Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Wednesday 21st October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

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

As this is the Secretary of State’s first Northern Ireland questions, may I welcome him to his place? Victims and survivors of the troubles will, as the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) said, be deeply concerned to hear that on Monday police intelligence documents produced in the High Court in Belfast referred to the ongoing existence of the IRA. Will the Secretary of State please tell the House: is it the Government’s understanding that the IRA is still active?

[Chris Bryant]

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is asking me to talk again about proceedings in the High Court in Northern Ireland, and I think it would be inappropriate for me to do so.

[Alex Burghart]

With all due respect, I was not asking the Secretary of State to comment on the case; I know that he cannot. I was asking him to tell us what the Government’s considered opinion is on whether the IRA is still active. That is important, because one of the documents produced on Monday revealed—

[Chris Bryant]

In the court case.

[Alex Burghart]

This is for context. The document revealed that the Secretary of State was told by the police,

“it is possible that dissident republicans have already accessed the firearms in the Garvaghy Road area, and it is possible that in the event of police removing protesters, firearms may be used to attack police.”

It would not interfere with the court process for the Secretary of State to tell us this: is it his understanding that the IRA has rearmed?

[Chris Bryant]

The shadow Secretary of State is asking me to comment on documents produced in the judicial review into my decision on Drumcree. I am not going to do that, because I think it would conflict with the judicial review process and I do not want to be held in contempt of court.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I did not catch all of that—I am not sure whether you did, Mr Speaker—but I think I heard “PTSD”. As I said earlier, one of the things I have campaigned on is acquired brain injury. I suspect that many people in the armed forces were told that they had PTSD but actually had an acquired brain injury that had never been properly diagnosed. It is one of the pieces of work that we need to do far more effectively. I want to look at how we properly look after those who are serving now in Northern Ireland into the future to ensure that they can have the most fruitful lives possible.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Secretary of State twice refused to answer questions about documents referred to in judicial review proceedings in the High Court in Belfast that refer to the ongoing existence of the IRA. Can you confirm that there is no parliamentary rule, including the sub judice rule, that would have prevented the Secretary of State from answering those questions?

[Mr Speaker]

I can confirm that the sub judice rule does not apply to judicial review proceedings that relate to a ministerial decision, as in this case. However, the answers given by the Secretary of State are a matter for him and not for the Chair, so I will not be drawn into that.

Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Committee of the whole House & 3rd reading
Tuesday 20th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

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

I start by paying tribute to those who spoke yesterday on the first day of Committee. There were excellent contributions from both sides of the Committee and from all sides of the debate. A number of the issues discussed are not strictly within scope of the new clauses and amendments today, but I will return to them on Third Reading because they are essential to the broader discussion that we are having. I just wanted to say that there were some powerful speeches that resonated across the divides.

In that spirit, I want to begin with what the Opposition welcome. Government new clause 51 effectively ends the debate on the highly controversial on-the-run letters, the so-called letters of comfort. These were letters issued by the Government to republican suspects, primarily those affiliated to the IRA. They arose because, while the 1998 agreement’s early release scheme covered convicted paramilitary prisoners, it did not cover those who had never been charged, who had been charged but had escaped, or who had escaped after conviction.

Sinn Féin argued that this was anomalous and that resolving the status of such individuals, many of whom were seen as important to republican support for the peace process, was necessary. Where Sinn Féin identified concerned individuals, the Government then assessed whether they were wanted, and if they were not, a letter of reassurance was issued. It has long been argued that such letters did not offer immunity to prosecution. However, as the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) has pointed out, that was not so, because in 2014, John Downey, an IRA man accused of perpetrating the 1982 Hyde Park bombing, produced his letter at the Old Bailey and the trial collapsed. While it was said that Mr Downey’s letter had been issued in error, there is no doubt that that letter prevented him from being put on trial for that crime. Whatever confidence there was in the scheme then completely collapsed, and despite the considerable work of Lady Justice Hallett, doubts have lingered. The Government are right to put this issue beyond all doubt by amending the Bill.

Similarly, we welcome Government amendment 251, which obliges the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a statement about the actions taken by His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom and the Government of Ireland in pursuance of the joint framework. This is a replacement to amendment 46, tabled in my name, which did much the same thing. The importance of this measure is that the Government will have to give an assessment of the progress that the Republic has made in laying its own legislation before ours can come into force.

I ask the Secretary of State to confirm from the Dispatch Box that this statement will explicitly cover, as I think is set out in the framework, the investigation by the Garda of all unresolved troubles-related incidents within its jurisdiction. It is important that any statement that he gives to the House when both pieces of legislation are complete covers that specific issue, which was an important element of the framework.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman is speaking about troubles-related crimes. On the question of those who have escaped across the border, I have had opportunity to mention Gerry McMonagle. He was taken to court for the murder of Hugh “Lexie” Cummings in 1982. The summons that was made for him was unfortunately not absolutely correct, and in the time it took to correct it at the Omagh court, that gentleman escaped across the border. He has risen to be a significant member of Sinn Féin. He has been the mayor of Donegal county council. The fact of the matter is that he murdered Lexie Cummings in 1982. Is it not time for that gentleman to be taken to court? Should this not be one of the cases on which the Republic of Ireland works with the Government here, to ensure that that man is jailed?

[Alex Burghart]

My hon. Friend raises an important case, and I am glad that he has had an opportunity to put it on record.

Yesterday, the Secretary of State said that the Irish Government had committed to working

“in lockstep with us so that our legislation and their legislation will come into force on the same day.”—[Official Report, 19 October 2026; Vol. 791, c. 798.]

I hope the Secretary of State will confirm that, this being the case, he will not commence this legislation until the Irish legislation is ready to be commenced.

[Chris Bryant]

Yes.

[Alex Burghart]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that reassurance.

All that being said, we should be clear-eyed about what the Irish legislation does and does not do, and why it is in no way equivalent to the legislation that this House is passing. The general scheme put forward by the Irish Government is a means by which the Irish state may co-operate with the legacy commission. It does not require it to do so, nor does it set up any body equivalent to the legacy commission in the Republic. In short, while it is a step in the right direction, it guarantees nothing and it does not create an equivalent action in the south.

Yesterday, we heard in powerful terms about the failure of the Republic to engage fully on Omagh. Sadly, in the rejection of the Democratic Unionist party’s amendment, we also heard something about this Government’s failure to engage on Omagh. This afternoon, my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) has raised the issue again. I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that, in 2021, when Mr Justice Horner recommended an inquiry, he urged that an equivalent investigation take place in the Republic. He could see, having assessed all the evidence, that one was needed, yet here we are, five years on, and there is no equivalent investigation in the Republic at all; nor is there any sign that there will ever be one. It is a source of sadness for this Committee that the framework that was signed by the previous Administration did not have within it an undertaking from the Republic that there would be such an inquiry. That was a significant omission.

[Gavin Robinson]

I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for making this point. The Committee should be aware that the Omagh families are this very day in court in Dublin, trying to secure the very same rights to an inquiry from the Irish Government’s perspective as the UK Government have offered them in the United Kingdom. Will he reflect on how wrong the Secretary of State was yesterday evening to reference, in part, a subsequent sentence from the terms of reference, when he knows that any information provided by the Irish Government was provided only to answer the question of whether the UK authorities could have stopped the atrocity, not what they could have stopped themselves?

[Alex Burghart]

That is precisely why, in 2021, Mr Justice Horner urged that there be a parallel inquiry in the Republic. The fact that no such parallel inquiry has happened, and that there is no sign that any such parallel inquiry will happen, speaks volumes.

