Northern Ireland Political Institutions: Reform

Jim Allister Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of reforming Northern Ireland’s political institutions.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Ms Vaz. I was talking briefly to colleagues on the way over here and I said, “This time a year ago, almost, we had the exact same debate.” That was a 30-minute debate on the reform of the institutions of Northern Ireland, and I was absolutely petrified of causing any controversy, so I did not take any interventions. This will be a 60-minute debate and I would much rather we have a conversation—rows, warts, fights and all, in good faith and in good spirit—and try to come together. I am really pleased to see colleagues in the Chamber from across the House; that really means something to me.

My motivation for this debate is not based on party politics. I feel that the people of Northern Ireland are looking at us, and they are calling for something better. I am not questioning the bona fides of any representative. I think that every single one of us is here to represent our constituents across Northern Ireland in good faith, and every single one of us does that as best we can. However, where I feel we run into difficulties is that we have a system of government that enables or permits—whatever we want to call it—collapse, and that becomes a difficulty. I do not need to rehearse the reasons why. My colleagues from Northern Ireland understand fully how we arrived at this situation and the system that it is based on.

Governing under the constant threat of collapse discourages long-term decision making; it entrenches short-term decision making and paralyses reform. Probably one of the best examples that we can give of that is that we are currently attempting to set a three-year budget for Northern Ireland, for the first time in at least 10 years, and it is extremely difficult to do so. Unfortunately, with the historical muscle memory of what has happened with our governance before, there is a real risk—and a concern and a worry among the public—that we simply cannot have difficult and challenging conversations that really challenge party positions in such a way that there is no fear of collapse.

I do not need to tell colleagues around the table today the price of collapse and constant interruption of government. Such a situation would not be acceptable anywhere else in the UK. Northern Ireland is part of the UK, and we should be treated as such. It would not be acceptable in a mayoralty anywhere in the north of England. Likewise, in the Republic of Ireland, this situation simply would not be tolerated, either after an election or during the course of a Government, where, to be fair, there is a real comparator, in that they have to form coalition Governments.

We are not exceptional and we are not unique in being asked to govern with people who have completely different views from ours. Many, many Governments around the world do that. I think that nearly 30 years after the Good Friday agreement being signed, the public at large—we all serve at their pleasure—are simply saying that enough is enough. The evidence is now overwhelming. I used to say to people 10 or 15 years ago that reform was a niche Alliance party talking point. I do not think we really reserve that luxury any more. I am not picking on any colleagues, but there are colleagues here from the SDLP and from other political parties who really have gone some way to advancing those arguments about reform of our institutions, and have expounded on those points very well.

We are not the only ones making this point. People within Unionism are saying the same thing. When it comes to people living in Northern Ireland, right across nationalism, Unionism and people like me who are neither of those things, there is now a real groundswell of opinion. We have seen constant evidence in polling from various surveys that shows people in Northern Ireland simply do not want to have this system any more.

I do not feel that I am better than anybody else because I do not designate as Unionist or nationalist—part of me is Unionist and part of me is nationalist, but all of me is united community. I feel strongly about that point. We need to bear in mind going forward that the desire for reform is not the preserve of any one political tradition or viewpoint in Northern Ireland, or the solution offered by them. It is felt right across the political spectrum.

The Assembly has now spoken. Just before Christmas, for the first time, it formally backed Alliance’s call for institutional reform. It is not symbolic; it is a historic milestone, and Members across the Legislative Assembly acknowledge that the ability of any single party to veto decision making is untenable. Misuse of mechanisms such as the petition of concern has damaged trust and stability, and reform is now necessary, not optional.

I remember the previous collapses. In December 2019, whenever we were convening all-party talks on how to restore the institutions, there was a viewpoint that it was not the right time to have a discussion about how to reform them. I did not agree with that at the time, but with hindsight I understand why those points were made and why some held those views.

I understand that it is simply not good enough for me to say, “I want these changes done tomorrow in this prescriptive way, and that is the end of it.” That is not how we will move forward in any meaningful way, if no one gets what they want. That was what the entire Good Friday agreement was about.

