Hilary Benn
MP for Leeds South · Labour · United Kingdom
“As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Irish Government published on 8 June their legislative outline, entitled “The General Scheme of the Legacy of the Troubles Bill 2026”. That is intended to fulfil the commitment that the Irish Government gave in the joint framework to co-operate to the fullest extent possible with the commission.”
“Northern Ireland is a society, as the hon. Gentleman knows better than most, that has been undergoing profound change since the signing of the Good Friday agreement 28 years ago. As the famous lines go, we have a shared history, but not necessarily a shared memory.”
“The right hon. Gentleman raises a really important point, and I am grateful to him for his question. We all have a responsibility—political leaders have a responsibility to call out what was witnessed for what it is and not mince our words, and as I have already indicated, social media companies have a responsibility to ensure that such m…”
“I hope the hon. Lady will recognise that the common travel area, which is more than a century old, is of great benefit to the citizens of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. Many people in Northern Ireland live their lives across that border every single day.”
“I do agree with my hon. Friend. The attack on Mr Ogilvie was truly shocking, and there was no justification whatsoever for the racist thuggery we witnessed on the streets of Belfast in the days following.”
“That was, of course, an awful feature of what we saw. One of the things I learned in my discussions was that those from the far right had taken a list of houses in multiple occupation in Belfast—a list that, in the interests of openness, was properly available on the Belfast city council website; the council has now taken it down—and used…”
The complete record
Every one of 6,304 lines we hold for Hilary Benn, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 127.
“That is why all political leaders—all—have such a solemn responsibility to urge the calm that I have called for in my response to his question today.”
“First, the footage that many people have seen is, indeed, truly horrifying. On the right hon. Gentleman’s last point, as he will be well aware, any foreign national who abuses the hospitality of this country to commit crimes should be in no doubt of our determination to deport them. We need to allow the criminal justice process to take place. On his question about net migration, as he will know, it is now down 82% from the peak reached under the previous Government. I would most particularly echo what the right hon. Gentleman said in appealing for calm, because we have seen previously in Belfast in August 2024 and in Ballymena in 2025 what happens after horrific incidents. When there is disorder on the streets, it is the communities that suffer; it is innocent people who suffer and whose lives can be put at risk.”
“I know from the conversations I have had with the Chief Constable this morning that the PSNI is, of course, as the House would expect, treating this with the utmost seriousness and pursuing its inquiries. We need to let the police investigation and, in due course, any criminal justice process take place. I am in favour of as much information being shared as soon as possible, and I can report to the House that the PSNI will be holding a press conference in approximately five and a half minutes’ time to provide more information about the incident. I join my hon. Friend in expressing the hope that the bravery we saw on the streets of north Belfast last night may, in due time, be recognised.”
“I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments and the tone in which he expressed them, because I think it is very important that we act responsibly in these circumstances. I agree, as I have already indicated, that information should be made available to the public. To answer his very specific question, the proper procedure is for the PSNI to be in contact with the Home Office, which I know it has been, in order to establish the facts around the individual. As I say, it is proper that the police provide those, as they are leading the investigation, and I anticipate that more information will be made available shortly by the PSNI. That is the right and proper approach. However, I do not agree with what he said about the European convention on human rights. It is very important.”
“I agree with everything the hon. Gentleman said. I know that the PSNI is working hard to provide reassurance to the local community and to make arrangements for that reassurance to be visible in the face of those who, let us be frank in this House, will wish to use this terrible event to stir up trouble and disorder on the streets of Northern Ireland. I say that because we have seen it before. We do not wish to see it again. That is why all community leaders, politicians and others have such a responsibility to call for calm, as he so eloquently did.”
“I join the hon. Member in reasserting the right of every citizen of our country to protest peacefully, but we have seen in the past that there are those, provoked by others, who have sought to use that opportunity to then promote violence and disorder. I join the hon. Member in saying that of course everyone has the right to express their view through peaceful protest, but if we want to support the PSNI, the last thing people should be doing is stretching its resources across Northern Ireland to deal with protests that are not going to help anyone, and that are not going to assist in the furtherance of the investigation so that the perpetrator can be brought to face justice. That is the way we do things in our country, is it not?”
“I am sorry that the hon. and learned Gentleman used the words “alien culture”; what exactly is he referring to? What the British people have had enough of is anyone, from wherever they come and whatever their background, who seeks to commit violence against citizens of the United Kingdom. That is what we together are strongly opposed to. There is a proper procedure that needs to be followed in relation to the release of information. It is a live investigation and it is right and proper that the police lead on that, which is why it is the police who have been in touch with the Home Office and will provide further information. As soon as I am able to update the House, I will do so. I am in favour of as much information as possible being provided, once process has been followed to make sure that it can be confirmed.”
