Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Monday 19th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)]

The issue that we are discussing today goes back decades, and we in this place still have unfinished business to deal with. Today is an attempt, although not a perfect one by any means, to do our duty. It reminds us of our duty of care to the people of the whole of this country—in Northern Ireland, Great Britain and elsewhere—who have been so badly affected, so traumatised, with lives lost, as a result of what is euphemistically called “the troubles”. Today I have listened to harrowing accounts from Members of what they have experienced themselves or have heard from others. We, as Members of this place, have a duty to speak up for those who cannot speak up for themselves—those who are no longer with us because they were killed in the so-called troubles, and those who are no longer with us because they never lived to see the truth of, or justice for, what happened to their loved ones.

Today we are once again trying to right some of those wrongs of the past, but let us be clear about the fact that we cannot turn back the clock. We cannot bring those lives back. So what can we do? What we can do is ensure, or try our best to ensure, that people who have suffered in all their different ways can, if not get closure—we have heard about that again today—at least find out more about what happened to those they lost.

During the debate it has been said a number of times that we should not have this dichotomy between victims and those who were sent by our Government to try to keep the peace—because that is what it was to start with: an attempt to keep the peace, not to fight and win a war, because nobody won out of those troubles. The end of those troubles began, apparently, in 1998 with the Good Friday agreement, but the violence went on, did it not? Since then, successive Governments have tried to bring about some form of justice, some way of bringing back the truth about the people who suffered in that violence, and time and again, that has not happened. I wish to God that, as a Member of Parliament elected only two years ago, I did not have to deal with this, but I know that, actually, I do have to deal with it. We all have to deal with it.

I cannot speak for all the victims, but we have heard much about them today. I want to focus on a group of my constituents who have come to me and asked for answers and reassurance. They are a group of local veterans who served on Operation Banner in Northern Ireland. They were not trustful, because they saw an attempt to take away their protections under the legacy Act and thought that we in this place were going to leave them exposed. I said, “Let’s sit down and talk. Let’s find out about this.”

I can tell Members that when we sat down, it was a very tense environment. I thought, “I’d better not talk now. I’d better just listen.” I listened to them go through, one by one, what had happened to them when they were serving for Her late Majesty in Northern Ireland. Each had their own traumatic experiences, and a couple were in tears. One said to me, “Will this ever end? I still live this trauma, and I don’t see how you or this Government are going to protect me.” I gave them my word that I would take their concerns to the Government. We went through their concerns, and we summed them up in just two points. They were not saying, as has been said before, that we should not talk about the past or that we should just brush it under the carpet and repress it. They wanted to know that if and when anyone asks them, “What were you doing there?”, they will not be judged guilty from the start but will be protected.

The veterans were scared of receiving a letter from a commissioner, a lawyer or whoever, and one said, “Will the MOD not protect me?” I took that question on board. Another said, “What happens if I do have to give evidence or get involved in proceedings that I don’t understand? Will the Government be there to give me the support that I need?” I took those points away, and I know that the Government have been listening to many individuals, groups and Members of this place since then. I am pleased to see that there is progress on that. I am particularly pleased that we will not be cold-calling veterans, who still need support. I have said that I will give them that support, and after our debate in this place, I will go and meet them again. I will listen to them again and say, “Does that give you reassurance?” If it does not, I am pleased—and I will say this to them—that it does not end here. We cannot ever draw a line under the troubles, and we must remember that. We will listen again, and I am pleased that that provision is included in the Bill.

We have to carry on listening and learning from the people who suffered, the people who served and all the people we represent, who expect us to do the right thing. We should not talk about “traitors” or “betrayals”. We are trying to do the best we can, because we have not been able to do that for decades in this place. We have a chance again to make things a bit better, and some of the amendments that have been tabled do that. I will support the Government amendments later, but it does not stop here.

