Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 21st October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

It is absolutely essential that the Irish Government fully co-operate with the process. I am very confident that they will do so. I have spoken directly to Jim O’Callaghan and Helen McEntee, the two Ministers responsible for these issues in the Irish Government. But they are partners of ours; we need to work with them to be able to get answers for the many thousands of people who lost loved ones during the troubles era.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. Beyond the Battlefield in my constituency delivers care for those soldiers and veterans who fall under the radar and are not picked up by the charities—those who have PTSD, have had family breakdowns or have been in prison. What can be done to ensure that Beyond the Battlefield, which looks after the veterans who others forget about, has the necessary funding to allow it to do more and to help more people?

[Chris Bryant]

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

Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

[Alex Burghart]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Burghart]

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

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

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

[Jim Shannon]

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

Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Monday 19th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I have not shared a single amendment. I have talked about the broad thrust of some of the amendments with some members of the Irish Government, but I have not shown any of the amendments to anybody in the Irish Government. I think the first they ever saw of the amendments was when they were tabled in this House and appeared before everybody else. On occasion, as part of the consultation with various special forces groups and others, we have, of course, talked about some of the broad issues. I have wanted to consult as widely as I possibly can, and in some of those instances, we showed some draft amendments to, I think, the Special Forces Association and to some of the generals and others, but we certainly have not done that with any other Governments.

The first of my three headings is improving the process for victims and families, including through further changes to the commission. The second is ensuring we have the strongest possible safeguards in place for our former service personnel. The third is addressing concerns about repeat investigations and the importance of compelling new evidence.

First, we must ensure that the process for victims and families is open, accessible, efficient and effective. Much has been learned in recent years from Operation Kenova and other investigations. The legacy commission must be able to command the respect and confidence of all families. That is why the Bill strengthens the commission’s investigative powers, improves the disclosure regime, puts in place new conflict of interest duties, allows for public hearings in certain cases, and creates a new victims and survivors advisory group. It is why the Bill repeals the immunity scheme—which has been rejected across communities, and to which we shall return tomorrow—and it is why we must secure information sharing arrangements with the Irish authorities.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for setting the scene and we look forward to his comments. In relation to the Republic of Ireland, we have seen the news in the paper today—others will have seen it as well; I know I am not the only person who reads the papers—about Brian Stack, a prison officer down south who was murdered. His son says in the paper today that he knows who the murderers are. He has given the names to the Garda Síochána, but nothing has happened. How can the legislation before us today make the Republic of Ireland more accountable and ensure that those who killed Brian Stack, a prison officer in the Republic, are made accountable? That is what we all want to see. I want to see it, and so does Brian Stack’s family.

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, and it is similar to a point he made last week in the carry-over debate. I agree with him. Of course, the Irish Government have to provide all the information that could possibly lead to further families being able to get the answers they need. Of course, there are instances where the answers will not lie in any of the paperwork the UK Government have, but might lie somewhere in the archives and records of the Irish Government.

One of the most significant achievements that was secured by my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), was the co-operation with the Irish Government. In the previous debates, people were worried that we were going to introduce our legislation and the Irish Government would then introduce theirs, but they have already put together and published their heads of terms—the equivalent of a draft Bill—and they have committed, both privately to me and publicly, that they will work in lockstep with us so that our legislation and their legislation will come into force on the same day. That is an important part of guaranteeing that people will get the answers they need.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn (Leeds South) (Lab)]

Let me begin by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the amendments that he has tabled. Notwithstanding what we have just heard, I think that they show beyond doubt that the Government have listened to the points made by many Members, veterans and others. They have been carefully thought out. They are balanced, reasonable and fair. They maintain the principle that everyone is equal before the law. Amendment 47, tabled by Opposition Members, would not ensure that, because it singles out one group for special treatment. The Government amendments recognise the special circumstances in which all those who served with such distinction in Operation Banner found themselves, and in my view, those amendments will enable the House to send the Bill to the other place with confidence.

The Bill, and the amendments, are needed for two principal reasons: first, because of the manifest failings of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023; and secondly because we need a system that can command confidence and provide help for all those people who are still searching for answers after all these years. That is what this is about—how their loved ones died, and at whose hands. I say “all those people”, because if I have a cause for regret, it is that it strikes me, when I reflect on the debate on the Bill in the House over the last year and a bit, that much of it has focused on just some of the people who were involved. Veterans are hugely important—many of them were killed, and many of their families are looking for answers on how and at whose hands their loved ones died—but if we are honest, we must recognise that we have failed collectively, as a House, to reflect the hurt, pain and suffering of the vast majority of families who lost loved ones during the troubles, and that is what I want to focus on in my brief remarks.

Some conversations and stories that we hear as Members of Parliament never leave us. Some remain with us and are imprinted on our very soul. I can think of many that I have had in Northern Ireland, including the first time I went to WAVE, a wonderful organisation that supports so many people affected by the troubles. I had a meeting in Newry with Alan Black, the sole survivor of the Kingsmill massacre, which was found by an inquest—I shall return to this point—to have been carried out by the IRA; Eugene Reavey, whose three brothers were shot on the same day by the Ulster Volunteer Force and all died; and Michael O’Hare, whose 12-year-old sister Majella was shot and killed by a soldier while on her way to mass.

I remember standing in the bleakness of Bragan bog, to which reference was made earlier, with Columba McVeigh’s family as the search teams continued patiently to scrape, bit by bit, the surface of the black and grey earth, trying to find his last resting place. He was 19 years of age when he was kidnapped and murdered by the IRA. I remember the family of Private Tony Harrison, who was shot dead by the IRA on his fiancée’s sofa in her home in Belfast, and so many others. I am not alone; many Members of this House have heard such stories. Too many times, I have heard people say that somebody came from the police and said, “Don’t worry; we will leave no stone unturned to find out what happened,” but they never heard another word.

I think all of us understand that, at the height of the troubles, the number of killings was so great, and the circumstances in which investigation would need to have been carried out were so challenging—indeed, in some places, downright dangerous—that it was difficult for that work to be done. That is why it is so important that we now have a mechanism that allows such work to be completed, and in which all families in Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom can have confidence.

I have criticised the 2023 Act many times in exchanges. Much of it failed to command support from any of the political parties in Northern Ireland, or from victims and survivors. We should not forget that the legacy commission, which the Act established, has the power to undertake criminal investigations as well as fact finding. People listening to debates that we have had about this Bill might think that it introduces a new thing called criminal investigation, but it does not; that was provided for in the Act. However, the Act did establish the legacy commission.

