Supreme Court Dillon Judgment

Katie Lam Excerpts

Thursday 14th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

The hon. Member raises an extremely important point. As I am sure she is aware, our troubles Bill leaves in place part 4 of the legacy Act. Not everything in the 2023 Act was wrong, and that part deals with memorialisation and digitisation of records. I agree with the hon. Member that it is not either/or; these things need to be pursued in parallel. However, for people to be reconciled, it is really important that they are able to feel—in so far as it is possible; it will not be in all cases—that they have finally been given an answer as to how and at whose hands their loved ones died. That is such an important part of enabling people in Northern Ireland who still live in the shadow of the troubles to reconcile themselves with what happened—people come to that in very different ways, as I know from the many conversations that I have had—so that Northern Ireland’s society can move forward. It has already been transformed in the last 28 years and we all applaud that.

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

As the Secretary of State has laid out, the Supreme Court in its Dillon judgment was not able to rule on whether the immunity provisions of the legacy Act were compatible with the European convention, because the Government withdrew that appeal when they came to power. But the right hon. Gentleman must recognise the fear and anger of our soldiers and veterans in response to the changes that the Government have proposed. If the Government felt it was at all possible that these protections for our soldiers and veterans might be compatible with the ECHR, why not test that in the courts? If the Government are convinced that it is not, what better case could there be for leaving?

[Hilary Benn]

I do not agree with the hon. Member that we should leave the European convention on human rights, because it provides protections for all of us as citizens. The point I was seeking to address—and I thought it was very important to bring clarity to the House in relation to immunity and whether the appeal had been withdrawn—was this. It was argued from the Conservative Benches, because of the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement’s intervention, that in some way the appeal on that matter remained live. It was also put to me that the United Kingdom Supreme Court was likely to rule on the question.

I wanted to come to the House today, at the first available opportunity, to make it quite clear that, I am afraid, those two arguments were wrong. The appeal had been withdrawn. The Supreme Court recognised that, and therefore there was nothing for it to rule on. The incompatibility with the convention of immunity remains, but the Court went out of its way to explain why case law means that there is not an exception on grounds of reconciliation that would in any way justify the immunity provisions that were contained in the last Government’s legislation.

Dunmurry Police Station Attack

Katie Lam Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

I join the hon. Member in remembering the late Ian Gow, who gave such distinguished service to this House and was killed in that terrible attack—one of a number of Members who suffered at the hands of terrorist violence in the past. The assessment of the nature of the threat—which is currently substantial and has previously been severe, as I am sure the hon. Member will know—is carried out by the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre and is formally reviewed twice a year. I can assure him that JTAC’s staff take their job extremely seriously, and any information about any threats is circulated to all those who need to know.

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

We can all agree that the public should be protected from anybody who is willing to use violence against innocents and the police to get what they want, but I wonder how the right hon. Gentleman intends to enforce that. What message does he think it sends to those who have had the courage to protect the public, including British soldiers during the troubles, when this Government are making it easier for them to be dragged through the courts decades later?

[Hilary Benn]

I do not accept the hon. Member’s characterisation of what is in the troubles Bill that we will be discussing later, because the threshold consideration for prosecutions remains absolutely unchanged in the legislation currently before the House. However, I recognise that veterans are concerned about the impact that any changes may have on them. That is why the Government have put protections in the Bill and will bring forward further such proposals in Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions

Katie Lam Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Patrick]

This Government are supporting businesses in Northern Ireland. The work that I am doing with them on the defence growth deal is designed specifically to ensure that this will benefit them and all their supply chains, and I will continue to do that work.

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

Whatever the defence industrial strategy aims to do, its aims will not be met if we cannot find and recruit people willing to use the equipment and technology that are created. People will be far less likely to risk their lives to keep our country safe and free if they cannot rely on the Government to stand by them both during and after their service. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact on the military and the defence industry of the Government’s decision to allow our veterans who served in Northern Ireland to be dragged vindictively through the courts?

[Matthew Patrick]

I reject that characterisation. The immunity that was offered by the last Government was false. We do not agree with that in principle, and the veterans we speak to do not want immunity under the law; they want equality before it. It was this Government who gave our armed forces the largest pay rise in over two decades. This Government are backing our armed forces.