Category: Northern Ireland

  • James MacCleary – 2026 Speech on the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

    James MacCleary – 2026 Speech on the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

    The speech made by James MacCleary, the Liberal Democrat MP for Lewes and Liberal Democrat defence spokesperson, in the House of Commons on 5 January 2026.

    The Liberal Democrats are clear that the Conservatives’ Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 failed victims, survivors and veterans alike by removing legal avenues to justice and eroding public trust. Elements of the Government’s new Bill are welcome, particularly the desire to move towards reconciliation and information recovery, but those aims cannot come at the expense of justice and fairness, or the rights of those who served. Our concern is not to shield wrongdoing; it is to ensure fairness for those who acted within the law as it stood at the time. Veterans must not be left exposed to uncertainty or retrospective judgment, and without clear legal protection.

    Recruitment and retention is already an acknowledged challenge for our armed forces. Given the flaws in the Bill, an impact in this area could only further the case against it. What steps is the Minister taking to protect personnel who served during the troubles who followed the laws of the day? Given the extreme concern across the armed forces community about the impact that this legislation could have, will he consider halting the Bill, and replacing it with one that puts veterans at its heart?

    Al Carns

    I have been really clear: I have been working with veterans across the whole UK, with Northern Ireland and with the commissioners to ensure that the protections that we put in place are written into legislation and are well thought-through, so that the process does not become the punishment. People have said in Northern Ireland that the prospects of prosecution are vanishingly small. We must also ensure that other groups, such as families who lost loved ones in the troubles, get truth, reconciliation and justice, but in doing so, we must absolutely protect our veterans. We will put six protections in place; we will get five of them straight into the Bill, and written into law. We are working through the sixth one, a protocol to ensure no cold calling. It will ensure that anybody who is required to give evidence remotely, rather than by going to Northern Ireland, is engaged with by either the MOD or a regimental association. The main aim of involving our veterans was for them to help me articulate how we can stop this process from being wielded as a punishment against those who served our country so valiantly and honourably in Northern Ireland.

  • James Cartlidge – 2026 Speech on the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

    James Cartlidge – 2026 Speech on the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

    The speech made by James Cartlidge, the Shadow Defence Secretary, in the House of Commons on 5 January 2026.

    Our legacy Act ensured that those who served bravely in Northern Ireland could sleep soundly in their beds at night, knowing that they would not be hauled before the courts for protecting all of us from terrorism decades ago. But when our Act was challenged in the courts, instead of appealing, Labour immediately caved and is now scrapping those protections. This will reopen cases, such as Loughgall, from 1987, when IRA members were shot while mounting a bomb attack on a police station, having fired first on the Army.

    Loughgall involved 24 SAS soldiers, so it is no wonder that on 30 December, seven senior former SAS officers wrote an extraordinary letter stating:

    “Commanders now hesitate, fearing years of litigation. Troops feel abandoned…This self-sabotage needs no foreign hand…In this Troubles Bill, the Government is complicit in this war on our Armed Forces.”

    The Minister knows the operational importance of special forces as much as anyone. Does he recognise the huge hit to morale if cases like Loughgall are restarted because of the troubles Bill?

    Of course, the Government will say that we need the troubles Bill to pursue unsolved IRA crimes, but as the Prime Minister’s own appointed Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner David Johnstone warned last week, soldiers may be dragged before the courts, but IRA terrorists walk free because the weapons they used were decommissioned without forensic testing. Was the commissioner not right to say that veterans are treated “worse than terrorists”? Furthermore, last October the Government said that the troubles Bill would contain protections specifically for veterans. Will the Minister confirm that all the protections in the Bill also apply to terrorists?

    In November, eight retired four-star generals and an air chief marshal described the troubles Bill as a

    “direct threat to national security”.

    The letter from seven former SAS officers said that they

    “are not asking for immunity; they simply want fair procedures and decisive political leadership”.

    With the threats that we face and the need to maximise recruitment and retention, can the Minister show decisive political leadership of his own and scrap the troubles Bill?

    Al Carns

    As the shadow Defence Secretary has raised a question about recruitment and retention, it is important that we look at the record of his own Government. Military morale fell to record lows under his Government, with just four in 10 personnel in the UK armed forces satisfied with service life; satisfaction fell from 60% to 40% in 2024. Is that surprising when there were real-terms pay cuts in nine out of the 14 years that the Conservatives were in power and over 13,000 housing complaints in a single year? I will not be lectured by the hon. Gentleman on this issue.

    I would suggest that to mention that I have an insight into the operational imperative of our forces, as the tip of the spear, is a slight underestimation. I would argue that there are several people in this House who would understand that, including one who is stood here and another on the Opposition Benches. We have been left with a mess and our Northern Ireland veterans were in a legal wild west because of what the Conservatives did with the last legacy Act. No party in Northern Ireland agreed with that Act or supported it, so we had to sort that out—this Government will not allow that situation to continue.

    Let me be very clear: we are listening. We have spoken to the Royal British Legion and other associations. I speak to military cohorts on a weekly, if not daily, basis and I speak to the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner almost every day. We are working collaboratively and collectively to ensure that the Bill is fit for purpose, that it protects the individuals, that the process does not become the punishment for those individuals, and that we do not allow any terrorist organisation to rewrite history through the courts.

  • Al Carns – 2026 Statement on the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

    Al Carns – 2026 Statement on the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

    The statement made by Al Carns, the Minister for the Armed Forces, in the House of Commons on 5 January 2026.

    This Labour Government are committed to renewing the contract with those who serve, and our commitment is reflected in our actions. That is why we have given our armed forces the largest pay rise in 20 years, committed to invest £9 billion to fix forces homes, scrapped 100 out-of-date medical policies for entry standards, and created novel ways of entry including our new gap year scheme and a cyber direct entry pathway with its first cohort graduating in November. It is also why, at Christmas, this Government funded travel for up to 35,000 service personnel to be with their families over the festive period.

    The Government’s actions are having an effect. On recruitment, inflow continues to improve and is up 13% this year compared with September 2024. Applications to join the armed forces and intakes to basic training both continue to remain high. On retention, under the Conservatives morale had been falling year on year, with more people leaving than joining; we have started to reverse that decline with an 8% reduction in outflow this year compared with September 2024.

    The question refers to the impact of the troubles Bill. The Government have brought forward the troubles Bill to effectively and legally deal with the legacy of the troubles in Northern Ireland. The complexity of dealing with this issue is not lost on me. The reality is that the previous Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 did not have unfaltering support, and we are focused on navigating a workable route through this incredibly emotive and difficult topic in a fair and proportionate manner.

    The military cohorts most impacted by legacy processes are those at the very tip of the spear. There is no evidence to suggest that this Bill has had an impact on their recruitment or indeed retention. The House will understand that we do not comment on matters of special forces, but let me echo what the Defence Secretary has said directly to the community: we have your back. I am assured in my interactions with those in the command of, or serving in, our special forces that they continue to deliver at the very front edge of the nation’s effort to counter the threats that we and the UK face. I say to them: you have my support and this Government’s unequivocal support.

    The Government owe all those who served in defence of peace during the troubles an immense debt of gratitude. We understand the immense psychological toll that legacy proceedings can have and the concerns of the veterans community. We are working closely with representatives of veterans and the armed forces community to understand their concerns and ensure that this Bill meets their need. But to link recruitment and retention with the Northern Ireland legacy Bill is incorrect.

  • Kemi Badenoch – 2026 Comments on the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

    Kemi Badenoch – 2026 Comments on the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

    The comments made by Kemi Badenoch, the Leader of the Opposition, on 5 January 2026.

    Labour should scrap the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill.

    Our veterans are being treated “worse than terrorists”. That damning indictment is not from me as Leader of the Opposition, but from Labour’s own Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner.

  • Hilary Benn – 2025 Statement on the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

    Hilary Benn – 2025 Statement on the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

    The speech made by Hilary Benn, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, in the House of Commons on 18 November 2025.