When the report on the murder of Rory O’Kelly came out, I think it proved what the commission is there to do. For me, most important of all was the reaction of his family. Even though they could not name who was responsible for the killing, his daughter said that when they heard the details of what happened, it moved the family into

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

It has always been the case that the success or failure of the commission rests in the hands of the families who go to it, and on the judgment that they pass when the commission comes back with answers, in so far as it is possible to find them.

I would say this about inquests, which we will debate in detail tomorrow. I have heard some people make the criticism that they achieve nothing. I disagree profoundly, even though the inquests will now come to an end. Eight had started—and in my view, it was profoundly wrong to cut off an inquest that a family had seen begin—and the Solicitor General will deal with the remaining ones. I was puzzled when I became the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, because I had grown up thinking that, if there is a suspicious death, there is an inquest, but I found that there were many cases in which there had been no inquest at all for over 20, 30, 40 or 50 years. We only have to look at the impact on the family of the recent Springhill inquest, its findings and the apology that the former Prime Minister made from the Dispatch Box to see what it meant to the family, who had been waiting for 54 years to hear that their loved ones who had been killed, including children, had presented no threat to anyone.

[Jim Shannon]

First, I thank the former Secretary of State for his words and the incredible speech that he is making. I think as well of Raymond McCord—many of us in this Chamber will know him—whose son Raymond McCord Junior was murdered by the Ulster Volunteer Force because he stood up to the UVF in the Shankill Road; he was a strong person who had also been a member of the RAF Reserve. Since 9 November 1997, Raymond has sought an inquiry and justice for his son, and not once in all those years has he been able to find that. The right hon. Gentleman is speaking about finding justice, and justice is what I want. If I get a chance to speak, I will be speaking for justice. If Raymond McCord is watching on TV—he is not able to come here today—he will be watching for justice for his boy, and he grieves his boy almost 30 years later.

[Hilary Benn]

The hon. Member—my hon. Friend, if I might call him that—makes a very powerful point. Every family deserves, in so far as it is possible, to find an answer to how and at whose hands their loved ones died. We are debating all these amendments in order to create a means of finding those answers—a means that people can have confidence in; that was the point on which the previous legislation failed.

--- Later in debate ---

I would always have followed my orders, and throughout my operational tour, during the troubles and at any other time, I never witnessed or heard about anybody not following what they were supposed to do, according to the rules of engagement in the JSP—the joint service publication. We all knew exactly what we had to do. I was in Drumcree in ’96 when it kicked off, and it went from a very stable environment—

[Jim Shannon]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Stuart Anderson]

Yes, I will.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman is telling a remarkable story from his own experience and that of the officers he served with. One thing that this debate is perhaps not touching on, but should, is the number of lives that the British Army, the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the PSNI saved. Indeed, many in this Chamber owe their lives to the investigations and the deterrent effect of the RUC and the British Army, including my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), who had a bomb under his car, and myself as the Member for Strangford. The Castlewellan IRA unit were coming to get me, but they did not, because the RUC thwarted it. That is an example of the good things that they have done over the years, but that are never heard about. It is time they were.

[Stuart Anderson]

The hon. Member raises some valid points. A lot of people here have first-hand experience, and the RUC and the military did exceptional work during the troubles—beyond what it is possible even to explain here.

When I look at new clause 21 and amendment 47, I think about how we deal with memory and history. I will explain that in a bit more detail. The Secretary of State said that new clause 21 is illogical. I disagree. I believe that the bar should be exceptionally high.

I went to the Green Jackets reunion this summer. I had not been for 16 years, because—I have spoken of my history and my past—I had to have a break from my past. That is to say nothing against my friends, but I needed to move out of that environment until it was safe for me—given the violence, alcohol and other issues I have had—to go back into it. I had an amazing time at the reunion. I was with my colleagues, and people were telling me stories. Five of us all had exceptionally different memories of a story. People were telling me stories about when I got shot; I knew that they had joined the military five years after, but they were recounting it like they were there with me. It is not that they were making things up; they had heard it that many times that they believed they were there. You are reliving all of these points.

Let us have a look at what it was like to serve in Northern Ireland—this is the point that I want people to grasp in relation to amendment 47. I grew up in Hereford, and my dad was one of the first SAS soldiers to serve in Northern Ireland. We all knew people who had served in Northern Ireland. We knew young soldiers who would come back to the pub—I will not say what age I was first going to the pub—and people would say, “They’ve been over the water.” They did not talk about it; they did not want to talk about it. It was not that they were smashing the place up—some people did, but some reacted differently. They had seen things that their mind had not processed.

I have come through the other side of complex post-traumatic stress. I had therapy. I had witnessed and seen things in my life that my brain could not process. If you see something, you put it into a library in your brain. If you have a traumatic incident, you cannot process it and put it in the library, so it is sort of sat in the foyer. You cannot choose when you pull that up or when you do not. I went through therapy to reprocess all those things in my mind. I have many friends who I know have post-traumatic stress and have not dealt with it—they have just left those issues there. I went through EMDR—eye movement desensitisation and reprocessing— and cognitive behavioural therapy. That took me through things that I had no recollection of, but that the therapist was able to pull out of my brain. I had not remembered those things for many years.

We are going to ask people to go through that process with their memories. I am 50 now—I know that hon. Members are thinking, “You look a bit younger, Stu”—and I was at the very end of Op Banner. I was a teenager. We are asking one and two generations before me to recount things they might have suffered through post-traumatic stress—things that they do not want to remember or possibly cannot remember. If you ask two or three people about the same incident an hour after, they will all have a different reason for it. We have to stand for our veterans and draw a line under this. The Bill is not doing that.

The generals, some of whom I served with on operational tours, said that the Bill is a threat to national security, and I believe it is. It impacts on morale phenomenally. I am yet to find a group of veterans—people might disagree—who support it, and I have a very good network of people; my whole life has been spent in defence and security. I have not found anybody who supports what we are doing, and I believe that there will be unintended consequences. I do not believe that we are intentionally going after our veterans, but there will be unintended consequences and we will open the door to our veterans being in the dock for years to come.

--- Later in debate ---

[Al Carns]

I thank the Secretary of State for the way in which he has approached this Bill. The engagement with all parties has been second to none, and I absolutely support that engagement. I have so many people phoning me and talking to me about the positivity of that engagement, so the Bill is being taken forward through the right mechanisms.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Member is right to bring up the role of the Republic of Ireland, and what it does or does not do. I think of the case of the two superintendents, Breen and Buchanan, who were murdered at the border. It was Garda Síochána who colluded with the IRA to let them know what was going on. Now we find that not only did the IRA kill those men, but the Republic of Ireland and its Government in particular fell very far short. There are many other cases—my cousin is an example —but I also think of Jack Lynch. If the hon. Member casts his mind back, he will remember that Jack Lynch was the Taoiseach for the Republic of Ireland who was going to arm nationalists against the Unionists in Northern Ireland. That is where the canker lies—at the very top.