I want to say to everyone listening, whether they are a victim, a veteran or otherwise affected, that we have a duty to carry on listening: we have a duty of care to you all.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I will always stand on the side of innocent victims and with those who put on a uniform to protect them, but regardless of whether this Bill passes or not, veterans sadly continue to live in a state of uncertainty and are continually faced with the threat of future lawfare and vexatious investigations. We need only recall the outrageous persecution of Soldier F. Despite the slurs and inaccurate comments from Members in this place last week, I want to remind the Committee that Soldier F was acquitted. He was found not guilty of murder, but how much of his life in his elderly years was spent defending himself against a prosecution in which the evidence fell well short? Veterans live with this fear every single day, and while some of the amendments may be superficially attractive, the Secretary of State must explain how they will actually protect those who serve. We cannot accept provisions that are, in substance, legally ineffective.

Loughgall has been mentioned throughout the debate. The Secretary of State’s clarity is stark, and it is not lost on veterans. Those in the East Tyrone IRA killing wing were bloodthirsty. They went to that police station armed to the teeth with guns and a bomb. They were not scouts going to the police station. They went there to kill, and they met real soldiers, who stopped them and saved hundreds of lives as a result. We cannot allow their murderous intent to be forgotten while those soldiers face further proceedings almost 40 years later.

There has already been an inquest, which concluded in 1995, and there is no need for a further inquest. The Secretary of State is not taking the opportunity to protect those who saved countless lives, because this Bill will allow for the 2015 proceedings to resume. I support amendment 51, tabled by the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), which I and my hon. Friends have signed, to prevent this resumption. Those soldiers were sent by this country to confront the IRA, and they did so courageously and bravely. This Government now need to explain what protection they are actually going to give them.

On further protections for veterans, we are told that they will get a warning before being contacted and can give evidence via video link. Under new clause 45, the warning procedure does not even apply when someone is contacted because they are suspected of an offence, but that is exactly what many veterans fear. Even for witnesses, contact can proceed after 14 days whether or not the warning has reached them. The ability to give evidence remotely remains subject to whether that is considered practical. Does the Secretary of State think that veterans will stop worrying because they can answer questions from their living room? The veteran’s family will still be living with the same fear about what comes next. Basic courtesy and a broadband connection are not meaningful protections for our veterans.

Amendment 52, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Alex Easton), which I have signed, would prevent people being appointed to the victims and survivors advisory group if they are or have been members of political parties with links to or that support paramilitary or terrorist organisations, past or present. Why should innocent victims be expected to accept people with those political associations on a group established to represent their interests? They should not, and I, along with my hon. Friends, will be supporting that amendment.

On the on-the-run letters, the Secretary of State will know that I tabled new clause 9, supported by my hon. Friends, to make it clear that the on-the-runs administrative scheme did not grant immunity from prosecution. I am pleased—the Secretary of State should take note, because that does not often happen—that the Government have tabled new clause 51 to prevent criminal proceedings being stopped or decisions to prosecute being quashed on grounds founded on the content of those abhorrent letters. Leaving aside the fact that this rotten scheme should never have been secretly contrived by the Blair Labour Government in the first place, it is welcome that the Government are legislating to have their legal effect extinguished.

However, I do have one concern. The Committee will be aware of the ongoing prosecution of John Downey, who previously escaped justice for bombing England via reliance on the OTR letter he had received. He is currently being prosecuted for other terrorist offences, and this prosecution has commenced. Therefore, new clause 51 must ensure that its provisions encompass proceedings that have already commenced but not concluded. Will the Secretary of State take the opportunity tonight to expressly confirm that? Will he also confirm that no transitional or saving provision will preserve reliance on those letters in such cases? We cannot see another prosecution stopped because of an OTR letter issued under the Labour Government’s abhorrent scheme.

There are also serious shortcomings in the scope of the Bill. By its definition, the troubles end on 10 April 1998. That leaves out the Omagh bombing, the single deadliest atrocity of the troubles. Members have heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) give his commentary on that important issue, and I urge them to support amendment 23. On 15 August 1998, the Real IRA murdered 29 people, including a mother pregnant with twins—31 lives were taken. It is simply wrong that an atrocity of that magnitude falls outside the scope of legislation dealing with the legacy of the troubles. The Government should accept the amendment. I sincerely ask sincerely: what is the problem?