    I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

    On 11 June 1966, a 28-year-old storeman, John Patrick Scullion, was shot dead on the doorstep of his home in west Belfast by the Ulster Volunteer Force. It is regarded by many as the first sectarian killing of the troubles. By 10 April 1998 and the signing of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, the death toll from this horrific period of violence in our country had risen to over 3,500, including almost 2,000 civilians and over 1,000 people who were killed while bravely serving the state, and 90% of those who lost their lives were killed by paramilitaries.

    Some of the incidents—Warrenpoint, Bloody Sunday, the Kingsmill massacre, the Miami Showband killings, the Birmingham pub bombings—are, sadly, all too well known. Many others are less well known, although for each family, their grief, privately borne, has been just as strong and just as painful—fathers and brothers, mothers and daughters, children, people from all walks of life—and each one is a tragic and needless loss of a loved one. I say “needless” because there was always an alternative to violence, an alternative made real when the Good Friday agreement was signed.

    Some found that agreement, which included the early release of prisoners convicted of troubles-related offences, very hard to accept, but over 70% of voters in Northern Ireland backed it in a referendum, because they knew that this was the moment to lay a foundation for peace that could give hope to citizens right across these islands for a future free of violence.

    Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)

    I think it is appropriate that the Secretary of State opened his speech in the way that he did, but he should recognise that when he gave dates for when the troubles started and concluded, he finished on 10 April 1998. He knows well that that means he did not include the largest atrocity of the troubles, which occurred four months later in the town of Omagh, and he knows that nothing in this Bill will make provisions available for those families. Although an inquiry is ongoing into the Omagh atrocity, that does not answer the questions relating to the Irish Republic. Will he consider extending the dates to include the largest atrocity from the troubles?

    Hilary Benn

    I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that point, which we have discussed in the House before. As he has acknowledged, there is currently a public inquiry, set up by the last Government, into the terrible events that occurred at Omagh. I think the right and proper thing to do is to let that inquiry proceed with its work and, I hope, provide the answers that families are looking for.

    Northern Ireland is now a largely peaceful place, but many people—including those I have had the privilege of meeting and who have shared with me their grief, their pain, their anger and their loss—still live with the effects of those decades of violence. Far too many have still, all these years later, been unable to find an answer to the simplest of questions: what happened—how did my loved one die?

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    Further to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), the Republic of Ireland Government and the Garda Síochána have to respond on the things on which they fell short. For instance, when my cousin was killed and others were killed, the killers crossed the border to sanctuary and safety. There was collusion between the Garda Síochána and the people responsible for those murders. Those are some of the things we need within this process. Can the Secretary of State assure all of us, on behalf of our constituents, that the justice we all seek will happen through this Bill, because I am not quite sure of that at the moment?

    Hilary Benn

    I say to the hon. Member, for whom I have enormous respect, that I hope very much that that is the case, because one of the consequences of the agreement reached between the British and Irish Governments, which was published on 19 September, is that the Irish Government will move once our legislation has been put in place. They will move from their current position, which is that they will not co-operate with institutions that we know have failed—I shall come on to that point in a moment—to the fullest possible co-operation with the Legacy Commission and, by doing so, will open up the possibility of people seeing information they have not seen for too long.

    The architects of the Good Friday agreement knew that the suffering of victims and survivors needed to be addressed, but they were not able to do so. If we are honest with ourselves, we know that this unfinished business falls to us—to all of us—because time is running out. I want to say directly to all the families—some are here in the Gallery today, and others are watching our proceedings—that we have heard their call, as I hope has the whole House, for us to do more to help them get the answers they seek.

    What is this Bill aiming to do and why is it needed? It seeks to put in place a means of dealing with legacy that can actually command broad public support in Northern Ireland, in particular for families who have been trying to find answers for so long. It is needed because the previous Government’s legislation—the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023—whatever its intentions, fundamentally failed. It failed because it has been found in many respects to be incompatible with our international obligations, so creating a legal quagmire of uncertainty.

    Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)

    How confident is the Secretary of State that his provisions for preventing compensation for interim custody orders will withstand challenge in the courts, and would the Government’s case be undermined in any way by their decision not to challenge the original ruling in the High Court?

    Hilary Benn

    If the right hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I shall come to his question a bit later.

    Crucially—this is something that the House has to recognise—the 2023 Act failed because it did not command any support in Northern Ireland among victims and survivors, or the political parties. That was no basis for progress or reconciliation. That point has to be acknowledged. One of the principal reasons for that lack of support was the Act’s attempt to offer immunity from prosecution, including to terrorists who had committed the most appalling murders. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), who is intervening from a sedentary position, needs to go back and read the legislation that his Government passed. I have it here. Immunity was a false promise. It appeared to offer soldiers something that was completely undeliverable. The measures were never implemented, and were struck down by our courts. Families who had endured unimaginable suffering through paramilitary violence were simply not prepared to see those responsible given immunity.

    Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)

    I have spoken to many veterans in my constituency who are understandably concerned about the repeal of that law, and the vacuum that it leaves. Can the Secretary of State set out how the Bill supports our veterans?

    Hilary Benn

    I shall do that. If my hon. Friend will bear with me, I shall come to that directly.

    Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)

    On what I hope is a non-contentious point, will the Secretary of State explain to Members in all parts of the House something that not everybody realises, which is that the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 means that no matter how heinous the crime, and no matter whether it was committed by a member of the armed forces—unlikely, but possible—a republican terrorist or a loyalist terrorist, no one will serve more than two years in jail? People need to realise that. Compromises have had to be made—and they have to be made by those on both sides, equally, if international law is not to strike them down.

    Hilary Benn

    The right hon. Gentleman is indeed correct. That was, in part, the basis on which the Good Friday agreement was reached, and 71.7% of the people of Northern Ireland gave their support to it. Compromise, of course, is essential in the interests of peace.

    There was anger from many of those who served in Northern Ireland, who saw immunity as an affront to the rule of law that they had sought to protect, and as implying some sort of moral equivalence between those who served in our armed forces and terrorists. There is no moral equivalence whatsoever between those members of our armed forces who acted lawfully in carrying out their duties, and paramilitaries who were responsible for barbaric acts of terrorism. We owe our Operation Banner veterans an enormous debt of gratitude. I say to those watching, and to those in the Gallery: your service and your sacrifice will never be forgotten. We have a duty to care for all those who served. That is precisely why we are putting in the legislation new measures that are designed specifically to protect veterans, and why the Ministry of Defence always provides legal and welfare support to any veteran asked to participate.

    The safeguards that we are supplying have been designed specifically for veterans, following close consultation with veterans. Some will necessarily apply to others, including former police officers, while others will apply only to veterans. Veterans will be protected against repeat investigations. Part 3 places a duty on the Legacy Commission not to do anything that duplicates any aspect of previous investigations or proceedings unless it is essential. That is a very high threshold. If a veteran is asked to give evidence publicly to an inquest, or in the commission’s inquisitorial proceedings, they will not be forced to travel to Northern Ireland. They will be able to do so remotely.

    Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)

    Will the Secretary of State just clarify: essential for what?

    Hilary Benn

    The commission is an independent body established—

    Dr Evans

    Ah.

    Hilary Benn

    The hon. Gentleman says “Ah”. It was established by the previous Government’s legislation. They argued very strongly that the body had to be independent. “Essential” is a very high bar. It is for the commission to make that judgment.

    Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)

    I am very grateful to the Secretary of State for clarifying a number of issues already, but I think that the veterans I have spoken to will be looking for clarity that they cannot and will not be placed on trial simply for carrying out orders.

    Hilary Benn

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

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

    Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)

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

    Hilary Benn

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

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

    Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con) rose—

    Hilary Benn

    I will give way, and then I will make progress.

    Ben Obese-Jecty

    Whereabouts in the Bill does it say what the Secretary of State said about the victims and survivors group? If it does not say what he told us, will he amend it to ensure that it does?

    Hilary Benn

    I have given the House a very clear assurance on this point. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that nowhere in the legacy Act, which is the previous Government’s legislation, is there such a prohibition. Indeed, nowhere in that legislation does the word “veterans” appear.