[Al Carns]

I thank the hon. Member for his contribution, and for his consistent analysis, scrutiny and support of all things Northern Ireland.

As my new clause is not going forward, we will continue —unfortunately, in my mind—with a twin-track approach. We will have the legacy commission on one hand, which in some cases is underfunded, and inquests on the other hand. We will waste a huge amount of money through that process, because I genuinely believe that that illusionary justice is very unlikely to come about. We will allow the process to drift on, potentially for up to 15 years. Think about what that means to someone who is 80, 75 or 70 years old—15 years of not knowing, of having to be worried about whether they will be called back or have to provide evidence in some way, shape or form about an incident 30 or 40 years ago. Sometimes, I cannot even remember what I did yesterday. We will keep our brave veterans, who I think have served valiantly, waiting in limbo.

Importantly, a lot of this activity is based on several factors, the first of which is the willingness of Ireland to support us. I completely support the Secretary of State’s move to hold Ireland to account for what it has said it will do, but let us see whether that happens. The second factor is the costs, which are astronomical. At minimum, an inquest costs £20 million. There are tens of inquests to go, and even if they go into the legacy commission, we are still talking about £5 million per inquest. That is significant. Then we have politics to think about. As this process progresses, it will consider Sinn Féin’s activity—either in Northern Ireland or in the Republic of Ireland—and how that affects both the legislation and the agreements Sinn Féin have made recently. On top of all of that, if new evidence—new biometrics, the smoking gun—is found, people will only go to prison for two years, so what is the point?

As for information recovery, there is no new information unless it comes from Ireland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

I have listened to many of the contributions to this debate. They have been a credit to the House; this has been the sort of well-informed debate that we should be having about these complex and difficult issues.

As Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I draw attention to the recommendations and findings of our report following our legislative scrutiny of this important Bill. The JCHR report on the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill was published on 7 September. It formed part of our regular scrutiny of Bills that raise human rights issues. Our legal team looked closely at the Bill; I particularly thank Alyssa Curry, deputy counsel on human rights in international constitutional law, for her tireless work on both the Bill and the accompanying remedial order.

We took oral evidence on the Bill on 28 January and 22 April. I am grateful to the Northern Ireland Office for its engagement, including the former Secretary of State and my constituency neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), as well as the former Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick). I am grateful also to the current team on the Front Bench, including the Secretary of State, who gave me his time last week.

We are particularly pleased that the Northern Ireland Office provided a full human rights memorandum, albeit belatedly. I use this opportunity to remind Treasury Benchers of the expectation that all Departments should provide those memoranda in detail when a Bill is introduced, as set out in the Cabinet Office guide to making legislation.

Our overall conclusion was that the Bill represented

“a vast improvement on the Legacy Act in terms of human rights compliance”.

However, there were still areas where we felt it could be strengthened; I will come on to those. We also concluded:

“The Troubles Bill is an opportunity for the parties to resolve the legacy of the Troubles. The parties responsible must not waste this opportunity.”

As many have said, this is possibly our last opportunity to resolve them.

The Government have already accepted our recommendation on Attorney General consent. We are glad that that sensible concession has been made and will be implemented through Government new clause 50, if it is accepted by the House. We feel that it will give all parties more confidence about the independence of decisions to prosecute troubles-related crime. We also reported on the Northern Ireland remedial order on 28 February and 9 December 2025. We are very pleased that the Government have now accepted our advice to proceed no further with the order and that instead its contents will be incorporated into the Bill, if the amendments that the Government have tabled are made.

We recommended several other changes, which have not yet been made. I will focus on two; the third was raised by my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow). First, there is the appointment of judicial panel members. Judicial panel members or JPMs will be vital to the functioning of the legacy commission. They will have to produce a final report on the findings of an investigation under part 3 of the Bill; preside over “inquisitorial proceedings” under part 4 of the Bill, which includes deciding how the proceedings will be conducted; decide whether and how to restrict public access to inquisitorial proceedings; decide whether to award funding for legal representation to the next-of-kin; produce a final report on the findings of the proceedings; and decide whether to make a referral to prosecutors following inquisitorial proceedings. Clearly, their role is key.

To ensure legitimacy and trust, as well as the success of the Bill in achieving its aims, JPMs must be seen to be independent. The way in which they are appointed will be key. There is already a process for appointing coroners and other judicial office holders in Northern Ireland: the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission makes those independent appointments. However, at present under part 2, the appointment process used for JPMs will be the same as that used for public inquiry chairs rather than the appointment model for coroners. Appointments will be made directly by the Secretary of State. When we questioned the previous Secretary of State, the Committee did not receive a satisfactory reason why that was the case.

The Secretary of State will have the power to appoint and to re-appoint the JPMs. That is even more concerning to the Committee because it could risk the perception that JPMs have an incentive to try to please the Secretary of State with their findings to ensure that they are reappointed. That could seriously undermine confidence and independence. JPMs should be able to do their jobs without fear or favour, so we recommend that for the sake of the success of this process and of public trust, the troubles Bill should be amended so that the NIJAC rather than the Secretary of State is responsible for appointing JPMs.

I turn to my second key point, about close family members. The status of being a close family member of a deceased person is a gateway condition for accessing various provisions of the Bill. They are set out in parts 3 and 4 of the Bill. They include having the right to request an investigation into a death and to be kept informed of that investigation—two key points made by families seeking justice when they came before the Committee.

As I said, Mrs Cummins, while the effects of the definition are all in parts 3 and 4, the definition is in part 9, so I hope that you will permit a brief reference to that part in the context of our recommendation. A “close family member” is defined by clause 93 as someone falling within one of the following categories: a deceased spouse, civil partner or co-habitee; deceased child or stepchild; deceased parent or step-parent; or deceased sibling, half-sibling, or step-sibling. The definition does not cover nieces or nephews, aunts or uncles, or grandchildren. We found that that narrow definition was not in keeping with the provisions of the ECHR, in which article 2 makes clear the need to ensure sufficient involvement of the next of kin, which is not exhaustively defined.

The current definition also overlooks the reality, due to the passage of time, of family members—particularly grandchildren—currently searching for justice for their relatives. That is clearly unfair and unwelcome in a situation where family members are seeking justice. Our report recommends that the Government should amend the existing list of close family members to add an additional catch-all final category of being the next of kin. That will ensure that family members who are the grandchildren, nieces and nephews of the deceased can be considered close family members.

Our Committee welcomes this important Bill and believes that it represents a step forward in human rights terms and for all those affected by the painful legacy of the troubles. The Secretary of State has done the right thing in already accepting several of our recommendations. However, we think that the Bill could be even stronger. I urge the Government to consider carefully our recommendations about judicial panel members, the definition of “close family member” and, as my fellow Committee member, my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell, raised in his intervention, the extension of the duty of candour to cover legacy commission inquisitorial proceedings.