Drumcree

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

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

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I thank all hon. Members who have reached out with regards to the level of abuse that has been received.

I find it absolutely incredible that I am standing in this House where we make the law, confronting a Secretary of State who has wilted before those who have defied the law. For 28 years, Portadown district obeyed the determinations that it opposed. When it secured a legal determination to return, this Government and the PSNI bowed to those IRA commanders, dissidents and a First Minister who broke the law on the Garvaghy Road. Mob rule won, whether the Secretary of State likes to admit it or not. At Hillsborough castle, the Secretary of State treated law-abiding citizens as equals to Brendan McKenna, whose record is very clear: he held a family hostage and was involved in the blowing up of Portadown royal British legion, he has impeded the police doing their duty over the past two weeks, and he thinks we are all F-ers.

Lawbreaking has been rewarded by this sovereign Parliament, and that shameful surrender has serious consequences for the rule of law in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State has joined Michelle O’Neill and the Chief Constable in thumbing their noses at law-abiding citizens and laughed and smirked while doing it. Their positions are becoming more untenable with every passing moment. Does the rule of law apply only to law-abiding citizens in Northern Ireland, while the self-titled “First Minister for all” seems to be immune?

[Chris Bryant]

When I referred earlier to those who have been vilified, I was going to refer to the hon. Lady, because I have seen some of the foul comments that have been made about her, online and elsewhere, and I completely abhor that. As she knows, I have spoken to her regularly throughout this whole process. We have tried to maintain a very civil conversation between us.

I want to clear up one other thing that the hon. Lady asked. She did not ask it in the House, but said I would have to answer it this evening. Earlier in the day, she said that I had to clear up whether I became aware of today’s judgment before or after I made my ruling. I think she was suggesting that in some way or other I knew before anybody else what the court was going to decide today. I want to make it absolutely clear that I did not. At the time I started my determination, I did not even know when the court was going to come up with its ruling, so I very much hope that she will withdraw that semi-allegation. More importantly, I had to respond to the section 9 request from the Chief Constable. I am afraid that sometimes the hon. Lady resorts to extravagant and erring language, and I am not sure that helps secure an outcome for the Orange lodge.

The final point I would make to the hon. Lady is that she is absolutely right that everybody needs to uphold the law. I very much hope that she would urge everybody she knows who is now saying that they should not co-operate with the police to co-operate with the police. Otherwise, I am afraid it is a question of what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Robert Hamill Inquiry Report

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

This relates directly to my constituency, so I welcome the opportunity to speak to it today. Robert Hamill’s murder was a brutal and appalling crime, and my thoughts are first and foremost with his family, who have many questions, as do many families right across Northern Ireland. But the truth matters, and the truth today is clear. Paragraph 21 finds that four RUC officers

“were not aware of the assault until they got out and they did not in any way condone or collude with attackers.”

Paragraph 75 concludes that

“we have found no wrongful act or omission which facilitated Robert Hamill’s death.”

Put simply, they did not sit idly by, they did not collude, they did not facilitate murder—something that has been hurled at them for the past 30 years.

The complaint, advanced by Rosemary Nelson, has been demolished by the inquiry, which also found that she failed to “co-operate fully” with the RUC and

“did not improve the situation.”

This goes to the heart of the nationalist republican legacy activism, whereby truth and the rule of law are subjective terms to be weaponised to seek to arrive at a predetermined political outcome.

More than 300 RUC officers were murdered while protecting the entire community. Will the Secretary of State now end this decades-long smear, defend these four officers and reject any attempt to rewrite history or attach collective guilt to the RUC?

[Chris Bryant]

Well, that was a slightly partial version of what is in the report. If the hon. Member read the whole report, I think she would come to a rather more settled position. She is absolutely right that, on the first issue that the inquiry was asked to look at—namely, whether the behaviour of the crew in the Land Rover had in some way contributed to the death—the report is absolutely clear that there was no collusion with the attackers. However, there are quite serious criticisms of the way the investigation was pursued, or was not pursued effectively. Of course, there is the additional issue of how Reserve Constable Atkinson behaved and that whole saga. I think it is best to tell the whole of the story, rather than just part of it.