    Several hon. Members rose—

    Hilary Benn

    I will make progress.

    There are those who have claimed, wrongly, that this legislation will somehow lead to a huge increase in prosecutions of veterans, or that it is only veterans who have been prosecuted in recent years, or that on-the-run letters have given IRA members an amnesty—an issue we have discussed in the Chamber. None of those things is the case. As I have just said to the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), just one soldier has been convicted since the Good Friday agreement, and the majority of those who have been convicted, and indeed of those facing live prosecutions, are paramilitaries, including republicans. As for the on-the-run letters, Prime Minister David Cameron could not have been clearer when he said in 2014:

    “There was never any amnesty or guarantee of immunity for anyone, and there isn’t now.”

    What is more, the legacy Act also shut down more than 1,000 police investigations into unsolved troubles-related killings, including the deaths of 264 members of our armed forces who were murdered by terrorists. A great many families have spoken of the distress that this caused them. Mary Moreland, who was widowed when her husband John, a reservist in the Ulster Defence Regiment, was killed by the IRA nine days before Christmas in 1988, says:

    “As a veteran and war widow I strongly believe in accountability and the rule of law for all and take pride in the fact that the British Armed Forces are the finest in the world. Like many others I have always been opposed to the Legacy Act. It was legislation that was fundamentally flawed. I tentatively welcome the process of repealing and replacing the Legacy Act…the new legislation must be balanced, fair, rights-based and capable of delivering meaningful outcomes for victims and survivors.”

    I agree. Or there is Paul Crawford, whose father was murdered in 1974 by the UVF. He says:

    “I understand that British Army veterans are an important constituency, but so are we…victims and survivors of the conflict. Our voices matter too. Our experiences of loss, pain and trauma are very real. Many of us have been waiting for more than fifty years for truth and justice and none of us are getting any younger. The legacy of the conflict needs to be addressed, and this legislation needs to be passed.”

    I agree.

    Or there is Paul Gallagher, who shared his response with WAVE, which does such important work supporting victims, survivors and families. In January 1994, Paul was 21 years old. He was a civil servant. There was a knock on the front door of his family home, and paramilitaries took him and his family hostage. He was shot six times as they left, and has spent the rest of his life using a wheelchair. He is a campaigner who I have had the privilege of meeting several times. WAVE writes:

    “What the party opposite proposed in 2023 enraged Paul. He is not naïve. He knows that securing a prosecution against the people who did this would be difficult. But offering an amnesty to these people so they could walk forever free. That to Paul is a moral outrage. How can someone like Paul, who has been betrayed by the system, believe once again in the rule of law.”

    The troubles Bill seeks to right the wrongs of the legacy Act, so that together with the remedial order, which we have laid before Parliament under the Human Rights Act 1998, the Bill returns us to the broad principles of the 2014 Stormont House agreement negotiated by the last Conservative Government. It seeks to achieve greater confidence among communities across Northern Ireland. As for those families who have already approached the commission for help, their cases will transition seamlessly under the new arrangements, when the troubles Bill hopefully becomes law.

    We announced a joint framework in September. The Irish Government have made important contributions to that, including by co-operating fully with the reformed commissioned by sharing information that, for far too long, far too many families have not been able to see. Let me be clear, however, that it is simply untrue for anyone to suggest that the Irish Government have been given any control or veto over the work of the Legacy Commission.

    I turn to the contents of the Bill. The first part provides for the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery to be renamed the Legacy Commission. It also repeals part 2 of the legacy Act in its entirety, and confirms the meaning of “the troubles” and other terms. Part 2 outlines the structure of the Legacy Commission, its principal functions, and how appointments will be made. It will establish an oversight board, led by an independent non-executive chair, to hold the commission to account, and the Secretary of State will consult when making appointments. There will be two co-directors for investigations, of equal standing, one with experience of conducting criminal investigations in Northern Ireland, and one with experience of conducting such investigations elsewhere.

    Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)

    May I raise the issue of the Birmingham pub bombings? The Secretary of State says that the reformed Legacy Commission will have greater fact-finding powers. Can he set out why the families, including those who are part of the Justice 4 the 21 campaign, should have confidence in the reformed commission to get to the truth of the Birmingham pub bombings?

    Hilary Benn

    My hon. Friend raises an extremely important point. It is for the simple reason that the commission has the power to see all the information and evidence—everything. It is already investigating the Guildford pub bombings, the M62 coach bombing, and the Kingsmill massacre, and I hope that others—

    James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)

    Warrenpoint.

    Hilary Benn

    And Warrenpoint, indeed. It is already investigating those terrible incidents, and I encourage anyone who is looking for answers to approach the commission and see the changes that we will make.

    I shall now finish my description of what is in the Bill and bring my remarks to a close. All public appointments made by the Secretary of State must follow consultation with relevant persons, a list of whom will be published before the beginning of the appointments process. Part 2 will fulfil our commitment to create a fairer disclosure regime, ensuring that the commission has access to any and all information it requires and is able to publish as much of that as possible, subject to proportionate safeguards, which are necessary because even historic information can pose a direct risk to life and safety today or threaten our national security. However, the Bill ensures that any decision to prevent public disclosure is subject to a balancing exercise—with reasons given where possible, akin to the Inquiries Act 2005—and can be legally challenged. Part 2 also includes provisions on reviews into the performance of the commission’s functions, and for the winding up of the commission.

    Part 3 deals with the conduct of both criminal and fact-finding investigations, and expands the referral process to enable family members, surviving victims and certain public authorities to request investigations. In all cases, following a case review, the director of investigations will decide whether the investigation is to be carried out as a criminal investigation or a fact-finding investigation. The commission will be able to refer any relevant conduct to prosecutors, as is already the case with the legacy Act, so there is no change in that respect. In the conduct of its investigations, the commission must comply with the statutory conflicts of interest duties set out. Each investigation will conclude with a report produced by a judicial panel member.

    Under part 4 of the Bill, inquisitorial proceedings will be established to handle cases that would otherwise have been inquests but are transferred to the commission. These proceedings will draw on the Inquiries Act. They will be chaired by a judicial panel member and be able to consider evidence in public. Crucially, unlike inquests, these proceedings can also consider sensitive information in closed hearings. With that in mind, the Bill provides the Secretary of State with the power to direct inquisitorial proceedings in respect of the small number of cases that were halted prior to 1 May 2024 due to the exclusion of relevant sensitive information.

    Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)

    If the Bill is as good as the Secretary of State would have the House believe, why have nine very senior four-star officers—eight generals and one air chief marshal—written to The Times and described it as

    “a direct threat to national security”?

    Hilary Benn

    I do not agree with that assessment. There is nothing in this Bill that can be described as a direct threat to national security. I also note—[Interruption.] It would be good if the right hon. Gentleman would acknowledge this point. I note that those generals did not call for immunity. Maybe those on the Opposition Front Bench would like to reflect upon that.

    Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)

    Will my right hon. Friend give way?

    Hilary Benn

    No; I am going to have to finish, because many people want to speak.

    Part 5 makes provision for the inclusion of personal statements, allowing families to describe what the death meant to them. The commission will have the power to refer troubles-related criminality by police officers to the ombudsman for Northern Ireland. Part 6 puts in place the necessary provisions to set up, on a pilot basis, the Independent Commission on Information Retrieval, as originally proposed in the Stormont House agreement. This will be an international body established jointly with the Irish Government to give families an additional means of retrieving information. Any information disclosed by individuals to the ICIR will be inadmissible in criminal and civil proceedings. Part 6 also includes provisions to ensure that the work of the ICIR does not impede on criminal investigations.

    The Government have long been committed to restoring the troubles-related inquests that were halted by the legacy Act, which is why, under part 7 of the Bill, the inquests that were in progress prior to 1 May 2024 but subsequently halted will resume. Inquests that had been directed by the Attorney General but were not in progress will be subject to an independent assessment by the Solicitor General as to whether they are most effectively progressed in the Legacy Commission or the coronial system, and the Solicitor General will have regard to three statutory criteria.