To colleagues who might take the position that this pulls at the fabric of the Good Friday agreement to the point where it breaks, I would dispute that completely and utterly. It was not good enough to simply have the agreement signed to enable peace. That was very much hard-won and hard-fought and something that we need to jealously guard, but it is not enough any more to say to people that we can forgo the difficult job of governance.

I want this to be a positive and productive conversation. I am willing to hear different viewpoints and to accept that others will disagree about how we do this, but where there is consensus, we owe it to the people of Northern Ireland to say that enough is enough. We need to honour them and their wishes. The reforms remain modest but are essential: removing the ability of any one party to block the formation of an Executive, replacing parallel consent with arrangements that encourage genuine cross-community participation, and restoring the petition of concern to its original purpose of protecting rights, not blocking progress. We have seen, even in recent weeks, how veto mechanisms continue to be abused. That is not safeguarding democracy; it is corroding it. These reforms would not dismantle power sharing. They would make it workable. They are the bare minimum.

To Unionist colleagues in particular, I want to make a plea, or at least make my own views known and quite plain. I completely understand why some people in the community, given the different political make-up across Northern Ireland, now see discussions about reform as being couched in some sort of ulterior motive of majoritarianism and exclusion. It would trouble me greatly, to my core, to the extent that I would not participate, if any Government or Administration simply excluded Unionists because they did not feel that there were enough of them to—in a crass way—make up the numbers.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

The hon. Member very piously tells us what would offend her, but of course it did not offend her in December 2024 to be a cheerleader for the Secretary of State railroading through a protocol that treats Northern Ireland as a colony of the EU, and to continue support without cross-community consent on a basis of majoritarianism. There is quite a gaping void between what she is saying today and what her party did in December 2024.

[Sorcha Eastwood]

I thank the hon. and learned Member for making his point. I see where he is coming from. I believe that Brexit was a fundamental act of self-harm. I think it caused damage to relations, and certainly I think that most people in Northern Ireland—Unionist, nationalist or other—regret Brexit. I completely understand where Unionist colleagues are coming from, because there is a difference, and it is incumbent on all of us to work to ameliorate and patch up issues that pertain to this day in terms of the operation of the protocol, but I do not want to get sidelined on that.

In conclusion, I want people to understand that this is a genuine and heartfelt appeal for constructive work. We are now calling on the UK and Irish Governments to no longer sit back and wait for that crisis and collapse. That is not the time to have these conversations at all. We are calling on the Secretary of State to immediately convene a process of institutional reform, to engage the co-guarantors of the agreement in both Governments, and to move beyond the delay and prevarication that are simply not honouring the wishes of Northern Ireland.

People who are Unionist, nationalist and other voted for a Government, and we simply cannot sit here and say that we do not see fit to provide one for them. This is not controversial. This is not new. It is not part of other polities—it is not part of anywhere else in the UK or the Republic of Ireland. I simply ask that we try to move forward today in good faith and in accordance with the wishes of the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland, who simply want to have a Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I commend the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) for securing this debate. That is probably where the consensus largely ends, although I suppose I could agree with her—indeed, I would put it much more robustly—that our system of government at Stormont has lamentably and demonstrably failed. The Executive eventually scraped together what passes for a programme for government; they now cannot agree a budget, and we have individual Ministers locked in litigation, one with the other. Of course, all that is against the background of the Executive almost more often being down than up.

The elephant in the room, to which no one has been prepared to refer, is this question: why is this system of government not working? It is very simple. If the only form of devolution we can have is one based on the prerequisite that a party that does not even want Northern Ireland to exist, never mind succeed, must be at the heart of the Executive, it should not be a surprise to anyone that that Executive stumbles and fails. You cannot say, “We will make a success of Northern Ireland, yet we need an all-Ireland.” The very raison d’être of Sinn Féin is, first, not to believe that Northern Ireland should even exist and, secondly, to ensure that it is not a success. There is no better place from which to make sure it is not a success than from the inside of Government. That is the fundamental reality.