I did not answer one of the questions that was asked earlier about the support for the family. I spoke very briefly to Diane over the weekend. Of course, the Northern Ireland Office has been in contact with the family throughout the process. In the end, of course, the most important thing is ensuring that the family get the answers they need.

Oral Answers to Questions

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what she says, and I agree with her. There was terrible disorder in Ballymena last year, as a result of which a number of steps were taken to bring the community together. It was noticeable that the recent disorder that we saw in Belfast was not replicated in Ballymena. That is an example of communities working together to build trust and respect, and we need to see a lot more of it.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Does the Secretary of State accept that while there can never be any excuse for criminal disorder, there is equally no excuse for a border policy that leaves Northern Ireland exposed? How many more incidents will it take before he and this Government deal with the open border with the Republic of Ireland, which is being exploited daily? When will they put in place measures to protect our citizens from illegal immigrants?

[Hilary Benn]

I hope the hon. Lady will recognise that the common travel area, which is more than a century old, is of great benefit to the citizens of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. Many people in Northern Ireland live their lives across that border every single day. Anyone who suggests—I know that she is not doing so—that there should be immigration controls on that border is not being realistic, and it would not be the appropriate action to take. As I indicated in answer to an earlier question, we are increasing immigration enforcement activity across the United Kingdom, including in Northern Ireland, as a result of which 1,000 people have been removed in the two years since the election, including 500 who have been returned to the Republic of Ireland.

North Belfast: Violent Attack

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

The hon. Gentleman will be well aware of the action that the Government are taking to deal with illegal migration. I have also made clear to the House the steps that we take if anyone, however they came to the country, or whether they are from this country, commits a criminal offence: they will face due process. Any foreign national, regardless of how they came, who abuses our hospitality and commits crimes can expect to be deported at the end of their sentence.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

My thoughts are very much with the victim of the horrific attack last night, and I echo the calls for calm in our communities. Communities in Northern Ireland are angry: they are demanding answers and they deserve answers, but sadly I do not feel they are getting those answers today. It is not lost on the people of north Belfast who in this place today is speaking up for working-class communities that are very concerned about uncontrolled immigration and the fact that mayors will not even say how many houses they have full of immigrants.

Was this individual known to the authorities? How many others from the same country are currently being accommodated in Northern Ireland? How did they enter the UK? What actions are this Government taking to prevent the abuse of our immigration system, including via the land border with the Republic of Ireland?

[Hilary Benn]

I say to the hon. Member that the public are right to be angry about what they witnessed in that appalling video and what they will have heard about the attack that took place. I will endeavour to come back to her on some of the questions she has asked but, as I have already indicated to the House, other answers will be provided in due course once the facts have been checked. It is really important that the facts are checked before information is given to the House, because I would not want to stand here and say something that turns out not to be the case. Checking the facts thoroughly is a responsibility on me before I inform the House, and that is what I intend to do.

Police Service of Northern Ireland Training College

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What does that mean?

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

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

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

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

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

[Jim Allister]

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

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

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

Dunmurry Police Station Attack

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

I will take the hon. Member’s question away. The allocation of resources is a matter for the Chief Constable. This is a very urgent investigation. I point out to him that one of the consequences of the legacy Act that the last Government passed was that responsibility for investigating troubles-related cases departed from the PSNI; it does not rest with the PSNI today, but with the legacy commission. It is the commission that does investigations in respect of the cases that have been referred to it, not the PSNI.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I, like every right-minded person, utterly condemn the abhorrent attack on Dunmurry PSNI station and the one on Lurgan in my constituency. I commend PSNI officers for their bravery in dealing with these attempts on their lives. Does the Secretary of State agree that Sinn Féin’s response drips with rank hypocrisy, condemning the bombers of today while glorifying, lauding and even erecting illegal statues to the bombers and terrorists of yesterday? Does he agree that the decision to put forward Órlaithí Flynn MLA—daughter of Patrick Flynn, convicted of an IRA bomb in Dunmurry—to condemn this attack was a calculated insult to victims and a grotesque reminder that Sinn Féin’s words condemn terrorism, but their politics still romanticise it? Surely the Government should reflect on their decision not to strengthen the legislation on glorification of terrorism and act to legislate against it immediately.