    I turn to part 8 and to the point raised earlier about interim custody orders. In short, these provisions seek to address the interpretation made by the UK Supreme Court in R v. Adams, regarding the application of the Carltona principle, with which this Government—and indeed the previous Government—disagreed. That principle is vital for Government, and it is right that it should be protected, including by dealing with what are considered incorrect inroads into it. Clauses 89 and 90 put it beyond doubt that the Carltona principle applied in the context of interim custody orders, by stating that any order made by a Minister of State or Under-Secretary of State is to be treated as an order of the Secretary of State. I refer the House to a written ministerial statement that I have today laid in Parliament setting out in greater detail the Government’s position on that matter.

    The Bill will leave in place part 4 of the 2023 Legacy Act, meaning that the important provisions relating to oral history, academic research and the memorialisation of the troubles remain intact. Those measures stem from the Stormont House agreement and have been widely supported in principle. Part 8 of the Bill will also require the commission to produce and publish a historical record.

    Separately, part 8 also allows any conduct that does not meet the definition of serious or connected troubles-related offences in the Bill to be investigated by the relevant police force. As a result, potentially serious offences, including sexual offences, will always have a route to investigation should evidence come to light.

    Part 9 deals with general matters in relation to the Bill such as various definitions and its commencement.

    I will bring my remarks to a close. I am acutely conscious that, for many families in Northern Ireland, time is running out. With every year that passes, memories fade, witnesses are lost and crucial evidence grows weaker. That is why the Government have to fix the mess that we inherited. But what is this really about? It is about those who continue to live with the pain of what happened to them or to someone they loved. We know that the overwhelming majority of those who were killed died at the hands of paramilitaries, and, as the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) so powerfully reminded us just over a month ago, the people who died were not in the wrong place at the wrong time; it was the terrorists who were in the wrong place doing the wrong thing.

    We must be clear that terrorism is always wrong. Although we must recognise that the vast majority of those who served in Northern Ireland did so with distinction and bravery, in the words of apology offered in this House by the former Northern Ireland Secretary Brandon Lewis following the Ballymurphy inquest,

    “it is clear that in some cases the security forces and the army made terrible errors too.”—[Official Report, 13 May 2021; Vol. 695, c. 277.]

    I believe that this legislation represents our best and possibly final chance to fulfil the unrealised ambition of the Good Friday agreement. I accept that nobody will like everything contained in the Bill, as is inevitable given the differing views held by many. If fixing legacy was easy, we would not be discussing it 27 years later.

    Let me read from a letter that the Commissioner for Victims and Survivors for Northern Ireland has sent me about our approach, which he says has been received

    “with cautious optimism by victims and survivors.”

    He goes on to say that we—he is talking about all of us—should

    “get a move on rather than waste more precious time”,

    and encourages all of us as parliamentarians

    “to continue to show courage and determination to deliver for victims and survivors.”

    It is no wonder that he refers to caution, because victims and survivors have been let down so many times before. That is why it is now our responsibility to take this forward.

    I will continue to talk to victims and survivors, veterans and others, and colleagues in all parts of the House, during the passage of the Bill to consider where amendments might further improve it. Equally, I hope that all who seek a fair and effective way forward will recognise that the Bill represents a fundamental reform of current arrangements, and that it should be given a chance to succeed. I commend the Bill to the House.

  • Hilary Benn – 2025 Speech to the British-Irish Association Conference in Oxford

    Hilary Benn – 2025 Speech to the British-Irish Association Conference in Oxford

    The speech made by Hilary Benn, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, in Oxford on 5 September 2025. The text is the Cabinet Office version which is politically redacted.

    It is a great pleasure to be back here at the BIA, and to have the opportunity to reflect upon the UK-Ireland relationship with all of you, and thank you, Dominic and Francesca, for the invitation and for all that you do to nurture this really important institution.

    It has certainly been an eventful 12 months since last we met.

    Continuing war in Ukraine. The unfolding disaster in Gaza. The climate continues to warm. A new partnership between the UK and the EU. And a new President of the United States of America.

    But one thing that hasn’t changed has been the growing warmth of the relationship between our two countries.

    Simon, I want to say how grateful I am for the friendship and enthusiasm with which you – and the whole Irish Government – have embraced not only the reset in the relationship between our two countries, but built on it with trust, honesty and ambition.

    And nowhere has this been more evident than on the issue of legacy, which you and I have discussed at length in all of its complexity, and to which I shall return later on.

    You know as well as anyone the Prime Minister’s personal commitment to our partnership – a commitment  shared by the Taoiseach – and it was a great pleasure to be at the first of the new UK-Ireland Summits in Liverpool in March.

    I was reminded then of the poetic words of President Higgins – whose extraordinary public service we applaud as he prepares to leave office – who said on his 2014 state visit to Britain that the UK-Ireland relationship had progressed from ”the doubting eyes of estrangement… to the trusting eyes of partnership and, in recent years, the welcoming eyes of friendship”.

    We are, indeed, today the closest of friends  as well as the closest of neighbours.

    The UK Government has also, of course,  been working to reset our relationship with our European partners.

    As part of this, we remain steadfastly committed to the full and faithful implementation of the Windsor Framework.

    Not because it is perfect, but given our departure from the EU, the open border, and two entities with two different sets of rules, we had to find together with the EU a means of  dealing with a unique challenge, and the Framework was the pragmatic result.

    And over the past year, we have continued to try together to ease the flow of goods within the UK internal market by:

    • removing unnecessary customs paperwork;
    • setting out our plans to safeguard the supply of veterinary medicines;
    • and working to protect consumer choice in the final phase of ‘Not for EU’ labelling.

    And of course the biggest prize from our commitment to rebuild trust and partnership has been the  Common Understanding announced in May between the UK and the EU – our largest and closest trading partner.

    What a contrast with the breaking of promises and the threatening to rip up international agreements of recent years.

    An SPS agreement in particular will make a big difference once it is implemented.

    It will remove the checks and procedures on animal and plant products moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland – as well as making it easier for businesses across the UK to export to the EU.

    This matters for practical economic reasons.

    But it also matters to the sense of Northern Ireland’s integral place in the United Kingdom.

    And following the publication yesterday of the independent review of the Windsor Framework carried out by Lord Murphy, the Government will of course now give full consideration to his findings and recommendations.

    We have also worked to try and reset relationships with the Northern Ireland Executive.

    I want to pay tribute to Michelle O’Neill and Emma Little-Pengelly, and to all of the Executive Ministers, for what they have achieved in the 19 or so months since power-sharing was restored.

    They have worked constructively together and agreed an ambitious Programme for Government, published a Fiscal Sustainability Plan, brought forward a strategy to end violence against women and girls and a childcare and early learning plan, allocated the first £129m of ringfenced funding from the UK Government for public services transformation, and announced a three-year strategic plan for health and social care, to start getting on top of the long-standing crisis in the health and care system.

    There is, of course, so much more to do, whether its on health waiting lists,  water quality in Lough Neagh, or the constraints on growth that come from an overloaded waste water system or slow planning decisions.

    But there have also been some depressing developments. The disorder and racist thuggery – let’s call it out for what it was –  we saw in Ballymena and other towns this summer was despicable, and has no place whatsoever in Northern Ireland or anywhere else in the United Kingdom. When people feel they have to put signs or flags in their windows in hope that this will stop them from being smashed then something is terribly wrong.

    We all have a duty to speak out and I greatly welcome the strong statement agreed at the Northern Ireland Executive meeting yesterday condemning racist and sectarian attacks.

    The Government is providing £137 million in continued funding to tackle terrorism, paramilitarism and organised crime. The threats are changing and more than ever we have to work together to meet them.

    Paramilitarism remains a scourge on Northern Ireland society, and following our agreement earlier this year, the Tánaiste and I will soon jointly appoint an Independent Expert to scope the prospects for paramilitary group transition to disbandment. I know that not everyone agrees with that decision – of course paramilitaries should have left the stage long ago – but the fact is they’re still here and still causing harm to communities.

