, we would have exactly the same arguments about the weighted majority: that it should be reduced and reduced in order to free up any logjam. That is why consensus is much more important. It recognises that there are nationalists and Unionists, and that their interests have to be safeguarded.

[Mr Kohler]

That is helpful. The current 60:40:40 system strikes me as one that does protect minorities, while the danger of the consensus is that you get tripped up by hold-outs. That is what I see happening from my perspective outside.

Northern Ireland Troubles: Operation Kenova

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

I say to the hon. Gentleman that we have the commission, established by the last Government in the legacy Act, which has the capacity to investigate all cases that are referred to it. When I came into office, I took the decision that we would retain but reform the commission, as opposed to abolishing it and starting again, as I was urged to do by some people in Northern Ireland. I think it was the right decision to take, not least because 100 investigations are currently taking place. However, we have to ensure that it is established and reformed in a way that gives all families confidence, and I would say that we are trying to achieve one mechanism to deal with finding answers to those questions. I have said to the House a number of times before that we are not going to be able to deal with legacy by a series of public inquiry after public inquiry. We need to establish the commission on the basis that it can do the job for everyone.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The report makes quite clear the extent of IRA brutality and murder in Northern Ireland, including murders within their own republican community. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that the First Minister of Northern Ireland can no longer remain ambiguous in relation to, first, her acknowledgment of and, secondly, her apology for what her fellow travellers did to people within their own community and within the wider community in Northern Ireland? Does he also accept that the real state collusion occurred when successive Governments in the Irish Republic hid terrorists; allowed them to store arms, train and cross the border; and then refused to extradite them? Instead of giving the Irish Government a role in the arrangements for the legacy of the past, will he commit to holding them to account for their sins of the past?

[Hilary Benn]

I say to the right hon. Gentleman that I certainly intend to hold the Irish Government to account for the commitments they gave in the framework that I announced jointly with the Tánaiste in September. Of course, there was always an alternative to what went on—always—and Northern Ireland eventually got there through the Good Friday agreement and the peace that has been revealed and sustained since 1998. It is for each individual to decide how they deal with that.

I say to the right hon. Gentleman that what we need to focus on now, because clearly there are things in the past that cannot be undone, is to learn from what we have learned—today’s report about what went on in all sorts of respects is an extremely important contribution to that—but also to make sure, as I have said a number of times, that families get the answers they are still waiting for. Kenova did a lot to do that for the families with whom it worked, but lots of other families still do not know. That is why we must have a commission that works for everyone.

Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 18th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Burghart]

I concur greatly with my hon. Friend’s remarks, and I will return to them in a few moments.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The shadow Secretary of State pointed out that the Secretary of State assured us that there will be no input from the Irish Government set out in the Bill. Yet, first, the Irish Government were the only ones consulted. Secondly, there will be appointments made. Does he see the possibility that a Government who have acceded to the demands of the Irish Government in this Bill could also accede to suggestions for people to be nominated to the advisory committee, meaning they could therefore have Irish proxies under the Bill, despite the assurances given by the Secretary of State?

[Alex Burghart]

The right hon. Gentleman raises interesting and important points. We are concerned about the question of who will have access to sensitive national security information within the legacy commission’s framework? It would be good to have clarity on that from the Minister later.

Sixthly, there was some confusion on the Labour Front Bench recently about whether former IRA personnel would be able to serve as a legacy commission officer or as a member of the victims and survivors advisory group. Perhaps when we get to Committee the Minister could clear that up and provide legal guarantees that that will not be the case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Foster]

I have plenty of views on that, but it does not change my view on immunity. I believe immunity is wrong, particularly for soldiers.

Moving on, I understand the concerns of my fellow veterans that any investigations into historical deaths have previously disproportionately focused on the actions of the armed forces and former police officers, rather than the paramilitaries. The Government have recognised that and introduced a number of key protections for anyone asked to provide information. Those include protection from repeated investigations, a right to stay at home, a right to anonymity, protection from cold calling, protection in old age and the right to be heard.

[Sammy Wilson]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Foster]

I am almost done.