Day and daily in Northern Ireland, we hear very clearly from the so-called First Minister that everything they are doing and everything they are working towards is about getting a referendum to destroy the United Kingdom and take Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom. If we create a system where those with that motivation, who have no desire to make Northern Ireland work, must be at the heart of government, and we cannot have a Government without them, it should not be a surprise that the system fails. It is not rocket science.

[Sorcha Eastwood]

Actually, I agree: I want Northern Ireland to succeed and I do want to be a success for Northern Ireland. Does the hon. and learned Member not agree that the constant collapses are destroying the premise of a successful Northern Ireland and we should do everything we can to stop that happening?

[Jim Allister]

If the hon. Member had been listening more carefully, she would have understood why it is failing. It is failing because at its heart is a party that does not want Northern Ireland to succeed and, if it has the levers of power, will never permit it to succeed. That is the fundamental point.

What do we do? It is quite clear to me that the Executive is the failing side of devolution in Northern Ireland. It is the Executive that has collapsed multiple times. We need to distinguish the various strands of devolution. We have the Executive devolution, we have legislative devolution, and I suppose we have the scrutiny side of devolution. The latter two have actually worked, within limits, relatively well. The lamentable failure is on the side of the Executive.

If the only type of Executive that can be formed has at its heart a party that wants Northern Ireland to fail, the obvious answer is not to have an Executive of that type. We should sustain the legislative devolution and the scrutiny and pass the Executive powers to the central Government, but we should make their Ministers pass their legislation through the Assembly and make their Ministers’ actions subject to the scrutiny of the Assembly. Indeed, it would be far more vigorous scrutiny than at present, because at the moment the scrutineers who sit in the Assembly Committees scrutinising Ministers are members of the same parties that they are scrutinising. If Assembly Members were scrutinising Ministers from the Northern Ireland Office, it would be a lot more vigorous, I assure you.

If we are to get government that works, we have to face the reality that the current system is incapable of working. It will never work, because of the fundamental flaw that at its heart is a party that thinks that Northern Ireland should not even exist, never mind succeed. We have to circumvent that. If we cannot have an Executive that allows those who want Northern Ireland to work to govern, Executive powers must be vested where they will not be subject to that restraint and that flaw.

We should keep the part of devolution that is working. If we ever come to the point at which we are capable of forming a workable Executive, we should restore it, but we cannot go on as we are, limping from one crisis to another. Stormont is now a byword for failure in Northern Ireland. People just roll their eyes and laugh at the very thought of good government coming from there. We are only going to take politics further down the longer we cling to a system that is lamentably and totally failing. Let us get some new thought, which needs to be focused on getting an Executive system that can work. It does not need to be perfect, but I want to be very plain: flawed British rule, subject to the restraints of Stormont, would be preferable to destructive, malevolent Sinn Féin rule.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

That is the issue; my hon. Friend puts it well. It is better to have it in the hands of local people.

[Jim Allister]

On the childcare point, the childcare money was Barnett consequential. It was of the order of £50 million, but Stormont chose to spend only £25 million of it on childcare, so in fact under devolution we saw a diminution in what was available for childcare.

[Jim Shannon]

I am not going to get into a row, but under devolution we have seen the delivery of childcare. People see that in my constituency and every constituency in Northern Ireland, whether they like it or not. I tell you what: my constituents like it, and that is the point I want to make.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Patrick]

The work of the Committee could be quite important. It could provide an opportunity for agreement on these important issues in the future, and I welcome its work. I have met the Executive Ministers in Northern Ireland and there is consensus on the need to improve public services that people rely on. I know it is a priority for them, and indeed it is for this Government.

[Jim Allister]

The Minister has talked several times about consensus. Can he therefore explain why, when given the opportunity to live by the fundamental principles of the Belfast agreement and cross-community consent, his party eschewed and dismantled that when it came to this question: should people in Northern Ireland, for the next four years, be subject to laws in 300 areas that they do not make and cannot change, and which are imposed on them by the EU treating Northern Ireland as a colony? Why did consensus not matter then?