    As demand for more and better public services continues to increase and pressures grow on the public finances of governments across the world, in these straitened times, all of us know that we need to raise revenue – and spend it as effectively as possible – if we are going to deliver on our commitments.

    This Government is clearly showing our support for Northern Ireland through continued and significant investment.

    At the Spending Review the Chancellor announced a record funding settlement of £19.3 billion per year through this Parliament – the biggest since devolution.

    This will ensure that Northern Ireland continues to be funded above its level of relative need. And it has ended the prospect of a financial cliff-edge in 2027, which had been left hanging over Northern Ireland by the previous government.

    With its unique strengths in cyber and AI, in green technologies, in the creative industries and in defence manufacturing, Northern Ireland has so much to offer.
    That is borne out in our modern industrial strategy, and the forthcoming defence industrial strategy.

    It is reflected in the £310 million the UK is investing in Northern Ireland’s City and Growth Deals, the deal announced by the Prime Minister in March to supply Ukraine with more than 5,000 air defence missiles from Thales, and in the £30m investment we announced last month for Northern Ireland’s science and tech sectors and Local Innovation Partnerships Fund, £2m for Queens University Belfast’s Cyber AI Hub and £46m a year to fund Local Growth.

    And at  the first meeting of the East West Council under this Government in June I announced the Connect Fund, which will award up to £1 million to strengthen collaboration between community groups in Northern Ireland – whose work is so important and so valuable – with their community organisations in Great Britain.

    These are all further examples of this Government’s commitment to Northern Ireland’s future.

    And I hope that  PM the £50m investment by the UK Government in the redevelopment of Casement Park, alongside the investments we continue to make in football, rugby and other sports in Northern Ireland will now enable progress to be made on both the GAA stadium and the sub-regional stadia programme for football. And of course we have the enticing prospect of Northern Ireland being part of the UK’s bid for the 2035 Women’s World Cup.

    In the same spirit of partnership, the new Irish Government has shown its continued commitment to infrastructure development and tourism in the border regions through the Shared Island Fund, with a welcome €50 million in new funding announced earlier this year.

    All of this means that the Executive has what I think is an unprecedented opportunity ahead of it to build on the positive start it has made and to do the hard work of reforming public services, generating further investment and improving the lives of all the people of Northern Ireland.

    Now, it shouldn’t need to be said, but [political content redacted] let me be absolutely clear that this Government’s commitment to the Good Friday Agreement – in its entirety – is unwavering and absolute, and I know that is shared by the Irish Government as co-guarantor with us.

    The Agreement on that miraculous Good Friday brought an end to three decades of appalling violence in Northern Ireland and across the United Kingdom.

    [Political content redacted]

    To try and unpick the Good Friday Agreement would not only be dangerously irresponsible but would also disrespect all those who sacrificed so much to help bring about the peace that the people of Northern Ireland – and across these shared islands – now enjoy.

    The GFA, as Nancy Pelosi once said in a speech to the Dáil, a “beacon to the world”.

    And it is with that in mind that I am greatly looking forward to welcoming foreign ministers from the Western Balkans, alongside other European friends and partners, not least yourself, Simon to Hillsborough Castle in October, as part of the UK’s hosting of the Berlin Process, which promotes prosperity, security and reconciliation in South-Eastern Europe, specifically the former Yugoslavia.

    At home and abroad, let us continue to talk about our countries’ shared experience and pass on the lessons we have learned to the next generation.

    Which brings me to the legacy of the Troubles.

    Helping bereaved families to get answers about the deaths of their loved ones ultimately proved to be beyond the architects of the Good Friday Agreement.

    But they knew it needed to be done.

    They said: ”The participants believe that it is essential to acknowledge and address the suffering of the victims of violence as a necessary element of reconciliation.” But they couldn’t quite get there, given everything else they had to deal with.

    Everyone in this room knows that there have been numerous attempts at fulfilling this promise but I’ve met a lot of people who are still waiting for those answers. Their voice above all needs to be heard in the current debate.

    The 2014 Stormont House Agreement, negotiated by the Conservative-led coalition government and the Irish Government, came close, with its commitment to an independent Historical Investigations Unit and a separate, joint information recovery body.

    But in the years that followed, the political courage required to deliver on that agreement dissipated.

    [Political content redacted]

    That legislation was rejected across Northern Ireland, a number of its provisions have been ruled against by the Northern Ireland courts, and this Government came into office committed to repeal and replace it.

    The independent Commission, that was created by the Act, now has a growing  caseload – including some of the most high profile terrorist murder cases from those awful times, like the Guildford pub bombing and the Warrenpoint ambush.

    But it is clear that the Commission in its current form does not command enough confidence in Northern Ireland. So, if it is to be successful, it urgently needs significant reform.

    I have always said that I want a legacy process that is capable of commanding support across all communities. And it has always been my view, and that of the Prime Minister, that – if at all possible – this should be a shared endeavour with the Irish Government, with reciprocal commitments from both sides.

    That remains the objective of the agreement with Ireland that we have been working on. And I would say we are now close to being in a position to announce that.

    I have already set out many of the things that we intend to do, building on the principles of the Stormont House Agreement and drawing on the lessons from Operation Kenova.
    A reformed, independent and human rights compliant Legacy Commission that gives families the best possible chance of finding answers, with investigations capable of referring cases for potential prosecution where evidence exists of criminality.

    A new oversight body for the Commission, a Victims Panel as in Kenova, public hearings and representation for families.

    The maximum possible disclosure of information, in line with the disclosure process for public inquiries.

    The potential for a separate information recovery body, as envisaged by Stormont House and the subsequent treaty between the two governments.

    The resumption of a number of inquests that were prematurely halted by the Legacy Act.

    And – for the UK Government’s part – protections to ensure that anyone who served the State in Northern Ireland to keep people safe and who is asked to participate in a legacy process as a witness is treated with dignity and respect.

    Most of us here lived through the Troubles, in my case at a distance but not for many of you. I remember watching the reporting on television and reading about  terrible events in the newspapers, and like you I despaired.

    But unless we went through the experience, none of us will ever fully be able to appreciate what was – and still is –  felt by those people who lost dearly loved family members, but who have never been able to find  answers about what happened to them.

    Answers that have been hidden for too long. Answers that some people may not like. Answers that are uncomfortable or shocking or a painful reminder of grim times and brutal deeds.

    Great Hatred Little Room, Jonathan Powell’s account of the Northern Ireland peace process, concludes with these words:
    “The burden of history remains, and before the two sides become truly reconciled they need to find a way to deal with the past…. If I have one wish, it is that the people of Northern Ireland find an acceptable way to lay the past to rest.”

    How right he was. But I am under no illusions. This is difficult. It remains highly contentious. Different views are understandably and  passionately held. And  the pain and the trauma still run deep.

    We all know that a perfect outcome is not attainable – not everyone is going to get everything they want – remembering that wonderful quote in the Ulster Museum Troubles exhibition.  ‘We have a shared past, but do not have a shared memory’.

    But I am also certain that, with trust in each other and with continued resolve, we can find a way forward to deliver on the unfinished business of the Good Friday Agreement and put in place our best chance to acknowledge and address the suffering of the victims of the violence as we seek to find answers for all.

    So as our two countries turn to face the future, let us neither be burdened by the past, nor turn our backs upon it.

    A way forward is now within our grasp and that is why we must find the courage to do this, and do it now.

  • Dan Jarvis – 2025 Statement on Irish Republican Alleged Incitement by Kneecap

    Dan Jarvis – 2025 Statement on Irish Republican Alleged Incitement by Kneecap

    The statement made by Dan Jarvis, the Minister for Security, in the House of Commons on 29 April 2025.

    I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his urgent question. Let us never forget that we lost two Members of this House, Jo Cox and Sir David Amess, in tragic circumstances. Both Jo and Sir David were passionate advocates for their constituents, and they cared deeply about a range of issues and embodied the finest democratic qualities, traditions and values of this House. I know that the thoughts of the whole House will be with their families today and every day.