Another important issue is that we must and will protect our veterans from vexatious and unwarranted investigations. The creation of a reformed Legacy Commission must not only provide for accountability, but provide the protection of the innocent. Legacy cases have dominated the inquest system in Northern Ireland, where coroner legislation dates back to 1959 and desperately requires modernisation. The 1959 legislation was never created to deal with the numerous and complex types of legal issues the system now faces. Coronial law in Northern Ireland is a devolved matter, but a modernised inquest system could dictate new rules of procedure, change evidential standards, affect disclosure processes and reshape how article 2 is applied, thus providing multiple additional layers—

--- Later in debate ---

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

At the outset, let me restate unequivocally that we DUP Members will always stand with the innocent victims and survivors of terrorism in Northern Ireland. We will stand with the families whose loved ones were cut down by a ruthless and bloody terrorist campaign. Their pain has not diminished, and neither will our determination to defend truth, justice and moral clarity.

We continue to hear attempts to justify or sanitise and romanticise terrorism. We hear repeatedly from Sinn Féin’s leadership, the self-proclaimed First Minister for all and Mary Lou McDonald, that there was somehow no alternative to the IRA’s barbaric campaign of violence, and that it was justified. Justified? That is an affront to every innocent family whose loved one was murdered. There was always an alternative to murder; there was always an alternative to placing bombs under cars; and there was always an alternative to shooting innocent men, women and children.

I want to take the House back to two significant events in 1987: the IRA bombing of the service of remembrance at the cenotaph in Enniskillen, killing 12 people and injuring at least 60 more; and the Special Air Service’s engagement of heavily armed terrorists in Loughgall in my constituency. Which one of these incidents do Members think was granted a public inquiry? It was not the murder of innocents and the injuring of many more. Instead an inquiry was granted into the heavily armed terror gang, which was rightly engaged with and eliminated by the security forces, who saved countless lives in the process. Such is the subversion of the legacy process in Northern Ireland that the murder of innocents at Enniskillen has never had a public inquiry.

In recent times, the Secretary of State visited Loughgall and heard directly from innocent victims of the IRA’s East Tyrone brigade, one of the most brutal, ruthless killing wings of the IRA. He spoke with two men whose families endured unimaginable suffering at the hands of some of the IRA’s most notorious killers, and their testimonies were powerful and deeply moving. The East Tyrone brigade were not freedom fighters, but a heavily armed terror unit. Having already killed hundreds of innocent people, they mounted a killing operation at Loughgall, intending to obliterate any RUC officer in that station. They never paused in their murderous intent. They did not stop to give any officer an opportunity to walk away. Terrorism must never be sanitised or justified. Those who defended the innocent must never be sacrificed to appease those who glorify violence.

[Sammy Wilson]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Secretary of State’s promises to the House mean that the Bill would enable some of those people and their supporters to be included on the victims advisory group? Indeed, if the Secretary of State consulted the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland, the leader of the Alliance party, she would say that they should be included, because they are just as much innocent victims as the people whom they killed.

[Carla Lockhart]

Absolutely. That was a point well made.

This Bill speaks of inquests, and we firmly believe that every family deserves a full and fair investigation, but Loughgall—really? Not only has that event been before the European Court of Human Rights, where the UK was found to be justified, but there is to be a second inquest. How does that make innocent victims feel? There must be no more vexatious pursuit of the security forces, and this Bill does not protect them. Only 10% of troubles-related deaths were caused by the security forces, and almost all of those occurred in engagements with terrorists, yet the narrative we hear is deliberately inverted. There is no comparison—none—between terrorists and those who stood as a human shield in their path. The SAS soldiers who served in Loughgall deserve this Government’s full support.

The Government have allowed the Irish Government an entirely disproportionate role in shaping legacy, while innocent victims in Northern Ireland feel sidelined. Let us be very clear: the Irish state has its own legacy—a dark, uncomfortable legacy—that it has yet to confront with honesty or transparency. That same state’s own tribunal, the Smithwick tribunal, found collusion between members of the Garda Síochána and the IRA on the murders of Chief Superintendent Harry Breen and Superintendent Bob Buchanan. Those two senior Royal Ulster Constabulary officers were ambushed and executed after information was passed by the Irish police to terrorists. It was the same with Ian Sproule, the 23-year-old from Castlederg. These are not isolated incidents. Across border areas, families have credible concerns about the Irish state’s failures—failures to arrest, to extradite, and to share intelligence, and failures that allowed terrorists to flee across the border and live openly.

We will stand with every innocent family whose loved one was murdered. We will stand with the RUC, with the Ulster Defence Regiment, with our veterans, and with the SAS. Terrorism was wrong. It was never justified, and it cannot be sanitised.