Oral Answers to Questions

Robin Swann Excerpts

Wednesday 21st October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

One of the key asks of all the veterans organisations was that we should introduce a change to the Bill to state that there was no equivalence between the lawful actions of our armed forces and those of terrorists, and recognise the operational context in which people were functioning, including their training, their command structure and so on. That is precisely what we have done in the legislation, and I commend my hon. Friend for the way he has raised many of these issues with me directly on behalf of the veterans in his constituency.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

The Secretary of State has made much of his support for veterans, and that is right, although it has come late. Will he give the same support and reassurance from the Government to the former members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the police services who also served during the troubles?

Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

Robin Swann Excerpts

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

[Chris Bryant]

I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for all the work that she has done in this field. It is really important that people understand how significant the potential of close co-operation in this field is in getting answers for people, and in particular those whose concerns may be about what happened in the south and came up into the north. One of the issues I have raised directly—a couple of hon. Members have raised this with me—is about gelignite, which came before Semtex, and how it seems that in Northern Ireland we were perfectly able to keep all our quarries safe, but there was one quarry in the Republic that managed to lose quite a lot of gelignite. Those are the issues that we really do need to progress, because if we are going to get to a full understanding of what really happened, the clue will be not just in what happened in Northern Ireland but in what happened across the piece. That is why it is so important.

Because I am a socialist, I also believe fundamentally that we achieve far more by our common endeavour than we do by going it alone. I therefore think that co-operation is the best way to proceed. [Interruption.] I think that the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) is on manoeuvres.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

On that point, clause 72(5) says that the independent commission on information retrieval

“must not do anything which…would risk prejudicing, or would prejudice, the national security interests of the United Kingdom or Ireland”.

Who will make the assessment of whether something that the ICIR is looking at could risk the national security of the Republic of Ireland?

--- Later in debate ---

I want to acknowledge the views of the 200 families whose concerns were expressed in a letter published by Relatives for Justice and the Pat Finucane Centre this week. The test must be whether this legislation delivers truth, justice and accountability on an equal basis, not whether it reassures one group while leaving others fearful that the doors to justice are being closed. That is the test this legislation must pass.

[Robin Swann]

A number of Members have mentioned the Stormont House agreement in connection with the Independent Commission for Information Retrieval. My party opposed the agreement because of the provisions that brought about an amnesty by default for all but murderers; at that point, it became a flawed expedition. Let me return to my earlier question to the Secretary of State. Clause 72(5) states:

“The ICIR must not do anything which…would risk prejudicing, or would prejudice, the national security interests of the United Kingdom or Ireland.”

It also states, in paragraph (c), that the ICIR must not do anything that

“would risk having, or would have, a prejudicial effect on any actual or prospective legal proceedings in any part of the United Kingdom or Ireland.”

In response to my intervention, the Secretary of State said that he would try to find the answer to my question by the time I made my speech, so I will ask him again: who makes the assessment that something will be prejudicial to the national security of Ireland, or to a prospective legal proceeding in Ireland? That is not in the remit of this Government or this place; nor will it, or should it, be in the remit of the ICIR. As yet, we do not know who the body corporate will be, and who will be part of it. I do not know whether the Secretary of State has found the answer to my question, but if he has not, he may wish to write to me.

[Chris Bryant]

I have been inspired. Let me say first that national security is obviously a matter for the respective Governments, but in the UK, it is solely a matter for the UK. The provision in the Bill replicates the drafting of the ICIR treaty, which was signed by the UK Conservative Government and the Irish Government back in 2015. It also replicates the drafting of Ireland’s “General Scheme of the Legacy of the Troubles Bill 2026”, which states:

“In performing its functions the ICIR shall not do anything that could reasonably be expected to…prejudice the national security interests of the State”—

the Irish state—

“or the United Kingdom”.

In other words, we look after our security, and they look after theirs.

[Robin Swann]

I fully appreciate that, but that is not what the Bill says. It says that the ICIR will make the decision. I have asked the Secretary of State who makes the assessment on behalf of the Irish Government of what constitutes national security. This is not solely about the United Kingdom. However, I will engage with the Secretary of State to seek clarification on that point.

The Secretary of State quoted what has been said previously; that does not explain to me what the Bill actually contains. He talks of the Irish Government and their role. I welcomed his comment in the past that the UK Government would work in lockstep with the Irish Government, but he is aware of the distrust that many of us feel about what the Irish Government will bring forward, and when they will do it. What plans does he have, in case they do not bring it forward? He has said that parts of the Bill will be enacted in lockstep with the Irish Government’s legislation, but what happens if they do not produce and enact it? Will he start to repeal parts of the Bill, or will the parts that have already been enacted still stand? I think I know the answer to that, but I am explaining our concern about the Irish Government acting in lockstep with the United Kingdom.

I see where the Government are going on this; that comes from the experience of having been involved in negotiations with the Irish Government—Stormont House, the fresh start, Haass-O’Sullivan and all those other things. At one stage, we were sitting in a room with Charlie Flanagan and Danny Kennedy, discussing what would come forward from the Irish Government about Kingsmill. The Kingsmill families were promised the release of Irish Government documentation, and what did they actually finish up with? A folder of newspaper clippings. That is where the inherent concern that many in Northern Ireland still have about what the Irish Government will release comes from—if, indeed, they release anything about the substantive cross-border incidents that we still want to raise concerns about. When the Secretary of State works with the Irish Government on this legislation, I hope he finds them more productive than any previous Government have been.

The right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) mentioned what, in previous iterations of the Bill, was put forward as protections for veterans. We were told at one stage that those protections did not need to be in the legislation, because the Government said that there would be protections. I welcome the fact that those protections are now part of the legislation, but they are not solely for veterans, and I think it is important to clarify that.

When I met the Secretary of State to ask him about protections for our veterans, he said it was not his office but the Ministry of Defence—the corporate body—that would be the first port of call. However, what body acts on behalf of former RUC police officers? He has said—I know this is in the Bill—that there is a power to put that duty on a body, but no such body is specified for them. We are therefore looking at a dual process for these protections. I am thinking of the joint UDR and RUC operations—the joint vehicle checkpoints—that often took place. Whereas the UDR may get support via the Ministry of Defence, there is no body to support a former RUC officer who was standing at the same point, on the same duty, under the same threat, defending the same right of democracy in Northern Ireland. Will the Secretary of State expedite the decision on what that body will be? What worries me is that this will fall on the voluntary organisations that are currently stepping up—the likes of the South East Fermanagh Foundation and, as mentioned previously, the Royal British Legion—to which veterans are already going for support.

The explanatory statement for new clause 51, which has been mentioned, states that the clause will prevent

“the stopping of a prosecution for reasons relating to the content of an ‘on the run’ letter.”