    I want to reiterate the Home Secretary’s words and fully condemn the comments that have been made. Such remarks are dangerous and irresponsible, and this Government utterly reject the views expressed by this group. Let me be crystal clear: political intimidation and abuse have no place in our society.

    I know that the House will want immediate answers on this issue, but as the Minister of State for Policing and Crime Prevention said yesterday, in relation to the urgent question on the Headingley case, the desire for immediate answers is often constrained by the obligation that we have, as Ministers and as Members of this House, not to do or say anything that would interfere in what is a live police investigation.

    As Members know, the investigation and prosecution of criminal offences are matters for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to determine, and they are operationally independent of the Government. It is important that the police are allowed to carry out their ongoing investigations free from political interference.

    However, for the benefit of the House, let me recap what the Metropolitan police have themselves said about these reports. They said:

    “We have been made aware of the video and it has been referred to the counter-terrorism internet referral unit for assessment and to determine whether any further police investigation may be required.”

    Although I will not comment further on this specific case, the safety and security of Members of this House, and all those who serve in elected office, is an issue to which I attach the utmost seriousness, as does the Home Secretary and as do you, Mr Speaker.

    Elected representatives at all levels and across all parties must be able to perform their duties safely and without fear, and, through the defending democracy taskforce, we are driving a whole-of-government effort to ensure that that is the case. The taskforce has recently agreed a programme of work to tackle the harassment and intimidation of elected Members. The taskforce is also supporting the Speaker’s Conference that is addressing these issues.

    Those of us who attend this place are all too aware of the devastating consequences of violence against our colleagues and friends. We may not always agree, but if there is one universal truth to which we would all subscribe it is surely that our politics is better when it is conducted respectfully and safely. I hope and trust that that will have the support of Members right across the House.

    The Home Secretary and I condemn the comments that have been made and we will work tirelessly to ensure the safety and security of all those who step forward to serve in public office.

  • Hilary Benn – 2025 Comments on the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the Omagh Bombing Inquiry and Government of Ireland

    Hilary Benn – 2025 Comments on the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the Omagh Bombing Inquiry and Government of Ireland

    The comments made by Hilary Benn, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, on 15 April 2025.

    I welcome the Irish Government’s commitment to co-operate with the Omagh Bombing Inquiry through this memorandum of understanding.

    This is a very positive step that will help enable the independent Inquiry to do its job and provide answers for families.

    The Omagh bombing was a heinous atrocity committed by the Real IRA at a time when communities in Northern Ireland were looking forward to peace and stability.

    It caused immense pain and suffering to the many families who lost loved ones and to those who were injured. They will always be in our thoughts.

  • Hilary Benn – 2025 Speech at Ulster University

    Hilary Benn – 2025 Speech at Ulster University

    The speech made by Hilary Benn, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, on 4 February 2025.

    I am delighted to be speaking here today, in these wonderful surroundings. My thanks to Ulster University; indeed The Times’ UK University of the Year 2024, no less.

    This institution does so much fantastic work and is truly “a force for good in fostering peace, prosperity and cohesion”, as the judges of that illustrious award so eloquently described you. And it has been a privilege for me to meet some of your remarkable students this morning.

    This week, of course, we are marking the one year anniversary of the return of devolved government in Northern Ireland.

    But before I come to that, I just want to say this about Storm Eowyn.

    At its peak, over 280,000 properties were without electricity including acute hospitals and other essential services. But since the winds abated, there has been an extraordinary effort to deal with the damage, to clear fallen trees and to get electricity supplies up and running again.

    And I know that lots of people have worked really hard over long hours to restore services and I’m glad to say that NIE Networks is now very nearly there with the last electricity reconnections, and it has been a long time for some people to wait.

    It’s been a team effort which shows the strength of the United Kingdom in offering practical support. When trouble strikes, we come to the aid of each other.

    The restoration of power-sharing a year ago was a significant moment. It followed yet another unacceptably long time without a functioning government.

    When I was first appointed as shadow Secretary of State in September 2023, I said to Chris Heaton-Harris that my priority was to see the Executive restored.

    I want to pay tribute to Chris for the pivotal role he played in bringing back the institutions, to the leadership of the DUP for deciding to go back into powersharing, and to them and the leadership of Sinn Fein, the Alliance Party and the UUP for the great start tht the Executive has made. We all hope that its restoration is for good – the good of the people of Northern Ireland.

    By its very nature, power-sharing is difficult – very difficult – but just over a quarter of a century ago we saw extraordinary political leadership make it possible.

    Courage and compromise triumphed over bitter stalemate, as political leaders agreed the principles of power-sharing that endure to this day.

    I have great faith in Northern Ireland’s system of government. Indeed, there were long periods of relative Executive stability prior to 2017 in which we saw the devolution of policing and justice, and the establishment of the PSNI – which today enjoys significant cross-community support. Who could have imagined that 26 years ago? It’s a tribute to the work that Naomi Long and her predecessors have done in the role of Justice Minister.

    There was also significant economic growth, helped by Northern Ireland’s success in attracting inward investment. All examples of what can be achieved by sharing power.

    The people of Northern Ireland need and deserve an Executive that works for them all the time, along of course with an Opposition that holds the Executive to account, an important role being undertaken by Matthew O’Toole and the SDLP. And it is vital that all of us do all we can to ensure that the stability of devolved government endures.

    We have to put the days of collapse behind us and move forward.

    Now I say that not because I am worried about a return to instability. On the contrary, I have been so impressed by the leadership shown by Michelle O’Neill and Emma Little-Pengelly as First and deputy First Minister.

    The Executive has worked constructively together to negotiate an Interim Fiscal Framework, publish a Fiscal Sustainability Plan, bring forward a strategy to end violence against women and girls and a childcare and early learning plan, and agree a draft Programme for Government.

    It’s been a successful start, and I believe the conditions are now in place for the Executive to grasp the opportunities that beckon for Northern Ireland.

    The largest budget settlement since devolution with a funding formula that now reflects Northern Ireland’s level of need.

    Certainty, after the uncertainty that immediately followed the EU referendum in 2016, about Northern Ireland’s place in the UK internal market.

    Advantageous trading arrangements through the Windsor Framework, which can help draw in foreign direct investment.

    And finally – after too many years in which Northern Ireland was too often treated by the previous government as an afterthought – this Executive has a partner in this UK Government that is committed to working together to generate investment and economic growth and to help improve the delivery of public services.

    We all understand the scale of the challenge and the unique circumstances of Northern Ireland, where poverty, paramilitarism and the past are entwined. And where the pain and trauma wrought by the terrible violence that shook this place continue – for many – to be deeply felt.

    And all our thoughts this week, and in the weeks to come, are with those family members taking part in the commemorative hearings in the Inquiry into the Omagh Bombing – a monstrous and despicable act of terrorist violence.

    We now must all play our part in building a more inclusive society which is at peace with itself as it looks to the future.

    And this is the moment for Northern Ireland’s devolved government to address the concerns that citizens have about their lives and their wish to see public services improve.

    My first six months or so in office as Secretary of State has reminded me about what Mo Mowlam once said:

    “People working together can overcome many obstacles, often within themselves, and by doing so can make the world a better place.”

    We are all aware of the acute challenges which we are grappling with right across the United Kingdom.

    Today I want to talk about three of these.

    First, reform and delivery of public services.

    Second, how to ensure the smooth flow of goods across the UK, while seeking to deepen our trade ties with Europe.

    And third, the need for sustained and sustainable economic growth, which is essential if we are to see raised living standards, and more money in people’s pockets on which subject, today the UK Government has announced a 6.7% increase in the National Living Wage from 1 April, which will benefit millions of people across the UK, including in Northern Ireland.

    The challenge for public services is particularly acute in Northern Ireland, and nowhere is this more urgent or obvious than in health.

    The facts are frankly shocking.

    Waiting time performance against cancer care targets continues to deteriorate, corridor care is becoming more frequent and it is striking how many people in Northern Ireland are now going private.

    More than a quarter of people in Northern Ireland are on a waiting list. That is more than double the figure in England.