[Matthew Patrick]

The hon. and learned Gentleman raises a point about cross-community consent in the Windsor framework. The democratic consent vote is premised on cross-community support, and if the vote does not obtain cross-community support, that will require an independent review, and it will mean that the next vote is in four years rather than eight years. As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, this happened in December 2024. Ultimately, I would say that it is right that such a change to trading arrangements that addresses the unique circumstances in Northern Ireland should rely on a majority in the Assembly.

I turn to public service transformation. I am immensely proud that, through the last spending review, the Government secured a £19.3 billion settlement for Northern Ireland, which is the largest settlement in the history of devolution. The funding was secured so that the Northern Ireland Executive can deliver the public services that the people of Northern Ireland deserve. If that was not enough, a further £370 million was secured through Barnett consequentials just before the new year. I believe that that funding provides the basis—the very foundation —through which the Executive can transform public services in the months ahead.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Allister Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[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.

Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

Jim Allister Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[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.

Northern Ireland Troubles: Operation Kenova

Jim Allister Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[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.

Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

Jim Allister Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 18th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

I shall come on to this point, but decisions about prosecutions are made by prosecutors independently—that is the absolute foundation of our independent legal system—based on the evidence. If one looks at the facts, in the 27 and a half years since the Good Friday agreement, one veteran has been convicted for a troubles-related offence; going back to the point made by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), that veteran received a suspended sentence.

If asked to give evidence to an inquisitorial proceeding, any veteran will be entitled to seek anonymity, as is already the case for public inquiries and inquests. The commission and coroners will have to consider the health and wellbeing of elderly witnesses, and whether it would be appropriate for them to give evidence at all. A new statutory advisory group will provide an opportunity for victims and survivors of the troubles, including those from a service background, to be heard during the commission’s work. This group will, of course, not include anyone who has been involved in paramilitary activity.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

The Secretary of State says that the group will not include any former paramilitaries, but where in clause 8—or elsewhere—is there a prohibition on such participation? The clause is about victims and survivors, and those terms are undefined. Under our current iniquitous definition, a victim could be somebody who made themselves a victim by blowing themselves up with their own bomb. According to the clause, such a person could serve on the advisory panel.

[Hilary Benn]

I would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to reflect on what I have just told the House: anyone who was previously involved in paramilitary activity will not be appointed to the victims and survivors group. I am giving the House that assurance as the Secretary of State.

These measures will be complemented by other commitments to ensure, for instance, that no veteran is cold-called. The Defence Secretary and I will continue to work with veterans, the Royal British Legion, the Veterans Commissioners and others to ensure that we get this right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Fifty years ago this month, Columba McVeigh was taken away by the IRA. He was murdered and his body was disappeared. His family are still searching for his remains. Two years later, the same happened to Captain Robert Nairac. Before that, there was Jean McConville, who we know about—a widowed mother of 10, disappeared by the IRA. Eventually, many years later, her family were reunited with her remains.

The people who carried out those tragic murders—those despicable war crimes—would, if the Conservative party had its way, be free from any concern and from prosecution. Majella O’Hare was 12 years old when she was shot by a British soldier on her way to chapel in Armagh. The same goes for Majella. Patsy Gillespie was chained to a van by an IRA unit and made to drive the van with a bomb into an army base on the Buncrana Road in Derry. Patsy was killed along with five other soldiers, and the people who murdered them would be free from prosecution if it were up to the Members on the Opposition Benches.

I have to say that as I sat with the families of Bloody Sunday in a court last month and looked at their devastated faces after 53 years of searching for justice, I expected better from some of our leaders and politicians. I did not expect tweets with the Parachute Regiment insignia being put out by some senior Members of this House and I did not expect fulsome support for Soldier F from others. Let me just put this on the record, because it is important. It seems to me that lots of people who talk about Bloody Sunday never actually bothered to read the Saville inquiry—an inquiry that was, of course, set up by a British Government, led by a British judge and supported by subsequent British Prime Ministers.

Soldier F, by his own admission, killed five people on Bloody Sunday. He killed Michael Kelly and William McKinney. He shot James Wray in the back and while Wray was lying face down on the floor in Glenfada Park, Soldier G came over and finished him off, standing on top of him and shooting him in the back. Soldier F then shot Paddy Doherty, who was crying out that he did not want to die alone, so Bernard McGuigan crawled to him waving a white handkerchief. What did Soldier F do to Bernard McGuigan?