This provision still relates to the content of the letters. The issue is not that they cannot be relied on any longer; it is wrong that those letters exist. It would have been better if the Government had tabled an amendment that nullified those on-the-run letters, rather than simply saying that they will prevent the stopping of prosecutions for reasons relating to their content.

The remit of the Attorney General has been mentioned; a number of opponents have spoken about why the Attorney General should not have that role. We agree. What was proposed in the first iteration of the legislation was a panel of judges, rather than a political appointee. The provision involving the Attorney General is a replication of what is in the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021. I again seek a reassurance from the Secretary of State that this Government are not by default looking at the troubles in Northern Ireland as an overseas operation. Parts of this legislation are starting to treat us very differently from the rest of the United Kingdom, when it comes to the atrocities.

I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), for tabling new clause 12, which is about reconciliation. He has been a champion of reconciliation. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee is now doing a serious piece of work on what that would actually look like. The Bill expands the scope of who could and should be involved not just in the work of the Committee, but in the work of the Government to bring forward what reconciliation in Northern Ireland truly looks like.

Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

Robin Swann Excerpts

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

[Chris Bryant]

The legislation in itself does not, no. The hon. Gentleman will know that the original inquest was commanded by the former Attorney General, the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), who is a Conservative. The straight answer to the hon. Member for Spelthorne is no.

We are putting the prohibition on cold-calling witnesses in black and white in the Bill through new clauses 45 and 46. When a witness is contacted, we will ensure that they are treated with dignity and respect. One key ask I have heard from veterans is for more assurance around the anonymity protection already in the Bill. It is a right to seek anonymity, rather than a presumption that it is automatically granted, because in order for the protection to be legally robust, the law cannot discriminate between different witnesses. That goes to the point made by the right hon. Member for New Forest East. However, I know some veterans’ groups are concerned that that would not mean anonymity in practice, so let me be clear. Based on the recent experience of inquests and inquiries, I am confident that in all but the most exceptional circumstances, a veteran who sought anonymity would be granted it. The welfare protection in clause 69 will require the commission to take into account the health and wellbeing of witnesses, including consideration of whether it would be appropriate for them to give evidence at all. Some veterans I have met have asked that I set out more specifically what will be taken into account, but I am concerned that doing so would unintentionally limit the broad nature of the requirement.

I turn to the question of how we ensure individuals are not endlessly subjected to nugatory repeated processes. I know that some have argued that there should have to be new and compelling evidence before the commission can even open a review—that is the thrust of the Opposition’s new clause 21 and amendment 47, and of new clause 22 in the name of the hon. Member for North Down. That is illogical, and would be counterproductive. It would require someone to go through a process to establish whether there was such evidence before a review was even started. It would mean more legal processes, not fewer. It would also mean that thousands of families—and let us not forget that the largest cohort of those currently seeking answers are service families—would be barred from asking the commission for information.

Following extensive consultation, the Government judge that the best approach is to include three hurdles before a veteran could be asked to act as a witness. To be clear, duplication can only be essential, for example, when genuinely new evidence has come to light that would materially change the investigation; when new forensic techniques such as fingerprinting enable new lines of inquiry; or when there was a clear and significant failing in the previous investigation. Amendment 192 will also require the commission to undertake disclosure from state authorities first, so that individual witnesses—including those who served the state, such as veterans—are not contacted unnecessarily when formal disclosure from state authorities might provide answers. It also requires the commission to consider

“whether compelling new evidence is known or reasonably suspected to exist”,

and whether the potential witness might provide information not already known to the commission, prior to contacting that witness.

This means that the legacy commissioner and coroners will be barred from duplicating elements of a previous investigation unless doing so is essential to fulfilling their statutory obligations. It also means that the director of investigations will be required to undertake and review disclosure from state authorities first—only then could they consider whether there was still a need to contact individual witnesses. If, following this, the director still believes that it is essential to speak to an individual witness, they must consider whether compelling new evidence is known or reasonably expected to exist and the likelihood of the witness being able to provide information that is not already known. That last provision is one that we have taken from other legislation, namely the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for clarifying those points. He knows—because I have raised this point with him before—that those protections cover veterans and former military personnel. Will they also extend to former police officers who served?

[Chris Bryant]

Yes.

This process, in which we discuss improving a Bill, may seem dry and technical to those watching us. Sometimes, we use unusual and strange words and phrases, but I cannot emphasise enough how important this process is. Every one of us wants to do the best we can; we will disagree about where that takes us, but at the heart of all of this is a very simple truth, which is that families want answers. They ache to know what really happened. That includes thousands who lost a daddy, an uncle or even a granddaddy who served in terrifying circumstances. Peace can be just a thin veneer unless we deal with the underlying cracks, and we cannot build a strong future without fully understanding the past. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

I welcome the Bill, the amendments that have been tabled to it, the increased safeguards for veterans, and how the reformed legacy commission will be better placed to give victims the answers they are asking for. I hope the Committee will support the Bill moving to Third Reading.

[Robin Swann]

I thank the Secretary of State and the previous Secretary State, the right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), and the Minister for Veterans and the former Minister of Veterans, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), for their engagement on this Bill. It has been a long time getting to this stage, but there has been engagement. For Northern Ireland MPs, it has sometimes felt like a struggle to have our concerns heard. I thank Members who have spoken in today’s debate, because it has had a very different tone and tenor from the one that we had on the carry-over motion. As a Northern Ireland MP, I welcome that on behalf of veterans and victims’ organisations, who will be listening intently to how the debate is handled.

As we consider this legislation, I believe that our focus should remain where it belongs: those who bear the scars of the Northern Ireland troubles. It is not about veteran against victim or victim against veteran; it is about those people who suffered at the hands of terrorism and who have seen loved ones lost, loved ones traumatised and loved ones still carrying the scars, be they Northern Ireland victims or veterans. I know that some Labour Members think that the victims of war are on their side of the House and the veterans are on this side. Sometimes we feel that mismatch as well, because the veterans talked about by the Conservatives are not the same as the veterans we talk about. When we talk about veterans, it is about members of the Ulster Defence Regiment or the RUC, who did not serve a tour of duty and return home. It is about the veterans who, after they had finished a day’s work, went out and conducted the vehicle checkpoints that the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) talked about earlier, and who still went in and did a day’s work the next day.

The challenge of this debate is that, as the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) mentioned, sometimes we feel that our voice is not heard. That is reflected in the voices of our veterans and victims’ organisations. Rushing through legislation, or even attempting to force through measures without proper scrutiny and consensus, only deepens distrust. This is an opportunity to get the process right, to find a balance, to establish institutions that command broad public confidence, and to resolve these matters for good.