    53% of people waiting for a first appointment with a consultant are waiting for more than a year in Northern Ireland.

    In England, that figure is 4%. That’s right, 53% compared to just 4%.

    That’s why the First Minister recently described the state of the health service as “dire and diabolical”.

    I agree. And this is despite UK Treasury data showing that spending per head on health is nearly £300 a year higher in Northern Ireland than it is in England.

    It is absolutely not that health and social care staff are somehow not doing all they can. On the contrary, they are working really, really hard to treat patients, but they are doing so in a system that clearly isn’t working.

    And why isn’t it working? Because – over many years – the decisions necessary for systemic and not piecemeal reform to the health and social care system in Northern Ireland simply haven’t been taken.

    Now the Health Minister Mike Nesbitt is developing a long term plan to stabilise, reconfigure and reform the health service. This is really encouraging and I sincerely wish him well.

    And the challenge now for the Executive is to take the difficult collective decisions that are required to enable this change to succeed.

    Doing so is now unavoidable.

    The task of transforming public services won’t be without cost. I get that. And I know that talk of transformation of public services inevitably leads to the issue of funding.

    So, allow me to say this.

    The Autumn Budget provided £18.2 billion for the Executive in 2025/2026 – the largest settlement in real terms in the history of devolution.

    This includes a £1.5 billion increase through the Barnett formula, with £1.2 billion for day-to-day spending and £270 million for capital investment.

    The independent Northern Ireland Fiscal Council has calculated that the relative need in Northern Ireland is 24% more per head than in England for equivalent spending. This rightly reflects the greater needs that there are in Northern Ireland.

    That is why, as part of the restoration agreement last year, a structural change was made to funding by adding a 24% needs-based factor to the Barnett formula, so as to ensure the Executive gets the level of funding it needs, now and in the future.

    This financial year and next financial year, funding for Northern Ireland will actually exceed this level.

    I frequently hear it said, however, that more funding is required from the UK Government and that that is the reason why public services are in such a state. But given the needs-based formula that is now in place, and given the increase in funding that the government has given, a lack of funding is not the impediment to public service transformation.

    The real impediment has been the failure to reform the system. The many missed opportunities to take decisions, or to apply lessons, from other parts of the UK where reform has happened.

    Of course, this has at times been down to there being no Executive in place to take those decisions, which is why it’s essential that the institutions do their job every day of the year.

    At other times, there has simply been a lack of agreement among Executive Ministers on the steps that need to be taken, or on the allocation of resources, or on the revenue that needs to be raised.

    I believe strongly in devolution in Northern Ireland – where decisions are made as close to the people they affect as possible, by the representatives the people have chosen.

    It is only right that the Executive makes decisions about its own spending and revenue raising priorities.

    However, it must take responsibility for balancing its budget and living within its means. Just as all other governments must.

    Now, the Executive has nine priorities set out in its draft Programme for Government, and the work of this UK Government is guided by our five Missions and our Plan for Change. These objectives are in many ways complementary, and I firmly believe the two need to work together.

    Since Fleur Anderson and I took office, we’ve been clear that we want to help ensure that the Executive has the support it needs.

    We want the UK Government to be an active partner and to encourage greater collaboration and sharing of expertise, so helping Northern Ireland to make progress for itself.

    And it is in this spirit that the Public Sector Transformation Board was conceived of, as part of the restoration deal, to bring together experts from across different sectors, and to enable the sharing of best practice from across the UK to support change.

    We have also made available £235m of funding for projects proposed by the Executive departments to transform the delivery of public services.

    I look forward to seeing the first tranche of this funding being allocated soon, followed, I hope, by the Executive -and I want to say that Caoimhe Archibald has done a great job as Finance Minister – bringing forward plans in the Budget for how the Executive will deploy its resources to deliver the wider transformation that is so urgently required in the health service.

    Let me now turn to the second matter I want to address.

    This UK Government will always uphold – in good faith – the Good Friday Agreement and the principle of consent on which it rests. And for as long as the people of Northern Ireland wish it to be so, Northern Ireland’s place in the Union is secure.

    The task now for us as politicians is to ensure that the Union continues to improve the lives of all communities, regardless of their constitutional ambition.

    Now, of course, I couldn’t come here today and speak about the restoration of the Northern Ireland institutions without recognising the issues that led to them not functioning in the first place, and the arrangements that enabled them to get back up and running.

    The concerns that people in Northern Ireland – particularly but not exclusively those from a Unionist background – had about the old Northern Ireland protocol were genuine. I shared many of them. It proved to be unworkable and damaging, and I supported the Windsor Framework that replaced it.

    The Framework brought significant improvements in the arrangements in Northern Ireland, thanks to the pragmatic approach the EU took in the negotiations.

    It recognised that goods staying within the UK’s internal market should not be subject to the full panoply of EU rules and checks.

    It ensured that medicines continue to be available on a UK-wide basis, and it enshrined an important new democratic safeguard in the form of the Stormont Brake.

    The Brake has received quite a bit of attention of late. There are some who have said that because the outcome recently was not as they wished, it doesn’t have any value.

    That isn’t true.

    The main criterion for use of the Brake – namely, that the proposed new EU rule would have a significant and lasting impact on communities in Northern Ireland – and that is quite a high bar – is clearly set out in law. The fact that this bar was not met on this occasion, does not have any bearing on whether it might be met on any future occasion. Why? Because each case must be considered on its merits. That’s the responsibility on me in law.

    But the Brake notification by MLAs – which reflected genuine concerns – did lead to a clear commitment by the UK Government to take the steps necessary to avoid new regulatory barriers in respect of chemicals. Which was the issue that had given rise to the application.

    I think this was a positive outcome, and precisely what the Brake was designed to do.

    More generally, I am not going to rehash old debates about Brexit. My views during the referendum and subsequently are fairly well known.

    But I hope that the experience of what has happened since the referendum taught us all something important. And that is that we should beware those offering simplistic soundbites rather than grappling with difficult and complex questions, like the one which lies at the heart of this debate. How do you deal with trade between two countries with different rules but an open border between them?

    Serious leadership and the questions it has to deal with – such as that provided by those sitting around the Executive table, or operating in constructive opposition in the Assembly, or by the UK Government – requires serious answers.

    And when it became clear that the Windsor Framework was not the final word, through painstaking months, the Democratic Unionist Party worked through the remaining issues to secure some important new commitments in the Safeguarding the Union Command Paper.

    They engaged in the detail and achieved changes for their constituents when it might have been politically safer or easier to demand the impossible from the sidelines.

    Some others did take that latter path – I would say with absolutely no benefit to anyone that they represented.

    So, I commend the role that the leader of the DUP, Gavin Robinson, and the now deputy First Minister, played in that process – and for the courage and commitment to Northern Ireland that they demonstrated in leading their party back into the Executive.

    And for my part, let me say that I am committed to continuing to work in good faith to implement the basis on which devolution was restored.

    We have clearly made good progress:

    • an Independent Monitoring Panel is in place to report on how it’s going on meeting the new Internal Market Guarantee
    • every public authority implementing the Windsor Framework must now look to statutory guidance on the importance of Northern Ireland’s place in the Union in discharging their duties
    • every Government department must set out the impact of major regulatory changes on the functioning of the UK’s internal market, including Northern Ireland.
    • an Independent Review has been established recognising that the democratic vote to continue the Framework’s application was not supported by Unionist MLAs
    • we have new working groups on Veterinary Medicines and horticulture up and running – acknowledging that there is still important work to be done
    • we will shortly establish Intertrade UK.

    But most important of all, goods are flowing back and forth between Northern Ireland and Great Britain.

    This is a process, it is not a destination.

    And my commitment, as we continue to take forward Safeguarding the Union, is to continue working with all parts of the community and with all the political parties, to address concerns and problems.

    It certainly won’t always be smooth, but I am really grateful to all those who are willing to engage in the hard slog each day to improve things further for the people of Northern Ireland.

    And as we honour the commitments we have made in the Windsor Framework, as we must, this Government is also working to secure a stronger and better relationship with the European Union.