Sadly, this brings us to a major point of contention: the issue of inquests. Yesterday, the hon. and gallant Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) spoke powerfully about the problems that exist with inquests, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) will do likewise today. The essence of the problem is this: the inquisitorial process in Northern Ireland has suffered a massive loss of confidence. The reasons for that loss of confidence will be very well known to anyone who has followed the Coagh and Clonoe cases, and it is precisely why colleagues are so concerned about the Loughgall case, which is covered by amendment 51, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington.

In Great Britain, inquests exist to establish the facts, and at the first suspicion of unlawful killing, they are required to stop and pass evidence to the DPP—I nearly said “the DUP”. In Northern Ireland, however, inquests have far too often sought to assign blame. That is why the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) tabled amendment 20.

Yesterday, we heard moving accounts from the hon. Members for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) and for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) of children being killed, very possibly murdered—awful, heart-wrenching stories. To be clear, the most contested inquests do not deal with such cases. They deal with the shooting of terrorists by security forces.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

Can the shadow Secretary of State shed light on the number of inquests that will be granted and what those inquests are? None of us knows how many there are or what they will be about. Where will the money for each inquest come from? We are talking about a couple of hundred million pounds for each one. Can he shed light on what the Government have been telling him on the issue?

[Alex Burghart]

I am sure that the Secretary of State will have heard what the hon. Gentleman said and will refer to it in his final remarks.

The cases that we are talking about here include that of Coagh and Michael Ryan—an IRA man who shot two Ulster Defence Regiment officers, both in the presence of children.

[Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I am very grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s kind words. I just want to make sure that I understood him; he said that inquests have not dealt with innocent civilians being killed. In fact, they have: the Ballymurphy inquest and the Springhill inquest brought truth to families almost 50 years after their loved ones were murdered in cold blood by British forces. If we are going to talk about this, let us talk about it in the round.

[Alex Burghart]

I am happy to clarify my remarks for the hon. Gentleman. I am certainly not saying that at all. I am explaining why the inquisitorial process has suffered such a loss of confidence. It is because of the way in which certain inquests have been conducted and the way they have behaved. I am not talking at cross-purposes with the hon. Gentleman.

In the case of Clonoe, we are dealing with the fact that a van-load of men shot up a police station with a fully automatic machine gun and were confronted by the security forces. In the case of Loughgall, an IRA unit attacked a Royal Ulster Constabulary base and were shot. Those security forces, who kept our country safe in those moments, were asked to do extremely difficult things. They no longer trust the inquisitorial process, because they can see where it leads. It leads to lawfare—to years of court processes in which, even when the judges say, “This is a farce,” or, “This is ludicrous,” they are powerless to prevent the legal aid cavalcade from going on and on.

Amendment 113, which appears in my name, and the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington would essentially do the same thing that the hon. and gallant Member for Birmingham Selly Oak was seeking yesterday: they say, “Enough of the multi-track approach; let us put all the inquests into the legacy commission.” Let us dispense with the twin-track approach, which the hon. and gallant Member argued against yesterday. Of course, the twin-track approach is really a three-track approach, because inquiries are still being granted. As we argued at the time, the Government should have asked ICRIR to deal with, for example, the Finucane inquiry rather than set up a new public inquiry. Then, because of civil cases, we will have a four-track approach. For all the reasons mentioned here, I very much hope that the Government will at the very least accept that, where we are dealing with military action against known terrorists, the inquests ought to be dealt with by the legacy commission.

[Jim Shannon]

I am very mindful, as we often are in Northern Ireland, of the experiences we have with many people. I think of the murder of the four UDR men at Ballydugan. The person who did that was Colum Marks. When Colum Marks was later in the process of setting up a mortar bomb to attack the RUC in Downpatrick, he was shot. He deserved to have that capital punishment in Downpatrick. The family should never try to engineer an inquiry for someone who was quite clearly the head of the IRA in the area. When he died, the IRA campaign stopped. That tells you all about it. He is burning in hell today—couldn’t happen to a nicer person.

[Alex Burghart]

As ever, my hon. Friend gives us a powerful story of some of the dreadful things that happened.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington said last week:

“If this Bill was really about human rights and justice, the first coroner’s inquest would not be about whether the killings at Loughgall were unlawful; it would instead be about one of the 1,800 murders carried out by the IRA, every single one of which was unlawful.”—[Official Report, 13 October 2026; Vol. 791, c. 333.]

There is, I am afraid, an inequity of priorities here. The Bill is not on the side of right. While I am on my feet on this point, I pay tribute to the veterans who are with us today, who help to keep our country safe.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds South) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the reason the Loughgall inquest began, and was then terminated by the previous Government’s legislation, is that the Attorney General in the last Conservative Government, who is also the Advocate General for Northern Ireland, decided, having considered all the papers, that it should be held? Is he telling the Committee that he disagrees with the decision of the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright)?

[Alex Burghart]

While I have the opportunity, I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for his time as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. We disagreed on many things, but he always conducted himself with great dignity and great respect, and I am grateful to him for the briefings that he gave me while we were opposite numbers.

Two things are true: our legislation would have stopped the Loughgall inquest. That was something that my party supported. Secondly, since that time, there have been some egregious cases in which the inquisitorial process has gone wrong, and we have seen why veterans have lost confidence in those inquisitorial processes. There is a viable alternative, which the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to recognise when he became Secretary of State. He decided not to tear up ICRIR completely or close it down, but to develop it. We might agree with that in some ways and not in others, but there is an alternative way of dealing with this matter, and I believe that that would command the confidence of many veterans, such as the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak, who spoke out yesterday.

I turn to the issue of “new and compelling”, which was raised yesterday and is back again today because of new clause 22, in the name of the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton). The problem is that the Government claim that their qualification “essential” will restrict repeat investigations. However, legal authorities outside the House have pointed out that “essential”, as described by the Government, is no bar at all. As one leading lawyer put it:

“Any lawyer worth their salt can find new evidence”,

but a real test would be to find “new and compelling” evidence. Given that decisions have been taken to prosecute cases in which there is no evidence, there should be a check and balance, and a certification via a judge, to support the fact that there is new and compelling evidence. That would prevent a biased decision from being taken in Northern Ireland. The Bill currently provides no protection for veterans accused of unlawful shootings from rinse-and-repeat investigations. They are treated not as witnesses but as suspects. The Bill is drafted expressly to permit the past abuse to continue. The Secretary of State says that that is not the case, but he objects to amending the Bill in a way that enshrines his public statements that there should be no rinse-and-repeat investigations.

The Secretary of State has also said that witnesses cannot be approached unless there is new and compelling evidence, but that is not quite what the Bill says. Rather, whether there is new evidence is a factor to be weighed in the decision to approach witnesses. If it is considered “essential” but there is no new and compelling evidence, the witnesses can still be approached. There is absolutely no bar to approaching witnesses. The Bill does not define “essential”. The Secretary of State has given his Dispatch Box definition, but that means that what is “essential” will be open to interpretation by the legacy commission and the coroners. It is a subjective term, and that feeds uncertainty. What is essential to you, Ms Ghani, may not be essential to me.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

The key word here, of course, is “essential” and its definition. Is the hon. Gentleman aware of any legal precedent or case law that defines the word?

[Alex Burghart]

The KCs whose advice I have sought have not been able to produce any such definition. All of this feeds uncertainty. Decisions will be challenged in the courts and there will be more lawfare. Republicans will argue that interviewing veterans is essential.