[Jim Shannon]

It is indeed a pleasure to speak in the debate. I will focus on the victims and justice—justice has never been delivered, actually—and those who are no longer here but gave their lives for Queen, King and country. The Secretary of State will know that I have mentioned my cousin and Daniel McCormick. That was 55 years ago, and I have given an example of what that means: the legal mechanisms of this land have seen no justice.

I think of the Ballydugan four—the four UDR men—three of whom I knew personally. I think of John Birch, who was a twin. I am old enough to remember the day he was born. I also think of Michael Adams, who worked in a butcher’s shop; I knew him well. The day I saw him, I said, “He’s going to be a soldier,” and he was. He joined the Territorial Army, which I was in for a number of years, and him and I did a guard duty together up at Magilligan camp. I remember well the time we had together. He is dead, murdered by the IRA.

I think of Steven Smart, a Newtownards man—his family is well known in Newtownards. He was also murdered in the Ballydugan bomb in April 1990. I did not know John Bradley. Those are examples of men who served in uniform and gave their lives for this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

I think of the Kingsmill massacre, where again civilians were murdered because they were Protestants. Where is the justice for them in this process and the Bill before us tonight?

I think of the La Mon fire in my constituency, where my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and I had our party conference a while ago. I well remember the night of that fire bomb. I was in Comber with my friend when the news came over the air. Again, those people were killed by the IRA team from Belfast and nobody was ever made accountable. When it comes to justice for victims, I do not see that coming through whatsoever.

Private Robert William Hill, a 22-year-old part-time member of the Ulster Defence Regiment—a young man who I never knew but whose family are constituents of mine who live in Ballynahinch—was murdered by the Provisional IRA on 1 July 1996 by an under-car booby trap bomb outside his girlfriend’s home. The ferocity of the bomb was such that the personal weapon he carried was blown to pieces; we can understand what happened to him. Again, his family have no justice. There is a victim who served in uniform and delivered for this great country—this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—and his family have never had justice.

I think of Winston Donnell, the first UDR man ever killed—outside my Aunt Isobel’s gate down in Clady. As the IRA team reversed down the road, that was probably the time when the reality came to many. They shot him with a Thompson submachine gun out of the back window of a car. He was in uniform, serving this country. No justice. Again, just where does this end?

Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over Extension)

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Carry-over motion
Tuesday 13th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Chris Bryant)]

I beg to move,

That the period on the expiry of which proceedings on the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill shall lapse in pursuance of paragraph (13) of Standing Order No. 80A shall be extended by 198 days until 29 April 2027.

This is a short motion, but it stands for a lot. Strictly speaking, all it does is allow the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, which was introduced a year ago, to continue its passage through Parliament, but it is actually about far more than that. It is about families who lost loved ones during the troubles, often in the most awful circumstances imaginable: daddies, mammies, brothers, sons and daughters—more than 3,500 of them, 90% of them murdered by paramilitaries. It is about families living for decades with doubts, uncertainty and unacknowledged grief, families desperate for answers about what happened to their loved ones—answers that might help them understand the how, the why and even the who, answers that might help provide some degree of comfort. We will be joined in a few moments in the Gallery by Mo, Pat, Jennifer and Laura, all of whom lost loved ones during the troubles and who have bravely, admirably and heartbreakingly spent years trying to find the truth of what happened. They deserve answers.

Let us not forget that more than 1,000 of those who were killed were members of our security forces, serving under Operation Banner or targeted by the IRA in military barracks and towns across England. Twenty-five per cent of the investigations involve victims from the military. A further 17% relate to victims who were police officers. So I am determined that veterans’ families will get answers, too. The Hillsborough families had to wait far too long, and so too have many families across Northern Ireland and Great Britain. We promised in our manifesto that we would put that right, and that is what we are going to do.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

My cousin was murdered on 10 December 1971. Fifty-five years ago, he was murdered. Alongside him was a man called Daniel McCormick. They were a Protestant and a Roman Catholic, but they both served in uniform. Nobody—in 55 years, this 10 December—has ever been made accountable. The three-man IRA team that killed those two gentlemen on that morning of 10 December ran across the border to sanctuary and safety. With great respect, Secretary of State, you tell me and my family that we can have justice—we do not see justice. We have been waiting 55 years for justice. I don’t believe it, Secretary of State. Can you talk to me honestly, for all the families? I could name many others who have had been murdered over the years. I think of the four UDR men; one person was made accountable, but no one was held accountable for the murders of those four UDR men at Ballydugan some 36 years ago. On behalf of the victims, my family and all the families, we need justice. I want justice for my family and for every one of those victims who served in uniform—RUC men, UDR men, British Army—and who gave their lives for this Province and this country.

[Chris Bryant]

I pay tribute to the way the hon. Gentleman has presented his case, because it is remarkably similar to what I heard from others this afternoon and what I have heard repeatedly in Northern Ireland. I met one man whose father served and was murdered, and he meets the man who he knows murdered his father every single week in Marks and Spencer. It has not even been acknowledged in any tribunal of any kind. That is why it is so important that we get answers for people. The kind of pain that the hon. Gentleman shows is the kind of pain that exists in so many families, and many of them are families who lost loved ones who served.

I remember going to the RUC memorial garden. It is very, very touching because, for decade after decade, it has the names of RUC officers who were killed, and for decade after decade, it is three or four names, three or four, then six, then eight, and then dozens, dozens and dozens. Many of those families have never had an answer. If there is one thing I feel very strongly after all the communications and conversations I have had with individuals and veterans groups over the last few months, it is that there is not one set of people who are families and another set of people who are veterans; actually, the largest group of families are veterans’ families, and they deserve answers, too.

We went further in our manifesto: we committed to replace the previous Government’s Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. Why? Because it was legally flawed, it offered equal immunity to terrorists as to our armed forces, and it did not carry the confidence of communities in Northern Ireland. I pay warm tribute to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), for negotiating the joint framework with the Irish Government, for introducing and working to improve the Bill, and for all he did to repair trust and address the hurt that was caused by the previous legacy Act.

Yesterday, following extensive engagement with bereaved families and veterans associations, I tabled a series of amendments. These can only be considered if we agree the motion tonight. One thing that has been clear in our discussions with veterans is that few ever wanted immunity at all, either for the armed forces alone or for veterans and terrorists. Indeed, many saw the previous Government’s immunity provisions, which were conditional, as implying an equivalence between their actions and the actions of terrorists. We will amend the Bill to bar the commission and coroners from treating the lawful actions of the security services as equivalent to the actions of paramilitaries.

Moreover, because our soldiers operated in a unique operational context during the troubles, and because the use of lethal force was lawful in certain circumstances to prevent harm, we will seek to amend the Bill to ensure that factors such as soldiers’ training, experience and, crucially, the orders they were operating under must be taken into account in any investigation. Those points were made in previous debates by the shadow Secretary of State—the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart)—and my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles (Michael Wheeler), the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) and the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), so I hope the amendments will gain cross-party support.

We have also listened to concerns raised by the right hon. Members for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), the hon. Members for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) and for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) and others over the on-the-run letters. These never provided immunity from prosecution, but we will put in black and white in the Bill that these letters cannot be used to prevent or frustrate potential prosecutions. Where there is evidence of criminal wrongdoing by terrorists, such letters will never act as a barrier to them being convicted. We have also heard the cries for dignity from families who have never even been able to get death certificates. We want to make that easier, and we will give oversight of the commission’s work to His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services, which will improve the efficiency of investigations and thereby the process for victims and families.

There is more we can do if this motion is allowed tonight. The men and women who serve in our armed forces represent the very best of our country. They volunteered to place themselves in harm’s way, accepting significant personal hardship and sacrifice on behalf of this country, as did their families. In return for their service, they are entitled to expect that the state will support them and their loved ones throughout their military careers and, crucially, long after their service has ended. Where a service member has made the ultimate sacrifice, this commitment includes giving their bereaved families the opportunity to establish the circumstances of their loved one’s death, which is what we will create through the legacy commission.

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker), who unfortunately cannot be here today because of a family situation. Since the Bill was introduced, she has fought for the veterans in her constituency and played a key role in bringing about a number of changes to the Bill. Alongside the hon. Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba) and my hon. Friends the Members for Swindon North (Will Stone), for South Ribble (Mr Foster) and for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger), she has argued for greater protections for individuals, to prevent an endless cycle of what I call rinse and repeat. We have heard those concerns and brought forward significant amendments to address them. The first is a provision to ensure that no process that has already been undergone can be repeated by the commission or, crucially, by a coroner unless it is essential, which is a very high bar—much higher than in previous legislation; for instance, because there is new information or a new forensic process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point—indeed, he also made it to me yesterday. The Secretary of State makes the decision about who sits on the advisory group, which is a key distinction of the legacy commission. One of the things I have repeatedly heard loud and clear is that this whole process needs to be focused on the families and the victims, and the only way we can secure that is if we have an effective advisory group. The hon. Gentleman is quite right; there should be no one in the group who espouses or has espoused the use of violence. Ensuring that will be one of the Secretary of State’s key responsibilities. The advisory group can have between three and seven members, and we are saying that at least one of them must be a veteran, a former member of the police or one of their representatives, although the number may be more than that.

Co-operation and sharing of records by the Irish authorities may be the key to obtaining information for families about the circumstances in which their loved ones died and who was responsible. That may meet the point that was made earlier.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Chris Bryant]

I will, in just one second. That is for the precise reason that sometimes people popped over the border, did the killing and then returned. That is why it is very important that one of the things that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South secured in the agreement with the Irish Government was their full co-operation in this process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I was just going to give way to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I will then give way to other Members, if that is all right.

[Jim Shannon]

My own family members are very clearly aware of the three IRA murderers who escaped across the border and stayed there; they did not return home. I put it on the record that Gerry McMonagle, who was involved in the murder of Lexie Cummings in Strabane in 1982, not only escaped across the border, but became a mayor and sat on Donegal county council. There is a person who should be held accountable for his actions. He escaped because a wrong notification was made by the police in relation to the summons. He was able to run out of court, get on a motorbike, cross the border and live a new life. There are also the two superintendents who were murdered at the border. There has been collusion from the Garda Síochána and the Government of the Republic of Ireland. There has to be accountability for the people in the Garda Síochána who gave evidence and for the people in government at the time who oversaw it and did nothing about it. There is a big role for the Government of the Republic of Ireland to play, so let us ensure that we keep their feet to the fire and keep the heat on the back of their neck.

[Chris Bryant]

That is precisely the point I am making. The Irish Government need to step up to the plate and provide answers. Where they fail to do so, we will take issue with them assertively. The key difference that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South made was ensuring that the Irish Government are introducing legislation that will require them to co-operate in this process and, in many cases, provide answers that are essential in relation to the kind of person that the hon. Member for Strangford refers to.

Drumcree

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

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

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

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) for her determination, her courage and her leadership and for standing strong against the threats that have been made—physical threats, verbal threats and all sorts of threats—to her and her family. We in this House should stand strong with her. In the previous statement, the Home Secretary referred to security for individuals. My hon. Friend is one Member of this House who deserves that, and everyone in this House should back her as she makes her stand.

My constituents are asking me this question: why did the Secretary of State take the extraordinary step of intervening before the Court of Appeal had delivered its scheduled legal ruling today? In pre-empting the highest courts in the land, what message does this catastrophic surrender send to extremist factions active across the entire United Kingdom? If they descend upon a community in great numbers, refuse to obey the law and threaten violence, the Government will grant them their aims. If I had blocked Frances Street in Newtownards along with my constituents, we would have been in Bangor custody within 30 minutes. Will the Secretary of State admit that this decision sets a devastating national precedent? This is a policy of short-sighted appeasement that buys peace for today at the expense of our future. Why should law-abiding citizens continue to trust the democratic process when the Government signal to extremists of every stripe that street-level intimidation trumps the rule of law and that the British ideology of upholding law and justice as a foundation has now crumbled?

[Chris Bryant]

First, to be clear, the Court of Appeal was looking in its decision today at a completely different matter from the one that was before me. The court was looking at the decision made by the Parades Commission on 25 September; I was looking at the situation on 9 October. Those are two different matters, and that is why it was not material to me whether the court was going to be ruling today. As a matter of fact, when the letter came in from the Chief Constable, I did not know when the court would be ruling.

More importantly, under section 9 of the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998, I am required by law to respond to the Chief Constable’s request, and that is what I did. I decided, as the courts did, to uphold the original determination of the Parades Commission, but to consider the situation as it pertains now and the advice given to me by the Parades Commission and the Chief Constable.

On the final point, I know there are people arguing that this is the end of the rule of law in Northern Ireland in some way. I just want to say that in the past few weeks, yes, people have said very cross things to one another and have shouted at one another—they have mostly done so in the Assembly, here in Parliament today or on the airwaves—but they have not been throwing things at each other. It has been peaceful in Portadown, and that is an achievement, not the opposite of an achievement. In the end, policing is about not just ensuring that a determination can be upheld, but judiciously preserving the peace.