    An SPS and veterinary agreement just to take that example would produce tangible benefits for businesses and traders in Northern Ireland and indeed across the UK by helping animal and plant products to flow freely across the Irish Sea. So there is light at the end of this tunnel.

    Beyond strengthening Northern Ireland’s place in the Internal Market, investments being made by this UK Government will help to strengthen Northern Ireland’s economy.

    We all know the particular challenges facing the economy in Northern Ireland, not least on productivity, but Northern Ireland’s economic output is now 9.7% above its pre-pandemic level, which is significantly higher than the rest of the UK.

    In the last decade the total number of employee jobs is up 15%. And as we know Northern Ireland now has the lowest level of unemployment in the UK.

    I am determined to ensure that Northern Ireland benefits from UK Government initiatives designed to generate economic growth and power the green transition.

    Central to this will be our new modern industrial strategy – Invest 2035 – and our commitment to make the whole of the UK a clean energy superpower with GB Energy, a publicly owned company, at its heart.

    We will work closely with the Executive and the other devolved governments on our 10-year Infrastructure Strategy and the National Wealth Fund to ensure the benefits are felt UK-wide.

    Alongside the Industrial Strategy, we will mobilise billions of pounds of investment in the UK’s world-leading industries, including Northern Ireland’s strengths in areas like fin-tech and the creative industries.

    I was delighted that last month, Lisa Nandy, the Culture Secretary, announced that Belfast is one of this Government’s priority regions for the Creative Industries, and this Spring will see the full opening of Studio Ulster – a truly unique facility that will not just support the growing creative industry in Northern Ireland, but will also take it into the next era of screen innovation, making it a global player in performance technology. Fleur and I had a sneak preview before we came into this hall today, and I’m looking forward to visiting the new Studio Ulster itself.

    And of course, the Belfast City Deal has helped to fund Studio Ulster.

    And as we move full steam ahead with the City and Growth Deals right across Northern Ireland, these will demonstrate the significant impact of a partnership that has been developed between the Executive, the UK Government, local councils and businesses to make things happen.

    It is also fantastic that shipbuilding is returning to Belfast. As announced in December, a commercial deal has been reached that will see Navantia UK – a specialist in shipbuilding – purchase Harland and Wolff, thus ensuring the delivery of the Ministry of Defence’s three Fleet Solid Support Ships.

    This deal, which will protect around 500 jobs in Belfast, demonstrates the Government’s unwavering commitment to UK shipbuilding, and to Harland and Wolff.

    Throughout the process, the Government worked with devolved governments, local MPs and the relevant trade unions, on the commitments on jobs that are part of the deal.

    And let’s not forget all of the other strengths of Northern Ireland. Farming, its fantastic universities, including this wonderful institution we’re meeting in today, the voluntary and community sector, advanced manufacturing, thriving life sciences, and a world-leading cybersecurity industry which, with UK Government investment here in Northern Ireland, is so important for UK-wide national resilience.

    Investment is vital for Northern Ireland, but to maximise potential it needs to get its infrastructure right. To take just one example, last year NI Water confirmed that there are 19,000 applications for development that cannot go ahead due to the outdated and at capacity sewage network.

    And, of course, political stability is crucial to encourage investors to put their money into Northern Ireland.

    As I look at all of this, what strikes me most forcefully about Northern Ireland is the energy, the enterprise, the imagination and the innovation of the people and businesses and the local authorities and the politicians that I have met.

    To take just one example of a firm I visited in October – I could tell you of many others – Edge Innovate designs, manufactures and exports its material handling and recycling equipment – and you have to see the size of it, some of those bits of kit are enormous- from their factory in Dungannon all over the world.

    It was so impressive, so let us all tell their and other stories of Northern Ireland’s success.

    Because measured by what went before, the last 26 years really have been a success. Your success. Northern Ireland has been transformed.

    So, as we look towards the 30th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement in 2028, I am so encouraged that a majority of people here continue to view power-sharing as the best form of government.

    Of course, there is a debate about reform of the institutions – it would be surprising if there were not – but my view is this.

    Just as it took agreement between the parties to establish power-sharing in the first place, so it will require agreement between the parties to reform the current arrangements. And the task for now for today is to make them work for the people of Northern Ireland.

    So in doing so, let us take inspiration from the words of the great George Mitchell, I had the privilege of meeting him a couple of months ago, who – on the eve of the 25th anniversary of the Agreement – said:

    “The answer is not perfection, or permanence. It is now, as it was then, for the current and future leaders of Northern Ireland to act with courage and vision, as their predecessors did 25 years ago. To find workable answers to the daily problems of the present.”

    That is the responsibility that each of us takes on when we stand for elected office, whoever we are, and when the people say they want us to get on with the task.

    Let me assure you. The Executive will be in the lead but it will not be alone.

    And at this moment in history and at this time, I believe that Northern Ireland has all it needs to be a success and to be a beacon of hope to the world by showing that peace is truly the foundation on which progress is built.

  • Hilary Benn – 2025 Statement on the Legacy of the Past in Northern Ireland

    Hilary Benn – 2025 Statement on the Legacy of the Past in Northern Ireland

    The statement made by Hilary Benn, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, on 18 January 2025.

    Acknowledging and addressing the suffering of victims and survivors of the Troubles was one of the aims of the Good Friday Agreement, but it is all too clear that for many of them and their families this task remains incomplete.

    I have met and corresponded with many people who lost loved ones or were injured themselves. They have described to me the trauma they have lived through, made much worse by the lack of answers or of acknowledgement of what happened.

    And I know that many are rightly angry about the previous UK Government’s Legacy Act. In Opposition, we said we would repeal and replace the Act. In Government, we remain steadfastly committed to doing so. That work is well underway.

    Last month, I began this process with the introduction of a proposed draft Remedial Order which will remove a number of the Act’s provisions that have been deemed incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, including ending the widely-opposed immunity scheme and restoring the right to pursue civil cases. There are complex issues to be worked through, including in relation to legal rulings on interim custody orders, and all of these are now before Parliament for scrutiny over the next few months.

    I also confirmed that I will restore inquests, starting with those that were previously halted by the Legacy Act, and put in place a fairer disclosure regime like that in public inquiries.

    Everybody I have spoken to agrees that there needs to be a means of conducting investigations and of recovering information. And we do now have – for the first time – an independent judge-led Commission, responsible for doing both these things.

    I am the first to acknowledge that the legislation that established the Commission needs to be changed and I appreciate why, after all these years, and given the origins of the Legacy Act, there is scepticism about it. I know that reforms will be needed to secure the confidence of families. But a growing number of requests for investigations and information are now being made to the Commission – over 120 at the last count – and the Northern Ireland Courts have been clear that it has the powers it needs to carry out independent, human rights-compliant investigations.

    What’s more, the legislation I will propose will ensure that the Commission is, in specific circumstances, able to hold public hearings, take sworn evidence from individuals, and ensure families have effective representation.

    One of the advantages of having the Commission is that it can quickly get to work. It has a growing team of dedicated investigators, including the former senior investigator at Operation Kenova. The Commission also has full police powers to help find answers without the long years of waiting that are often involved with public inquiries, which must establish staff, premises and processes from scratch.

    There are a number of families, including the family of Sean Brown, whose inquests were brought to a premature end, and who continue to experience great pain and suffering. For each of these families, I want to ensure that there is a full, thorough and independent investigation into the death of their loved one as soon as possible.

    I urge all those still searching for answers, for justice or for acknowledgement of what happened, to talk to the Commission to hear and discuss what they propose – knowing that the Government will strengthen it in our forthcoming legislation.

    The complexity and sensitivity of dealing with the legacy of the past means trying to build as broad a consensus as possible – as envisaged in the Stormont House Agreement. I am determined – with the help of all interested parties, including the Irish Government – to achieve this.

    Nothing will ever ease the pain that so many families endure to this day. But we must do all we can to help society in Northern Ireland, which has come such a long way since 1998, to finally begin to heal the terrible wounds of the past and look to a better future together.