The reason we are insisting on the use of “new and compelling” is that it is a term used in the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021 and the Criminal Justice Act 2003. It is the very test used to determine whether someone acquitted of a serious offence can be retried. We are asking for certification in this case—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman says there is—

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. If people wish to participate in the debate, they should do so by formal intervention, so that it can be recorded in Hansard, and not by chuntering from a sedentary position.

[Alex Burghart]

Finally, a bit of order!

[The Chairman]

Order. I hope the hon. Member agrees that there has been order throughout the debate.

[Alex Burghart]

You are quite right as ever, Ms Ghani—it is good to be finally put right on that.

[Chris Bryant]

Certification is obviously a key part of the amendment the hon. Gentleman is talking about, but one of the problems of course is that presumably certification can be judicially reviewed, which is likely to lead to yet further lawfare.

[Alex Burghart]

As the right hon. Member knows, judicial review is a process in the system. I am asking him to refine the inadequate process that he has put forward. “Essential” is inadequate. “Essential” will be judicially reviewed, and of course “new and compelling” and certification will be judicially reviewed, but there will be an opportunity to create much greater confidence in all communities that we will not have the sort of rinse-and-repeat investigations that have taken place.

[Chris Bryant]

I think it is important that we debate these points in detail, because I understand the reference to the overseas operations Act—indeed, we took the structure for our amendment from that as well—but I just do not understand why the hon. Member wants certification in this Bill when it is not present in that Act.

[Alex Burghart]

it is because there has been a complete loss of confidence in the process. If the right hon. Gentleman is saying, “We will accept ‘new and compelling’ but we do not want certification,” let us have that debate, but that is not what he is saying. He is saying that he wants “essential”, which is understood by legal authorities to be a very low bar—

[Chris Bryant]

No.

[Alex Burghart]

The right hon. Gentleman says no from a sedentary position, but that is not the case. We have received legal advice that “essential” is no bar at all. For the reasons I have already set out, it will be very easily stepped over, whereas “new and compelling”, as we know from the overseas operations Act, is a more significant legal test.

“New and compelling” provides certainty in three ways. First, it is a filter test: no engagement with veterans unless there is new and compelling evidence. Secondly, it is a term already applied by the courts, so we have one system and equality of treatment. Thirdly, it is not subjective like “essential”: the evidence must be new and must be a matter of fact, and it must be compelling, meaning that it will impact the outcome. The test of new evidence only would be meaningless as there is no threshold.

Finally, I turn to new clause 7 in my name. It would require annual reporting on recruitment and retention within the armed forces. We have all seen repeated reports that our special forces are under threat because of the demoralising effects of lawfare, both present and historical. In October, we were warned by the SAS Regimental Association that lawfare was

“eroding the will to fight”.

In November, we were warned by eight retired generals and one chief marshal that “recruitment, retention and morale” were all suffering. In December, seven former senior SAS officers spoke of the dangerous operational consequences of lawfare. This morning, Brigadier Ed Butler, former commanding officer of 22 SAS, said in stark terms that “continued lawfare” was affecting recruitment and retention. When leaders with such experience issue such warnings, I think we all have a duty to listen and to take them seriously.

[Colum Eastwood]

Can I clarify the point the hon. Member is making? Is he putting forward an argument that if special forces are not allowed to do whatever they want, in whatever theatre, outside legal boundaries, people will not join up?

[Alex Burghart]

I reassure the hon. Gentleman that that is absolutely not the point I am making or, indeed, a point I have ever made. The simple point I am making is that vexatious repeat-and-rinse investigations are hugely demoralising to people who once served and people who still serve. That is very different to what he has just alleged.

[David Davis]

Every single time we have seen a member of the special forces in the UK speak in public about this matter, they have made it plain that they do not believe that they are above the law. On the contrary, they believe that they are there to uphold the law and that what they object to is making the process the punishment, which is where we are now.

[Alex Burghart]

My right hon. Friend puts it better than I ever could.

This House deserves to be reassured that the tip of the spear is not being blunted. Although details of special forces are necessarily restricted, it would be a huge dereliction of function if we did not ask for these issues to be monitored. For that process to have confidence, it should, as our amendment sets out, be conducted by an independent figure.

I know that Governments hate to accept such amendments, but I would really value the Secretary of State’s considered response on how this House can be reassured that one of our most prized national assets—the special forces—is not being allowed to wither. I know that he will say that recruitment is up generally, but I am making a specific point about special forces and the consequences of rinse and repeat.

I return to where I started: there are some things with which we can agree today, but the fundamentals are still problematic. I very much hope that the Government will take the opportunity now and in the Lords to put them right.

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the first opportunity I have had to speak on this most important of Bills, not just as the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, but as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Ireland and the Irish in Britain and as a very proud member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. I do not want to cause the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), any discomfort in saying—probably for the first time—that I agree with him. He was right that many excellent speeches were made in Committee of the whole House yesterday. I further agree with the tribute he paid to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn) for his diligence and commitment to these issues.

Our Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, which is ably chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), has considered the painful and brutal legacy of the troubles in great and, at times, difficult detail. I will be speaking to amendment 277 and new clause 54, tabled in my hon. Friend’s name. I would like to acknowledge all those who lost their lives and those brave officers in the Royal Ulster Constabulary and in the forces who served and were tasked with securing the peace, including extended members of my own family. I speak from a place of personal connection. My late grandmother’s family are of good County Down stock. As Members will know if they have listened to any of the speeches I have given since the election in 2024, my wife was born in Northern Ireland, before the Good Friday agreement was signed and before peace on the island of Ireland—in a very different place to the Northern Ireland of today. Our family’s experiences, and those of many friends and people across the community, inform my understanding of the hurt, trauma and, yes, hope that lie at the heart of this debate.

This Bill is very important and so are the amendments before us—amendments that are designed to make sure that we get it right. Before I speak to the substance of the amendments, I hope that since this is the first time I have spoken on this Bill, Ms Ghani, you will not mind my making a couple of general points which have shaped my view of the amendments.

The decades of conflict in Northern Ireland saw profound suffering. More than 3,500 people lost their lives and tens of thousands were injured or traumatised. Entire communities were scarred by violence, suspicion and fear because of who they were, how they prayed, and their actual and perceived identity. It is in recognition of that hurt that we must approach this Bill and all the amendments before us with care, compassion and responsibility. The purpose of this Bill is to provide a path forward: a sensible way forward that is not shaped by inflammatory language and does not sow any further discord or disunity—we have had more than enough of that over the years. Members of this House and political leaders across Northern Ireland must match the maturity and decency of the people of Northern Ireland, which these amendments seek to ensure are respected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

We are relitigating a case that was decided yesterday, as I have said. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) argued that our Bill was unbalanced because somehow or other we were deprioritising the situation in Omagh. There is actually a public inquiry into the Omagh bombing, and it would be inappropriate to put the matter into the legacy commission. It is important that we let the independent inquiry do its work, as with the inquiry into the killing of Pat Finucane and that into the killing of Robert Hamill, which recently published its findings after a very long period.

The right hon. Member for Belfast East also tabled amendment 32, which I think he intends to press to a vote in a few short moments, and I want to speak to that briefly. I think it falls at the first hurdle because, as he said in his speech, it would be inappropriate for us to have measures that apply only to one category of people. We do not believe that it is right that only veterans can benefit from protection from repeated investigation. We want a legacy framework which, while rightly focused on getting information for families, does so in a way that does not needlessly duplicate aspects of investigations that have already obtained valuable information. That does not serve anyone—not victims, not witnesses and not the legacy commission, which will want to ensure that its resources are used as efficiently as possible. The collection of protections that the Government have put forward were designed following consultation with veterans—that is true—and were not included in the legacy Act. All these measures have been introduced to protect and ensure the fair treatment of any veteran who is asked to engage with legacy mechanisms. For those reasons, I will be opposing his amendment 32.

Turning to amendment 51 by my beknighted friend the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), on which I think he also intends to have a separate Division, I understand the anxiety and concerns there are. This is one of the classic instances where there are multiple views on how we should proceed. As he will know, the Government have a long-standing commitment—it is something we committed to before the general election and as part of our manifesto—to restore those inquests that were in progress but were halted by the legacy Act, and we intend to deliver on that commitment. On one of the reasons for that, I can quote Andy Seaman, the brother of Private Tony Harrison, who was murdered by the IRA in 1991. He said:

“My brother’s case was shut down when the Legacy Act passed. The opposition”

—that is, the Conservative party—

“cannot pretend to care about the plight of victims’ families—including military victims—when their actions demonstrate the precise opposite”.

Respect for veterans and accountability are not opposing principles. They are both part of the same principle: the rule of law. We are not opening a new inquest into Loughgall; we are restoring the inquest that was under way as a result of being directed by the former Attorney General, the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), to comply with our human rights obligations. He said in September 2015:

“Following careful consideration of a huge amount of material I have come to the decision that new inquests into the Loughgall deaths are justified.”

There are two other issues which I think Members intend for us to vote on. The first is new clause 7 in the name of the shadow Secretary of State. I understand the thrust of what he is trying to say, though, as he himself pointed out, recruitment into the armed forces is up now for the first time in about a decade. It is up 7% in general and the outflow is down by about 7%, all of which is good. I do not think anybody in the House wants to undermine the thrust of getting more people serving in the armed forces. I am absolutely certain that he would not expect us to be specific about the numbers in special forces. More importantly, his amendment is cobbled together in a rather bizarre way. The idea of setting up a new person to investigate recruitment and the legislation on recruitment, as he has put it in his amendment, is inappropriate, which is why we are not intending to support his amendment.

[Alex Burghart]

I understand the Secretary of State is not going to support our amendment. However, I hope that he will appreciate what I said in my remarks about the significance of there being pressure on special forces. Can he give a Dispatch Box commitment that he will establish a process whereby, for example, the Intelligence and Security Committee can be given regular updates on recruitment and retention within special forces? This is extraordinarily important. It is germane to the debates we have been having—[Interruption.] He shakes his head, but I would like to understand why he will not make this small concession.

[Chris Bryant]

Because it is not germane to the matter that we are considering today—

[Alex Burghart]

It is entirely germane.

[Chris Bryant]

No, it is not germane. I completely disagree with the hon. Gentleman and simply say to him that I think it is inappropriate to try to make some false equation between the legislation we are considering today and the specifics of recruitment into the special forces.

[Alex Burghart]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

If he is going to continue making those kinds of arguments, I think he will undermine himself.

[Alex Burghart]

I refer the right hon. Gentleman to all the remarks that have been made in the press over the past year by senior generals and senior former members of the special forces. He is not arguing against me; he is arguing against them, and I strongly encourage him to reconsider.

[Chris Bryant]

I know the shadow Secretary of State is getting himself worked up about this argument. I do not think he really believes the argument that he is advancing. [Interruption.] I read it rather differently.

The truth of the matter is that I have met with the Special Forces Association, as have both the Ministers who are here beside me—the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North, and the Minister for Veterans and People, my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey). I have spoken to a large number of those who have served, and they are very keen to make sure we have a Bill that is balanced and fair. That is precisely what we are going to achieve. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) said, it does us no favours when we exaggerate and seek to undermine recruitment into the armed forces, in particular into the special forces.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Burghart]

It has been a privilege to be part of this debate over the past two days, and to hear some fantastic contributions from Members on both sides of the House, and on all sides of the argument. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for the moving story that he just told about one of his friends. We could rerun the overriding arguments that we have been debating for two years, but I do not want to do that. I think the House knows how the Conservative party feels about the Bill, but I want to try to take things forward. To do that, I want to take us back to what the last Government tried to do in 2022 with the legacy Act, which set up the ICRIR, with the intention of enabling people to come forward and give information that would bring some solace to victims and their families. Some of those victims were soldiers; most of them were obviously members of the public—people from all communities. At the same time, we tried to draw a line under the troubles inquests and civil cases and so on.

When this Government won the election and came to power in 2024, it was in their manifesto that they wanted to address the concerns with the legislation relating to the European convention on human rights, and wanted to get public confidence in the ICRIR. I am not asking the Labour party to move its position on the ECHR—I know what its positions are, and I know that it will put the amendments in question through. What I would say is that here in 2026, it is clear that the ICRIR as constituted by the Conservative party is working.

I was very pleased that the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), yesterday quoted from the first report that the ICRIR published about the murder of Rory O’Kelly. His daughter, on receiving and reading that report, said in incredibly moving and, indeed, poetic terms that it had moved the family

“into a space of serenity and light, all anger taken away.”

That is what I am proud to say the institution established by the last Government has managed to do. I am pleased to say that now, in 2026, there are 277 cases before the ICRIR and 123 investigations under way. We believe that it is working.

There are two issues that I hope the Government will consider as this Bill moves into the Lords, and the Secretary of State has touched on them. The first is about the bar to entry. We have a difference of opinion on “essential” and “new and compelling”. It is very clear from the legal evidence that we have seen that “essential” is not the bar that he intends it to be. As has been said to us by leading legal advisers and King’s counsel, any lawyer worth their salt can find new evidence, so there is no “essential” bar, and the “essential” in the legislation is not defined there, so that will be expanded on and contested. The term “new and compelling”, however, does exactly what it promises. It is a filter test that is already applied in the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021. It is a legal term that has certainty. It is not subjective. The evidence must be new as a matter of fact, and it must be compelling, in a way that will impact the outcome. I encourage the Government, as we move into the Lords, to consider this matter again, because I think we are trying to achieve the same thing, but obviously we believe that “new and compelling” will be much more effective.

The second issue is what the Secretary of State has termed rinse and repeat. He says that he wants to see an end to rinse and repeat investigations, and we would dearly like him to succeed in that. The veterans groups who have been analysing and scrutinising this Bill do not feel that the legislation will achieve that, and we agree with them. At the moment there are no veterans groups that support the Bill as it stands.

As the hon. Member for Dorking and Horley (Chris Coghlan) said, Loughgall, which was discussed so eloquently by my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), is the embodiment of rinse and repeat. It was investigated in 1987, 1988, 1995 and 2001, and because of this Government’s decision, it will go before an inquest again. That is rinse and repeat.

There is a way of doing this differently, which was discussed by the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), who I am pleased to see in his position, and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington, and that is to put the inquests into the legacy commission, so that everything is going down the same route. The Secretary of State rightly said that he does not want an imbalance, but the inconsistency is an imbalance. That imbalance was drawn out powerfully by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), who said that when we compare what is happening with Omagh to what will happen with Loughgall, we see a discrepancy that we have to call out.

I raise both those overriding issues because there is still time to improve the legislation. It will get thorough and detailed scrutiny in the House of Lords. Although we would rather the Government were not undertaking this Bill, we believe that if they make the changes that were set out not just by the Conservative party but by colleagues throughout the Unionist communities in Northern Ireland, by the Liberal Democrats and, indeed, from within the Labour party, this Bill can be made stronger on its own terms.

Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Programme) (No.2)

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Monday 19th October 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I promise not to detain the House for more than a few minutes, but I think it is important to put on record the Opposition’s unhappiness with how Committee stage is being handled. Although we of course welcome a Committee of the whole House, which allows hon. Members from Northern Irish parties to contribute, the amount of time set aside is wholly inadequate for the task. This is one of the most complex and controversial pieces of legislation that the House will debate during this Parliament. It is a 98-clause Bill to which over 300 amendments—including, I think, 144 Government amendments—have been tabled, and the amendment paper is now longer than the legislation itself.

The consequence of the scheduling is that this House will have very little time to spend on detailed scrutiny, or indeed on detailed discussion of the amendments tabled. Most concerningly, the programme motion makes it clear that we will have only about an hour for Report, and that hour will almost certainly be entirely ridden over by overrun.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

I thank the shadow Secretary of State for making those points, and for highlighting the lack of opportunity for this House to properly and thoroughly scrutinise this legislation today or tomorrow. I lament the fact that this democratic Chamber will have much less of an opportunity to scrutinise the Bill than the House of Lords does. Once the shadow Secretary of State concludes his remarks, we do not need scores of Members to make the same point, because that would eat into our scrutiny time.

[Alex Burghart]

I entirely agree with the right hon. Member.

It looks as though we will get no Report stage at all. The idea that there is not time available to the House to debate this Bill properly is laughable. On Wednesday the House is confining itself to the Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill. On Thursday we have a general debate. This House will not get to vote on any of the Government’s 144 amendments directly, or on any of the Government’s 98 clauses individually.

The new Administration have done one good thing here, for which they should take credit: they have rolled the remedial order into this legislation. We strongly support that. It is something that those on the Conservative Benches have been calling for throughout the progress of the Bill, but we think that, as the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) said during the carry-over debate, it would have been far better for the Government to have adopted their own amendments and created a new Bill, and brought that to Second Reading. It would have presented a far more coherent picture of what the Government are now up to. The extremely messy way in which this legislation has evolved means that that would have presented the House with a clearer picture of what was going on, and there could have been greater time to consider the new Bill in its entirety.

As it is, and as the right hon. Member for Belfast East has pointed out, the main scrutiny will have to be done by the upper House. Although their lordships excel at such work, this practice is becoming far too common.

Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over Extension)

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Carry-over motion
Tuesday 13th October 2026 Commons Chamber

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

Could the Secretary of State set out in greater detail for us what the word “essential” will mean in law?

[Chris Bryant]

As the hon. Member will know, the word used in the legacy Act is “necessary”, which is a much lower bar. “Essential” is traditionally a higher bar, and it is used in lots of legal judgments already. The kind of thing we are talking about is where there is a new forensic process that was not available 30 years ago—for instance, we might be able to examine a fingerprint on a piece of shrapnel much more effectively today than we could previously—or where there is literally a new piece of information, and it is essential to be able to conduct the work of the organisation.

Secondly, there is a new provision that the legacy commission must obtain and review any information it needs from the state itself before it considers whether to request an individual to come as a witness.

Thirdly, there is another new provision that the legacy commission must not request information from a witness unless it has considered whether compelling new evidence exists or the likelihood of a witness being able to provide new information.

Fourthly, the legislation will put the protection from cold calling into law and strengthen the provision for remote attendance, ensuring it applies to all aspects of the commission’s work.

Fifthly, prosecutions in troubles-related cases are rare— I expect them to be rare— but to provide greater assurance and confidence in decisions to prosecute, any future prosecutions of serious troubles-related offences will require the consent of the Attorney General acting quasi-judicially. That will apply regardless of whether the offence relates to state or non-state actors. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), who I know was committed to making this change both inside and outside of Government, and who rightly pointed out that there is precedence for this approach and it in no way changes the thresholds required to proceed with the prosecution or the prosectors’ independence in considering the evidence before them.

I have also tabled a number of amendments in relation to the legacy commission’s victims and survivors advisory group, providing clarity that former paramilitaries cannot be appointed to the group and that former service personnel, many of whom are also victims, must be represented.

The legacy Act’s immunity scheme was previously being repealed from statute via a remedial order. To enable Parliament to consider the changes we are making in the round, we will now repeal it through the Bill. This addresses the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, to whom I am grateful.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I thank the Secretary of State for his comments and the briefing that his team gave mine at the start of this week. At the outset, I want to acknowledge that he and his team have worked hard to try to make improvements to this Bill. I am afraid, however, that the Bill is a mess. That mess is attested to by the fact that we are still debating it when it was introduced a year ago tomorrow and we have yet to breach Committee of the whole House. The mess is attested to by the fact that we are debating a carry-over motion for the second time. It is attested to by the fact that the Government told us in April that they were going to submit their amendments after six months of delay, but published them only yesterday after another six months. We have 144 Government amendments making up a pack of about 300 amendments over 119 pages. This is a mess in the process of becoming a bigger mess.

The Secretary of State has been handed this mess. I know it is not of his making, but he has been given the unenviable task of fixing it. Yet this Bill cannot be fixed, because the fundamentals are wrong. However much one scrubs off some of the worst corners and the worst excesses, the fundamentals are still there. Next week, we will have a chance to debate this legislation and its many amendments, but the amount of time set aside is wholly unequal to the task. For reasons I cannot understand, the Government have effectively denied the House the Report stage. Only an hour has been set aside for Report, and it is inevitable that the Committee of the whole House will eat that away entirely. As a Back Bencher, the Secretary of State was a defender of this House’s role in scrutiny. It is upsetting that we will not be able to give this Bill proper treatment in the Commons and that it will only get proper scrutiny in the Lords. That, though, is only a minor quibble in the face of the problems in the Bill itself.

In simple terms, we cannot support this legislation because it reopens the door to vexatious litigation against those who served in Northern Ireland during the troubles. In the long time in which this Bill has been in the Table Office, a number of cases have come to public attention that illustrate both the problem that requires fixing and the inadequacy of the Government’s response. In November last year, we debated the findings in the case against soldier F from Bloody Sunday.

[Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)]

rose—

[Alex Burghart]

Soldier F was found not guilty after the longest and most detailed inquiry in British legal history. Judge Patrick Lynch told Belfast Crown court that even after such an investigation, the evidence fell well short of the standard required.

[Colum Eastwood]

Will the shadow Secretary of State give way?

[Alex Burghart]

The judge said:

“A 53 year old statement cannot be cross examined”—

[Colum Eastwood]

I bet he will not give way.

[Alex Burghart]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment, but I will finish my sentence.

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

Why did you not say that?

[Alex Burghart]

Because I was in the middle of speaking. The judge said:

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

It is becoming vanishingly difficult to get convictions.

[Colum Eastwood]

I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for giving way, but I would also be grateful if he actually mentioned a victim in his speech. We are three minutes in, and there has not been one mention. He talks about soldier F, who murdered lots of people on Bloody Sunday along with his colleagues. They were unarmed people, as proven by a British Prime Minister-appointed court of tribunal, and as understood, recognised and supported by a Tory Prime Minister. Will he mention some of the victims of soldier F or some of the other victims that we should be talking about tonight, instead of people who were willingly and openly going into streets and shooting people down who did not have a gun in their hand? That is what happened.