[Jim Allister]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Colum Eastwood]

I am going to finish this. What did Soldier F do to Bernard McGuigan? He shot him in the head, killing him instantly. He then tried to kill an Italian journalist who was looking through a window in the Rossville flats. Soldier F shot six bullets into that window and by a miracle Fulvio Grimaldi survived. Soldier F then went on to pervert the course of justice by lying through his teeth, claiming that four of the people he shot, who were subsequently proven to be innocent civilians, were engaged in riotous behaviour. He went to Fort George army base, where the people who were arrested that day were being held. He assaulted several civilians, including a Catholic priest, Terence O’Keeffe. He then stood a 16-year-old boy, Denis McLaughlin, up against a gas blow heater until he fainted and collapsed. What did he do then? He kicked the young fella to his feet and asked him whether he wanted a drink. When the young man answered that he did, he spat in his mouth.

A few months later, on 7 September 1972, Soldier F went to the Shankill Road—we do not hear that from Unionist politicians, by the way—and admitted shooting a Protestant man called Robert Johnston. He lied again, saying that Robert was a gunman. He was not, and the coroner’s court made that absolutely clear. Robert Johnston was totally innocent as well. I have never once heard a Unionist politician, or anybody in this House, stand up for Robert Johnston and the other man killed on that day.

[Jim Allister]

Is the hon. Member saying to this House that the evidence of the person just described, Soldier G, who he has described as a liar and a perjurer, should have been used to convict Soldier F? Does the hon. Member not accept the verdict of our court? He appeals for justice. Our courts have given a verdict on Soldier F. Does he accept it?

[Colum Eastwood]

There was one reason that I and the Bloody Sunday families accepted the verdict. It was because the point was made absolutely clear: between 1970 and 1974, the British Government, the British Army, the Royal Military Police and the RUC were engaged in a cover-up of mass proportions, when any single member of the British Army who was arrested was questioned without legal representation and not under caution. That meant that any of those cases were doomed before we even got started.

What I am laying out in this House today—and the hon. and learned Member might not like it—is not whether or not there was a conviction in the court; I am laying out the truth, not as I see it but as Soldier F admitted it, and as was found by an international inquiry of truth that was set up by the Labour Government and accepted by them as well. It was also accepted by Prime Minister Cameron, who said that what happened on that day was “unjustified and unjustifiable.” Then, we see the British Government and the MOD paying at least £4.3 million to defend somebody whose actions they knew were unjustified and unjustifiable. That is the truth. Those are the facts. He got far more legal representation than anybody would under legal aid, and if anybody wants to check those figures out, they are available for all to see.

What has happened in this debate is that people seem unable to come to the simple fact that every single murder was wrong, whether it was committed by the IRA or by the British Government, and that not one single person should be free from prosecution. They should not be allowed impunity. As for those people who stand in this House and talk about how great the British Army was and how much they care about the British Army, if that is your position, why then are you accepting and supporting people who committed mass murder?

“Soldier F” Trial Verdict

Jim Allister Excerpts

Monday 3rd November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

I would cite to the right hon. Gentleman the case of Mr John Downey, to whom I have referred in the House before. He received one of those letters, and as a result his trial for the Hyde Park bombings was halted by the judge, but the public record will show that Mr Downey is currently awaiting trial for two murders committed during the troubles, in which case the letter that he received cannot—I repeat, cannot—be said to have granted him immunity from prosecution.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

I greatly welcome the “not guilty” verdict on Soldier F, but has the Secretary of State no empathy with Soldier F, a man who has lived through years of turmoil and torture while awaiting prosecution, in circumstances in which it was patently obvious that the evidence was never going to stack up? As a lawyer, I am absolutely astounded that this prosecution got as far as it did, because it relied entirely, in terms of what was relevant, on the word of two individuals, both of whom had by then been depicted as liars and perjurers, and neither of whom could be cross-examined—yet our so-called independent prosecution service persisted with the prosecution. Is that not the very essence of what is vexatious, and does the Secretary of State agree that those who campaigned for this persecution of Soldier F should accept the verdict that he is not guilty, and leave the man to live out his years in peace?

