Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Act 2022
Hilary Benn Excerpts(2 days, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
I wish to provide an update to the House regarding the Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Act 2022.
The New Decade, New Approach deal, which was instrumental to the restoration of the Northern Ireland Executive in 2020 (after a three-year absence) included an agreed legislative framework for progressing identity and language commitments: the Act.
The Act received Royal Assent in December 2022. Specific provisions in sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Act were commenced in May 2023, establishing the following roles: (1) director of the office for identity and cultural expression; (2) Irish language commissioner; and (3) commissioner for the Ulster Scots and Ulster British tradition.
I warmly welcome the Northern Ireland Executive’s decision in October 2025 to appoint Pol Deeds as the Irish language commissioner; Lee Reynolds as the commissioner for the Ulster Scots and Ulster British Tradition; and Dr Katy Radford as the director of the office of identity and cultural expression.
In order that they may now carry out their duties, I am today commencing further provisions in sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Act, following a request from the Executive Office.
Provisions being commenced in section 1 relate to the principles of national and cultural identity to which public authorities must have due regard, as well as the functions and responsibilities of the director of the office of identity and cultural expression.
Provisions being commenced in section 2 outline the functions and responsibilities of the Irish language commissioner in developing and promoting best practice standards in relation to the Irish language.
Finally, provisions in section 3 relate to the functions and responsibilities of the commissioner for Ulster Scots and the Ulster British tradition in promoting the language, arts and literature associated with Ulster Scots, as well as developing and promoting guidance in relation to Ulster Scots.
In commencing these provisions, we are continuing to ensure respect and tolerance for all of Northern Ireland’s diverse identities, cultures, languages and traditions.
[HCWS1282]
Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation
Hilary Benn Excerpts(1 week, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
I beg to move,
That the draft Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 (Remedial) Order 2025, which was laid before this House on 14 October 2025, be approved.
As every one of us knows, Northern Ireland continues to live with the legacy of the troubles. Over 3,500 people lost their lives during that period of brutal violence, including almost 2,000 civilians and over 1,000 people who were killed while bravely serving the state. We owe them, and always will, a huge debt of gratitude. Ninety per cent of all those who lost their lives were killed by paramilitaries. Each person was someone’s father, brother, sister, mother or child; each one a tragic loss of life.
In 1998, the people of Northern Ireland chose to leave this legacy of violence behind them when they voted for the Good Friday agreement, but for too many families of the victims, questions remain as to why their loved ones died and at whose hands. There have been many efforts to address the legacy of the troubles since, including the Stormont House agreement, reached between the last Government and the Irish Government in 2014, and, most recently, the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023.
It is now beyond doubt that that last attempt—the legacy Act—whatever its intentions, fundamentally failed. It failed because it has been found in many respects to be incompatible with our human rights obligations; the legislation simply did not work on its own terms. But even more importantly, it failed because it did not command any support in Northern Ireland among victims and survivors or the political parties.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I commend the Secretary of State for the careful and thoughtful work that he has done to bring the House to this place today. Does he agree that, with this remedial order, he is doing the right thing for victims? That means ordinary people, including veterans and the wider armed forces community, all of whom were injured or lost loved ones. They are the people we have in our minds today. It was the Conservatives’ bad legislation that led us to have to pass a remedial order, for only the 11th time since the second world war. Does he agree that—
Hilary Benn
I agree with my hon. Friend that the legacy Act needed dealing with. Any Government that came into office in summer 2024 would have to be doing what we are doing.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
It is worth bringing to the House’s attention again the fact that the legacy Act, whatever its legality or otherwise, was predicated on our membership of the European convention on human rights. Does the Secretary of State agree, and will he reflect on the fact, that there was an appeal against the supposed illegality of the Act at the time of the general election by the previous Government, and this Government decided to ditch it?
Hilary Benn
That is indeed a wholly accurate description of the sequence of events, because this Government do not agree with immunity as a matter of principle—I will go on to advance the argument a little later—but the Act was also, as the right hon. Gentleman points out, found to be incompatible with our obligations as a nation because we continue to be signatories to the European convention on human rights.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I am extremely grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way; he is an immensely courteous Member of this House and always has been. He will be aware, however, that there is a live legal case by the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement, and that the very Human Rights Act he cited says that this kind of order ought not to be moved—indeed, it would be ultra vires—while a case is proceeding. How does he feel about that, and will he explain to the House why we are debating this at all given all that I have said?
Hilary Benn
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that point. If he will bear with me, I will come very directly to precisely that point a little later in my speech.
It is the Government’s view that there is both a legal necessity and an imperative for us to act, and this remedial order is the first step in that process. The remedial order will remove two key effects of the provisions of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 that were found by the courts in the Dillon case to be incompatible with our human rights obligations.
One of the main reasons for the failure of the legacy Act was its attempt to grant immunity, including to terrorists who murdered, in cold blood, soldiers and civilians in Northern Ireland and in towns and cities across England. In fairness, it probably seemed reassuring to veterans, and it was almost certainly reassuring to terrorists who had committed those acts, but it was a false promise that protected no one. It was never commenced, which is a very important fact. It was rejected by the courts as being incompatible with our legal obligations and, as a result, it was never implemented. No one ever got immunity, and while it may remain on the statute book, in practice it does not exist.
Nevertheless, while the Act has not been commenced, for many families any uncertainty about their loved ones’ killers being granted immunity has been a deterrent to coming forward to seek answers from the independent commission. There has also been opposition from some who served in Northern Ireland, because immunity undermines the rule of law that they were seeking to uphold.
David Crabbe, an Ulster Defence Regiment veteran who sits on the victims and survivors forum, said of immunity:
“The vast majority of veterans living in Northern Ireland did not want or feel as if they needed this protection. It was viewed as a perversion of the law, that went against the ethos of what those who served stood for, and what their role was in preserving law and order.”
And it was not only a false promise; it created a false equivalence between veterans on the one hand and terrorists on the other, and it still technically sits on the statute book today.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
May I remind the Secretary of State—I know that he knows it, as he has heard it from me and others many times before—that there is nothing about creating a false equivalence between the two? Everybody is equal before the law. If anything created a false equivalence, it was the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, which said that no matter how many murders a paramilitary had committed, and no matter how many illegal acts, if any, a soldier had committed, neither of them would ever serve more than two years of a sentence. That equivalence is there. It is not moral equivalence; it is equivalence before the law, and the 2023 Act did not initiate it.
Hilary Benn
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right when he describes the provisions of the 1998 legislation, but as he knows, that policy, along with the rest of the Good Friday agreement, was supported by just over 70% of the people of Northern Ireland in the referendum. It was a very bitter pill to swallow for many people in Northern Ireland, but it was a price to be paid for peace.
The point I am making in relation to this remedial order is that the last Government chose to legislate to give immunity to veterans and to terrorists on the same basis. The noble Lord Dodds said of the legacy Bill—which, by the way, he described as “rotten”—that it
“basically elevates terrorists and perpetrators of violence above their victims. That is fundamentally wrong.”
That is why we are bringing forward this remedial order to remove those provisions on immunity that have done so much damage to trust in Northern Ireland. Doing so will provide clarity and certainty ahead of the wider, significant reforms contained in the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill.
The remedial order will also remove the bar on troubles-related civil cases that stripped UK citizens of their right to seek redress. Section 43 of the 2023 Act left some 800 troubles-related civil cases involving the Ministry of Defence untouched.
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend may shortly be coming on to this, but civil cases have been raised as a concern given the potential for lawfare, notwithstanding that people like Gerry Adams are also subject to civil action in the coming months. Will he outline what he expects in terms of civil cases against those who served in our military or security services?
Hilary Benn
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. Those 800 cases were untouched and the Act allowed them to carry on—that is a very important point, given some very inaccurate press reporting at the beginning of this week, of which I am sure many right hon. and hon. Members are aware—but it did stop about 230 new civil claims proceeding. Those claims were lodged after First Reading of the legacy Bill, and about 120 of them are against the MOD. It also prevented any more claims from being brought in future. The point I am making is that there are 800 cases already there, left untouched by the last Government’s legacy Act, and 120 cases against the MOD that have been added since that will be enabled to proceed if the remedial order passes. As we know, that bar on new civil cases was found by the courts to be incompatible with our legal obligations.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
I intend to return to this matter in my contribution later on, but the issue of civil cases highlights most starkly the discord even between the courts. The High Court in Belfast focused only on the retrospective application of the provisions on civil cases, but the Court of Appeal then said that not only should it not be retrospective, but it should have no application in the future. There was a disagreement between the High Court and the Court of Appeal about the import of the measure, yet the Secretary of State, more determined to pursue his policy objective than the law, decided not to appeal that issue in the Supreme Court. That is why there are questions about the appropriate nature of this remedial order—does he accept that?
Hilary Benn
It is not unusual for higher courts to take a different view on a matter to that taken by lower courts—that is the way the law works. I would give the same answer to the right hon. Gentleman that I gave to an earlier intervention, which is that the Government’s view is that citizens of the United Kingdom should be able to bring civil cases as a matter of principle.
Hilary Benn
The right hon. Gentleman may disagree, but that is the view of the Government, and that is why we withdrew the appeal in relation to that element of the judgments to which he just referred.
We should remember that civil cases have been brought by family members of victims who were murdered during the troubles against the paramilitaries who were responsible. In 2009, four individuals were found by a civil court to be responsible for the Omagh bombing. There has also been a civil case looking into the Hyde Park bombing, where John Downey was found to be an active participant in the killing of four soldiers, and—this was referred to a moment ago—a civil case against Gerry Adams is due to take place in London this year. Therefore, to vote against this remedial order would be to prevent any more such cases from being brought against paramilitaries in future.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
As the Secretary of State well knows, the Blair Government handed out hundreds of so-called letters of comfort to alleged IRA paramilitaries following their release from prison. John Downey, the alleged Hyde Park bomber, produced such a letter during his trial at the Old Bailey, whereupon the trial was immediately abandoned. Our Northern Ireland veterans have no such letters of comfort. Does the Secretary of State agree that that letter of comfort let John Downey off on that particular occasion?
Hilary Benn
As I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is well aware, in that case Mr Downey was issued with a letter of comfort wrongly. The letter said, “We’re not seeking you for anything,” when clearly the state was seeking him for something because he had been charged with the Hyde Park bombing. As I recall, the judge said, “Well, I’m afraid this is an abuse of process,” and stopped the case. However, the letter that Mr Downey received did not give him immunity, because he is currently—this is a matter of public record—awaiting trial, charged with the murder of two soldiers in, I think, 1972. That proves what many have said, including former Prime Ministers, the chief constable and judges, which is that the letters of comfort—the on-the-run letters—never did, and do not now, grant anybody immunity.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman changes the subject, from what the letter of comfort was given for to what it was not given for, which does not prove anything about the letter of comfort. What is the case is that the judge said at the time that he could not rule on the case because the state had made a promise to Mr Downey, and that prevented the case. We also have the Queen’s grant of mercy, which is an amnesty, and people were released early, which is another form of amnesty. For the Secretary of State to say that the Good Friday agreement did not involve amnesties is simply in defiance of the facts.
Hilary Benn
If we are going to get on to the facts, the early release scheme was part of the Good Friday agreement, and the people of Northern Ireland voted for that agreement knowing what it involved. The royal prerogative of mercy was granted, but it never gave pardons and the convictions of those who received it were never quashed. It was put in place to allow for those individuals who, for technical reasons, could not be eligible for the early release scheme—that is the history of that. On the letters of comfort, the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), who is very learned in these matters, has not challenged the basic argument that I have put, which is that the fact that Mr Downey is currently awaiting prosecution proves that the letter he received did not give him immunity from prosecution.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
On that point, will the Secretary of State give way?
Hilary Benn
I will make some progress.
We cannot and should not allow the victims of the troubles to be denied redress through the courts. That is our view of principle, although I recognise that the leader of the Democratic Unionist party, the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), takes a different view.
I will now turn to the argument that the House should delay the approval of the remedial order, which we heard advanced in the House before Christmas. Section 10(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 allows a remedial order to be made on two grounds: first, if there has been declaration of incompatibility in relation to a provision of legislation and an appeal against the declaration has been “determined or abandoned”—the word “abandoned” is really important here—and secondly, if there are “compelling reasons” to do so.