“I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s last point, but it is very important in these circumstances to be absolutely sure about the facts before they are released. The proper vehicle for doing that is the PSNI being in touch with the Home Office, which is what has been happening this morning. As the right hon. Gentleman may be aware, the police originally said they believed the perpetrator to be of one nationality, but it may well turn out that he is in fact of another nationality. That demonstrates the point I am trying to put to the House: it is important that the police lead on that so that the full facts can come out, and then they can be made available to the House and to the country.”
“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.”
“I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it was an act of pure evil. I am surprised he suggests that there is any possibility that those who came to the aid of the victim should be at risk of prosecution, because they were trying— [ Interruption. ] Judging by the footage, they were trying to save the victim when the attacker was trying to inflict great harm upon him. My judgment, having looked at that, is that what they did was proportionate and fair, but that is for others to judge. It is important that they are recognised. I have already indicated to the House that as soon as I have information that is confirmed and that I can be sure of, I will inform the House.”
“The hon. Gentleman will be well aware of the action that the Government are taking to deal with illegal migration. I have also made clear to the House the steps that we take if anyone, however they came to the country, or whether they are from this country, commits a criminal offence: they will face due process. Any foreign national, regardless of how they came, who abuses our hospitality and commits crimes can expect to be deported at the end of their sentence.”
“I say to the hon. Member that the public are right to be angry about what they witnessed in that appalling video and what they will have heard about the attack that took place. I will endeavour to come back to her on some of the questions she has asked but, as I have already indicated to the House, other answers will be provided in due course once the facts have been checked. It is really important that the facts are checked before information is given to the House, because I would not want to stand here and say something that turns out not to be the case. Checking the facts thoroughly is a responsibility on me before I inform the House, and that is what I intend to do.”
“I do agree with the hon. Gentleman. I think back to those who were attacked in the wake of the terrible events in Southport and in Ballymena. We know that in Northern Ireland certain individuals were attacked who had nothing to do with any of it, simply because of the colour of their skin. That is not what this country is about. We must identify an attacker and follow due process in due course after investigation, but we must not cast aspersions on a whole community. Many people from all backgrounds contribute so much to our national life.”
“We all have a responsibility, by our actions and our words, not to inflame and, as I indicated in answering the original question from the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), we all have a responsibility to plead for calm in these circumstances. That is the right thing to do on behalf of all the people of Northern Ireland.”
“Before answering, I pay tribute to Sir Desmond Rea who died recently. He played an important role in the peace process in Northern Ireland, particularly through the transformation of policing as the first chair of the Northern Ireland Policing Board. I am sure the whole House will join me in sending condolences to his family. I welcome the clarity provided by the Supreme Court in the Dillon case, which has confirmed that the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery is capable of delivering human rights-compliant investigations and reaffirms the Government’s position on the interpretation and application of article 2 of the Windsor framework.”
“I agree with my hon. Friend that seeking to give immunity to terrorists who committed the most terrible crimes, including the killing of police officers, soldiers and many members of the public, was profoundly wrong. It is also wrong in principle. On the remedial order, now that we have the Dillon judgment we will be bringing it forward as soon as parliamentary time allows.”
“I do indeed agree with my hon. Friend—that is exactly what the troubles Bill will do. It is essential to build confidence across all communities, which the legacy Act failed to do, to put in place protections for our veterans and to enable all families who are seeking answers to request information through a reformed legacy commission.”
“I ask my hon. Friend to pass on my thanks and, I am sure, the thanks of the whole House for his father’s service. He and all those who served deserve our eternal gratitude. As my hon. Friend knows, the number of service personnel convicted of troubles-related offences was very small—only one in the last 28 years—whereas between 25,000 and 35,000 paramilitaries were sent to prison during the troubles. Of the current 10 live cases, eight relate to paramilitaries accused of killing or attempting to kill soldiers and police officers—paramilitaries whom the last Government wanted to give immunity to.”
“I will certainly join the hon. Member in expressing those thanks to all those who served with such distinction in Northern Ireland during the troubles to keep people safe. The Dillon judgment has provided extremely important clarity about the correct interpretation of the Windsor framework, as I said a moment ago. It also reinforces the case that the Government make: that we need to put protections for veterans, which were not contained in the last legacy Act, on the statute book.”
“That is indeed what the Supreme Court found in that particular important case. The Equality Act 2010 applies in only limited ways in Northern Ireland, as the hon. and learned Member knows. I agree with him on his first point. The Government took the appeal because they felt that the interpretation of the Windsor framework, particularly article 2, by the Northern Ireland courts was too broad. The Supreme Court has agreed with the Government and said that it is a much more narrow interpretation, relating to the troubles, not the expansive interpretation that we have previously seen.”