[Hilary Benn]

It is a fundamental principle of our legal system that we accept the verdicts of the courts, even if we may not agree with them. The hon. and learned Gentleman is a distinguished lawyer, and he expresses his views regarding the basis of that prosecution. The only point that I am making is that that decision is made by independent prosecutors, not by any of us.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Allister Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

It certainly does make it more important, because it is a piece of legislation that has not worked and did not command support in Northern Ireland. If legislation is passed in this House that does not command support in Northern Ireland, how on earth can we expect the answers that families are seeking, which the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) referred to a moment ago, to be provided? We have a responsibility to give more people in Northern Ireland confidence in the new arrangement so that they will come forward to get the answers they have been seeking.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

The Secretary of State has done much to talk up the alleged special provisions in relation to ex-servicemen, but legally is it not the case that any such provisions would have to apply across the board? If I am wrong about that, will the Secretary of State now tell the House which special provisions apply exclusively and only to servicemen?

[Hilary Benn]

The provisions that apply exclusively and only to service personnel are: first, the arrangements to prevent cold calling—a protocol will be agreed with the commission in relation to that—and secondly, not being required to rehearse the history when the Ministry of Defence would be perfectly capable of providing that information. The hon. and learned Gentleman, being a distinguished lawyer, will know that, in respect to other arrangements for witnesses, the law requires that they are available to all witnesses.

Northern Ireland Troubles

Jim Allister Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

The aim of the remedial order is to remove from the statute book provisions in the previous legislation that have been found to be incompatible with our obligations. I would just say that the letters of comfort did not offer immunity. That has been quite clear from Lady Justice Hallett’s review and what the Chief Constable and others have said.

I want to reassure the right hon. Gentleman on the interim custody orders. The Supreme Court judgment was in 2020. The last Government did not know what to do about that: it was not a judgment that the Government expected, and they did not know how to deal with the question of potential compensation. In the end, two Members of the other House introduced what are now sections 46 and 47. They were voted on, but they were subsequently found to be ineffective in achieving the objective, when the court said that they were incompatible.

What I have just told the House is that the new draft remedial order will not remove them from the statute book. Sections 46 and 47 will remain in place until such time as the new legislation I am introducing takes effect. It is a flimsy defence, because it has already been found by the courts to be ineffective, but it will remain in place. It shows that I have listened to the representations that were made about sections 46 and 47, and it is placed in the remedial order. I am now going to deal with the problem by legislation in the way that I set out.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Scores, if not hundreds, of people in Northern Ireland lost their lives because of the safe base and the haven that the Republic of Ireland offered their IRA murderers. That was where they had their arms dumps, that was where they had their training camps and that was where they returned to for sanctuary, safe in the knowledge that extradition would invariably be refused. Yet it is with the Government of that territory that the Secretary of State has chosen to co-design these proposals. He did not co-design them with the innocent victims of terrorism; he chose to co-design them with the Government of the territory that facilitated the victim makers. Why, then, should any innocent victim have any confidence in these proposals, particularly as they still require nothing meaningful from the Republic of Ireland? There is a tentative promise that, if necessary, there will be co-operation, but there is no apology for the Republic’s role in facilitating terrorism for years. Did the Secretary of State even seek an apology publicly from the Republic of Ireland? That is the same Government who to this day continue with an inter-state action against this Government. How could any of this proposal command widespread support when that is its genealogy?

[Hilary Benn]

I say to the hon. and learned Gentleman that we can remain stuck in the past and think of a thousand reasons why, “This isn’t good enough,” and, “We shouldn’t do this,” or, “We shouldn’t do the other.” The responsibility on the House is to try to find a way of moving forward, because the fact that so many families do not have answers is a product of—if I may say so—people being stuck in the past, and we need to move beyond that.