[Alex Burghart]

The hon. Gentleman, if he had waited a moment, would have heard me talk about the victims. The victims, who suffered so much, are being given the promise of convictions that will never come. Even when we have the most detailed inquiry in British legal history, no conviction comes, yet this House is now expected to believe that the legislation before us will open the road to all these convictions. It will not happen. It is a promise that will not be fulfilled, but that does not mean that soldiers who did nothing but their duty will not be pulled through the courts time and time again.

In February last year, this House debated the terrible ruling in the Clonoe case from 1992. On that occasion, four men—known terrorists—armed with semi-automatic weapons and a Dushka machine gun attacked an RUC police station and then moved on to commit further crimes. They called themselves an army. They carried weapons of war, they sought to kill and they operated entirely outside the bounds of the law, and yet we were asked to believe that the use of lethal force against them was not justified. The men will now be subject to unjust and unfair scrutiny of the decisions that they had to make in exceptionally difficult circumstances, decades ago.

The case of soldier B, a former SAS officer, has been raised repeatedly in the House. In 2024 a coroner ruled that he had been justified in using lethal force in Coagh in 1991. Then, in 2025, the case was taken to the High Court in Belfast, where it was thrown out by a judge who described it as “ludicrous” and said that it should never have come to court. Despite that, in April this year the case went to the Court of Appeal, where it was again thrown out. Last month an attempt was mounted to take it to the Supreme Court, and that attempt is ongoing. Soldier B has been dragged through the courts for five and a half years, when the legal system in this country admits that the case against him is ludicrous.

[Chris Bryant]

I would just gently point out to the hon. Gentleman that all that is under his legislation.

[Alex Burghart]

I am giving the Secretary of State an example of the things that will not be stopped by his legislation. This will continue. The Bill does not solve the problem.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sarah Owen)]

Your problem.

[Alex Burghart]

The hon. Lady says that it is our problem. Our legislation drew a line in the sand which meant that things like that would never happen again. That case had already started, and if the hon. Lady were familiar with the legacy Act, she would know where the line in the sand was drawn.

[The Minister for Veterans and People (Mr Calvin Bailey)]

I just want some clarification on whether the problem that you state is access to the Supreme Court.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Burghart]

I was not patronising the Under-Secretary of State—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. May I remind Members that debate in this Chamber occurs through the Chair? I will not have Members yelling at each other in an unseemly way across those Dispatch Boxes.

[Alex Burghart]

My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was pointing out to the hon. Lady and the Minister for Veterans and People exactly the sort of problems that the legacy Act was designed to solve. There was obviously a cut-off point—[Interruption.] As I am sure the hon. Members know, the legacy Act had a cut-off point, and cases that had already started were not caught by that. I am giving an example of similar cases that will now come about because of their legislation.

As Philip Barden KC wrote in The Spectator this week, the Government’s attempts to solve this issue, and the Government's proposed protections, are wholly inadequate to the task. They fail on their own test, because the Bill and the Government’s amendments “will permit repeat investigations.” Earlier, the Secretary of State raised the use of the word “essential”, and talked about new evidence. As Philip Barden pointed out,

“Any lawyer worth their salt can find new evidence.”

This might sound like a high bar, but it is an extremely low bar.

All the while—throughout the year and more in which we have been dealing with this legislation—the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, set up by the legacy Act, has been doing its work. A few weeks ago, ICRIR published its first report, which laid out the details of Mr Rory O’Kelly’s murder by the IRA in 1977. That was an information-recovery exercise which concluded that no perpetrators were ever likely to be identified, but it still provided answers to questions that have haunted Mr O’Kelly’s family for half a century. His daughter described, in extremely moving terms, how the report had moved the family into a

“space of serenity and light, all anger taken away”.

Yet just as ICRIR has started working as intended, the Government are to reprogramme it into what two generals have described today as essentially a criminal investigations body, charged with collecting evidence to a criminal standard, although we know that the chance of prosecutions is incredibly unlikely. Those who work in ICRIR are desperately concerned that that will lead to a massive increase in their workload, with no increase in funding, and that it will inevitably mean long delays and distraction from the core information-recovery exercise, which was intended to be their central function. Those on the Government Benches may not want to take from me the case that I am making against this Bill, and I understand that, but they should take it from the retired generals and soldiers who have repeatedly spoken out.

[Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is talking a lot about veterans and the roles of those veterans. My concern is for my constituents who served but never got to be veterans because they did not survive their service in Northern Ireland. What those families want is the truth, and they want a truth that is undebatable. Does he not recognise that we should be talking about the victims and the survivors, rather than trying to make this a false dichotomy? There is more than one level or tier of victim.

[Alex Burghart]

The hon. Lady speaks powerfully on this point, and she is absolutely right to say that many victims were people who served. I was talking about the way in which ICRIR works and is now being seen to work. Regardless of who was killed, it can be used by victims’ families in order to assist in the information-recovery process, and one of the advantages of ICRIR is that it is a non-adversarial system that has already started to enable families to find out things they did not know before. The hon. Lady is absolutely right: that process is very valuable, which is why it was put in the legacy Act by the previous Government.

I hope that Labour Members, and anybody in the House who is thinking of supporting the continuation of this legislation, will listen to the two retired generals who wrote today that the Government should stop pretending that their amendments offer veterans meaningful protections. The consequence of continuing down this route will be that some men who served decades ago, like soldier B—not soldier B himself, but men like him—will spend years in the jaws of vexatious litigation, that victims will not receive the justice that they are being promised by this legislation, and that many more veterans will continue to live with the nagging sense that those using lawfare may come for them. They are already being punished by the idea of this legislation.

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that his party’s legacy Act actually gave no protection whatsoever to veterans’ families because it was found to be unlawful? He has therefore let those families down.

[Alex Burghart]

The hon. Lady will know that her Government, when they came in, did not appeal against that case. We have a human rights framework that is wholly inadequate for dealing with cases from decades ago, and it is clear that the current Government would rather protect that framework than protect people from that period.

The failings of this Bill, should it be passed, will be quickly seen and long felt. The House has the power to stop it tonight. If we do not and the Government persist, the next Conservative Administration will repeal it and once again draw a line under the troubles.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.

Drumcree

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement and for his call over the weekend. I do not envy him the position in which he has been placed in these past few weeks.

The scenes that we have witnessed on the streets of Drumcree are all too reminiscent of previous times—times that we had all hoped were past, and times that we must still hope are past. The willingness of communities nearly 30 years ago to submit to independent adjudication processes was one of the pillars of the peace. It is consequently at best irresponsible and at worst dangerous for people to ignore those processes when they do not go their way. Further, it is inexcusable for anyone, but particularly politicians, to decide that they will only obey the law when it suits them. That is the road to a very dark place.

As the Secretary of State has set out, the planned march was legal, subject to the detailed restrictions placed upon it by the Parades Commission. It follows that under section 14 of the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998, those who prevented this lawful march would seem to have broken the law. The stand-off that they caused ultimately led to Chief Constable Boutcher asking the Secretary of State to review the Parades Commission’s determination and stop the march.

The Chief Constable said that facilitating it would have

“required a substantial public order intervention that was not assessed to be proportionate, and which would have carried an unacceptable risk of serious injury, disorder and a wider contagion effect across Northern Ireland.”

I hope that the Secretary of State can be clear with the House about what is behind this statement and what the nature of that risk was. Was the Secretary of State at any stage made aware of a possibility of terrorism? Was he at any stage made aware that firearms or explosives were likely to be deployed? I very much hope he was not, but the House should know.