Robert Hamill Inquiry Report

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State very much for his answers. For grieving families, the absence of answers prolongs the pain and grief. There is also, of course, a wider public interest in ensuring that legacy cases, such as Robert Hamill’s, are dealt with both efficiently and fairly. But does the Secretary of State appreciate that inquiries and investigations that last for decades continue to place significant demands on police time and resources, and require large sums of public money, and that complex legacy cases can take time to investigate properly, and due process must always be respected?

[Chris Bryant]

Yes, of course I recognise that, and in addition there is the problem that for the families and for all the witnesses and the many other people, such as those who were there that night, there is the anguish of going through that process—through multiple legal processes, judicial reviews, considerations of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the original report by Justice Cory and then the eventual launching of the inquiry. All of that of course has an emotional cost as well as a financial cost.

I do not want to set the financial cost aside; that is of course a consideration for Government, especially at a difficult time fiscally. But in the end we want to get as many answers as possible for people. I say this as much for the families of the 300 or so RUC officers, or the 1,100 members of the security services who were killed in Northern Ireland, and the families who were killed in whatever set of circumstances in Northern Ireland. That is why I want to make sure that the legacy commission really is able to do the job that we are setting it up to do, and that is why it is important that the troubles Bill goes through its passage.

I would just say one other thing. It is one thing for us in the British Government to be candid; I think it is also important that the Irish Government be candid. That is why it is such an important part of the process that we are undergoing with the troubles Bill that when I have spoken to my opposite numbers in Dublin, Helen McEntee and Jim O’Callaghan, they have been very keen to say that they want to make sure that their necessary legislation, which enables them to participate in the process of providing answers for people and giving information, happens in lockstep with ours so that they will be implemented at the same time. If we can get the two Governments working together to provide answers, there will be many more families who will have—I hate the word “closure”, but they will at least reach a point when they are able to understand that this moment is done.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Patrick]

As I have said, we have written to the Home Secretary about these issues, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will be making her case very powerfully as well. It is our duty to work with businesses across the UK to ensure that they are ready for these changes. We want our fishing industry to thrive, and we want people here to benefit from those good jobs.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Owing to the severe financial impact of the restricted skilled worker visas, family-owned trawlers in Portavogie, Ardglass and Kilkeel face a perfect storm, alongside fuel costs and the newly imposed Isle of Man transit barriers. The Minister knows about the issue—both the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) and I have met the Immigration Minister, the hon. Member for Dover and Deal (Mike Tapp)—and there is a proposal that could be acceptable. Will the Minister add his support to it, to ensure that the historic fleet in Portavogie, Ardglass and Kilkeel is permanently able to fish the seas around the coast of Northern Ireland, and to ensure that our fishing sector has a secure future?

[Matthew Patrick]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, we totally support our fishing sector, and I am interested to hear more about that proposal. If the Immigration Minister is speaking with the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby, I will, of course, try to be part of those meetings to hear whatever I can hear.

Northern Ireland Office

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

I recognise that we do find ourselves in a rather ridiculous situation, which impacts directly on the lives of people in Northern Ireland.

This precarious financial situation has serious implications beyond Northern Ireland, and the consequences for the Northern Ireland Office and the Treasury should be of concern to Members across the House. The vast majority of Northern Ireland’s funding comes from the UK Government through the block grant. Executive Ministers have raised concerns about the adequacy of the settlement and are calling for further funding. They cite the current financial year as being particularly challenging for Departments, with the block grant set to drop by 2.7%, before only modest increases in the following years.

We know that the Secretary of State has met the Finance Minister on a number of occasions in recent weeks, and I would be most grateful if he updated us on his discussions with Executive Ministers on urgently finding a resolution to agree a budget, and on the support the Government are providing to enable such a resolution to be found.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee for all that she does, but this issue of course goes beyond what she is setting out. The Northern Ireland Office is tasked with co-ordinating the local growth fund across the Province, yet my local community and voluntary sector are expressing deep concerns about its flawed programme design. They say that the funding structure is inaccessible and unresponsive to local realities on the ground. Does the hon. Lady not agree that, when the Secretary of State gets to his feet, he must explain why the Northern Ireland Office has failed to properly engage with our community sector? Does she agree that urgent steps must be taken by his Department to reform this programme to ensure that these vital funds actually reach the groups who need them most?

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention about the local growth fund. In our Committee session today, we grilled the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who is sitting on the Front Bench, about this funding. On numerous occasions, we have noted our disappointment that the relevant Department has been able to shift the spending, but I am sure that the Secretary of State will give the hon. Member an explanation later.

Given the potential impact of having no agreed budget on the delivery of public services if the situation continues into the autumn, does the Secretary of State foresee a circumstance in which he would step up and step in to set a budget for Northern Ireland, should the Executive remain unable or unwilling to do so?

Linked to this are concerns about the Executive’s overspending and budget sustainability. At the end of the last financial year, the Government provided the Executive with a £400 million reserve claim loan to cover departmental overspends in health and education. That follows the £559 million Executive debt write-off by the Government in 2024 as part of the financial package accompanying the restoration of power sharing.

The Northern Ireland Fiscal Council warns that overspending is now becoming normalised, and it describes how repeated bail-outs

“could dull the Executive’s incentive to take difficult fiscal decisions”.

Overspending against available budgets by devolved Governments amounts to serious financial mismanagement, according to Treasury policy. Would the Secretary of State describe the Executive’s actions in the same terms?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

I think there are further discussions to be had about need, the Barnett formula and all those things. I am sure those discussions are happening and that those things are being continually reviewed, but I do agree about the need.

The Executive will repay this £400 million loan over three years—£80 million this year and £160 million next year, with £160 million due in 2028-29. Given the Executive’s track record, are the Government confident that these payments will be met? Northern Ireland Ministers have warned of further overspends, given their continued constrained financial position. The two Departments responsible for the reserve claim are likely to see a drop in their resource funding this year. How will the Government respond to further overspends?

Granting the reserve loan was on the condition that the Treasury conducted an open book exercise on the spending of Northern Ireland Departments. This found that spending per head on policing in Northern Ireland is 166% of what it is in England, spending per head on health, excluding social care, is 152% and spending per head on schools is 140%. On the other hand, spending per head on prisons and probation services is only 79% of that spent in England and Wales. The report presents a number of policy options, and says that the Executive could make savings of up to £3 billion. However, Northern Ireland Ministers contest many of its findings. In his response, will the Secretary of State address the Government’s expectations of the Executive taking forward these options, and tell us what steps the Government are taking to help put Northern Ireland’s finances on a more sustainable footing?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way again. As she will know, one reason for that 152% health spending figure is the level of disability and poverty across Northern Ireland. The 152% figure reflects the actual need on the ground, and meeting that need must be the major goal for the Secretary of State to achieve.

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

I agree that our Committee has seen that the need is greater, and we are working to represent Northern Ireland and the people who live there as best we can.

My Committee has recently conducted inquiries on policing and security and on legacy, which the Government directly fund. The Police Service of Northern Ireland currently receives £37.8 million a year directly from the Government as additional security funding. This ringfenced funding was introduced in 2011, and until last year it was specifically used to address the threat from Northern Ireland-related terrorism, but this ASF has now been broadened to cover all national security threats. The increase we have seen over the current spending review period may be to cover the broadened remit, but no information is publicly available about how the level of funding is determined by the Government. While we know that publishing some information may not be possible due to security considerations, my Committee has called for greater transparency, and I would be grateful for the Secretary of State’s response to our recommendations.

The recent riots in Northern Ireland are of great concern, and they will be of serious concern to Members across this House. I take this opportunity to commend the PSNI and the emergency services for their response to the disorder. The PSNI was already facing a constrained financial position, so I welcome the additional £4 million provided by the NIO to meet some of the costs it incurred. Could the Secretary of State provide more detail on, and has he had any correspondence about, the funding that I have heard has been provided by the Irish Government for community cohesion following the riots.

Finally, I turn to the issue of legacy and the work of the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, which I will refer to as the ICRIR. This body was set up under the previous Government’s Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. It is responsible for investigations of legacy cases to provide information to victims, survivors and their families about troubles-related deaths and serious injury. For the present financial year, the ICRIR is receiving £232 million over the whole spending review period. However, Peter May’s recent review of the ICRIR raises some serious concerns about its capacity and governance. According to the review, cases are being paused due to a lack of resource which, in a recent Committee session, the ICRIR disputes. It says that the current funding levels “are not sufficient” to support its view of what is required under the legislation, with

“real concern that they will not have the means to deliver case outcomes within any reasonable timeframe”.

The ICRIR has also seen three finance directors in the past year, with the review describing

“a low level of maturity in terms of its financial and corporate governance.”

The review notes that the ICRIR is submitting to the Treasury a new business case seeking additional funding. Will the Secretary of State update us on the status of that? The Secretary of State told us that confidence in the ICRIR will be gained

“if it provides answers to families who have been looking for them for so long”.

Does he share my fears about the impact that pausing cases will have on victims and families who have already been made to wait decades for answers about their loved ones? Can he also assure the House that confidence in the commission’s financial management and governance arrangements has improved since the review?

North Belfast: Violent Attack

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

I agree with everything the hon. Gentleman said. I know that the PSNI is working hard to provide reassurance to the local community and to make arrangements for that reassurance to be visible in the face of those who, let us be frank in this House, will wish to use this terrible event to stir up trouble and disorder on the streets of Northern Ireland. I say that because we have seen it before. We do not wish to see it again. That is why all community leaders, politicians and others have such a responsibility to call for calm, as he so eloquently did.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his well-chosen and wise words, and for his answers. Tensions are inflamed, and I am aware of protests planned throughout my constituency. I am also aware that many of those who intend to attend do so not because they are frightened for their families alone, but because they feel that their fears are ignored when they make a good and grand statement. How can the Secretary of State and this Government ensure that people from Portavogie to Newtownards know that their right to peacefully protest is respected and, more than that, that their Government—my Government—will make changes for safety reasons as a matter of urgency?

[Hilary Benn]

I join the hon. Member in reasserting the right of every citizen of our country to protest peacefully, but we have seen in the past that there are those, provoked by others, who have sought to use that opportunity to then promote violence and disorder. I join the hon. Member in saying that of course everyone has the right to express their view through peaceful protest, but if we want to support the PSNI, the last thing people should be doing is stretching its resources across Northern Ireland to deal with protests that are not going to help anyone, and that are not going to assist in the furtherance of the investigation so that the perpetrator can be brought to face justice. That is the way we do things in our country, is it not?

Police Service of Northern Ireland Training College

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Thank you, Sir Roger, for allowing me to speak. I thank the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton), my friend and colleague from many a year ago on the council and as Members of the Legislative Assembly, for his ceaseless passion to ensure that our community has the best police service possible. He has put that on the record and I congratulate him.

It is also a pleasure to see the Minister in his place. He is a friend of Northern Ireland and he has proven that to be the case. We will now test how far his friendship goes—no, it is not fair to say that. I know that he will give us some encouragement in how we can move forward to support the hon. Member for North Down. It is also a pleasure to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), in his place—he is a friend of Northern Ireland and of all of us in this House—as well as the hon. Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane) who will speak for the Lib Dems.

I express my sincere gratitude and thanks to the PSNI for all it has done and does for us in Northern Ireland. I thank Chief Constable Jon Boutcher for his commitment and his actions on behalf of the PSNI. I also give special thanks to Superintendent Johnston McDowell, whom I share with the hon. Member for North Down, and all his officers for what they do. The hon. Member for North Down and I are both very committed to community policing. It is one of our good points in North Down and Strangford where we have an excellent community policing workforce.

This year marks the 25th anniversary of the Police Service of Northern Ireland training college, responsible for the delivery of the organisation’s training and development. This year’s recruitment round received more than 4,000 applications for student officer, demonstrating the willingness of people from a broad range of backgrounds to join the service and contribute to the safety of our communities.

I can cast my mind back to the introduction of the 50:50 rule, which, by its nature, stopped those who could have been good officers in the PSNI from being recruited. I will tell a story about my oldest boy Jamie who applied to join the PSNI through the 50:50 programme. It is no reflection on his best friend in Kircubbin, who also applied at the same time. It just so happened that my Jamie was a Protestant and that the other wee boy was a Roman Catholic. That does not take away from his capability, energy and commitment to the police. They did all the same recruitment tests and application forms. I know about this, because boys share stories. The wee boy, who was a good friend from Kircubbin he went to school with, did not score as highly as my Jamie, yet my Jamie did not get the job in the PSNI, but the other wee boy did.

The reason I tell that story is because of the imbalance. That young boy from Kircubbin is an excellent police officer today who has done really well. We admire him and he has all the qualities that we need, but there is something grossly unfair about a 50:50 system that stops somebody getting a job when he scored better than someone else, just because he happened to go to a different church on a Sunday. That is a disappointment. We do not have the 50:50 any more, thank the Lord. That is a good thing, because it means people will get the job they applied for because they have the capability, experience and aptitude to do it well.

In recognition of the commitment of these future officers, investment in their training should be prioritised to ensure that their willingness to serve is matched by the skills and knowledge required to police effectively. The PSNI is part of the great police forces in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for North Down hit on that point clearly. Those in the PSNI sometimes bear the weight of other public services in times of crisis. We are the only part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland with a land border. That is one of the massive issues we have to recognise.