The hon. and learned Gentleman is mistaken, if I may gently chide him, in saying that these proposals have been co-designed with the Irish Government. I have said already that I would have taken these steps regardless of whether we reached an agreement with the Irish Government, because the mess left to us by the last Government forces whoever is in office now to deal with the consequences of a piece of legislation that did not work. But I will agree with him on one thing: in the end, it will be the families who will decide whether this new approach allows them to find the answers. I cannot say too many times that that is what really matters in all this, because it is those families who have influenced me more than anyone else in the discussions I have had.

Northern Ireland Veterans: Prosecution

Jim Allister Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Thank you, Ms Lewell. I note the selective stricture following a speech that exceeded twice the limit that was allegedly set, but I will do my best.

May I begin, as a Member from a Northern Ireland constituency, by placing on record the heartfelt thanks of the people of Northern Ireland for the service of our military within Northern Ireland during our darkest days—those who stood between us and the horrendous terrorist threat that we faced? I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) and include the gallant local security services of the UDR and the RIR in that. All of us in this House who daily exercise freedoms need to be mindful that when those freedoms were under the most horrendous terrorist attack, it was our security forces who stood between us and their destruction. For the many who paid the ultimate sacrifice, we want to remember their service and sacrifice today.

The route to the prosecution of our security services is now through the inquest process. It is the inquest process that is poisoning the well of justice in Northern Ireland. Remember this: an inquest, as has been said, is supposed to be about who died, where they died and how they died. Our Government have allowed inquests in Northern Ireland to become unfettered in their overreach, as illustrated most dramatically in the Clonoe inquest, where every outcome was explored to the point where the judge presiding over that inquest reached wholly prejudicial findings, which then resulted in him saying, “I am now referring this to the PPS.”

Let us remember this: inquests operate on the balance of probabilities. That is how we reach a verdict in an inquest, whereas in a criminal prosecution we reach a verdict by proving beyond all reasonable doubt. Yet four SAS soldiers, according to the presiding judge, were meant to step forward and say to nine approaching fully armed IRA men, with a huge machine gun on the back of their lorry, “Hands up, please surrender”. According to the coroner, that is what they were supposed to do, even though those IRA men had just shot up a police station, returned celebrating their actions by firing over the house of a deceased terrorist who had been one of their own, and then arrived at a car park. In the most outrageous overreach, the coroner said that they were ambushed by the SAS, and the soldiers should have said “Hands up, please surrender”, with no regard to the fact that when facing nine fully armed terrorists, a split-second decision has to be made.

In England, that could not have happened, because under the inquest rules there, when a coroner reaches the view that there may have been some unlawful activity, he must stop the inquest and refer the matter to the prosecution service. That is the right way to go, because it is for the PPS, not the coroner, to look at the matter and decide the approach. The Secretary of State needs to bring into effect in Northern Ireland the same rules that govern inquests in England, so that if there is an allegation of illegality—or it occurs to the coroner there might be—he stops the inquests and sends it to the PPS, rather than giving an outlandish ruling that creates the public perception that there is huge criminality. That is the lawful and proper way to go.

I must say I regret the fact that when I wrote to the Secretary of State pointing that out a few weeks ago, I got a limp response that really it is a matter for the Justice Department in Northern Ireland. No—this Government are said to be tackling legacy issues, and if they are to do so, they need to tackle inquests and cut off the root that is now producing the potential prosecution of some of the bravest of our citizens.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Allister Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

It is the requirement of the Windsor framework, which the last Government negotiated, to address the basic problem of having two different systems and an open border. Everybody knows that agricultural machinery needs to be properly cleaned. If that is the case and the appropriate label, which is straightforward, is applied, there is nothing to stop the machinery moving back to Northern Ireland.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

If the reset deal is supposed to bring an end to the SPS checks, when will the customs posts, which are there for the purpose of carrying out those checks, be demolished? Instead, the Secretary of State willingly presides over the ever-tightening EU noose on our economy, with agricultural machinery being the latest that has to kowtow to EU diktats. Meanwhile, trade diversion is rampant and the Secretary of State looks the other way. When will he stop acting as the Secretary of State for the EU and start acting as the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland?