Oral Answers to Questions Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Northern Ireland Office

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Burghart Excerpts
Wednesday 21st May 2025

(1 day, 18 hours ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Burghart Portrait Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
- View Speech - Hansard - -

In his opening remarks, the Secretary of State left out one crucial detail: the truth is that the last Government did legislate with cross-party support to prevent people like Gerry Adams from receiving taxpayer-funded compensation. The High Court in Northern Ireland ruled that that was incompatible with the European convention on human rights, and the Conservative Government then appealed that judgment. When the Labour party came to power last summer, it dropped that appeal. Will the Secretary of State please set out why the Government decided to drop that appeal?

Hilary Benn Portrait Hilary Benn
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

As I told the House a moment ago, the courts found that clauses 46 and 47 were unlawful. Although the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal was not obviously asked to rule on that, because we had withdrawn the appeal, it did comment unfavourably on those provisions. We supported clauses 46 and 47 at the time, but they have not worked, and that is why we have to find an alternative way forward. I just say to the House that the main issue here is the Carltona principle, which the last Government argued meant it was lawful for junior Ministers to sign ICOs. The amendment to try to deal with that failed, and we need to find another way of reaffirming that principle. That is at the heart of this case.

Alex Burghart Portrait Alex Burghart
- View Speech - Hansard - -

The whole House will have heard the Secretary of State not give a reason why the Government did not continue the appeal. Government lawyers told the last Government that there were grounds for appeal. Policy Exchange, in a report in January written by Professor Richard Ekins and Sir Stephen Laws, said that the High Court had almost certainly been “mistaken” in its judgment and that there were strong grounds for an appeal. Why did the Government drop it, and why have the Government not yet brought forward their own legislation to clear this mess up once and for all?

Hilary Benn Portrait Hilary Benn
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

The Supreme Court judgment was in 2020, and the last Government could not find a legal solution in almost three years. I am committed to finding one, and I promise that I will update the House when we have found it.