Mention has been made of ICRIR’s work and of its first published report, which is on Rory O’Kelly. A member of his extended family contacted me about the work that was done, and I raised it with the Secretary of State in the debate on the carry-over motion. What concerns me, which is not the same as what concerns those on the Opposition Front Bench, is that victims and their families have lost confidence in ICRIR, because they see yet another process and the creation of another body. I hope the Secretary of State can provide reassurance that the victims and families who do engage will receive full support, and that cumbersome bureaucracy does not mean that they have to restart the whole process over again.

[Chris Bryant]

I can absolutely provide the hon. Gentleman with that assurance. It is really important that we take from ICRIR what is good and build on that, but also that we sort out some of the problems that have existed. He will have seen the Peter May report and some of the problems that there have been in the courts. We will put all of that right, but we are not going to ditch the fundamental principles of trying to get to answers for families.

[Robin Swann]

I thank the Secretary of State for that reassurance, because some of the concerns are raised in the amendments. The right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) mentioned that the second director of investigations must have experience of working outside the UK, and the Secretary of State has provided reassurance on what that means in today’s debate.

I want to talk specifically about the amendments that I have tabled, supported by the Ulster Unionist party. I have tabled a number of amendments to the Bill, but I will start by focusing on amendment 4, which I hope will be for separate decision. I seek support for the amendment this evening, because it would give victims of troubles-related sexual violence the right to a legacy commission investigation. That proposal has support from parties across the House, but it has also been signed by Members from all the Northern Ireland parties that take their seats in this place. I thank the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), for his comments and for supporting the amendment.

The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, in its report on the Government’s new approach to addressing the legacy of the past in Northern Ireland, included a recommendation for the Government to address the de facto exclusion of most troubles-related sexual crimes from the commission’s remit. The response to that ask has been incredibly disappointing for victims, because the Government have advised that legacy commission investigations are only for those who were killed or seriously injured, and that victims of sexual violence should raise their case with the Police Service of Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State reiterated that point earlier.

That is not good enough, because we have heard that the Police Service of Northern Ireland is overstretched and underfunded as things stand, and the chief constable has raised concerns about the duties that will be put on him and his officers through the legislation we are discussing tonight. The PSNI simply cannot provide the best possible investigation for such victims, because the trauma and the lasting physical and mental injury that these crimes have caused cannot be dismissed. We know that paramilitaries used rape and sexual violence to instil fear and maintain control, which has been overlooked for far too long.

Máiría Cahill, who is known by many in this House, is a victim of sexual violence at the hands of the IRA. Last week, she shared with me and others the real impact of these crimes. She told me:

“My abuser used a conversation about guns to frighten me into silence about his horrendous yearlong abuse of me as a 16-year-old.

His comrades in the IRA later forced me into the same room as him in a yearlong forced so-called investigation into that abuse. When I eventually went to the criminal justice system, it failed us so much that Sir Keir Starmer’s report led to an apology from the then DPP.”

She went on to say:

“Worse still, police intelligence showed that the RUC knew from the year 2000 that my abuser was abusing children—and did nothing. A retired Chief Inspector is quoted as saying that they would not have been interested in the child abuse aspect, because they were focused on the terrorism.”

Ms Cahill, like me, is worried that this Labour Government are going to ignore troubles-related sexual crime victims all over again. That is why amendment 4 is so important, because those victims must be central and they must have access to justice.

Another victim, Paudie McGahon, was raped by a north Belfast IRA man Seamus Marley, when he was in an IRA safe house. He threatened his victims that, if they told anyone about it, they would be found dead on a border road. Marley was later convicted in the Republic of Ireland, but the Provisional IRA members who forced their victims into a kangaroo court—some of them were from Northern Ireland—were not prosecuted. There are other victims out there for whom the criminal justice system is inadequate, because it cannot cope with paramilitary forced interrogations into victims of rape or abuse.

In Máiría Cahill’s own words:

“Sexual crimes have for too long been swept under the cloak of conflict—as have paramilitary actions. If Labour votes down this amendment, my abuser can access the shield of this Troubles Bill and seek amnesty for any of his IRA activities carried out while abusing me—but it affords me no protection whatsoever as his victim.”

Almost 30 years later, Máiría wanted me to share with the Committee that she is still receiving psychological care because of what happened to her as a 16-year-old. These victims deserve an investigation and they deserve justice.

Máiría also asked me to remind Labour Ministers that the then shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Hove and Portslade (Peter Kyle), convinced the Conservative Government to include troubles-related rape in the last iteration of this legacy Bill. He raised a fundamental concern that the legislation, as originally drafted, could allow perpetrators of rape and other sexual offences committed during the troubles to benefit from immunity from prosecution. He warned that the Bill contained no specific prohibition on immunity for sexual violence, so he tabled the then amendment 115 to exclude certain sexual offences explicitly from the immunity provisions. That amendment was supported in Committee, and the Government subsequently brought forward a replacement provision expressly excluding troubles-related sexual offences from immunity.

I will work with the Government and the Secretary of State in remedying this, but it is important that amendment 4 is made tonight, because the context matters. It would demonstrate that Parliament has previously recognised the need to address sexual violence explicitly in troubles legislation, rather than simply assume that existing provisions will adequately protect victims. My amendment addresses an equally important gap in the current Bill, because it would allow victims of sexual crimes committed as part of the troubles, who suffered physical or mental harm, to request an investigation. We must not allow sexual violence or abuse to become an overlooked part of the history of the troubles, nor should victims be left without an effective route to seek answers about what happened. That intervention demonstrated the importance of putting protections into the legislation itself, and I am asking this Committee to apply the same principle on the right of victims to seek an investigation.

This is not about party politics; it is about recognising the experiences of victims, ensuring that sexual violence is properly acknowledged in the historical record and making certain that the legislation does not leave that behind. If Parliament has accepted that sexual offences require explicit protection in the context of immunity, it should also give serious consideration to ensuring the victims of those offences are not excluded from the process of seeking truth and accountability. Indeed, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), when she was the Minister for safeguarding and violence against women and girls, acknowledged in evidence to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, that in conflict societies sexual violence should be recognised as part of the reality of conflict. She added:

“Of course, anyone who suffered sexual violence because of conflict should be taken account of.”

She also stressed that victims’ experiences must be handled sensitively to avoid retraumatisation.

The hon. Member’s evidence reinforces the principle behind my amendment, because victims of sexual violence during the troubles deserve recognition and the opportunity for their experiences to be properly investigated. I listened to the Secretary of State this morning when he said he wanted to bring forward

“a balanced Bill which gives as many people answers as possible”.

So I ask him to listen to those people. I have tabled a number of other amendments about different factors, but that is the main one I want to put forward.

[Chris Bryant]

I am enormously grateful to the hon. Member. I hope he understands that I think everybody in the Committee wants to ensure that people are not barred from taking forward these issues through the commission. However, as he has just said, this may need to be dealt with so sensitively that the legacy commission might not be the place where they want it to be addressed—they might want it to be addressed somewhere else. I am not sure that his amendment is necessary to achieve what he is trying to achieve. I am very happy to work with him on making sure that we get to a good place on this, but I am just not sure that this measure is necessary.

[Robin Swann]

With the greatest respect to the Secretary of State, the reason I want to put this into the Bill is that it is not there. When we look at the list in clause 27(3), we see:

“‘Serious physical or mental harm’ means…paraplegia;… quadriplegia;…severe brain injury or damage;…severe psychiatric damage;…total blindness;…total deafness;…loss of one or more limbs;…severe scarring or disfigurement.”

The list does not include sexual crime, which does not fall under any of those harms. Previous answers from his Department said that this would cover people who were killed or seriously injured, and that victims of sexual violence should raise their case with the Police Service of Northern Ireland. That could be said about any victim coming forward in this regard. I ask him to seriously consider where sexual violence and crime could fit into the Bill. It is not a wide section of victims, nor will it add multiple cases, but it will bring reassurance to some. I seriously believe that is what the Government want to bring about with this Bill, so I am keen to work with them in regard to this specific experience of many victims and survivors.

We do not feel that the amendment regarding the second investigator or the director of investigations in the commission is necessary, because it undermines the current provision. There has been no serious complaint about the operation of either the commission’s chief executive or the director of investigations that we see would make a second position necessary. I ask Members to support my amendment 4.

[Matthew Patrick (Wirral West) (Lab)]

I support this Bill for victims and veterans. I support this Bill for truth, justice and the rule of law. I support this Bill for Northern Ireland, the United Kingdom and peace. I welcome the amendments from the Government. I know they have come about following deep and constructive engagement with many people in the House and outside it, and I think they strengthen what we have before us.

The Good Friday agreement is rightly one of the proudest achievements of the last Labour Government. It changed the course of history. While praise is understandably lavished on the politicians who negotiated its terms, they would be the first to tell us that its success is not theirs to own, but that it is owned by the people of Northern Ireland, who, day in and day out, make that progress possible. They do so without fanfare and they embrace it. It is not that they have forgotten the pain and suffering—how could they?—but they chose a different future, and in so doing they wrote a different story for Northern Ireland.

What a story the people are writing! The economy is exciting, and the creative industries, the defence sector and technology are booming. They have the lowest unemployment in the whole of the UK and the highest growth. Excellent schools are helping to equip the next generation—a generation not growing up knowing the sound of a bomb, and not growing up to fear a Protestant or a Catholic. Brilliant charities and community groups are helping a generation to see that they have more in common with one another. I believe that, if we are to protect that progress, we need a legacy process that commands confidence, and I think that is helped by these amendments.

None of that, of course, is to pretend that there are not problems in modern day Northern Ireland. Recent weeks have shown us that the peace we have is not a replacement for the pain, and it has not changed what happened in the past—that can never be changed, and we should never ignore it. Let us be clear: that pain will also be known by those who served in Northern Ireland, whether in the Army or the police, and by their families. The amendments that I support, including stopping repeat investigations, matter a great deal to them, and I will always be in admiration of those who stood in harm’s way to keep people safe. They lost far too much; the way they were tested in their service of our country, I would wish on no person.

Whenever the issue has been debated before in this House, there has been a contingent of veterans in the Public Gallery. Each time, I have learnt so much by going to speak to them. I have learnt about the horrors they encountered. I have learnt how rightly proud they are of their service, and how frustrated they are about the injustices that they, their friends and their comrades faced. Our conversations often turned to whether they would want immunity for that period; they do not. They told me that they fought to defend the rule of law, not to be above it. They simply want equality before it.

Surely, we in this House agree that it is all those people—those who have helped to make Northern Ireland what it is today and to make peace possible—who we should put first. If the Bill helps a father in his late 80s end the torture of not knowing what happened to his daughter in her final moments, can we say that he is not worth our support? Should we tell him how glad we are that he never allowed his grief and devastation to stop his commitment to a peaceful Northern Ireland, but we cannot pass those provisions for him? If the Bill helps a widow of a veteran murdered by a terrorist group get the justice that she has been denied for decades, can we say that that is not worth our support? Should we tell her that her pain and anguish—her children having to grow up without knowing their father—is really awful, and we are sorry, but we cannot do this for her?

It is clearly not right that those brave veterans who helped contain the worst of the violence should be forced into the dock to relive the worst day of their life, when they have already been cleared by an investigation that looked into all of the evidence. They were asked by our state to act; they do not deserve to be tried again and again until a different result is found. That is precisely why the protection from repeat investigations is so important. It is why I welcome the amendment set out by the Secretary of State that strengthens that very protection. That is how we honour the sacrifice of people who went out to defend the rule of law, without cruelly and needlessly making them relive the very worst moment of their lives.

I do not think this Bill will be as totemic as the Good Friday agreement. It will not go down in the history books in quite the same way. But it can deliver with fairness for all those who I mentioned at the start of my speech. This Bill might bring answers—maybe even justice—to people who have lived with very deep pain for many, many years and put their country first. They put peace first. Those are the people who make progress possible, each and every day. I am proud to support them, and I am proud to support the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

This has been a good debate; the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) said that she had always wanted better debates in this place. Thirty-one Members managed to take part. As the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) said, we all come with different perspectives, and we have managed to hear a lot of perspectives in this debate —perhaps more than have been heard in previous debates. It has also been good to have former Ministers who were directly involved with the legislation involved in the debate.

A few key points have struck me forcibly. First, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) is absolutely right that peace without justice is not peace. The thin veneer of peace sometimes can mask the underlying problems in a society. I also think that balance is absolutely vital. In previous debates, perhaps there has been a focus on one particular part of the UK community, rather than on everybody. Joe McVey, the Victims’ Commissioner, is still with us; it was interesting to hear about some of the people he has worked with, not only here but on previous occasions. Several Members made the point that veterans and families are not two mutually exclusive groups. A very large number of veterans’ families want answers themselves, because they have never been able to get them.

I want to refer directly to the amendment from my—go on, why not?—hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann). I want to be absolutely clear that sexual offences can be investigated by the commission, like any other troubles offence, if they are linked to a death or a serious injury. There is absolutely no bar, and we would not have allowed legislation that had such a bar. Indeed, when previous legislation was brought forward that would have had such a bar, we of course opposed that. If such issues are not investigated by the commission, they could be investigated by the PSNI. I think hon. Members have made the point that sometimes the individual may want to choose the right place—the place that they feel the most confidence in.

[Robin Swann]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Chris Bryant]

I am not going to give way, if the hon. Member does not mind, because I need to make progress. The other point I would make to him is that I am not sure that we have quite got this right yet. I am happy to work with him on ensuring that we do get it right. I do not think his amendment works, simply because clause 27(2) says,

“Where conduct forming part of the Troubles caused a person to suffer serious physical or mental harm, the person may request an investigation under this Part of the conduct.”

I think that already includes precisely the incidents that he is talking about, but if we have not got that right, and if we have not been able to provide enough assurance, then I am happy to work with him and others—I am quite happy to gather people from all across the House—to ensure that we get that right in the House of Lords. That is a firm undertaking from me and the whole ministerial team. We will get that right when it gets to the House of Lords.

The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) asked why the equivalence issue and the operational context do not apply to prosecutors. He will know, because he is a very clever man, that many of the aspects of the clause are already well-established tenets of criminal law, which we are putting beyond doubt for the specific role of the commission and coroners. I think these things are already in existence.

My great and hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), who chairs the Select Committee, asks on behalf of the Committee, through her amendment 286, about the pressures on the PSNI. I am very aware of them, and my predecessor made commitments about trying to get to the right place, because I do not want to overload the PSNI when it already has a very difficult workload. I will work with her and the team to try to get to the right place. I do not want to completely surrender on this point yet, but I am happy to work with her.

The right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) raised the timing of the Omagh bombing inquiry. The terms of reference for the Omagh bombing inquiry are very clear. They refer directly to authorities in the Republic of Ireland on two occasions, and make specific reference to whether the sharing of information by the Irish authorities could have helped to prevent the bombing. The Irish Government have passed legislation to enable co-operation with the inquiry, and they are co-operating. However, the inquiry clearly expects more and has made that clear, and has explicitly stated that it will push the Irish for more and continued co-operation. I will ensure that that co-operation will be forthcoming.

Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over Extension)

Robin Swann Excerpts

Carry-over motion
Tuesday 13th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

I am voting in favour of the carry-over motion, because we need to debate the Bill, and to have the Bill. We need to have it for the future of peace in Northern Ireland. Not only are the victims of terror attacks looking at the Bill—many are in the Public Gallery—but the eyes of the world are on us. This is an international issue. We have shown the way by bringing peace to Northern Ireland through the Good Friday agreement—one of the proudest legacies of the Labour party—and the tireless work of community activists, Members in this Chamber and those from different parties in Northern Ireland, representing a future full of peace.

To have that future, however, we need to understand the past, and there are over 1,000 families who have not got answers about what happened to their loved one. For those families, that is a pain that is almost too hard to tell. They do not know what happened in the last minutes of their loved one’s life, who committed those atrocities, and in many circumstances, where they are. That pain is being passed on to future generations, who they are understandably worried about.

Today I met members of the WAVE Trauma Centre community in Belfast. Sandra Peake and WAVE do an amazing job of addressing the continuing trauma. They enable us politicians to hear from some of the families. Those stories were hard to hear, but I will share some of the words spoken, because I support the carry-over motion on their behalf. One victim said:

“It is important to get legacy right now or it will keep affecting our children and future generations”.

They said it was important to debate the motion and have the right product set up,

“so that we can move on.”

Another person said,

“My mum has been fighting for decades and passed it on to me, but she should have the answers before it is too late.”

Someone else said,

“I would really like the truth. Who was responsible.”

Another said, “People need the truth.”

People have been researching what happened, in some cases for 20 years or more. They know some of the names and have begun to piece some of it together. There is always the concern that there might be an investigative journalist knocking on the door with some of the answers, but with no actual investigation to back it up with and to say what really happened.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

I am listening to the powerful message that the hon. Lady is giving. Is she concerned that in moving away from ICRIR and the work that has already been done and moving to a commission, trust and the search for truth will be lost and some families, veterans and victims may be put off the process because they see yet another body?

--- Later in debate ---

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

I rise to talk about the carry-over motion that we have in front of us this evening, because much of what we have heard from the Secretary of State was what we heard from the previous Secretary of State in regard to why we needed to see the remedial order rushed through. The remedial order went nowhere, but now we are compensating and bringing it into the legislation that we have been asked to consider next week.

I echo the comments from the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) in regard to the number of amendments that have been laid before us when considering the Bill and the very short time that this Government have given everybody to consider them. That applies not just to the legislators in this House but to the victims groups, the veterans not just of the United Kingdom but of Northern Ireland, and the small family groups, who will find it extremely difficult to work through that booklet of amendments to see how it applies to them, to their cause and to their loved ones, and how it supports them in their search for truth.

I ask the Secretary of State to look at the timing of the Committee stage and also at what contribution Northern Ireland MPs will get to make in this House. I make a plea to those on the Government and Opposition Front Benches: let us not use victims and veterans in Northern Ireland as political playthings. We have heard that from the Labour Benches. The Government are at times as bad as what we have seen from the Opposition, and I think the Lib Dem spokesman, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), has a lot to apologise for here tonight in regard to the topics that he brought forward. I ask the Secretary of State to consider a Keeling schedule, setting out with clarity how the amendments would apply to the legislation, what amendments can be brought forward and how they would amend the Bill. That would make a big difference.

The Secretary of State strayed away from the carry-over motion into some of the amendments. Can I ask him and the Government to look seriously at my amendment 4, which would bring sexual crime under the remit of the new commission? I know what the previous Secretary of State said, and what the Northern Ireland Office said, and it is often stated in here that the previous Government’s troubles Bill did not receive any support from the Northern Ireland parties. My amendment has support from every Northern Ireland MP who takes their seat in this House, as well as from Labour Members and Lib Dem Members, so I ask the Government to seriously consider it. When I met the Secretary of State to talk about this, he was very open and honest, and he said that the Government would consider non-Government amendments to make this Bill better. It has a long, long way to go before it could be acceptable to many in my community.

Drumcree

Robin Swann Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

The most important thing we have to realise is that the job of work of the Good Friday agreement is not complete. Many elements of it were parked at the time, and we need to complete that work. That is one reason why it is important that we get the troubles Bill right. I have met so many people who still bear not just bruises, but deep scars, from the troubles, and they want answers. That is precisely what we are trying to legislate for at the moment.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

The parade was lawful; the protest was unlawful. What we are hearing in Northern Ireland in response to that protest is in stark contrast to what we heard from the Home Secretary in the statement prior to this one. The Secretary of State said in his statement, “Let the courts do their work.” When he knew that the court was to rule today, why did he move from section 9 to making a section 11 decision on Friday night, rather than waiting on the court’s ruling today?

[Chris Bryant]

When I received the section 9 letter on Friday morning, I had no idea when the court was going to come to its conclusions, and obviously I had been asked—and am required by law—to consult with the Parades Commission and the Chief Constable, as I did. That is the process I followed. I do not want to stray further into that process, simply because all of this is subject to legal challenge.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robin Swann Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue, because five of the main parties have now come forward with various proposals for reform. I have said to the party leaders that I wish to meet them to discuss those proposals. Time and effort is being expended at the moment on trying to sort out the problem of the budget. On the question of the paramilitary displays and flags, the Police Service of Northern Ireland has new powers to remove them as a result of the recommendation of Jonathan Hall, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

In his first answer, the Secretary of State said that the recent disorder was a problem that needed to be solved. A fortnight ago, I arranged a roundtable in my constituency that included the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, the police, the Executive Office, the Department for Communities and many other organisations and representative organisations, including the Black Diamond Initiatives. It was apparent that they all had their strategies and their procedures, but what they did not have was a co-ordinated response. They were all looking to the Executive to pull all those organisations together. If dysfunction at the top of our Executive is not allowing that to happen, what actions will the Secretary of State take?

[Hilary Benn]

There is a responsibility, above all, on the Northern Ireland Executive to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland. There being no Executive in Northern Ireland for 40% of the time since the Good Friday agreement has not helped to achieve that objective. To take one issue, there is an acute housing crisis in Northern Ireland, as there is in other parts of the United Kingdom. In taking action to enable more homes to be built, one of the issues that needs to be addressed is the fact that water infrastructure cannot cope. If that is sorted out, more homes can be built.

Northern Ireland Office

Robin Swann Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for this timely debate on the spending of the Northern Ireland Office. As I stand here today, it remains the case that Northern Ireland has no agreed budget, despite it being a quarter of the way through the financial year. Executive Ministers have failed to agree a budget, which has left Departments and civil servants forced to rely on emergency contingency powers, with spending limited to 95% of last year’s opening budget. Most concerningly, this leaves the people of Northern Ireland uncertain about the public services they will be able to access in the coming year.

Although the Finance Minister published a draft multi-year budget in January, it was not supported by the other parties in the Executive and, frustratingly, that deadlock is still unresolved.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

Will the hon. Member also acknowledge that even Members of the Finance Minister’s party are now opposed to the budget he produced?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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?

[Robin Swann]

I congratulate the Chair on how she is raising the issue in this debate and how she has handled the legacy inquiry. Does she agree that there must be an answer to the concerns raised by the PSNI that it does not have any additional moneys to provide that information to the ICRIR with regard to legacy? There is also a funding issue there. Both the PSNI and the ICRIR have raised the issue of funding, saying that they are not being given the money to enable them to give the evidence they hold and manage to help the people who are waiting on those cases.

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

I thank the hon. Member for that contribution. It has been very clear from the Committee’s evidence sessions that, to cover the legacy issues it is still dealing with and will have to deal with, the PSNI is taking resource of time and money that it cannot afford, which impacts on what it can provide on the street, so I too would like to highlight that point.

We want to see a stable Executive, backed up by fair and sustainable public finances, reflecting the needs of the people of Northern Ireland. I am concerned that the Executive’s financial constraint and the funding pressures facing the PSNI and the ICRIR are having a very real impact on people’s lives today.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)]

I join others in congratulating the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), on having secured this extremely important, timely and useful estimates debate and on the work she does to scrutinise what happens in Northern Ireland and the work of the Northern Ireland Office. The Committee is exceedingly energetic and will be getting full value for money from the small ministerial team, as it did today and will do over the next couple of weeks.

I shall begin by addressing the most important question that has been highlighted, to which the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) just referred: the lack of an agreed budget. He has just reminded us that he thought the spending review was a pretty good settlement. The Chancellor set out that Northern Ireland would receive £19.3 billion per year on average over the course of the spending review period—the largest settlement since devolution in 1998. In addition, the Chancellor confirmed that the Government would be providing almost £750 million in additional funding through the Barnett formula over the spending review period as a result of decisions made at the autumn Budget and the spring statement. That includes an extra £373 million in the current financial year, 2026-27, and that money is available to the Executive.

To pick up on one point, I am aware of the arguments about the funding in comparison to Scotland and Wales. I simply want to make the point that funding settlements for all the nations of the United Kingdom are underpinned by the Barnett formula, and it is important to remember that, for example, compared with Wales, Northern Ireland has benefited from generous funding from the Barnett formula in previous years. The UK Government—the last Government and this one—have also committed around £16 billion in funding packages and agreed financial flexibilities from 2014-15 right up to 2029-30 for the Executive to support public services and long-term investment. The Treasury has given a commitment to discuss a fiscal framework for Northern Ireland, where, of course, funding under the Barnett formula can be discussed.

On the level of need, the fact is that this was independently assessed by the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council. The figure that it came up with was 124%, and that is indeed the level of funding that the Northern Ireland Executive are getting. My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) recognises that fact. She rightly points out that, however much money is allocated, someone will always say, “Give us more.” How the money is spent has also been an important part of this debate, and I shall come to the remarks of the former Finance Minister, the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), in a moment.

Let us look at what is achieved in Northern Ireland for the expenditure, with 124% of the funding in England. In England, about 4% of people are waiting more than a year to see a hospital consultant. In Northern Ireland, it is nearly 50%, with more funding.

[Robin Swann]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Hilary Benn]

Of course I will give way to the former Health Minister.

[Robin Swann]

The right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that, as there has not been a repetitive budget since 2016, any transformation or investment in health is always more challenging, and that is where the waiting lists are. Does he also acknowledge that that transformation funding is now there, and that the work being done by my party colleague, the present Minister of Health, Mike Nesbitt, is bringing those waiting lists down?

[Hilary Benn]

I absolutely acknowledge the work that Mike Nesbitt has been doing in health, and it shows what can be achieved if minds are put to it. It is a difficult balance between, on the one hand, running the services today and keeping them going and, on the other hand, investing in transformation. In the end, however, investing in the transformation is the way in which we will be able to deliver better public services for the people of Northern Ireland.

I share the concern that has been expressed right across the House at the absence of an agreed multi-year budget, which is creating, above all, significant uncertainty for the funding of public services. I have been talking regularly with the Minister for Finance, who clearly faces a huge challenge in trying to get an agreement, and those conversations will continue this week, because we need to get to a multi-year budget as quickly as possible. I said about a month ago that the Executive needed to come towards the Government and meet us halfway, and there are two essential requirements.

The first relates to the fact that the amount of money currently being forecast as the overspend for this year is going up, beyond the level that we saw in the last financial year. The word “pressures” is heard frequently in Northern Ireland. People say that they have budget pressures. Well, everyone has budget pressures. Quite reasonably, the Government have asked what the nature of those pressures is. Are they absolutely unavoidable legal commitments, are they things we would like to do or are they things in between? Trying to interrogate and understand the nature of those pressures and to see what the Executive tell the Government about that is the first requirement.

The second requirement is a plan for how we will move from this year-to-year crisis—which was very clearly articulated by the right hon. Member for East Antrim in his contribution—because we need to see something that will address this in the longer term. I am much struck by what the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council said in its report on the sustainability of the finances, published on 16 June. It said that

“these immediate issues facing NI’s public finances reflect an unsustainable trajectory resulting from the underlying structural problems in the Budget. These structural issues are visible in the relatively high public sector pay bill, limited revenue-raising”—

a point just referred to—

“and persistent overspends.”

Whatever the size of the budget that anyone has, we have, in the end, a responsibility to find a way of living within that and to raise more revenue if that is open to us. That is what all Governments must do. The current Government have done it in relation to the public finances, and the same is true for the Northern Ireland Executive. In addition to the funding I have already described, there is the £617 million from the UK Government that is going into the city and growth deals, as well as the defence growth deal, which the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick), has spoken about in the House; the enhanced investment zone; and the local growth fund.

A point was raised about the local growth fund. I recognise and accept that the change in the profile from revenue to capital has created a difficulty for the voluntary sector. That is why I met representatives of the voluntary sector and said to them, “There is unspent money in the PEACEPLUS programme; you can make a bid to that.” I think about £12 million is available in revenue. The Exec came to the Government and said, “We would like to keep £3 million of that for Go Succeed; we think it is a great programme, and we’d like you to carry on backing it.” We said, “Fine.” That left £9 million available in revenue for the economic inactivity programmes that the voluntary sector has been running. I said to the Executive, “How about putting the extra Barnett consequentials that you now have, including £373 million in the current year that you were not expecting, together with the £9 million? We could then enable those projects to continue.” That is an example of what can be done if we put our minds to it.

The extra capital allocation in the local growth fund may in part be the answer to the question asked about the ports fund. A number of commitments were made in the “Safeguarding the Union” document. I remember a large commitment that Casement Park would be fully funded so that the Euros could be hosted. Well, no money was allocated for it at all. The previous Government were very free with the promises, but they did not do the work to find the money. No funding has been identified for the ports fund, but there is money in the local growth fund. I also point out that Belfast harbour has a masterplan, which I understand it is looking to self-fund, and that the Government have made available an increase in capital funding to the Northern Ireland Executive. If the Executive wish to put money into port infrastructure, they are entirely able to do so.

Let me turn to PSNI funding. I once again pay tribute to the officers of the PSNI who, every time there is disorder in Northern Ireland, show extraordinary courage in protecting the public from those who are setting fire to buses, throwing bricks and burning people out of their houses. I had the chance to thank some of those officers when I returned to Northern Ireland the week before last, following the disorder. They are very brave. From memory, I think some 42 officers were injured in the recent disorder.

I appreciate the financial pressures faced, but this is a devolved matter. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim said that he thought it was a profound mistake to have devolved responsibility for policing and justice. I respectfully disagree with him. The trouble with the call for ringfencing, which we have heard from other sources this evening, is this: we either believe in devolved Government—the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland taking decisions about how the money is spent—or begin to move back towards a ringfence; once we have a ringfence for the PSNI, it will not be long before someone says, “Can I have a ringfence over here?” In the end, we have a choice to make. I believe in devolved Government in Northern Ireland, and the Government believe in devolved Government in Northern Ireland. There is a matter of principle here: the funding is available to the Executive; it is for them to decide how much they allocate to policing as opposed to other priorities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

I would indeed accept that point, if it was not for the fact that a decision had been made to leave the European Union when there is an open border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. That was the fundamental problem that had to be solved, and none of the alternative suggestions would enable us to do this.

I want to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) about the Muckamore hospital report. I think that every single Member of the House was deeply shocked by what we read in that report, and our hearts go out to all those who have been affected by the mistreatment that has been revealed. I think the answer to the very reasonable question that she put is that we all hope to see all the many recommendations in that report implemented.

[Robin Swann]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Hilary Benn]

I think the hon. Gentleman was responsible for establishing the inquiry, and I pay credit to him for doing so. The real way to honour those who have suffered is to ensure that the recommendations of the report are fully implemented.

[Robin Swann]

I thank the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for raising the matter. I was the Minister who commissioned the inquiry, and listening to the families and the individuals who were in Muckamore at that time was a harrowing experience. I want to put on the record my thanks to Tom Kark KC, who chaired the inquiry, for handling the inquiry and bringing forward the recommendations in an engaging and compassionate way. The health service, the trusts and the entire health family in Northern Ireland need to pay careful tribute to a number of those recommendations, and the hon. Lady made a good point that they contain learnings for health bodies, trusts and Departments across the United Kingdom.

[Hilary Benn]

I congratulate the hon. Member on having established the inquiry, because when things go catastrophically wrong, it is what we do about it that counts, and that requires an independent look and for the truth to be told.

In conclusion, it is of course for the Executive to agree a budget—above all, for the citizens they serve. That is the fundamental principle of devolved government in Northern Ireland. I repeat what I said earlier: both myself and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury are ready and willing to try to assist the Executive in doing that, but we need to see the things that I described earlier to be able to do so.

Police Service of Northern Ireland Training College

Robin Swann Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I also congratulate the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) on bringing forward this motion. I also join him in his comments on the horrific attack in north Belfast. Comments were also made in the House earlier today, and I reinforce the call for calm. This debate is about the PSNI training facility at Kinnegar, but it should not be forgotten that in the past, our police were the frontline and suffered many attacks and many threats. That should not be the fallout of yesterday’s attack.

As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, there are many current police training facilities around Northern Ireland. I recently visited PSNI Steeple in my constituency, which looks after canine handling. It was fantastic to visit and see at first hand the dedication in that unit—from the dog handlers to the trainers, those who look after the dogs in the kennels and the entire welfare section. They noted that Kinnegar, or PSNI Redburn as it will be known, will result in the closure of many such facilities across Northern Ireland. I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from when he talks of centralisation. It also puts pressure on those people who will not work in remote training facilities. They will have to relocate, or their jobs will be in jeopardy. That should not take away, however, from the hope of a new training facility at PSNI Redburn.

We always look back in Northern Ireland and reflect. Many years ago, there was an opportunity of a joint police and fire service college at Desertcreat. Many of my colleagues present know that that was well put forward when they were Members of the Legislative Assembly. At that stage, the police service withdrew due to capital and financial pressures, but the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service went on and developed Desertcreat into a fantastic training facility, with many of the facilities that the hon. Member for North Down talks about. It could have been bigger, and it could have delivered cross-blue-lights services, but unfortunately that did not go ahead.

The police service has purchased the land at the former barracks in Kinnegar to develop its own training site. This place should be seeking to support the development of that site at an early stage. The proposal for a new police college at Kinnegar seeks to deliver a vision first identified during the Patten reforms: a modern, purpose-built centre for police training and professional development. The acquisition of the former Kinnegar barracks site represents what we believe is the most significant step in a generation towards a new police training campus, and the development of our police officers that has been mentioned by the two previous speakers.