I hope when the Minister responds he will recognise the extra tasks we have on the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, such as immigration. Rural theft is also a massive issue in which the PSNI has been very active recently. There is also a terrorism threat, as well as international gangs with money laundering, people trafficking and international crime. Those all add to the PSNI’s financial burden.

I like certain films, such as those starring Liam Neeson and Denzel Washington. They are the guys who can sort everything out in the 90 minutes a film takes from beginning to end. That is not how life is in the real world we live in. Life in the real world means that the PSNI has to work long and hard with the Garda Síochána in the Republic of Ireland, the police forces in mainland Scotland, Wales and England, and as far as the EU, to ensure that they catch criminals. That is real life, not the one that lasts 90 minutes, where the good person always beats the baddie, who is either dead or in prison when they have finished with them.

The training college has a demanding 22-week selection process to ensure the best for the job are selected. Due to the intensive nature of the job and the border with the Republic of Ireland, officers should be equipped physically and mentally to perform their role. That requires greater investment and tailored support services, with improved access to professional expertise from the beginning of the training programme.

Although the security situation in Northern Ireland has improved since the PSNI was established in 2001—I thank God for that—the threat of paramilitarism persists and gang warfare is also very real. The incident in North Belfast on which the leader of my party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), secured an urgent question today is also an example of the things that we all have to face in this modern world that we live in. I think the Secretary of State gave us as many answers as he could today, because there is to be a PSNI conference this afternoon that will disclose some other information pertinent to the investigation.

Investment in the police training college should reflect the higher level of training required to deal effectively with the distinct risks that officers in Northern Ireland face. We still have a small but very significant threat. The PSNI indicates that through the Real IRA, or Official IRA, or whatever they call themselves now—the three letters always maintain their focus—about 200 people in Northern Ireland are involved in a terrorist campaign. Now, 200 people can keep things boiling for a long time, so there is still a relevant IRA terrorist campaign in Northern Ireland that has to be faced down.

The expertise that comes from experience cannot be overestimated, and the need for training cannot simply be a paper exercise; a mirroring image of those who are in the job is essential. The training college—the very thing that the hon. Member for North Down, I and everyone including the Minister and the shadow Minister want—offers all of that despite its budget not being fit for purpose.

Regardless of the rapidly changing needs of the training college, the PSNI budget has been cut year on year since 2011. The financial decline takes away the PSNI’s ability to recruit, train and regularly service their vehicles, along with all the things needed as part of its work, including helicopters, drones and search teams. A police force is not just the bobby walking up and down the street; it is much more than that. That is why it is so important that we keep things going.

This problem has been further compounded by the collapse of the Executive and the one-year budget settlement. I just cannot work out why we have a budget that rumbles or slumbers along and does not address the issues but instead seems to put them off for another day. Simultaneously, legacy investigations and legal action are draining the PSNI’s resources as well. There are lots of pressures from all sides on the PSNI. A dedicated and protected funding allocation for those costs would help ensure that police training and development is properly sustained and delivered to the high standard required: that of a modern police force able to deal with all the circumstances that it has to—sometimes those that come out of the blue like last night—but that is also equipped and ready for others.

That is especially needed as the demands placed on the PSNI continue to evolve with cyber-crime. That is very technical and we have spoken about it here in the Chamber on other occasions. It is really important that our PSNI can engage with the police forces in Scotland, Wales and England and ensure that those things are taken care of. It must also respond to mental health incidents. I sometimes wonder about the pressure on the young officers who are called out to see somebody who has had a domestic incident, an attempted suicide or a car accident, and the effect these things have on the police officer’s mental health. It is not just about the mental health of those they meet; it is about the mental health of the police officers. These are all the demands that are on our police officers today and it presents a really complex challenge for them.

The rewards of a policing career can be immense, but officers give a great deal in return, and we thank them sincerely for that. It is therefore essential that they enter the role as fully equipped as possible. Support must be given to the development of officers’ foundational skills to ensure that they can confidently adapt to the changing needs of the role, and to ensure that they, as police officers, can fulfil those.

I am long enough in the tooth to look back and remember the police forces back in the time of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I remember the management and people skills that those seasoned officers had and which they were able to pass on to the new officers coming in. Many of those police officers have now retired, so it is too late to take advantage of those social skills and the things that they learned from others over the years.

If we want a safe and cohesive police service, the bottom line is that it must be funded. That is what I am asking for, like the hon. Member for North Down, and it is what others will ask for shortly, too. If we want equal opportunity for all races, sexes and creeds—and we should, we must and we will—it must be an attractive job with potential for the future. If we want to guard our streets, guide our young people and keep them right and give them opportunities, we need officers who are well trained, well paid and well equipped. This starts with the funding designated by Westminster—in Westminster Hall today, in the main Chamber and in Parliament.

I look to the Minister to recognise the vital role that the PSNI training college will have over the next 25 years in society in Northern Ireland. That is why it is so important, why the hon. Gentleman raised it and why we in this House need to push hard for it. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response and others who will contribute. We see the need for it; let us make sure it happens.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Burghart]

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

[Jim Shannon]

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

[Alex Burghart]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Patrick]

I appreciate the frustration behind the hon. Member’s words about the time it is taking to secure the budget. I hear that and I will commit to raise with the Executive the training college he is advocating for, as we continue to press the importance of securing a multi-year and sustained balanced budget.

The October budget delivered a record £18.2 billion for the Northern Ireland Executive in the last financial year. That is the largest settlement in real terms in the history of devolution. It is clearly a matter for the Executive to make decisions on the allocation of resources in line with its own priorities, and it is therefore a matter for the Department of Justice to allocate that funding to the PSNI. How it is used is clearly an operational matter for the PSNI and the Chief Constable.

It is not just the block grant that the UK Government support the PSNI with.

[Jim Shannon]

The facts of the matter are—to be fair, most people have mentioned it—that the PSNI budget has been affected by the legacy costs, which I understand are in excess of £200 million. That takes a big chunk out of the PSNI budget every year. Although we understand that the Barnett consequential and extra moneys will be given to Northern Ireland—I say this respectfully to the Minister, because I think much of him—the fact is that the PSNI is already £200 million down because of the legacy. Will he consider some other methodology for the legacy funding, which would take the burden away from the PSNI and enable it to put some of that money towards the training college?

[Matthew Patrick]

If it is okay with the hon. Member, I will come to that point later. I will definitely address it, and I invite him to intervene on me if I do not—I may live to regret that.

The PSNI was previously provided with £32 million a year in additional security funding. That had been static for almost 10 years, since the 2015-16 financial year. Upon coming into government, we increased that to £37.8 million. The UK Government are also investing £235 million in the transformation of public services in Northern Ireland.