The High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland clearly made a declaration of incompatibility in relation to immunity, and in July 2024 the newly elected Government abandoned these aspects of our appeal. The Government are therefore clear that the issue of incompatibility for the immunity and civil claims provisions are no longer part of the appeal now before the Supreme Court.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
The Secretary of State needs to go back to what the High Court judgment said in the Dillon case. If he looks at paragraph 710, he will see that the basis of ruling that immunity was unlawful was not just in respect of the ECHR, but also in respect of article 2 of the Windsor framework. That aspect, which is wholly intertwined with this question, is the subject of an appeal presently before the High Court. How can it be that a challenge that caused the High Court to decree that something was non-applicable was based upon the applicability of article 2 of the Windsor framework, and there is an appeal on that point? How is that not something that rules this order out under section 10?
Hilary Benn
It does not rule it out under section 10 for this reason: there are two parts to the court’s ruling in relation to immunity. The first part was that the court found immunity to be incompatible with our international human rights obligations. The Government withdrew an appeal against that finding. That finding remains because the appeal was abandoned by the Government, and that gives the Government the right to proceed with the remedial order. The second part of the judgment was that, in addition to finding the immunity provisions incompatible with the ECHR, the court decided to strike them down under article 2 of the Windsor framework. The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite correct that the Government are continuing with the appeal in that respect, because there is a genuine argument, which the Government have advanced, as to whether article 2 is being interpreted in the right way, because it seems like rather an expansive interpretation.
The fact that the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement was granted permission to intervene in relation to the interpretation of article 2 of the Windsor framework—that is what the court allowed it to come in and talk about—and the fact that the court is considering the question of the interpretation of article 2, do not and cannot alter the fundamental legal reality that immunity has been found to be incompatible with the European convention.
Several hon. Members rose—
Hilary Benn
I will give way to the two Members I have seen standing, and then I will bring my remarks to a close so that others can contribute.
Jim Allister
May I refer the Secretary of State to what paragraph 710(ii) of the Dillon judgment says? It says:
“Pursuant to section 7A of the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018 article 2 of the Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol/Windsor Framework has primacy over these provisions thereby rendering them of no force and effect. These provisions should therefore be disapplied”,
because of article 2. Article 2 is before the Supreme Court, so it is inextricably linked to section 10.
Hilary Benn
With great respect, I disagree. In answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman’s first intervention, I tried to explain that he is right in what he reads out in relation to article 2; it is the subject of a continuing appeal. However, the declaration of incompatibility under the ECHR remains, because the court ruled both of those things. It is not at issue in the appeal, and that gives the Government the ability to bring forward an order under section 10. I will give way to the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), but then I will bring my remarks to a close.
Lincoln Jopp
This is all getting quite technical, so I want to come back to the fundamentals of justice. If the Secretary of State were able to, would he like to give immunity to our veterans?
Hilary Benn
I am of the view that I listen. I quoted what David Crabbe said earlier, and he was opposed to immunity. The Government have listened to what the veterans commissioners and many others have said, which is, “We do not want immunity, and we are not calling for immunity; we want fairness under the law.” I have made it clear to the House that the Government do not agree with immunity as a matter of principle. When our brave soldiers put on the King’s uniform, they are upholding the law and operating underneath it. As Ben Wallace, the distinguished former Defence Secretary, said, “We abide by the rule of law; that is what makes us better than the terrorists.”
Section 10 of the Human Rights Act also requires that I have “compelling reasons” to proceed. Although the Government have indeed introduced primary legislation, we are clear that these repeals need to happen as quickly as possible. Why? Because we need to provide clarity on immunity to build trust among victims, survivors and, indeed, veterans in the independent commission, because while immunity remains on the statute book, it will be harder for them to obtain the confidence of some victims and survivors.
Hilary Benn
I will continue.
I have tried to cover the point that some have argued, particularly in the other place, that we should delay the remedial order until the Supreme Court ruling in the Dillon judgment. It is really easy to ask the Government to wait, but I think it is much harder to ask families who have endured unimaginable suffering at the hands of paramilitary violence, including forces families, to continue to wait while time marches on. As we know, many of them are elderly and have been waiting a very long time for answers.
In my view, and in the Government’s view, we should make these repeals as early as possible through the remedial order so that we have a legal framework that is fair, just and compliant with human rights. I have described it as a downpayment on trust ahead of the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, and I will do so again. That is why I am firmly of the view that the Government have compelling reasons for proceeding with this order. Even more importantly, this is also the view of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, to which I am grateful for its diligent consideration of this matter.
Jim Shannon
On the point of trust, just so that we get it on record, is there any guarantee that the Republic of Ireland will withdraw the inter-state case if this legislation passes?
Hilary Benn
The basis of the Republic of Ireland’s inter-state case, which is a matter for the Republic of Ireland—[Interruption.] Just let me answer the question; I will do my best to respond. The basis of the inter-state case was that the last Government’s legacy Act was incompatible with the European convention on human rights. It is correct in advancing that argument, because the courts in Northern Ireland have found the last Government’s legacy Act to be incompatible in a number of respects. The Government’s job is to ensure that the legislation is made compatible, so that everyone in Northern Ireland can have confidence in the framework that we are trying to put in place, with as much support as possible. At that moment, there will be no basis for the inter-state case any more. What the Irish Government do with that case is a matter for them, but it will have no basis and it will not be able to go anywhere, because the House of Commons and the other place will have remedied the incompatibilities.
I am grateful to the Joint Committee on Human Rights for its diligent consideration of this matter.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Sir Desmond Swayne
I just ask the Secretary of State to acknowledge that the Committee’s opinion was not unanimous.
Hilary Benn
I was not about to advance the argument that it was a unanimous decision, but many a piece of legislation and many a report of a Committee throughout the history of this House has been passed on a majority vote. That is how we reach decisions, and the JCHR could not have been clearer in its second report: recognising the
“unique and delicate circumstances surrounding Northern Ireland legacy matters…the Government has”
sufficiently
“compelling reasons to proceed by way of remedial order”.
The Committee has recommended that this order be approved by both Houses of Parliament, and I urge the House to heed that recommendation by voting for the order tonight.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Hilary Benn
We have had a very full and wide-ranging debate in which many different contributions have been made, demonstrating once again just how difficult it is to deal with legacy—I think that is a truth around which we can all rally. If it were easy, it would have been dealt with a very long time ago, but its difficulty does not mean that we should not attempt to deal with it.
The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) made his case. I gently say that I was slightly disappointed when he suggested at the end that the Government are doing this for reasons that are, in some way, hidden or unknown, or that may only be discovered in the years to come. I hope he would accept that the Government’s reasons are very clear.
First, the order will deal with the failure of the previous Government’s legacy Act, for the reasons that I tried to set out in my opening remarks: failure legally and failure because it gained no consent from people in Northern Ireland.
Stuart Anderson
The Secretary of State said there is no consensus in Northern Ireland. Having listened to tonight’s speeches, does he believe his approach has achieved that?
Hilary Benn
I have listened very carefully to every single contribution, and I think it is fair to say that the majority of people speaking in this debate do not agree with immunity. They might not all vote for the remedial order tonight, but they do not agree with immunity, and that is the Government’s position. I respect those who take a different view, but I think it is a failed policy—it does not exist. We are charged with taking away something that does not exist, was never enacted and was found incompatible by the courts.
Alex Burghart
The right hon. Gentleman is generous in giving way. Does he accept that conditional immunity, which is all that was in the legacy Act, is the very foundation of all the legislation passed after 1998? For the Labour party now to pretend that it is in some way morally abhorrent is utterly inconsistent.
Hilary Benn
What I am saying is that the Government do not agree with the conditional immunity contained in the legacy Act. The word “conditional” is always used as if it does not necessarily guarantee that immunity will be granted, but I urge Members who think that to go and read the legislation passed by the last Government.
If someone comes forward, whoever they are, and gives a full and truthful account that persuades the commission that it is a full and truthful account of what they did which would have been a criminal offence, the legislation does not say, “Well, you can make your mind up and decide whether to grant it or not.” The legislation passed by the last Government said that the commission must grant immunity. In those circumstances, it does not sound very conditional to me.
Several hon. Members rose—
Hilary Benn
I am going to make some progress because I am trying to respond to the many points raised in the debate.
The second reason we are doing this is that we want those who are still seeking answers to be able to seek them in a system that they have confidence in, and there has not been confidence under the previous Government’s legacy Act, for the reasons we have heard, including from Northern Ireland Members.
The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) made a very powerful contribution in defence of our human rights obligations, and I am grateful for his support and that of his party for the remedial order. We heard important contributions on both sides of the argument—I recognise that, and I recognise the sincerity and force with which those arguments were made. On the Government Benches we heard contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger), and for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey). If I may say so, the hon. Members for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) and for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) both made extremely strong and well-argued cases.
The right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) says that we should wait. He is perfectly entitled to advance that argument, but he is one of the majority of those who have taken part in the debate who are in favour of getting rid of immunity, which is what the remedial order does. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) said that nobody is interested in those who were affected by the Kingsmill massacre. I disagree with that. As he will know, the Kingsmill massacre is currently the subject of an investigation by the legacy commission, and I hope that, along with all those investigations, it is able to make progress.
Gavin Robinson
I understand why the Secretary of State focuses on amnesty, because it means that he does not have to focus on the things he did not include, which are also incompatible, or on other things that are included. Can he indicate to the House what he will do if the Supreme Court says that he is wrong, and therefore this remedial order was wholly inappropriate?
Hilary Benn
We are all subject to the decisions of the Court. The right hon. Gentleman asks a hypothetical question, and, like answers to all hypotheticals, I would say that we will cross that bridge if and when we come to it.
I am afraid that the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) is wrong on the question of interim custody orders, because he has not caught up with what the Government have done. The one difference between the first version of the remedial order and the one we are debating, is that the Government listened to arguments that were made, which said, “Why are you taking sections 46 and 47 off the legislation?” Those sections were added very late in the day during consideration of the legacy Bill in an attempt to deal with the consequences of the 2020 Supreme Court judgment. That did not uphold the Carltona principle—which, as the House knows, has long held that anything signed by a junior Minister has the force of the signature of the Secretary of State. In that case, the Supreme Court decided that it would not apply that to the signing of interim custody orders. We decided to leave that defence there, even though it has proved flimsy because it did not win out in the Fitzsimons case, and we are bringing forward legislation that we think will do the task of restoring the legality of those interim custody orders that were signed, whether by the Secretary of State at the time or by other Ministers. That is extremely important.
The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) spoke about his friend Robert Nairac, and we are all living in hope that his remains, and the other three sets of remains, will be found. The Independent Commission for the Location of Victims’ Remains said, “If you give information about the location of remains, anything that is found and the information you have given us cannot be used in a prosecution”.
Hilary Benn
I am not going to give way because I want to respond to the other points raised.
What the commission set out is what is known as a protected disclosure—a protected disclosure that the previous Government agreed to when they reached the Stormont House agreement and came up with the idea of the information recovery body. That is part of the troubles Bill that we have published, but there is a world of difference between a protected disclosure and immunity from prosecution.
It has been suggested that this is about relitigating who won, but the answer to that question is already crystal clear: peace won. Peace won in Northern Ireland because of the Good Friday agreement. This is not about placating anyone; it is about seeking to do the right thing. It is not about dredging up the past.
Hilary Benn
No, it is not about dredging up the past. Like many right hon. and hon. Members, I have met far too many people—the families of victims—who live with the past every single day, and have done for the past 20, 30, 40 or 50 years. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) laid bare the pain, the sorrow and the heartache that the loss of loved ones has caused to so many people across Northern Ireland. That pain, sorrow and heartache is as powerful today as it was, I suspect, on the day that they first heard the news of the death of their loved ones.
The Government are seeking to put in place a system in which more people can have confidence—because there was not widespread confidence in the previous Government’s legacy Act on the part of victims, survivors, political parties and others in Northern Ireland—so that, where it is possible, answers can be found. You only have to look at the figures for prosecutions to see that they are diminishing rapidly. There are nine cases that are currently live and, by the way, seven of them relate to paramilitaries and one relates to the Army. When it is said that these measures are only about the armed forces, that is not correct because that is not what the evidence shows currently; there are nine live cases, seven of which relate to paramilitaries.
We will return to the troubles Bill in Committee, and I hope that the House will be able to come together to fashion a system that more people can have confidence in, so that the people we have met and heard from, who are still tortured by the fact that they have not had answers as to what happened to their loved ones, may have the chance to find those answers. It is in that spirit that I ask the House to support this remedial order.
Question put,
Oral Answers to Questions
Hilary Benn Excerpts(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
I regularly meet a variety of stakeholders to talk about the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, including veterans groups, political parties in Northern Ireland, and victims and families who are still living with the effects of those decades of terrible violence.