I know that the Secretary of State was placed in a desperately invidious position, but the consequence of the march not going ahead is that those who have broken the law have won. The consequence is that those who threaten the

“serious injury, disorder and wider contagion”,

of which the Chief Constable warned, have won. Unless remedy is made, the message being sent to Northern Ireland is that people can pick and choose which laws they obey, and that those who threaten violence and disorder will get their way. I know that that is not what the Secretary of State wants, but he needs to tell the House what he intends to do to prevent that terrible message being the legacy of these past few weeks. I know that it is not for him to determine how the police exercise their duties following this incident, but I hope he can tell the House how the Government now intend to prevent the law from being openly flouted again and again and again.

[Chris Bryant]

I am grateful for the tone in which the shadow Secretary of State has entered the conversation and for him taking my call over the weekend. We have not faced each other across the Dispatch Box as Secretary of State and shadow Secretary of State until today, and I hope that we can work co-operatively together.

To those who flouted the law and to those who are considering doing so again, I say nobody is above the law: you will face the consequences of your actions. To those who have co-operated with the police, I say an enormous, “Thank you.” To those who are considering ending co-operation with the police, I say please, please, please think again.

The hon. Gentleman asks me specifically about the advice that I have received and quotes in precise terms the words that I was given by the Chief Constable. I have publicly set out the advice that I received, which said that facilitating the procession would require a major police intervention carrying unacceptable risks, as the hon. Gentleman said. He will understand that I will not comment on specific intelligence that I did or did not receive, for obvious reasons, but in the end I am accountable for the decision that I made. It was my responsibility to weigh the police advice and the consequences of proceeding, which is precisely what I did.

The hon. Gentleman asks how we will ensure that we build respect for the rule of law. That is a matter for all communities into the future. He also made a point about politicians. I will point out that we politicians have a particular responsibility to abide by not just the letter of the law, but the spirit of the law. Schedule 4 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 requires Ministers to pledge

“to uphold the rule of law based as it is on the fundamental principles of fairness, impartiality and democratic accountability, including support for policing and the courts”.

Those should not just be words that are spoken for one moment; they should be things that we embody in everything we do.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

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

If the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill was any of those things, why did the former Armed Forces Minister, when he resigned last month, say that it remains

“remains unfit for purpose. It risks failing the very veterans it claims to protect”?

Why does the Secretary of State think that the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) said that?

[Hilary Benn]

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) will have to answer that question, but, with respect, I disagree with him. He worked on the package of amendments during his time as a Defence Minister. In the end, we have to strike a balance, as the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) is well aware. When people see those amendments, they will realise that they are fair and reasonable with regard to the protection of our veterans. Crucially, they will put into legislation for the first time protections that were not in the Act passed in 2023.

[Alex Burghart]

It is clear from the Secretary of State’s answer that the former Armed Forces Minister quit because he could see that the Bill remains unfit for purpose and fails to protect the very veterans that it claims to protect. The Secretary of State must realise that there is no cross-party support in Northern Ireland for his legislation, and nor is there support in the Labour party for his legislation. Will he now accept that the Bill should not progress and that we should return to the legislation that the Conservatives brought forward?

[Hilary Benn]

I do not accept that, because all the Northern Ireland political parties were opposed to the immunity that was at the heart of the 2023 legacy Act. It had no support from political parties in Northern Ireland or from victims and survivors’ organisations. That is why these changes have to be made, and that is why the Government will proceed with this Bill.

Northern Ireland Office

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I will also begin by congratulating the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), on making sure that we got this debate. It is clear that without her and the support of her Committee, we would not be discussing this incredibly important issue on the Floor of the House. I repeat the remarks made by the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson): the Select Committee in this Parliament has been exemplary and given us high quality analysis, which has benefited debate on both sides of the House.

We are here debating the estimate simply because the situation is becoming dire. As was said by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray)—I fear that my pronunciation may be slightly out—this is not an abstract matter; it is having a genuine impact on public services today and on the planning of public services for tomorrow. Uncertainty is building and—I am sorry to say this—there is no suggestion that it will be alleviated any time soon. In fact, as the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) mentioned, it appears that we are further from agreement now than we were at the start of the year, because there is disagreement within Sinn Féin on the proposals put forward.

That begs an important question for the Government: what will happen next? This is a debate about devolved issues, but I know that the Secretary of State and his officials from the Northern Ireland Office have been in talks with the Executive and their representatives. I very much hope that we will get an update on those talks. We must, however, ask what will happen if no agreement is forthcoming. As was said, we are now a quarter of the way through the financial year and there is no solution in sight. We cannot move to a position where overspend continues to be normalised, and it appears that the Executive are effectively saying, “We can’t solve this problem—we need more money.” That is not sustainable, and it cannot give anyone confidence in devolution as it is now. What is the Government’s plan if the current talks break down and we move into the summer without an agreed budget in Northern Ireland?

I have a number of points to ask the Secretary of State about while I have the opportunity—most significantly, they are about legacy. He may have detected from some of our previous debates that Opposition Members are not in favour of what the Government are doing. That said, we think strongly that if the Government are to press ahead with their plans, given that it is acknowledged that those plans will create an additional burden on public services in Northern Ireland, on the police and on the legacy institutions, the Government should be prepared to meet that financial cost.

It is not enough to say that £250 million is being made available. That £250 million was made available by a Conservative Government some time ago, and since it was granted inflation has probably degraded it to £200 million at most. It is clear that if the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill is passed, it will increase the caseload of the ICRIR—the Legacy Commission, as it will become—but not increase the resources it has at its disposal, and it will increase the caseload that the PSNI is dealing with, but not increase the resources of the PSNI.

The danger is that we will see a bottleneck in the Legacy Commission and very slow processing of cases, and an additional drain on the resources of the PSNI that will take more people away from frontline policing. We know that frontline policing in Northern Ireland has about 1,000 fewer officers than were expected when New Decade, New Approach was signed. That is a clear and present danger that the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill presents to financing in Northern Ireland, and I would be grateful if the Secretary of State could explain the Government’s position.

I would also be interested to hear whether the Secretary of State has had any discussions with the heir presumptive to the Labour party leadership on the future of the troubles Bill, because the legislative timetable has obviously been pushed to the right again and it seems unlikely that we will have the legislation before the summer break. That being so, it will be a consideration for the next Prime Minister. Can the Secretary of State tell us what conversations he has had with the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) about this legislation, and whether the next Prime Minister, if that is what he is, is in favour of it?

In the negotiations that any Government have with the Executive in Northern Ireland, I believe there is a duty to make the case that the Northern Ireland Executive should be prepared to raise revenue on top of the budget settlements that the Treasury gives. After the last Budget, I was prepared to say that I thought the Northern Ireland Office had acquired a reasonably good settlement from the Treasury for Northern Ireland. The key now is that that money should be well spent. If the Northern Ireland Executive want to spend more, they should be prepared to raise revenue, but they should also be prepared to deliver their public services more efficiently and effectively. I hope that His Majesty’s Government will work with the institutions in Northern Ireland to help that to happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Alex Burghart]

That’s why we funded it.

[Hilary Benn]

Well, it is entirely the result of that. The funding that was made available was the fixed sum to which I referred a moment ago. That is the first point.

Secondly, the Department of Justice had put aside a sum of around, from memory, £50 million when the inquests five-year plan was put in place. It thought it would have 50 cases. A number of those, of course, are now not going ahead, and the troubles Bill proposes to restore nine and to sift the rest. Thirdly, prior to the legacy Act’s coming into law, the PSNI had about 1,000 cases to investigate; had the legacy Act not been passed, it would have continued to have to investigate those and receive requests for disclosure.