When we see the dedication of our current police force, which the hon. Member for Strangford also mentioned, it would be remiss of me not to comment on the current TV series in Northern Ireland, “Peelers: The PSNI for Real”. It was developed by Stephen Nolan, and I think it has brought forward the real challenges as it follows the day-to-day experiences of our police officers. If you have not viewed it yet, Sir Roger, I would recommend it to you—and to other Members and the House. When we look at the development and the challenge, they need that training. It is vital to make sure that they are properly equipped for every scenario, and that is what a centralised training college will provide.

The site will provide a substantial footprint, capable of supporting not only recruit training, but a wider range of specialist policing functions. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee heard recently from the Chief Constable and previous Chief Constables that the PSNI is unique as a police force because it has to supply most of those specialist officers itself; geographically, it does not have the ability to call in mutual aid from other forces. The proposal has evolved beyond a traditional training school and now includes plans for a broader policing and crime training campus. The PSNI sees the project as an opportunity to bring training, leadership development and specialist capabilities together in a single, modern location. As I said, the Chief Constable, Jon Boutcher, has linked the proposal directly to the long-standing ambition for a world-class police college in Northern Ireland, but the challenge is always around the financing and capital spend, where the police have always been under pressure.

The new campus, intended to support increased recruitment and help to prepare future officers for the increasingly complex demands of modern policing, would be welcome. The PSNI has incorporated the project into its long-term estates strategy and has established dedicated planning and consultation work to develop the site—it is already putting in the background work. While questions remain about funding and delivery, it is notable that the PSNI’s stated position is that Kinnegar offers a strategic opportunity to strengthen policing capability, professional standards and workforce development for decades to come. In that instance, I support the motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Robin Swann]

On the transformation funding, could the Minister clarify just how much the PSNI has got out of the pot he mentioned? I know that it has put in several bids.

[Matthew Patrick]

From the direct amount funded by the UK Government—there are separate bids that are being considered by the Executive—Justice is receiving £22.6 million. That is transforming the justice system, and I understand that it has already saved 4,000 hours of police time in the first year it has been introduced.

I will address some of the points made in the debate.

[Robin Swann]

I appreciate that it was Justice that received the money, but could the Minister clarify how much the PSNI actually received? When members of the Policing Board were in front of the Northern Affairs Committee, they informed us that they had made a number of specific bids through that pot.

[Matthew Patrick]

That is funding to the Department of Justice rather than directly to the PSNI but, as I stated, given the hours of police time saved, that investment will clearly have a benefit.

On the matter of funding for the PSNI, many Members rightly raised resources, and a few raised some specifics. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised the serious issue of rural crime, which I know that he, the Ulster Farmers Union, the PSNI and many other Members take very seriously. It is not the only factor at play; as he also mentioned, the land border brings with it complexity, and makes the relationship between the PSNI and the Garda Síochána very important. That positive relationship is crucial.

I have mentioned the record settlement and the fact that the Executive must make the decision to allocate their resources. Although the PSNI is devolved and operationally independent, as we would expect, the Government remain in close contact with it and the Department of Justice. Powerful points were made. I note that Northern Ireland continues to have the highest number of police officers per head of all nations in the United Kingdom.

The hon. Member for Strangford mentioned funding for legacy, which was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane). The previous Government put £250 million into funding legacy institutions. In addition, as announced in the joint framework, the Irish Government will contribute €25 million to support legacy mechanisms.

I mentioned the record settlement given by this Government and the increase to the additional security funding. Of course there is a requirement on the PSNI, as there is on many other UK Government Departments and agencies, to disclose information. The PSNI is no longer dealing with the caseload it had before the establishment of the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery.

Let me add that the Chief Constable has raised the matter directly with the Government. The Government are engaging with him and the PSNI about the resource concerns in relation to disclosure.

The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) and others discussed the numbers and composition of our police; the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar may have rung the death knell for my career given his kind words, but I will try to address his concerns. As of 1 June this year, the PSNI has 6,341 full-time-equivalent officers. The Northern Ireland Executive’s programme for government recognises that PSNI officer numbers are low. The Executive’s commitment to grow police officer numbers to 7,500, in line with the 2020 “New Decade, New Approach” agreement, is very welcome.

A well-staffed, well-resourced and well-trained PSNI is vital to the success and stability of Northern Ireland. I am aware that the PSNI restarted recruitment in December last year; the Department of Justice got an additional £7 million in Executive funding to meet the full cost of year one of the PSNI’s workforce recovery plan. Apart from national security, policing in Northern Ireland is a devolved matter and police numbers are a matter for the Department of Justice and the Chief Constable.

I move on to parading, which was mentioned by a number of hon. Members. Determinations are rightly a matter for the independent Parades Commission, which acts independently of Government. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no role in that process. Determinations are legally binding, and it is important that all involved in parades and protests adhere to the rule of law and abide by any determinations made by the commission.

As others have said today, we all have a responsibility to respect the rule of law and use temperate language to reduce tensions around sensitive parades and protests. The commission continues to have the full support of the Government in its challenging role in relation to parades in Northern Ireland.

North Belfast: Violent Attack

Robin Swann Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

Until I am in a position, by talking the—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman has asked me a question; will he do me the courtesy of allowing me to answer it? Until I am in a position to have that information confirmed, I cannot confirm it to the House. As soon as I can, I will, but, as I have already explained, the PSNI is leading on answering the very legitimate question that the hon. Gentleman has asked.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

The right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) described the incident as “medieval”. It was not just medieval: what we saw happen on the streets of the United Kingdom was pure evil. While tribute has been paid to those members of the general public who stepped in and the emergency services that responded, may I seek reassurance from the Secretary of State that those members of the general public who stepped in will be recognised and will not be persecuted or prosecuted for the actions they took in regard to attacking that individual? I encourage the Secretary of State to come forward and fill the vacuum of information, because he knows more than he is telling the House at this minute about this incident.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robin Swann Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Patrick]

Those conversations are ongoing. We had a recent Westminster Hall debate about those issues, and we will have further conversations with party leaders. I will gently say, however, that those conservations cannot be a substitute for improving services now. Improvements can be made. The hon. Member and I have talked about cancer waiting times; we can do those things now, and they do not have to wait for conversations about reform.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

Transformation needs to be embedded through a recurrent budget. We are three months into this financial year, at Northern Ireland political speed, and we still do not have a recurrent budget. What steps is the Northern Ireland Office taking to bring about such a financial budget in Northern Ireland?

[Matthew Patrick]

Not only have we given a record settlement—more than ever before in the Executive’s history since devolution—but we are supporting the Executive, having discussions with them and encouraging them to set a budget, so that the people of Northern Ireland can see the improvement in public services that they really need.