Luke Akehurst
No matter what unit they served in, veterans in North Durham are particularly concerned about the impact of the new legislation on those who served in the special forces. Can the Secretary of State reassure me that he has met the Special Air Service Regimental Association and is responding to its specific concerns?
Hilary Benn
I am very happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. I did indeed meet the Special Air Service Regimental Association recently, as part of the discussions that I and my colleagues in the Ministry of Defence are having with veterans. We are listening to the concerns being expressed and, as I have said to the House on a number of occasions, we want to ensure that the legislation responds to them.
Mr Foster
Under the previous Government’s unlawful Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, the Police Service of Northern Ireland was required to shut down more than 1,000 investigations, including 225 investigations into the deaths of soldiers and veterans. Will the Secretary of State please assure the families of murdered British armed forces personnel that, should they wish to approach the reformed commission, it will consider their case and may be able to provide them with the answers that many of them have long sought?
Hilary Benn
My hon. Friend is quite right to draw attention to one of the implications of the 2023 legacy Act in shutting down all those investigations. He is right that families are perfectly free to refer cases to the commission. I know that the commission is keen to investigate as many cases as come its way, in order to provide answers for those families, who have waited so long.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Engaging with and listening to stakeholders is good, but there needs to be a positive outcome to both. There also needs to be specific and clear references in the Bill to paramilitaries not being permitted to serve on the victims and survivors advisory group. Will that be the case?
Hilary Benn
I have already given the House that assurance from this Dispatch Box. When we consider the Bill in Committee, we will have the opportunity to debate the Bill in its current form and the many amendments that I can see have already been tabled.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
The Secretary of State has stated many times that the previous Government’s legislation in this area had no support from political parties in Northern Ireland. Can he tell the House which political parties support his legislation?
Hilary Benn
All the political parties in Northern Ireland that expressed their profound opposition to immunity have welcomed the fact that immunity will go under the legislation that we have brought before the House—that includes the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), the DUP leader, who supports its removal. That is a sign that the Government have been listening to views in Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, the Legacy Act failed to do that.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
Happy new year, Mr Speaker.
Over Christmas, seven former senior SAS officers wrote in The Telegraph:
“In this Troubles Bill, the Government is complicit in this war on our Armed Forces.”
A few days later, the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner, appointed by this Government, said that the Bill treats veterans “worse than terrorists” and is
“eating at the very fabric of the Armed Forces”.
Can the Secretary of State tell the House which former senior officers support the Bill?
Hilary Benn
I do not agree with either of the characterisations that the hon. Gentleman just referred to. I am confident that the protections, which we have designed specifically for veterans, will change their experience in relation to the legacy process. However, as I have said to the House, we continue to talk to veterans and veterans organisations. I want to produce a Bill that can offer the reassurance they are looking for: that we have a fair and proportionate system that recognises their service to the country.
Alex Burghart
I note that the Secretary of State was unable to give a single example. There is, I am afraid, an ostrich-like complacency in the Government’s approach to this legislation. Senior representatives of our armed forces are telling this House that the legislation is impacting on morale and effectiveness. In November, nine former four-star generals argued that this “morally incoherent” Bill poses a
“direct threat to national security”.
Those generals tell us that highly trained members of special forces are already leaving the service, and by definition these men are very, very difficult to replace. No wonder The Times has said that
“a fundamental lack of political and military understanding lies at the heart of this Bill.”
Why do the Government think that they know better than our armed forces?
Hilary Benn
The Government had to do something about the previous Government’s failed legacy Act, which had no support in Northern Ireland. If one is seeking to help the people of Northern Ireland to deal with the continuing consequences of the troubles, the legislation has to have that support, and the previous Government failed to do that. On the impact on recruitment, as the hon. Gentleman will have heard when the Minister for the Armed Forces answered the urgent question on Monday, inflows continue to improve. Indeed, inflow is up by 13% this year compared with September 2024.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
Happy new year, Mr Speaker.
The Secretary of State was sitting alongside the Minister for the Armed Forces on Monday, when I asked him whether he was listening to the concerns of veterans regarding the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. The Minister convinced me that he is listening, and we just heard the Secretary of State do likewise, but is anyone acting on those concerns? Before Christmas, at the Dispatch Box, the Secretary of State promised to write to me detailing which veterans groups he had met, but I have heard nothing since. I also wrote to the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to request a meeting to discuss veterans’ ongoing concerns, but I have heard nothing since. Will the Secretary of State please detail all the veterans groups he has met, and meet me to discuss their continuing concerns?
Hilary Benn
I apologise to the hon. Gentleman that he has not received the letter to which he referred, and I assure him that I will remedy that very promptly. Defence Ministers and I have met a large number of organisations, and I would just point out that none of the six protections that the Government have put forward were contained in the previous Government’s legacy Act—not a single one. We intend to continue to listen, and to respond to the concerns that have been raised.
Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
The European convention on human rights underpins not only the Good Friday agreement, but key international agreements on trade, security and migration. The Government are committed to the ECHR. We also remain determined to uphold the Good Friday agreement and human rights in Northern Ireland.
Ruth Jones
I thank the Secretary of State for that response. The Good Friday agreement was indeed a proud legacy of the last Labour Government, so does he agree that the reckless approach adopted by Opposition parties towards the ECHR risks undermining the huge progress made since 1998?
Hilary Benn
I do agree with my hon. Friend, and it is clear that those advocating leaving the ECHR have not given any serious consideration to the implications for the Good Friday agreement. Indeed, when pressed on that in the summer, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) noted that it could take
“years and years to solve, so that will not be at the forefront of what we do.”
I would simply say that that is not good enough, and that those who advocate leaving the ECHR need to reflect on what they are arguing for.
Peter Lamb
Given the chaos around the world that is being experienced by politicians playing fast and loose with international law, it is deeply concerning that Conservative and Reform MPs are speaking so flippantly of the risks of violating the Good Friday agreement by leaving the European convention on human rights. Will the Secretary of State give his assessment of the risk of that?
Hilary Benn
As I have told the House before, I think it would be extremely irresponsible. As the House needs no reminding, the Good Friday agreement was very carefully negotiated between several parties, and it would be reckless for one party to march in and seek to remove one of its founding pillars.
Jacob Collier
The European convention on human rights is foundational to the Good Friday agreement. Given that Reform and the Conservatives want to crash us out of the convention, does the Secretary of State agree that that would put at risk the Good Friday agreement and that they really ought to think again?
Hilary Benn
I agree with my hon. Friend. We need to remember that it is the Human Rights Act that gives all of us access to the rights and protections contained in the European convention on human rights. To leave it would put us alone in Europe, in the company of Russia and Belarus. Is that really where the Opposition want to be—welcomed with a pat on the back by President Putin?
Tonia Antoniazzi
Our predecessor Committee took evidence that said that leaving the ECHR would have implications for policing in Northern Ireland. Does the Secretary of State agree that calls to leave the ECHR would add to the challenges faced by the Police Service of Northern Ireland? What assessment has he made of the potential impact?
Hilary Benn
I agree that it could have very wide-ranging implications for Northern Ireland in particular, as well as for the rest of the country. I have not made such an assessment, because that is not a policy that the Government advocate. It is for those proposing to leave the ECHR to answer the very fair question that my hon. Friend has just raised.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
It is plain wrong to say that the survival of the Belfast agreement is dependent on the ECHR. Why is the Secretary of State so selective in his Belfast agreement allegiance? It was he who implemented the jettisoning of the agreement’s cornerstone of cross-community consent when he invited the Northern Ireland Assembly to continue the imposition of the Windsor framework without cross-community consent. Is it only nationalist consent that matters to him under the Belfast agreement?
Hilary Benn
The steps that I took in relation to the vote on the renewal of the Windsor framework arrangements were absolutely in line with the provisions that were put in place by this House, and Lord Murphy produced his report as a result. The hon. and learned Gentleman will have seen the practical steps that the Government are taking in response to Lord Murphy’s very sensible recommendations.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
How will the Secretary of State respond to troubles stakeholder groups that say that the rights of their members under articles 6 and 8 of the ECHR are being impugned by his maladroit Northern Ireland Troubles Bill?
Hilary Benn
It is for all those who wish to argue about the rights that they feel the ECHR and the Human Rights Act give them to do so. I simply say that, in bringing the Bill forward, I as the Minister responsible have certified that the Bill complies with the European convention.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
Is it not the case, as a matter of international law, that the United Kingdom could withdraw from the ECHR while at the same time ensuring that equivalent rights and protections are preserved in our domestic law?
Hilary Benn
The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that it is possible for signatories to the convention to withdraw, but it is a very bad idea and the Government do not support it.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State not agree with expert opinion that says that while we remain signatories to the ECHR, we will not be able to protect our veterans from vexatious litigation?
Hilary Benn
As I have said many times in the past, there is no such thing as vexatious prosecutions. The ECHR protects the rights of all our all citizens, including the veterans who served with such distinction in Operation Banner.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
Northern Ireland’s economy is one of the strongest of any part of the United Kingdom: it has the lowest unemployment and its economic growth outpaced the rest of the UK in the year ending the second quarter of 2025. That performance is being supported by this Government’s policies, including significant investment in economic development and a record settlement for the Executive.
Jerome Mayhew
Mr Speaker,
“a continuing cost-of-living crisis and a recent budget that failed to support workers, families and businesses in a meaningful way”.
It is not often that I agree with the First Minister but, with absolutely no action to address lagging productivity, she is right, isn’t she?
Hilary Benn
The Northern Ireland Executive have very considerable responsibilities in respect of the Northern Ireland economy. I note that the Finance Minister has published a draft three-year budget; the fact that we had a three-year spending review has given the Northern Ireland Executive the opportunity to do the same for the first time in a number of years. As the Minister said, there are choices that the Executive have to make—that is true of all Governments around the world—and I look forward to seeing the Executive come forward with a proposal for a balanced budget.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South and Mid Down) (SDLP)
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
This Budget provided Northern Ireland with an additional £370 million, on top of the record settlement of £19.3 billion each year on average over the spending review period. The decisions we have taken will ease trade within the UK, and will ensure that families across Northern Ireland benefit from help with the cost of living, through policies such as cutting energy bills and lifting the two-child benefit cap.
Catherine Fookes
The £370 million for the Northern Ireland Executive in this year’s Budget, which the Secretary of State mentioned, and the £505 million for Wales, on top of the settlements announced at the spending review, show that this Government take supporting the devolved nations seriously. Does the Secretary of State agree that co-operation between the UK Government and the Northern Ireland Executive, and other devolved nations, is crucial to pulling children out of poverty, improving public services and kick-starting growth across the UK?
Hilary Benn
I do agree with my hon. Friend. That is why the Government’s decision to lift the two-child benefit cap was widely welcomed in Northern Ireland. I would also point out that Northern Ireland is being funded slightly above its level of need; it gets 24% more than equivalent spending in England, meaning that the Executive have more money to make their decisions with.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
When the Executive were restored two years ago, a fund was set up for the transformation of public services. As of yet, that money has not been fully allocated. Will the Secretary of State use his offices to encourage the Executive to deploy that transformation fund to transform Northern Ireland’s public services?
Hilary Benn
The public services transformation fund is a very important demonstration of the partnership between the UK Government and the Northern Ireland Executive. As the hon. Member will be well aware, the first six projects have been funded, and good progress is being made on them. The transformation board is currently considering bids that are coming in for the next phase of funding. Of course, we are keen—as are the Executive—to see that money spent on transformation of how public services are delivered in Northern Ireland, which is hugely needed.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
The whole House will agree that we owe our Operation Banner veterans an enormous debt of gratitude. That is why the Government are introducing six protections for veterans involved in legal processes relating to their service. We are confident that this will change their experience and ensure that the process is fair and balanced.
Sarah Pochin
Does the Secretary of State agree with the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner that the troubles Bill treats our brave veterans more harshly than terrorists?
Hilary Benn
I do not agree with that assessment. I have had many discussions with the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner, and if one looks at the facts, including at the prosecutions that have taken place, there have been more prosecutions of paramilitary terrorists than of soldiers. Indeed, there has been one conviction of a soldier for a troubles-related offence in the past 27 and a half years.
Mr Speaker
Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I extend a warm welcome to the President of the House of Representatives of the Netherlands and his delegation, who are with us in the Gallery today.
Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation
Hilary Benn Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to make a statement on the draft Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 (Remedial) Order 2025.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. This remedial order is a clear signal of the Government’s commitment to legislation that can command support across Northern Ireland. Its purpose is clear: to formally remove some of the provisions in the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 that were found by the courts in Dillon to be incompatible with our human rights obligations. Specifically, this means removing the provisions on immunity from prosecution and the bar on troubles-related civil cases. Although the immunity provisions never commenced, it is essential that we formally remove them from the statute book.
It is the Government’s belief that there are compelling reasons for proceeding with this order, and this is a view shared by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which in its report on 9 December agreed that the Government have such reasons and recommended that Parliament approve the order. The Committee stated that
“in these exceptional and unusual circumstances…the Government has sufficiently compelling reasons to proceed by way of remedial order.”
I want to set out what the Government believe those reasons to be. First, we must provide clarity on immunity and remove the bar on civil claims as quickly as possible. This is essential for all involved—victims, survivors and veterans—and is a prerequisite for building trust. Secondly, providing this clarity is vital to enable the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery to continue its work. It is my view that while immunity, a key plank of the 2023 legacy Act, remains on the statute book, it will be difficult for the ICRIR to obtain the confidence of all victims and survivors.
As the JCHR rightly noted, the legacy of the past continues to have a profound and lasting impact, and we know that families and political parties were vehemently opposed to the immunity provisions. While the repeal of immunity is only one aspect of reforming the arrangements put in place by the 2023 Act, I am confident that its repeal will result in a greater confidence for referrals to be made. Given that many individuals are elderly, they cannot keep on waiting. It is the Government’s view that these changes should therefore be made through the remedial order as soon as possible.
The Government have a clear mandate, compelling reasons and a procedural basis which the JCHR has endorsed, and the House will have an opportunity to debate the order in the new year.
Alex Burghart
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question, which I have asked because I think there is a very real danger that the Government may be about to break the law. It is very important that the House is aware that the Joint Committee on Human Rights was not in possession of all the facts when it wrote its report. [Interruption.]
Last year, the High Court in Belfast found parts of the legacy Act to be incompatible with the European convention on human rights. At the time of the election, the Conservative Government were appealing that highly disputable decision. The incoming Labour Government, for reasons they have never disclosed, chose to drop that appeal, and have subsequently laid a draft remedial order to amend the legislation.
The problem is that earlier this year the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement was granted permission to intervene in the case before the Supreme Court. On 15 October, Lord Wolfson KC, acting for the movement, did just that and made written and oral submissions that the Court is now considering. Consequently, it is entirely possible that the declarations of incompatibility relied on by the Secretary of State to lay the remedial order will be quashed. The case is very much live. That is very important, because under section 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 a Government have the authority to use a remedial order only unless and until all appeals in relation to declarations of incompatibility have been “determined or abandoned”. That test is not met.
If the Government decide to push ahead with their remedial order, not only will they be acting ultra vires, but they will be setting a terrible precedent that will mean that future Governments may use remedial orders in ways they were never intended to be used. To avoid that, all the Government need to do is commit to not pushing their remedial order to a vote until the Supreme Court has finally ruled. Will the Secretary of State make that commitment?
Hilary Benn
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the point he has raised, but the argument he puts is not correct. The appeal was abandoned by the Government in July 2024—he says for reasons that have never been disclosed, but the Government have been absolutely clear from the beginning that we disagree with immunity, and that we are committed to repeal and replace the legacy Act. Section 10 of the Human Rights Act gives a Secretary of State the ability to make a remedial order when a declaration of incompatibility has been made and any appeal
“has been determined or abandoned”.
It has been abandoned by the Government.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that the ongoing Supreme Court appeal in Dillon means that the conditions have not been met, and therefore that we might lack the vires to lay the order. I do not agree with his assessment and have made the position clear to him in the correspondence we have had—I think an exchange of two emails and two letters. I can confirm to the House that in July 2024 the Government formally abandoned their appeal concerning the declaration of incompatibility relating to immunity from prosecution. That declaration was not part of the appeal that is now before the Supreme Court, and the fact that the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement was granted permission to intervene does not alter that legal reality.
Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)
Last month, the House debated the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, and we heard many moving contributions about the devastating loss experienced by families, including military families, many of whom are still seeking answers. Does the Secretary of State agree that the voices of those the Government’s legislation is for should be at the forefront of our minds when we debate it and every time we debate it?
Hilary Benn
I do agree with my hon. Friend. It seems that the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) and the Conservative party remain wedded to immunity. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) says, as he does in all these debates, “Conditional immunity.” I think the last time we debated it, I reminded him that the previous Government’s legislation said that the commission must give immunity—must give immunity—if the conditions for giving immunity are met, which are, quite clearly—[Interruption.] Opposition Members have not reminded themselves of what their legislation said. All that was required was for somebody to come forward and say what they had done, and if what they had done was an offence, the commission must grant them immunity.
I say to those on the Opposition Front Bench that at some point they need to recognise that that provision for immunity for terrorists—because the last Government said, “We wish to give immunity to terrorists”—had no support in Northern Ireland. I am sorry that they do not recognise that. As I have said on many occasions, we cannot make progress in dealing with the problem of legacy when the provision in the current legislation, which we are committed to repealing and replacing, has no support in the place that suffered more than anywhere else during the troubles.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. You had exactly one minute and you have gone over. My apologies—I call the Secretary of State.
Hilary Benn
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he says and for his support for what we are seeking to do in the remedial order. I acknowledge the responsibility that the Government have. These are quite unusual circumstances. The reason why we are debating this matter is because the Joint Committee on Human Rights has acknowledged the unusual circumstances and, despite having made other comments in its report, which we will all have read, has come to the conclusion that it gives its approval to the order and recommends that the House support it. I welcome what the Joint Committee on Human Rights has said.
I will point out one other thing. I acknowledge that the Government did take a bit of time between the report on 28 February and producing the revised draft remedial order on 14 October. That was because we listened to the representations that had been made, particularly by the Opposition, on the subject of interim custody orders in respect of sections 46 and 47, and in relation to the Supreme Court judgment in 2020. After reflecting on that, we found what we think is an alternative way of achieving the same objective, which is to be found in clauses 89 and 90 of the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, which is currently before the House.
I simply point out that the previous Government tried for two and a half years to find a way of dealing with the Supreme Court judgment in the Adams case and were not able to do so, and eventually accepted the amendments moved in the other place, which became sections 46 and 47. It was acknowledging the arguments that had been made that led the Government to amend the remedial order, which we then put before the House on 14 October.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
The Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a member, published our second report on the Northern Ireland remedial order on 9 December. The Standing Orders of both Houses require the JCHR to scrutinise all remedial orders. The Committee concluded that the vires of the order were satisfied and that all statutory requirements were fulfilled. However, the Committee also felt that, under the circumstances, it was appropriate only because the Government gave compelling reasons as to why it would have to come forward in this way, with a Bill progressing through the House and a Supreme Court case ongoing. Does the Secretary of State agree that although the circumstances and the timing are not ideal, this is the best way forward?
Hilary Benn
I do agree. Although the circumstances are unusual, the Government believe we have a compelling case, and the JCHR has agreed with the Government’s assessment.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
A lot of very complex legal arguments have been alluded to today, but I think what concerns the public—and what concerns me—is the state of mind of our veterans, some of them quite elderly, who sought only to serve their country decades ago. The Secretary of State is a very moderate, clever and reasonable person. Given that there is, in reality, no chance of a successful prosecution, and that people would be horrified if there was one, what comfort can the Secretary of State give to our veterans?
Hilary Benn
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we have only to look at the figures to see that the prospect of any prosecution in any case is increasingly remote, because of the passage of time and the difficulty of obtaining evidence. The Government, having listened very carefully to the representations made by veterans, have set out in legislation the protections—this will return to the House when we consider the Bill in Committee—including protection from repeated investigation, the right to stay at home and to seek anonymity, protection in old age, protection from cold calling, and the right to be heard. I hope that when veterans get a chance to see the protections in the legislation and precisely how they will work, they will be reassured that the Government are looking out for their interests.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
It is always important for Northern Ireland to be discussed on the Floor of the House—we are, after all, one United Kingdom—so I thank the shadow Secretary of State for securing the urgent question. We must never forget the people of Northern Ireland. Can my right hon. Friend say what recent engagement he has had with victims, survivors and the organisations representing them as part of his work to address the legacy of the past?
Hilary Benn
I have had many such meetings. I have met the Victims and Survivors Forum, for example, twice in the recent past to explain the legislation that the Government have published. There is a great lack of trust on the part of victims and survivors in Northern Ireland, who feel they have been let down many times before, and trust undermined is very hard to rebuild. They are taking account of the legislation the Government have passed. It will not surprise the House if I say that I believe it provides a foundation for moving forward, but it is really important, as my hon. Friend says, that the voices of people in Northern Ireland are heard, and heard loudly.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
On 12 November, I raised with the Prime Minister the alarming statement from nine former generals who attacked the Government’s approach on lawfare against our armed forces, which they said would erode trust in the justice system and is a threat to national security. Can the Secretary of State confirm whether the Prime Minister has met with those nine former generals and whether that has changed his approach to attacking veterans?
Hilary Benn
I do not accept the characterisation that the hon. Member puts before the House. The Government are not engaging in lawfare against veterans.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
That’s what the generals said.
Hilary Benn
Well, I have read that letter and many others, and I refute the suggestion that the Government are engaging in lawfare. We have met a very large number of veterans organisations—I myself have met the SAS Regimental Association and others, and Ministers in the Ministry of Defence have met others—and we are listening. When the troubles Bill reaches Committee stage, the House will see the results of our considerations. The Government are absolutely determined to ensure the proper protections, in recognition of the hugely important and dangerous role that those who served in Operation Banner performed in trying to keep the people of Northern Ireland, and indeed the United Kingdom, safe.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
As a member of the JCHR, I am concerned that the shadow Northern Ireland Secretary may have inadvertently misled the House when he suggested that our Committee did not discharge our roles seriously and consider all the evidence in this case when we produced our report.
Hilary Benn
I say to my hon. Friend, who is a distinguished member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, that I am grateful for the support that the Committee has given for the remedial order and the Government’s assessment of the compelling reasons. Personally, I am not accusing anybody of anything. I want to try to get this legislation right, as I have said to the House many times before, and I will work with all hon. Members who will join me in that task.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
The Secretary of State is perfectly entitled to pursue a policy desire of removing immunity. Indeed, he knows that my colleagues and I support that position and we found it quite difficult that yet another Government were prepared to offer a different variation of immunity for the perpetrators of terror in Northern Ireland. We found that repugnant, so we support the notion that immunity should not stand.
But that is not the question before the Secretary of State today. The question is whether the Secretary of State should misappropriate a remedial order process, which is about dealing with the incompatibility of human rights law—not incompatibility with his policy objectives. For as long as the question still remains before the Supreme Court—which it does, though it is not his appeal but that of the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement—given that he has acknowledged that there is an issue of trust on this issue, does he not think it would be better if he at least just waited?
Hilary Benn
I would say two things to the right hon. Gentleman. First, I reject the suggestion that I or the Government have misappropriated a remedial order or misapplied section 10 of the Human Rights Act, and I would cite in aid of that argument that the JCHR, whose job it is—[Interruption.] He is shaking his head, but it is the Committee’s job to scrutinise. If it had come the House and said, “We don’t think the case is made”, the Government would of course have respected that. That is not what the JCHR said.
The second point is that time is not waiting for the victims. There are those I have spoken to who say, “As long as it is still on the statute book, even though it has been declared incompatible, we doubt whether we can trust the process.” Having decided to keep the commission but to reform it, I think it is right that we remove that uncertainty as swiftly as possible. That is what the remedial order seeks to do.
Several hon. Members rose—
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has already confirmed that under the legacy Act the immunity provisions were never commenced, so it is important to say that nobody was ever granted immunity under those provisions. Sticking with the subject of immunity, the three Veterans Commissioners for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales have all said that they are calling not for immunity under the law but for fairness under the law. Does the Secretary of State agree?
Hilary Benn
I agree with that statement completely, which is why I must confess my disappointment that the Opposition are still clinging to the notion of immunity, including immunity for terrorists. The Veterans Commissioners are quite right; they want fairness, and that is what the Government are determined to deliver.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I simply say to the Secretary of State that it does seem like ridiculous haste when the Bill is going through the House right now. Surely to do this when he knows for a fact that there is already an appeal going on does, as has already been said, become abusive of the real purpose of a remedial order. I suggest to him that all the stuff about people being let off and the whole point about immunity is not the issue. The issue today is whether the Government are misusing their powers to rush something through that they could have dealt with through the passage of the Bill.
Hilary Benn
I will make two points to the right hon. Gentleman, who served with such distinction in Northern Ireland. First, as we have just heard, immunity was never commenced. It was declared incompatible, and it was struck down under article 2. Secondly, I reject again the suggestion that the Government are somehow abusing the process. If that was an argument, one might have expected the Joint Committee on Human Rights to have agreed with it, but it did not. The Committee heard all the points that have been put and concluded that in these particular circumstances it was right to proceed, and that is why it recommends that the House should support the remedial order.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
This week’s exhibition in the Upper Waiting Hall is a memorial quilt produced my members of the South East Fermanagh Foundation. It is a very moving way to remember the innocent victims of terrorism. The dates on the quilt panels remind us of how long the families have been fighting for justice. Can I ask the Secretary of State what message he wants to send out to every person who has produced one of the quilt panels for SEFF and to all the other families?
Hilary Benn
On Monday night I met the families who had come over for the unveiling of the quilts. I would urge all Members who have not yet had a chance to go up to the Upper Waiting Hall and have a look to do so, because the story that the quilts tell is profoundly moving and a reminder of the continuing search for justice that so many people in Northern Ireland are going through. I would say that those quilts are an argument for what we are trying to do to secure legislation that can help find those answers for all the people who are remembered on the quilts.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
Regarding the accusation that the Secretary of State is rushing this through, he will be conscious of an Irish Government who are not rushing anything through with regard to support. Yesterday the Justice Minister in the Republic of Ireland received permission from the Government to draft priority legislation to enable state bodies to give oral evidence to the Omagh inquiry. That was only because the Omagh families are taking legal action. What engagement has the Secretary of State had with the Irish Government about bringing forward legislation that matches what he is bringing forward in this place? Can I also ask him who he is dealing with at the minute? It used to be the Tánaiste, Simon Harris, who has now been promoted. Is it the Justice Minister, who is bringing this forward, or is it the new Foreign Affairs Minister?
Hilary Benn
I have many meetings with Irish Ministers and discussions with the Tánaiste and the Taoiseach. My most recent meeting was with Helen McEntee, who has just taken over from Simon Harris at the Foreign Affairs Ministry. I very much welcome the fact that the Irish Government have announced that they are preparing to draft the legislation, as Simon Harris had committed to do while standing next to me, in time for the next hearings of the Omagh bombing inquiry. That is evidence that the Irish Government intend to fulfil the commitments they made in the joint framework.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I commend the Secretary of State for the care that he is taking to work as fast possible for the victims, survivors and veterans families, who need to hear answers, while making sure that this is legally correct. I echo the comments about the South East Fermanagh Foundation quilts, which remind us of the need to get those answers for families. Can he confirm that he is as concerned as I am that the Opposition are just interested in making political points rather than really building peace, which is what we need to do together as Members of the House? Will he confirm that the remedial order removes what would have been immunity for terrorists?
Hilary Benn
I think that all Members of the House have a shared commitment to trying to ensure that the peace that Northern Ireland has enjoyed since the signing of the Good Friday agreement is maintained—I think all of us do. We have a difference of view in some respects about the right way of seeking to do that, and I am always willing to be challenged on the arguments that I put on behalf of the Government and to challenge the arguments that I hear from the Opposition Front Benches. In the end, we know that we have to deal with this, because the last bit of legislation, whatever its intentions, failed to achieve its purpose. It did not command support in Northern Ireland, and that is why we have to make progress.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
May I ask the Secretary of State to clarify whether his earlier remarks mean what I think they do, which is that even if it had not been for the guidance of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Government would have wanted anyway to have repealed the legislation of the legacy Act? It is a political decision. Given that he said that he did not believe that there would be convictions at the end of the process, does that not mean that there will be several, if not many, trials? If no one is convicted at the end of the process, how does that help anyone? How does that avoid just torturing the people put through a trial?
Hilary Benn
If I may, I will correct what I think is the interpretation that the right hon. Member has put on what I had said. I made it clear a moment ago that had the Joint Committee on Human Rights reached a different conclusion about the appropriateness of the remedial order, the Government would of course have respected that. I also made it clear in my earlier comments that the Government came into office committed to get rid of immunity—we have been quite clear about that from the start—and the remedial order will seek to give effect to that.
We have discussed prosecutions of veterans. If one looks at the figures, one sees that there has been one successful prosecution of a veteran since the signing of the Good Friday agreement. The point I was making, if one looks at the figures—[Interruption.] Well, there are currently nine live cases before the courts relating to the troubles; seven of them relate to paramilitaries, and six of those relate to the Provisional IRA. I have heard the argument from Opposition Members that, “Oh, none of the paramilitaries are getting prosecuted.” That is not the case. It is really important that we have these debates on the basis of facts.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
The Secretary of State does not need me to tell him that he and the Government are struggling to command veteran support for his Bill. In order to address that deficit of support, should he not consider an amendment to clause 3 to have the Veterans Commissioner for Northern Ireland serve on the legacy commission? Would that not be a token of making good on his affirmation that this is about capturing the confidence of veterans and not pursuing lawfare against them?
Hilary Benn
As I have indicated, I reject the suggestion that the Government are in any way engaging in lawfare against veterans, in the same way that I reject any suggestion that there are such things as politically motivated or vexatious prosecutions. [Interruption.] I hear “Oh, come on” from the Opposition Front Bench; I have heard that from Opposition Members in previous debates on these questions. There will no doubt be a number of amendments and suggestions made when we come to detailed consideration of the Bill, and we will consider them at that time.
Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and Tavistock) (Con)
I wonder whether the Secretary of State can assist me with this problem. The Supreme Court is at the moment seized of the issue as to the lawfulness of the declaration of incompatibility. The fact that the Government have withdrawn their appeal does not prevent the Supreme Court from ruling on it. Let us suppose that the Supreme Court rules that the declaration of incompatibility is void. The legal position is that the declaration of incompatibility would then be void, and therefore the basis on which the Secretary of State is proceeding with the order would be removed. Surely it would be prudent to wait to see if the Supreme Court rules on it. Otherwise, we will be proceeding with an unlawful order. I ask in the spirit of genuine curiosity and inquiry, not political partisanship. It would bring the entire process into disrepute if he is in fact acting on an unlawful basis.
Hilary Benn
Once again, I do not accept that the Government are acting on an unlawful basis. Given the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s distinguished legal credentials and experience, I say to him that I note he encourages me to speculate on a potential outcome—[Interruption.] Well, he does. The Government have to deal with the position as we find it. I have already set out to the House why the Government are absolutely clear in our view that, because the appeal was withdrawn, we are able to make use of section 10 of the Human Rights Act in order to remove conditional immunity.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
Yesterday, Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Knighton highlighted the need to recruit people to our armed forces to protect this nation. How does the Secretary of State expect to do that when those who served gallantly in Northern Ireland face prosecution? Why would young men and women join our armed forces with the risk of that happening to them? What message does that send to those young people?
Hilary Benn
I meet many young people in my constituency and on other duties who are keen to come to serve the nation in the armed forces. I am not aware of any figures that suggest there has been a decline in recruitment. If the hon. Member has seen them, perhaps she could draw them to my attention. Trying to deal with the past correctly, particularly given the threats we face in the modern world, should not affect the willingness of young people and others to come forward and serve the nation, as people have done over the centuries.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State has spoken of additional protections in his legislation. Why does he think that Operation Banner veterans, some of whom I represent, remain unconvinced and troubled? Why does he think that the Irish Prime Minister believes there are no additional protections? While he is about it, can he do something to reassure veterans who are feeling very unhappy about this situation, perhaps along the lines of saying categorically that no former terrorists or members of proscribed organisations will serve on the legacy commission?
Hilary Benn
I have already made it clear to the House that as long as I am in this post I have no intention of appointing those who have engaged in paramilitary activity to any of the posts contained in the Bill. On the protections, we all have a responsibility to explain and point out that they are in the draft legislation in clauses 30, 31, 36, 91, 84, 54, 56, 69 and 8. They are real, tangible protections, and they respond directly to the concerns that veterans have raised with the Government. We have introduced them because of our determination to ensure that veterans are treated properly.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
Secretary of State, the official Opposition are saying to hold off the remedial order until the Supreme Court judgment. Have you sought any legal advice on that? Can you share it with the House?
Alex Easton
I apologise. Has the Secretary of State sought any legal advice on the issue, and can he share it with the House? Will he also update us on making sure that the Irish Government produce all legal papers on their role, on the IRA and on the involvement of the Garda Síochána?
Hilary Benn
As the hon. Gentleman will be well aware, there is a long-standing tradition that the Government do not reveal the legal advice they receive. All Governments receive legal advice, but we do not share it, because that is part of the business of government. I have already made reference to the Irish Government’s announcement in respect of legislation to enable witnesses to give evidence to the Omagh bombing inquiry, which I welcome.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Will the Secretary confirm whether the remedial order will have to be voted on in the other place?
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Despite what the Secretary of State continues to say in the House, the prosecution of elderly veterans has been vexatious. In the Soldier F trial, the judge agreed with the submissions of the defence that the threshold to prosecute was far from being reached; political interference brought that matter to court. If the Secretary of State cannot even accept that there have been vexatious prosecutions, how will he ensure that the remedial order will give a clear distinction between the bomber who presents him or herself as a victim and the ordinary man, woman or child who was murdered or maimed by the actions of terrorists?
Hilary Benn
There is the clearest distinction between the two groups of people that the hon. Member refers to, and I have made that clear from the Dispatch Box on a number of occasions. There is absolutely no equivalence between those who sought to protect the public and those who committed the most appalling terrorist atrocities. I have respectfully to disagree with the hon. Member, because if she is arguing that prosecutions have been vexatious, she is saying that our independent prosecutors are working on a basis that is outwith their task, which is, in all cases, to look at the evidence and to ask whether there is a reasonable prospect of conviction and whether it is in the public interest to prosecute. If we undermine the independence of independent prosecutors—the separation between the Government and the court system—we are sunk as a nation. That is why I am so firm in saying that there is no such thing as a vexatious prosecution.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Notwithstanding the fact that the Secretary of State has said that the chances of a successful prosecution are very limited indeed, the punishment is in the process of investigation and trial in the first place. Will the Secretary of State look sympathetically at appropriate amendments to the Bill to make sure that the bar is raised very high, so that it is almost impossible for one of our brave veterans to be prosecuted in our courts?
Hilary Benn
As I have said to the House before, I will, of course, look carefully at all the amendments tabled when we come to debate the Bill in Committee and on Report. The test for prosecutions, as I indicated in answer to the previous question, is the same now, and will be the same in future, as it has been for the last 30, 50 or 70 years—those who have greater legal experience can tell the House how long that has been the case. It will not change, because it depends on the evidence. We are setting out in the Bill that to reinvestigate things the commission has to be of the view that it is essential to do so. That word “essential” is a very high bar.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
For the final question, I call Jim Shannon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Kenova report was clear in proving that there was no evidence of state collusion or machinations. Yet the republican drum still bangs to cover the sound of the voices of the innocents calling for justice and to be heard. How will the Secretary of State respond to the lack of protection for the service personnel and the perpetual and deliberate focus on them, and will he look at the 2,057 murders carried out by republicans and the 1,027 loyalist murders that have not received any justice at all? Will there be yet another whitewash over the blood of the innocents that has been shed and the impact that that still has on all those families throughout the Province?
Hilary Benn
I have the greatest respect for the hon. Gentleman. I think that he, I and, I hope, the whole House share the desire to enable answers for all those families who are living with the pain of not knowing what happened to their loved ones. The Kenova report has made an important contribution to seeking to uncover the truth. In drafting the legislation, we have drawn on a number of the lessons of Kenova, including that of the victims and survivors advisory panel, because many people said that that was one of the great things about the way Kenova went about its job. It is in the draft Bill that the House will consider again shortly.
Paul Thompson: Supreme Court Judgment
Hilary Benn Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
I would like to make a statement to the House regarding the Supreme Court judgment today in the Thompson case.
The Government welcome the unanimous judgment handed down by the Supreme Court. This is a highly complex case with wide-ranging implications.
The Government will therefore take time to fully consider all aspects of this judgment, including those relevant to the request made by Operation Kenova for the Government to name Stakeknife.
I will return to the House on this as soon as the Government have come to a final view.
[HCWS1194]
Independent Review under Schedule 6A Northern Ireland Act 1998: Government Response
Hilary Benn Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
Following the Northern Ireland Assembly’s democratic consent motion on the trading arrangements under the Windsor framework, on 9 January 2025 I commissioned Lord Murphy of Torfaen to lead an independent review on those arrangements. I received his final report on 9 July 2025, and I can confirm to the House that the Government have now responded in line with schedule 6A to the Northern Ireland Act 1998. I have placed a copy of this response in the Library of the House.
I was very grateful that Lord Murphy agreed to conduct the independent review, as an experienced former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. He has my utmost thanks for the detailed consideration that he has given to these issues, and for the engagement he has conducted, including with the Northern Ireland parties and the relevant civic and business organisations.
The Government’s response reflects their clear aim of ensuring that Northern Ireland’s trading arrangements command the broadest possible confidence among communities. In preparing this response, I have taken into account the views expressed in the Northern Ireland Assembly and in Parliament; and those expressed by other public bodies and stakeholders, including the Independent Monitoring Panel and the Federation of Small Businesses, as well as Intertrade UK and civic organisations with whom the Government have engaged. Given the number of reports that have been published within a six-month period examining similar themes, I have concluded that a single, comprehensive response is the most appropriate and timely way to set out how the Government will be taking action.
In particular, the Government are committing to legislation that will better support scrutiny of relevant regulations by the Northern Ireland Assembly and, as part of the measures announced at the Budget, we will be delivering a £16.6 million programme to boost trade within the UK internal market. This funding will, in particular, answer the call from business for an enhanced one stop shop service, and provide a single place for businesses to get guidance on how to trade across the UK and the opportunities for businesses in Northern Ireland to trade across two markets.
The Government are clear about wanting to deliver practical solutions for businesses and traders, on the basis of agreed arrangements with the EU. This has underpinned the Government’s approach in the 12 months since I commissioned the independent review, including in the form of new arrangements for human medicines and freight and parcels. We have taken action where the Assembly has expressed concerns, including to safeguard the supply of certain dental fillings. The Government have also put in place a set of measures to safeguard the supply of veterinary medicines from 1 January 2026, and we will continue to monitor those arrangements into the new year.
The response outlines the Government’s continued commitment to work collaboratively with businesses, civil society, the Northern Ireland Executive and our partners in the EU and its member states, across all of these issues as relevant. As we look ahead, we will continue to be guided by our commitment to implementing the Windsor framework in good faith while ensuring the protection of the UK internal market, and will seek to secure a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement with the EU from which Northern Ireland’s traders and hauliers benefit.
[HCWS1185]
Independent Reporting Commission: Eighth Substantive Report
Hilary Benn Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
I have received the eighth substantive report from the Independent Reporting Commission, and have laid a copy before the House.
The commission was established following the Fresh Start agreement of November 2015 to report on progress towards ending paramilitary activity in Northern Ireland. That agreement set out the Northern Ireland Executive’s commitments around tackling paramilitary activity and associated criminality, and led to a programme of work to deliver a Northern Ireland Executive action plan. It also provided the framework for the UK Government, the Executive and law enforcement agencies, alongside partners in Ireland, to work together to tackle the challenges of organised crime, paramilitarism and terrorism. In the New Decade, New Approach agreement in January 2020, a commitment was made to ongoing work to tackle paramilitarism, and this work continues, including through a second phase of the NI Executive programme.
The commission’s eighth report primarily considers activity undertaken to tackle paramilitarism in the financial year 2024-25. It highlights progress in a number of areas. It notes that Police Service of Northern Ireland statistics indicate that 2024-25 was the first year since records began in 1969 in which there were no security-related deaths, and that violent crime linked to paramilitarism appears to be on a downward trajectory. The report also notes law enforcement successes in tackling paramilitarism and welcomes progress across the justice system in embedding trauma-informed approaches. The report also highlights significant progress in the development of a co-ordinated response to child criminal exploitation.
The report points out that security statistics only tell part of the story. There is still much work to be done on tackling paramilitarism in Northern Ireland. The commissioners note that intimidation, coercive control, and threats linked to paramilitary groups persist, and that paramilitary structures continue to be used to facilitate organised crime and other forms of violence.
The commission has made a number of recommendations on how the approach to paramilitarism can be strengthened and on ways in which a focused effort on paramilitarism can be maintained beyond the life of the Executive programme on paramilitarism and organised crime. We will consider recommendations for the UK Government through engagement with representatives of Northern Ireland political parties, the Executive, the Irish Government, civic society and community representatives in Northern Ireland, and the Independent Reporting Commission. The commissioners also note the scoping exercise that is now under way by Fleur Ravensbergen, the independent expert on paramilitary group transition to disbandment. We look forward to receiving her report on this work next year.
Paramilitarism is a scourge on society in Northern Ireland. The UK Government remain committed to working closely with our partners to support efforts in tackling the enduring threat and harms posed to communities by paramilitary groups. The Executive programme has demonstrated how progress can be made in tackling these harms, and the UK Government look forward to continuing work with the Northern Ireland Executive as they develop plans to build a sustainable, long-term approach for addressing multiple types of violence and harm for the period beyond March 2027.
I would like to extend my thanks to the commissioners for their work in producing this report on progress made towards ending paramilitarism.
[HCWS1145]
Northern Ireland Troubles: Operation Kenova
Hilary Benn Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the latest publication from Operation Kenova and the Government’s response to its findings.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question. I inform the House that I will lay a written ministerial statement on this matter later today.
Operation Kenova has published its final report, which covers the activities of the alleged agent Stakeknife, as well as other investigations referred to it by the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Let me begin by commending the Kenova team, led by Sir Iain Livingstone and Jon Boutcher, for the exemplary way in which they carried out their work, built trust with families, put victims first and provided many answers about what happened to their loved ones.
Operation Turma, which was part of Operation Kenova, resulted in the prosecution of an individual now extradited from Ireland and awaiting trial for the murder of three Royal Ulster Constabulary officers in 1982. Operation Kenova has set a standard for future legacy investigations, and we have drawn on a number of those lessons in drafting the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. I wish to express my heartfelt condolences to all the families who lost loved ones in the appalling circumstances described in this sobering report.
Operation Kenova was asked to establish whether there was evidence of criminal offences by the alleged agent known as Stakeknife or their alleged handlers. The behaviour described of the alleged agent and their role in the Provisional IRA is deeply disturbing, and it should not have happened. In recent decades, there have been significant reforms to agent handling practice, including through legislation. The use of agents is nowadays subject to strict regulation, overseen by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and the Investigatory Powers Tribunal.
On Operation Kenova’s request to the Government to name Stakeknife, I told Sir Iain Livingstone in August:
“Due to ongoing litigation relevant to the Neither Confirm Nor Deny [NCND] policy, namely the Thompson Supreme Court appeal, a substantive and final response to your request will be provided after judgment has issued in that case.”
The Government’s first duty is to protect national security, and identifying agents risks jeopardising that.
Today’s report also makes public the high-level findings of Operation Denton, which looked at killings carried out by the Ulster Volunteer Force Glenanne gang. The behaviour reported on, including collusion by individual members of the security forces, is shocking. The Government will respond to the full Denton report when it is published, bearing in mind that related legal proceedings are ongoing in this case and in the case of Stakeknife.
The Government responded to a number of the other recommendations in the interim Kenova report in August. That is available in the Library and is also addressed in the written ministerial statement.
Gavin Robinson
I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. I thank the Secretary of State for his response, and for being in the Chamber this afternoon to discuss Operation Kenova. I know that since he was appointed, he has spent an inordinate amount of time on legacy, and I know he is committed to the principles of not rewriting the past and of ensuring that issues can be explored to the fullest degree. He knows that in Northern Ireland, peace was only secured because of the actions of our intelligence services, our armed forces and brave members of the RUC. He knows that the IRA were brought to their knees by the activities of our intelligence services, and he also knows that the IRA were riven by agents of the state—both Denis Donaldson, director of operations for Sinn Féin, and Freddie Scappaticci, head of the internal investigations unit, also known as Stakeknife.
Does the Secretary of State welcome the finding of Operation Kenova that there was no high-level state collusion between loyalist paramilitaries and members of the Army or the security forces? Does he recognise the important role that our intelligence services played in securing peace in Northern Ireland? Does he recognise that the IRA were riven by informers? Does he realise the absurdity of maintaining the position that Operation Kenova could not name Freddie Scappaticci as Stakeknife? Does he recognise that the findings relating to the Dublin and Monaghan bombings were that the UK state authorities had no information or intelligence that could have prevented those bombings?
Finally, in the context of the debate we are having about legacy, does the Secretary of State recognise that he is letting too many inquiries pass by without highlighting the lack of accountability of the Dublin Government— of the Republic of Ireland—for their role in supporting the IRA? We cannot wait until his legislative process concludes, or for inquiry after inquiry, for the Dublin Government to open their books, share their stories and, on the basis of truth and justice, indicate the role they played in our troubled past.
Hilary Benn
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for those points. I join him in recognising the huge contribution that was made by the intelligence services, the Army, the RUC and other security forces during the troubles to try to keep people safe and defeat those who were trying to destroy society through their terrorism. We all recognise that. The responsibility for the murder of around 1,700 people, often in the most brutal circumstances—in some cases killing people, burying them, and then for a long time providing no information as to where the remains of people’s loved ones could be found—rests with the Provisional IRA. I echo the comments that were made in the interim report and the final report about what they did.
I also note what the report has to say about not finding any evidence of high-level collusion between the security forces and loyalist paramilitaries, in particular the UVF in respect of the work of the Glenanne gang, as they have been called. However, I do notice what it says about individual collusion. I used the word “shocking” deliberately, because it is shocking to learn now that—as Operation Kenova reports—serving police officers and serving members of the armed forces were colluding with those who were murdering a very large number of people. Over 120 people were murdered by that gang.
On the right hon. Gentleman’s final point about us all wishing to learn from the past—and I think that in order to learn from the past, one has to try to tell the truth about it—I simply draw his attention to the framework agreement reached between the UK Government and the Irish Government in September. I draw his attention to the steps that have been taken by the Irish Government to co-operate with the Omagh inquiry, which he and I have debated many times before, as well as the commitment that the Irish Government have given to the fullest possible co-operation with a reformed legacy commission. The Government’s troubles Bill is seeking to put that reformed commission in place, with the consent and will of the House. I hope all Members will welcome that, because the more information we can get about what happened, the more families will be able to find out exactly what happened to their loved ones.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
As my Committee’s report on legacy last week outlined, information disclosure has been, and remains, one of the biggest challenges with legacy investigations. The Kenova report outlines the failure of MI5 to disclose all relevant material pertaining to Stakeknife in a timely manner. The chief constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland said today that he remains concerned that
“there continues to be an unhelpful, unnecessary and protectionist approach to the disclosure of official records.”
Given those comments and the significant concerns outlined in our report on the Government’s new approach to disclosure, how can families have confidence in the new process?
Hilary Benn
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Select Committee, for what she has just said. She refers to the unfortunate episode in which MI5 discovered further files relating to the work of Operation Kenova that it had not previously been able to identify. The authors of the Kenova report say that they have no reason to believe that those files were withheld; MI5 was not able to find them, and the head of MI5 set up a process to review exactly what had occurred.
Under the current legacy Act, the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, which will become the legacy commission under our legislation, has the ability to request and see all information. That will remain the case for the reformed legacy commission, because the commission has the ability to deal with closed material; the coronial system does not, as the House is aware. Precisely as my hon. Friend has said, it is vital for the confidence of families that they know the bodies that are charged with investigating what happened in the past—the people who are trying to find out what happened to their loved ones—are able to see all the relevant material.
Hilary Benn
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments, and for the spirit and the tone in which he delivers them in relation to this extremely serious matter. I do indeed acknowledge—as I think I have already indicated—what he said about the nature of the collusion that has been discovered, and what it was and what it was not, for instance in respect of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. Those are very, very important findings.
It is for the Irish Government to determine what information they reveal, but they have given commitments to me, to the UK Government and, indeed, to all of us about the co-operation that they will provide. The Tánaiste has said to me that the legislation to allow witness testimony to be given to the Omagh bombing inquiry will be in place by March, and we look forward to seeing, in due course, the outline of the Irish Government’s legislation that will implement the rest of the commitments when it comes to co-operation with the new legacy commission that we are seeking to establish by means of the legislation currently before the House.
I am always happy to return to the House to provide further information and to answer further questions, but we are waiting for the Thompson judgment, which is absolutely about the “neither confirm nor deny” policy. That is why, when I wrote to Sir Iain Livingstone on, I think, 13 August, I said to him what I quoted in my original answer to the question from the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson).
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
Let me say first that the people responsible for the murder of innocent people in Northern Ireland over many decades were the people who carried out those murders, and the organisations of which they were members. However, it is also clear, from these reports and from previous investigations, that elements within the British state worked hand in glove with loyalist paramilitaries as they murdered scores, indeed hundreds, of innocent people in the north of Ireland, and also that the IRA were riddled with informers, including, clearly, at the very highest levels. Now that we know all that, has the Secretary of State made an assessment of how many lives could have been saved, and how much earlier we could have had peace in Ireland, if the British Government had acted properly?
Hilary Benn
I should say to my hon. Friend that I have not made such an assessment, but Operation Kenova itself had something to say in relation to the activities of the alleged agent Stakeknife. Its view was that the balance—I hate to use the term “balance sheet”—of lives lost and lives saved was not quite as it had been described by others. What I think is particularly important about the report published today is its confirmation of a point made by Jon Boutcher when he published the interim report: he said that in the absence of information about what happened, people form a view about what they think happened, and as a result what is finally produced—there is an example of this in relation to the final Operation Kenova report—may turn out to be not quite what everybody thought it was, and that is the argument for trying to be as open as possible about what happened. However, I wanted to make clear in coming to the House today that what has been revealed is, as I have said, disturbing and deeply shocking and should not have happened, and it is really important that we learn the lessons.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
I thank the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) for his question, and I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. I have three questions. First, do the Government accept the Operation Kenova report’s findings of “serious organisational failure” on the part of MI5, and if so, what concrete steps will they take to address those failures? Secondly, is the Secretary of State satisfied that his proposed legacy legislation contains adequate safeguards to ensure that honourable former service personnel who served lawfully and with integrity and followed orders in good faith do not fear persecution on the basis of the unlawful actions of either rogue individuals or the state? Thirdly, does the Secretary of State agree that the “neither confirm nor deny” policy must be exercised in a proportionate and necessary manner, and should not be used to protect agents who commit gross serious crime or to hide any serious misdeeds of the state?
Hilary Benn
Our legislation contains a number of very specific safeguards, which are in the Bill because of our commitment to the veterans who served with such bravery in the most difficult circumstances. However, I have indicated to the House that, as the Bill progresses, I am open to a continuing conversation with Members in all parts of the House, and with the Royal British Legion and the other organisations representing veterans, so that we get this right.
The “neither confirm nor deny” policy is important for our national security. The ultimate responsibility of Governments is to protect national security, and the moment that the “neither confirm nor deny” policy starts to be eroded—although in a small number of cases it has been set aside for particular reasons—that undermines the confidence of those who are serving the state today to keep us safe. They may start to ask themselves, “Will the Government still uphold that lifelong commitment not to reveal anything about what I have done?” The “neither confirm nor deny” policy is a really important protection for those who do very dangerous things in order to try to protect all of us.
As for the hon. Gentleman’s question about MI5, I responded to the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), in respect of the information that was subsequently discovered, but, of course, the use of agents— covert human intelligence sources—is nowadays subject to regulation under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Act 2021. Both those pieces of legislation show the determination of the House to learn from what has gone wrong in the past.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
We know that this was a brutal, murderous conflict, but, as we are reminded today, it was internecine as well at times. “There’ll be days like this”, in the words of one of Northern Ireland’s famous sons, but does the Secretary of State agree that, even on days like this, we should continue to keep victims and families at the forefront of our thoughts?
Hilary Benn
I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. In one sense, the great contribution that Operation Kenova has made to doing precisely that has been the way in which it has dealt with the families, keeping in touch with them, telling them what it was and was not able to discover. We have adopted the idea of a victims and survivors advisory group, because all the people I spoke to said that it had worked very well during Operation Kenova. We have included it in the Bill that the House is currently considering, because learning the lessons means not just reflecting on the horror that this report reveals, but learning from the way in which Operation Kenova went about dealing with families. It is important that the commission—and I know it is working hard to do this at the moment—is able to win the confidence of families, so that when people say to them, “I can tell you this, and I cannot tell you that, and I have not been able to find out the following”, the families will feel confident that they have done their darnedest to discover what really went on.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I am sure the Secretary of State will agree that running any double agent inside a murderous organisation is bound to be a moral nightmare. The justification for such action is always—as it should be—that many more lives will be saved as a result, even if the agent is implicated in illegal and, indeed, murderous activities. What is unusual about this case is that it appears that more lives were not saved by this particular operation. Can the Secretary of State say whether the agencies accept that this particular operation was counterproductive, even in its own terms, and if he cannot share that with us openly, could it at least be shared confidentially with the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament?
Hilary Benn
The Intelligence and Security Committee may well wish to look at the Operation Kenova report and ask questions. The right hon. Gentleman put an important hypothetical point about the difficulty of balancing the considerations, but there is no doubt that the contributions that agents make are very important to protecting our national security and, as several Members have indicated to the House, were very, very important in the fight against those who were trying to destroy society in Northern Ireland and who were responsible for killing so many people during the course of the troubles.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
I commend the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) for securing the urgent question. We have talked about the experiences of the Kenova families in terms of having confidence in the process, and we recognise the complexity of the 28 years of the troubles. The Secretary of State has highlighted how the lack of transparency and answers leaves a void for relatives that is filled by their worst fears. That makes the provisions on the grounds of disclosure in the troubles Bill, which is currently going through the legislative process, even more important. How will we make sure that the best experiences of Operation Kenova are built into the next stages of the legislation?
Hilary Benn
We are doing that in a number of respects, including through the advisory committee to represent victims and survivors, the fact that there will be a new oversight board, and the changes the Bill is making to the provisions relating to disclosure. My hon. Friend made such a powerful point when she said that the lack of answers creates a void. It is a void that the families have had to live with for many, many years, which is why the whole House has an obligation to do everything we can to create a system that all families can have confidence in, so that it can look into all cases.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
On a day like today, it is important to remind ourselves that our security and intelligence forces saved hundreds of lives in the face of murderous terrorism. Terrorists, of course, kept no records to be pored over years later. Does the Secretary of State agree that Scappaticci was, first and foremost, a ruthless IRA murderer? Does he agree that the RUC and the Ulster Defence Regiment—whatever the renegade actions of a very tiny number of members, some of whom have rightly faced justice—were organisations of immense integrity, whose members’ service and bravery preserved many lives? Does he agree that the Denton report finally lays to rest the republican myth that the security forces were implicated in the Dublin and Monaghan bombings?
Hilary Benn
On the hon. and learned Gentleman’s latter point, that is indeed what the Kenova report says. That is one of many reasons why it is so important. I am not going to comment on the alleged agent with the name Stakeknife, for the reasons that I gave in answering the urgent question at the beginning. The Thompson judgment that we are currently awaiting is really important in respect of “neither confirm nor deny”. I have already indicated to the House that I join all right hon. and hon. Members in paying tribute to the work of the intelligence services and the security forces in trying to keep people safe in the face of murder and mayhem caused by many people—not only the republican movement, but the loyalist gangs who also killed a lot of people—during the troubles.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) for securing his urgent question. Like him and others across the House, I think today about the victims of terrorism who lost their lives, and their families. I want to acknowledge and commend Sir Iain Livingstone and Chief Constable Boutcher for their work, which is a demonstration of how important independence is.
The reports for families that Operation Kenova has produced demonstrate the value of independent and effective legacy investigations. With that in mind, I acknowledge the Secretary of State’s reference to his openness and urge him to think about appointments to the judicial panel of the new Legacy Commission. I believe that they should be made by the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission, rather than by any Secretary of State, because Operation Kenova demonstrates that independence is key if we are to effectively address the legacy of the past.
Hilary Benn
Independence is indeed extremely important to building a sense of confidence on the part of families that their cases will be properly looked into. I note my hon. Friend’s point about the appointment of judicial panel members for the commission, particularly in respect of the inquisitorial proceedings. I suspect that we may return to that when the Bill is in Committee.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The Secretary of State needs to go further. Several Members have pressed him on this point, but he still has not explicitly told the House. Given the extensive scrutiny directed at alleged agents within the UK establishment, what demands has the Secretary of State made of the Irish Government to disclose the extent and details of agents operating within the republican movement, particularly in the light of the irrefutable evidence of collusion that enabled the murder of RUC officers, UDR members and Protestant civilians, particularly in the border areas? Unlike the Secretary of State, I am not prepared to accept their say-so when for decades they have covered up, housed and protected terrorists, and denied innocent victims truth and justice.
Hilary Benn
In the light of what the hon. Member has just said, I hope that she would welcome the commitments that the Irish Government have given—
Hilary Benn
She shakes her head, but she is saying—[Interruption.] Well, the past and what happened or did not happen in Ireland is a matter for the Irish state to deal with, but I hope the hon. Member would welcome the commitments that have been given to co-operate to the fullest possible extent with the new Legacy Commission, which is not the case in relation to the current commission established by the legacy Act, for reasons of which she and the whole House will be well aware. Whatever happened in the past, the most important thing is that we enable families who are still waiting for answers to get access to all the information that is available now. That is what the Irish Government are committed to.
Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)
On Kenova, I can express only the horror experienced by some of the victims, but the wider context of our security services is very important. I worked in counter-terrorism in the Foreign Office, on the anti-ISIS campaign. The Secretary of State speaks about strict regulation, and that resonates. He speaks about “neither confirm nor deny”, and I entirely agree with his points. Does the Secretary of State agree that the ethics around the handling, protection and recruitment of agents are incredibly complex? It is all too easy to criticise our security services, which in my experience do an outstanding—and at times simply unbelievable—job in saving lives.
Hilary Benn
I do agree with the hon. Member. From the contact that I have had with the security services since I took up this post, I know that the commitment, dedication, passion, ingenuity and determination to protect people today is quite something to behold. Some judgments are complex—there is no doubt about that—but it is also important that we learn from the past and what did not go right. Anyone who looks at the final Kenova report and sees what it reveals about what went on in some cases will recognise the importance of learning from the past. That is why the legislation that Governments have passed since has been so important: that legislation recognised the complexity, but reached the conclusion that we have to have a legal framework that governs it, with independent oversight. We now have that, but that was not the case in the 1970s and the 1980s.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
In the press conference this morning, the Chief Constable said that the
“investigation has demonstrated that murders that could and should have been prevented were allowed to take place”.
There was always an alternative to murder in Northern Ireland, so does the Secretary of State agree with me that it is now time for an inquiry to identify and hold to account those who directed terrorism and murder in Northern Ireland?
Hilary Benn
I say to the hon. Gentleman that we have the commission, established by the last Government in the legacy Act, which has the capacity to investigate all cases that are referred to it. When I came into office, I took the decision that we would retain but reform the commission, as opposed to abolishing it and starting again, as I was urged to do by some people in Northern Ireland. I think it was the right decision to take, not least because 100 investigations are currently taking place. However, we have to ensure that it is established and reformed in a way that gives all families confidence, and I would say that we are trying to achieve one mechanism to deal with finding answers to those questions. I have said to the House a number of times before that we are not going to be able to deal with legacy by a series of public inquiry after public inquiry. We need to establish the commission on the basis that it can do the job for everyone.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The report makes quite clear the extent of IRA brutality and murder in Northern Ireland, including murders within their own republican community. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that the First Minister of Northern Ireland can no longer remain ambiguous in relation to, first, her acknowledgment of and, secondly, her apology for what her fellow travellers did to people within their own community and within the wider community in Northern Ireland? Does he also accept that the real state collusion occurred when successive Governments in the Irish Republic hid terrorists; allowed them to store arms, train and cross the border; and then refused to extradite them? Instead of giving the Irish Government a role in the arrangements for the legacy of the past, will he commit to holding them to account for their sins of the past?
Hilary Benn
I say to the right hon. Gentleman that I certainly intend to hold the Irish Government to account for the commitments they gave in the framework that I announced jointly with the Tánaiste in September. Of course, there was always an alternative to what went on—always—and Northern Ireland eventually got there through the Good Friday agreement and the peace that has been revealed and sustained since 1998. It is for each individual to decide how they deal with that.
I say to the right hon. Gentleman that what we need to focus on now, because clearly there are things in the past that cannot be undone, is to learn from what we have learned—today’s report about what went on in all sorts of respects is an extremely important contribution to that—but also to make sure, as I have said a number of times, that families get the answers they are still waiting for. Kenova did a lot to do that for the families with whom it worked, but lots of other families still do not know. That is why we must have a commission that works for everyone.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
This report covers the activities of one informer within the higher echelons of the Provisional IRA, but does the Secretary of State agree that there is a risk that the findings of this report, when taken in isolation, fail to fully recognise the contribution made by informants and agents inside the IRA in stopping countless killings?
Hilary Benn
I think it is very important that we take a balanced view, and that we acknowledge successes, bravery and determination—we saw that in abundance during the troubles—but where things happened that should not have happened, we need to acknowledge them, because how can we make progress now and in the future if we do not learn the lessons of the past?
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
In analysing the report and the Secretary of State’s statement, people will be looking to the future as we try to ensure that no one rewrites the past. However, in trying to do that, does he agree that the murky world people such as Scappaticci inhabited brought about the consequences of 1994, when both the IRA and loyalists declared ceasefires, and that now is the time for the leaders of the political republican movement to say that what happened in the past was wrong and should not have happened, and to issue an unequivocal apology for the actions of the Provisional IRA?
Hilary Benn
I simply say to the hon. Gentleman, who raises a very important point, that we as a House are clear that there was always—always—an alternative to violence: it was not justified; it was never justified. When we look at the number of people on all sides who were killed in the troubles, we know the grief, the pain and the suffering that was caused. However, we also need to recognise that there was a process that led to the ceasefires and political power sharing, which has resulted in peace and stability in Northern Ireland ever since the signing of the Good Friday agreement. That is the most important thing we should hold on to while, as I have said, learning the lessons from the past and providing answers to the families who remain to find them.
I think this is the final question, so I will just share with the House that, about three and a half or four weeks ago, I went to Bragan bog with the two brothers and the sister of Columba McVeigh. He was 19 years of age when he was murdered by the Provisional IRA, and information suggests that his remains lie in that bog. It is a desolate place, and the search for his body has been going on for a very long time. The Independent Commission for the Location of Victims’ Remains has done such an important job in helping to bring back the remains of people who were murdered in such circumstances, so they could be laid to rest with their families present. I, like I am sure all Members of the House, long for the day when the bodies of Columba McVeigh, Robert Nairac, Seamus Maguire and Joe Lynskey are finally recovered, so all of the disappeared can rest where they should rest, with the knowledge of their families, so they can have some peace.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Mine is always the final, final question, Mr Speaker. I thank the Secretary of State very much for his answers. I also thank all of the security forces, the Army and the RUC for all they did to save lives. I think this House, the nation and Northern Ireland owe them a great debt for all they have done, and we should put that on the record.
When thinking of Kenova, my mind goes back to 1984 and the case of Jimmy Young, who lived in Portaferry in my constituency of Strangford. His case was part of the file sent to the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland that included a report on Stakeknife’s involvement, but no prosecution was ever initiated. What steps will be taken to ensure that the family members who are still alive and mourning Jimmy’s killing have access to as much information as legally possible and get some form of justice for his murder? I always ask for justice, and I am asking for justice for Jimmy Young and this family.
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) should please not walk in front of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) when the Secretary of State is answering his question.
Hilary Benn
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) always makes his contribution on matters such as finding answers for the families with real force and compassion. As he will be aware, Operation Kenova submitted a number of files to the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland. In only one case has a prosecution been taken forward, and I referred to that in my reply to the right hon. Member for Belfast East. In other cases, the PPS decided there was not a basis for a prosecution.
That is of course frustrating, but the independence of our prosecutorial system is an absolutely essential safeguard for all of us. It has to make a judgment that the two tests, of whether there is a reasonable prospect of a conviction and whether it is in the public interest to prosecute, are met. However, that does not mean that the family mentioned by the hon. Member for Strangford cannot still seek to get answers. That is what the commission is for: that is work it is undertaking currently and that it will do in the future, under the new arrangements that I hope the House will agree to put in place. We should leave no stone unturned in trying to give families what they have been looking for for such a long time, and I wish that for the family he mentioned.
Northern Ireland Troubles: Operation Kenova
Hilary Benn Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
I am making this written ministerial statement following the publication of the Operation Kenova final report earlier today.
The report covers the activities of the alleged agent Stakeknife, as well as other investigations referred to Operation Kenova by the Police Service of Northern Ireland.
The Operation Kenova investigators received the Government’s full co-operation and have completed a thorough investigation which, in the Government’s view, has been article 2 compliant.
The way in which the Kenova team, led by Sir lain Livingstone, and before him, by Jon Boutcher, have carried out their work and engaged with families has been exemplary. They were able to build trust with families, put victims first and provided many answers about what happened to their loved ones. Operation Turma, which was part of Kenova, resulted in the prosecution of an individual, now extradited from Ireland and awaiting trial, for the murder of three Royal Ulster Constabulary officers in 1982.
Kenova has set a new standard for future legacy investigations, and we have drawn on a number of those lessons in drafting the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. I wish to express my heartfelt condolences to all the families who lost loved ones in the appalling circumstances described in this sobering report.
Operation Kenova was asked to establish whether there was evidence of criminal offences by the alleged agent known as Stakeknife, or their alleged handlers. The activities of the alleged agent, and their role in the Provisional IRA, are deeply disturbing and should not have happened. The actions of the Provisional IRA led to the deaths of over 1,700 people, who were killed in the most brutal way, and whose remains—in some cases—were hidden in unmarked graves.
My thoughts are with all the families who lost loved ones to the Provisional IRA during the troubles, including as a result of the activities highlighted in this report. I would also like to commend the work of the security forces who operated at considerable personal risk in highly difficult circumstances.
On Operation Kenova’s request to the Government to name Stakeknife, I set out in a letter to Sir lain Livingstone on 13 August 2025, which I have placed in the Library, that
“Due to ongoing litigation relevant to the Neither Confirm Nor Deny policy, namely the Thompson Supreme Court appeal, a substantive and final response to your request will be provided after judgment has issued in that case.”
Judgment in the Thompson case is expected imminently, and we anticipate that this will provide some clarity on the use of NCND and the role of the courts.
The Government’s first duty is to protect the national security of the United Kingdom. When any agent—active, living or otherwise—is publicly identified by the state, that calls into question the whole premise of NCND and can deter future covert human intelligence sources from co-operation, while jeopardising the trust of current CHIS, even if such a confirmation of an identity were to happen decades after the events.
There have been significant reforms to agent handling practice, including through legislation, to ensure that lessons are learned from the past. The use of CHIS is nowadays subject to strict regulation under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and the CHIS (Criminal Conduct) Act 2021.
Compliance with this legislation and the related code of conduct is subject to rigorous scrutiny by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office. The investigatory powers tribunal also provides a forum for individuals to challenge the state if they believe CHIS have acted improperly or illegally.
As outlined in another letter to Sir lain in August 2025, the Government notes Kenova’s recommendation of a review of NCND and the security classification of past Northern Ireland legacy reports. Past reports are owned by a number of different bodies, including the UK Government, the PSNI and the Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland. The Government already follows a procedure for the declassification of historic material via the Public Records Act.
On the sections of the report regarding MI5’s discovery of material relevant to Kenova’s investigations of the alleged agent Stakeknife in 2024, it was deeply regrettable that the material was found after decisions were made by the Public Prosecution Service and the publication of the interim report on 8 March 2024. The Government are reassured, however, by former Assistant Commissioner Helen Ball QPM’s report, which found that none of the material was deliberately withheld from Kenova at an individual or organisational level. Helen Ball also found that much of this material had already been disclosed to Kenova during the original disclosure exercise. In its final report, Operation Kenova has said that MI5’s proactivity in volunteering the additional material is not consistent with a concerted attempt to conceal or cover up additional material. The Government are assured that MI5 has learned important lessons around information management and that proper procedures are now in place to reduce the risk of such a thing happening again.
The final Kenova Report also makes public the high-level findings of Operation Denton, which looked at killings carried out by the UVF Glennane Gang. The behaviour alleged in these findings, including collusion by individual members of the security forces, are shocking and would never be tolerated today. Checks and balances now exist to prevent such events from happening again. The Government will respond to the Denton Report when it is published in full, bearing in mind that there are related legal proceedings ongoing, as also in the case of Stakeknife.
In October, the Government brought forward the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, which will bring about much-needed reform to the way legacy is addressed. This follows the framework agreement with the Irish Government announced in September. This will fulfil the Government’s King’s Speech commitment to repeal and replace the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, acknowledge and address the suffering of victims and survivors, and take forward an unfinished part of the Good Friday Agreement.
We have drawn from the approach taken by Operation Kenova in drafting this legislation, particularly with regard to the formation of a new legacy commission, with statutory oversight arrangements to provide accountability and a statutory advisory group to ensure that the voices of victims, their families and survivors, including those who served, are heard as part of the commission’s work.
The Government responded to the recommendations in the interim Kenova Report in a letter to Sir lain Livingstone on 13 August 2025, which is available in the Library. On some of the matters raised, such as the recommendation of a state apology, the Government will not be considering this while litigation remains ongoing. Regarding Kenova’s suggestion that the longest day, 21 June, should be designated as a day when we remember those lost, injured or harmed as a result of the troubles, the Government are committed to recognising and supporting victims and survivors of terrorism. That is why the Government recently announced plans to introduce a national day, to be held on 21 August, dedicated to anyone in the UK impacted by terrorism—including terrorism related to the troubles. The Government are open to the suggestion of designating a day to specifically remember all of the victims of the troubles, as it is something that would carry significant weight. Our initial view is that this should be explored in consultation with the Northern Ireland Executive, victims and survivors groups and others.
Finally, I would like to pay tribute to Operation Kenova, and to Sir lain Livingstone and Jon Boutcher, for all of their work over the years. The investigations that they have led have been transparent and open to families who had many questions, and have always put victims first in everything they have done.
[HCWS1146]
Northern Ireland Troubles Bill
Hilary Benn Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
In 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that the detention of Gerry Adams—who was interned in July 1973—was unlawful because the interim custody order was not personally signed by William Whitelaw, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at the time. The Supreme Court’s view was that the wording of the provision indicated that the Carltona principle was displaced. The Supreme Court quashed Mr Adams’ convictions for escaping from prison while detained under the 1973 order, and he has since applied to the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland for miscarriage of justice compensation.
The Carltona-based challenge was made over 40 years after the order for Mr Adams’ internment. There had been no suggestion at the time of enactment or in the intervening period in any other previous case that the lawfulness of the interim custody orders were in doubt because they were made and signed by Ministers, rather than the Secretary of State personally. At the time that these decisions were taken, Ministers believed they were acting lawfully on the basis of the Carltona doctrine. We consider that, based on Parliament’s intention, they were right to do so.
We consider that it would be unjust and inappropriate in public interest terms for those who were detained under these orders to be able to make claims based on the fact that it was Ministers and not the Secretary of State personally who made the orders. Importantly, there has never been any argument that there was anything other than a proper and lawful substantive basis for making the orders in the Adams case—the grounds for detention were appropriate and sound under the legislation. There can thus be no real doubt that the decisions would have been precisely the same if it had been the Secretary of State taking the decision on the same material as was before the Ministers.
We consider that, in all the circumstances, the right course is one of correction, so that the law is treated as having always been as Ministers then understood it to be. Parliament can change, and can clarify, the law as it wishes, including to correct what it perceives to be errors or unintended consequences flowing from court decisions. It can also ensure that such a change is to be taken as having always been the case—in short, applying the correction of the law retrospectively. Parliament has done so in the past precisely to correct what it considers to have been an incorrect interpretation of the law by the courts.
Clauses 89 and 90 of the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill are specifically intended to address the erroneous interpretation made in Adams regarding the application of the Carltona principle. The Carltona principle is a vital principle for Government; and it is right that it should be protected, including by dealing with what are considered to be incorrect inroads into it. These clauses put it beyond doubt that the Carltona principle applied in the context of interim custody orders, by stating that any order made by a Minister of State or Under Secretary of State is to be treated as an order of the Secretary of State.
One effect of the clauses the Government are introducing is that compensation will not be payable in the Adams case and other similar cases. That is the effect of the provision made in the new clauses that they are to be treated as always having had effect—that is designed to ensure a genuine correction of the law. We consider that that is the right decision for Parliament to make. We also consider that it is a course that is compatible with our obligations under the European convention on human rights, which we take extremely seriously. For all the reasons I have given, I have felt able to make a section19(1)(a) Human Rights Act compatibility statement to that effect, and hope that the House agrees that this is the appropriate course of action to take.
[HCWS1063]