The final point I would make on this issue—and I did make this point to the Select Committee when I was asked about it—is that we are looking in particular at schedule 4 to the Bill because Jon Boutcher makes the point that if there is a requirement to sift all the material to identify that which is of high security before handing over the files, that puts an obligation in place. We are looking at what we can do to ease some of the cost burdens, as hon. Members have said, as more people come to the Legacy Commission—and I hope more people will come forward.

I will turn now to a couple of other points.

[Alex Burghart]

I am pleased that the Government are looking at some sort of additional support for PSNI. I sense that the Secretary of State is about to move off legacy. I did ask him whether he had discussed the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill with the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) because, obviously, his view of the Bill will be critical for its future.

[Hilary Benn]

The hon. Gentleman invites me to speculate on discussions I may or may not have had, and I will kindly resist the request that he has just made for reasons that I am sure will have been obvious to him when he wrote that question into his speech.

The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) and I have discussed the internal market many times before. He talks about the firms that have stopped shipping stuff to Northern Ireland. He will find many, many firms that have stopped shipping stuff to Europe for exactly the same reason: the decision to leave the European Union. It is from that that all the consequences have flowed.

Police Service of Northern Ireland Training College

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Westminster Hall

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

I should say at the outset that I associate myself with the remarks made by other hon. Members about the terrible attack in north Belfast last night. Although there are still many details to emerge from the case, it is very clear that the PSNI responded quickly and very bravely to what was an incredibly dangerous situation. I am proud to say that the people of north Belfast responded very bravely in the face of lethal force.

It is very appropriate, then, that we should find ourselves debating this motion tabled by the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton). I congratulate him on securing this debate. I echo the remarks about the Police Service of Northern Ireland’s service not just to the people of Northern Ireland, but to the United Kingdom as a whole. PSNI has a national role in policing our land border, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) pointed out, but it also has a central role in our national security apparatus. It is right that hon. Members from Northern Ireland and Opposition Front Benchers should be able to question Ministers on that national security element.

I have some sympathy with the remarks made by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister). It is clear that the devolutionary settlement has been failing the people of Northern Ireland in policing terms, not because of any failure of the PSNI, but because of short-term, misguided decisions by some politicians in Northern Ireland. It is wrong that citizens in NI should see their police service about 1,000 officers short of where it should be, in contravention of agreements that the Conservative party made in government with counterparts in Northern Ireland.

It is unsettling to realise, when we see this situation, that there is really no lever at our disposal to right this wrong. As I have said on previous occasions, there is more of a role for central Government in ensuring that the national security and border elements of policing in particular are given appropriate resource in Northern Ireland. I have listened closely to the sensible remarks made by all hon. Members. I believe that there is a deal to be struck here. Part of the benefit will accrue to the people of Northern Ireland, and part of it will accrue to the people of the United Kingdom more widely. It is not in the Minister’s power to make a deal on his own, because it is a Treasury matter, but I am sure that, as a rising star within the Labour party, he has great friends in the Treasury and will use those friendships and connections to mark out what that arrangement might look like.

[Alex Easton]

The Labour party brought forward the Patten review and agreed to its recommendations. One recommendation was for a new policing college. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that commitment has not been fulfilled by this or previous Governments, and that this Government should honour it by providing the funding for a new policing college?

[Alex Burghart]

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

[Jim Shannon]

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

[Alex Burghart]

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

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

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

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

The Secretary of State will have seen reports in the Belfast Telegraph that prior to 1985, a large part of the gelignite used in IRA bombs was routinely stolen from a single factory in County Meath in the Republic. The supply amounted to many tonnes of explosives, and it took the lives of many hundreds of people. At the time, British intelligence repeatedly raised concerns with Dublin. Nothing was done, despite the factory’s allegedly being in receipt of Irish state subsidy. Following those revelations, will the Secretary of State commit to writing to the Taoiseach to ask him to hold an urgent public inquiry into the Enfield explosives factory?

[Hilary Benn]

I have indeed seen the reports to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. As I have explained, one purpose of the troubles Bill is to facilitate co-operation with the Irish authorities in relation to all these matters. We cannot undo the past, but what we can do is provide information for those whose lives were lost as a result of the use of those explosives, through full co-operation between the Irish authorities and the legacy commission. We require the Bill to make that happen.

[Alex Burghart]

With all due respect, the Secretary of State did not answer my question. This is an extraordinary missing piece of the puzzle in the story of the troubles—in the story of how the IRA obtained weapons that killed people in our country. The Secretary of State is perfectly within his rights to raise this with his opposite numbers, and to ask them to conduct a full public inquiry on behalf of the victims. Will he do so?

[Hilary Benn]

Since the hon. Gentleman has raised the matter directly with me, I undertake to him—and to the House—to raise it with the Irish authorities, because they will have seen the exchange that he and I have just had.

Dunmurry Police Station Attack

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Opposition spokesperson.

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) on having secured this urgent question. I associate myself with her remarks and those of the Secretary of State, although I gently say that it would have been better if this had been a Government statement. I cannot help but feel that had that car bomb been placed outside a police station in Westminster or Birmingham, Government Ministers would have come to the House with a statement.

It is, of course, profoundly depressing that we should be discussing this issue at all. However, it is an enormous relief that we are not today talking about casualties. As the hon. Member for Lagan Valley said, but for the grace of God, we would have been; but for the bravery of local people, we would have been. I pay very deep tribute to all those brave men and women in the Police Service of Northern Ireland who serve and keep our country safe. They were the target of this despicable operation, and it will be their hard work that brings its perpetrators to justice.

The people who have attempted to break the peace in Northern Ireland have no mandate and no public support—they represent only themselves, and are seeking to serve only their macho egos. The silver lining is, of course, that we are watching people in Northern Ireland from all communities come together this morning, united against them. We have come an incredibly long way, but as the Secretary of State referenced, this does appear to be the start of a pattern of new and deeply concerning behaviour. That is reflected in what happened in Lurgan last month, but also in the marching of masked paramilitaries in Easter parades. Will the Secretary of State confirm to the House that the PSNI is going after those people who broke the laws that were laid down during the peace process, just as I know they will be going after those who tried to blow up the police station in Dunmurry?

The attack on Sunday raises a number of questions to which I hope the Secretary of State can provide answers, because he has responsibility for national security in Northern Ireland. Can the Secretary of State assure the House that the Chief Constable has the resources he needs? I say that because, notwithstanding his remarks about funding, the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill is going to put a huge additional financial burden on the PSNI. Even if the Chief Constable believes he has the resources he needs today, he will not have them tomorrow.

[Hilary Benn]

I join the hon. Member in his tribute to the Police Service of Northern Ireland, and agree with him that the response from all communities in Northern Ireland to this terrible attack is a sign of the new Northern Ireland and shows that those responsible have no support at all. Sadly, though, they do have some capacity. As he knows, the enforcement of the law is a job for the police service, and if criminal offences have been identified, it is for prosecutors to take decisions. I hope the hon. Member will agree that my answer to the question from the Chair of the Select Committee about recent convictions and steps taken, shows that there certainly is capacity within the PSNI to go after people and—if the evidence can be found—to enable a prosecution to take place.

On the question of legacy, under the previous Government’s Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, which established the commission, every request for disclosure and information falls to the police service and other partners. That was already the case, regardless of anything contained in the legislation that we are currently taking through the House.