[Hilary Benn]

The hon. Member, quite rightly, speaks with great sincerity and anger about what has happened. On the very last point that she raised, she will be familiar with the provisions of the Terrorism Act 2006. As she will be aware, the Government have recently agreed to ask Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorist legislation, to undertake a review of section 1 and report back.

Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over)

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Carry-over motion
Monday 27th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

I appreciate the opportunity to take part in this debate on the carry-over motion. We are here this evening as a direct consequence of the failure of this Government to honour their commitment to repeal and replace the legacy Act, to deliver on a manifesto commitment through a two-year Session of Parliament, and to bring with them the victims from Northern Ireland and veterans right throughout the United Kingdom.

This is not a failure of our making. The Secretary of State talks about and laments the fact that the Tories lost the support of all parties in Northern Ireland, but I see little support for the process that the people of Northern Ireland and veterans right across the United Kingdom have had to endure over the last two years. Time after time after time, we heard the Secretary of State talk of safeguards for veterans. Time after time after time, we heard him and the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who is sat beside him, indicate that those safeguards would protect veterans in the United Kingdom, yet here we have it—the Secretary of State has had to open up. He has had to tell us, as the Prime Minister confirmed to me, that he is going to bring forward further amendments to do what he said was already done. He has lost the confidence of veterans and victims.

We have talked about and asked the Secretary of State about equivalence. How can there be equivalence between somebody who donned a uniform, did service and made sacrifices legally and lawfully in this country and others who donned a balaclava, took an oath of allegiance to evil and sought to destroy our nation and all those in it? Can there be equivalence? No. Yet today, the Secretary of State says that he will bring forward amendments, and we are asked to support a carry-over motion on a process that has lost the confidence of the people it is meant to bring with it. That is a shame.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

My right hon. Friend is making a very powerful point. Despite the promised raft of amendments, this Bill does not and will never protect those who put on uniform and stood between good and evil—the bloodthirsty terrorists. When the East Tyrone killing machine of the IRA was taken out at Loughgall, it saved countless lives, and it was the same at Coagh. People have had enough of the hounding of those who served, and they have had enough of this Government bending the knee to Dublin. It is time that we stand up for our veterans, not throw them to the wolves.

[Gavin Robinson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Secretary of State dismisses the allegation that this is all about Dublin, but what was the clarion call over the last week? There was a British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference this week, and he knows that he is under pressure from Dublin to show progress, but what have we got from them? Nothing more than hollow words.

The Dublin Government said that they committed to information retrieval. How many requests have they accepted from the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery? None. They have given no answers to any victims in Northern Ireland. The Irish Government have more secrets locked away in their drawers than lectures that they choose to give to this House. They still have an interstate case against this country. They promise lots; they deliver nothing.

Tonight, we are asked to support a carry-over motion. The amendment paper for this Bill, containing 49 pages of amendments from myself, my hon. Friends and hon. Members throughout this House. Although the Secretary of State was confident about this Bill, he now indicates that he is going to bring forward a substantial number of amendments. He would be better off scrapping the Bill and bringing back a Bill that can command the confidence of victims and veterans.

I listened to the powerful contribution of the Chair of the Northern Ireland Committee, the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), who is no longer in her place. She will remember that one of the most startling experiences we had as a Committee was talking to victims who asked us this question: “Is the Secretary of State going to agree to early release for dissident republican prisoners?” On 21 May last year, he said to me that

“there are no such plans”—[Official Report, 21 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 1011.]

yet that engagement continues. Worse, the Northern Ireland Office has now appointed a lady called Fleur Ravensbergen, who is engaging with the New IRA, who attacked Dunmurry police station just yesterday. Through their interlocutors and the International Red Cross, they are asking the Secretary of State to offer them early release. I say: shame!

Oral Answers to Questions

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

The lifting of the two-child benefit cap in Northern Ireland will help more than 17,000 children and more than 48,000 people in Northern Ireland households. We are also increasing the national minimum wage, which will benefit 170,000 people, and increasing the state pension will benefit 330,000 pensioners in Northern Ireland.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Cancer is a thief and a home-wrecker. Sadly, Northern Ireland has the worst cancer outcomes across the UK. I recently lifted the lid on breast cancer referrals, with red-flag appointments taking in excess of 14 weeks. Although the autumn Budget has been helpful, can the Minister confirm whether conversations are happening with the Treasury to ask for transformational money to help us transform our health service, so that cancer wait times and medical pathways can be improved once and for all?

[Hilary Benn]

Like the whole House, I share the hon. Member’s wish to improve cancer treatment and cancer waiting times for those who are currently waiting too long. There is the public services transformation fund, and the first phase of projects was funded last year. Decisions are about to be taken on the second phase of funding, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick) mentioned, there also needs to be reform of the way in which the health service works. We are seeing progress under Mike Nesbitt’s leadership, and we need to see more.

Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

We have been unwavering in our opposition to the notion of immunity. There has never been a justification for arbitrarily closing down legal routes for innocent victims—not in 1998, not during the darkest days of the troubles, and certainly not today. While the Secretary of State and his party are perhaps late to this party, we do welcome his desire to remove the prospect of amnesty and, with it, the perverse equivalence drawn between those brave soldiers and police officers who acted within the law and the terrorists who were intent only on murder and destruction. That moral equivalence has poisoned legacy discourse for far too long.

When it comes to this debate, and the fact that the Government are pressing ahead prematurely with this remedial action, it is not just that we dispute the policy; the fact is that it is rubbing salt in the wounds of victims and will open the floodgates. It will not help one innocent victim, but it will open the floodgates against our brave soldiers—those who stood as human shields between good and evil. What is disputed is the reckless manner in which this Government are attempting to achieve this —and all to placate the Government in Dublin, whose approach has always been obstruction and concealment.

The fact that the Secretary of State is willing to pre-empt the outcome of an appeal to the highest court in the land sets a dangerous precedent. More importantly, it sends a message to the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement—men and women who have already given more than enough—that its views and its stake in this process are dispensable.

It will come as no shock to the Secretary of State to hear that there are aspects of the draft remedial order that we have grave concerns about. It is clear that any benefit from reinstating civil cases will be accrued by a subset of victims whose claims are directed towards the security forces. Once again, the full weight of the state is being aimed not at terrorists but at those who stood against them. Where exactly does the right hon. Member suggest those who were bereaved at the hands of terrorists can seek compensation from the provisional IRA? It is an organisation that still refuses to disband, disarm fully and even acknowledge the scale and brutality of its crimes and murders.

Innocent victims and our brave ex-service personnel are crying out for fairness, not arrangements that aid and abet the rewriting of history—a history in which terrorists are daily being recast as victims, and soldiers as villains. The Secretary of State seems content to acquiesce to those who would use the courts to distort the truth of the past. This House should be under no illusion: this is not about justice; it is about narrative. We only have to think of Loughgall. Let us be absolutely clear about what Loughgall was: it was not a tragic accident or a miscarriage of justice, but the right and proper action on the part of brave soldiers to halt and take out an armed terrorist unit on the verge of carnage. Yet, decades later, the full machinery of the state is being turned against those who prevented a massacre, when the Secretary of State backs this latest inquest. Meanwhile, families devastated by IRA bombs and bullets continue to wait, many without answers, many without justice and many without even acknowledgment.

This is not about truth; it is about blurring the distinction between those who served the law and those who sought to destroy it. It is time for this Government to show the resolve needed to defend those who defended us. They must not do so with warm words or platitudes but with action. The remedial order fails in that aim; it weakens protections, emboldens lawfare and abandons veterans to endless legal jeopardy, and we cannot and will not support it.