“As I have said from the Dispatch Box many times before, the courts had previously found that the ICRIR was independent. The Supreme Court has dealt with the two particular issues identified by the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland. I have already indicated to the House that the Government propose to make amendments to the disclosure provisions, which I think are right and proper compared with those that were contained in the legacy Act. It remains the case that the last legacy Act did not command confidence on the part of all— [ Interruption. ] It is no good hon. Members on the Conservative Front Bench shaking their heads; it did not command confidence on the part of all communities in Northern Ireland, and that is why the changes are necessary.”
“As I have said to the right hon. Gentleman a number of times before, the Government’s view, which is reinforced by the Dillon judgment, is that the legislation that we are bringing forward, combined with the judgment, means that there is no basis for the inter-state case; but it is a matter for the Irish Government to take a decision about what they do about that. The other argument for the legislation that we are putting forward is that it will enable precisely the co-operation that the right hon. Gentleman is seeking and that will be so important to many families in Northern Ireland, including the families of service and police personnel who were killed and injured during the troubles. There may well be information that the Irish Government can now provide, and that is another strong argument for the legislation.”
“I reject the suggestion that in some way I am not standing up for victims, because the legislation that we have brought forward is about trying to give confidence to all victims in Northern Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman was one of many critics the immunity provisions in the legacy Act, which had no support in Northern Ireland, did not command support from any of the political parties, was wrong in principle and was never even commenced by the last Government. In relation to the Irish Government, we should judge each other by the steps that we take. Since we last had an exchange on this matter, the Irish Government have now legislated—it is just awaiting the Irish President’s signature—to enable witness evidence to be given to the Omagh bombing inquiry. That is a sign of the Irish Government’s good faith.”
“The Northern Ireland Troubles Bill will return to the House early this Session. In the meantime, I have been consulting widely on the legislation. I will bring forward amendments designed to improve the process for victims, to further safeguard veterans, and to differentiate between the roles played by security forces and paramilitary terrorists.”
“I have consulted and met a wide range of people. I have seen the amendment that has been tabled, which we will come to when the Bill is in Committee, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is already provision in the Bill for protection from repeated investigations unless the commission regards them as essential. I recognise, however, the need to build upon what we have already in the Bill, and that will be visible when the amendments are published.”
“We are looking at amendments to improve the process for families, to further safeguard our Operation Banner veterans and to ensure oversight of how the protections work. We will make it clear that there is no equivalence, and never was, between the actions of terrorists and the conduct of our armed forces and the police in trying to protect life. We will ensure that coroners and the commission take proper account of the circumstances in which our armed forces were operating. All those things will be consistent with the joint framework and with the Government’s human rights obligations, and I would hope that the Opposition would welcome them all.”
“As my hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee knows only too well, responsibility for national security ultimately rests with Ministers, and the Dillon and the Thompson judgments confirmed that. As I have already indicated, I have proposed changes to the disclosure provisions in the Bill, including requiring the Secretary of State to conduct a balancing exercise when considering each case and also to give reasons. The Supreme Court made it clear that the Secretary of State does not have a veto, because any decision can be subject to judicial review.”
“I have indeed seen the reports to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. As I have explained, one purpose of the troubles Bill is to facilitate co-operation with the Irish authorities in relation to all these matters. We cannot undo the past, but what we can do is provide information for those whose lives were lost as a result of the use of those explosives, through full co-operation between the Irish authorities and the legacy commission. We require the Bill to make that happen.”
“Since the hon. Gentleman has raised the matter directly with me, I undertake to him—and to the House—to raise it with the Irish authorities, because they will have seen the exchange that he and I have just had.”
“The responsibility is held jointly with the independent commission established under the legislation put in place by the last Government. Some of the things that have been uncovered are evidence of why we need to reform the way in which the commission works, which is what the troubles Bill will seek to do. We have a joint plan on which we are working together. I have made my displeasure very clear to every single one of those who sit on the legacy commission board, because what was found is not acceptable. However, we must acknowledge that the report also said the commission had a great many committed staff, and nothing must get in the way of their carrying on with their work to find answers for families.”
“That gives a very clear indication of where the balance of evidence and effort currently lies.”
“As I have made clear, we will be bringing forward more provisions in Committee in response to veterans’ concerns. Simply returning to the legacy Act would leave veterans without immunity or any protections whatsoever. I am grateful to the Supreme Court for its careful consideration of these matters, and I welcome its judgment. I hope that the combination of this ruling and legislative progress on the troubles Bill will mean that all communities affected in Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom can have confidence that a reformed legacy commission will be able, where possible, to provide answers to those who have waited far too long to find out what happened to their loved ones. I commend this statement to the House.”
“The Bill will also ensure that all troubles-related cases can be investigated, one way or another. Thirdly, there is the issue of Irish co-operation. Currently, no information is being shared by the Irish authorities with the commission; the Bill will enable that to happen for the first time, helping to find answers for the relatives of those who were murdered, including service personnel who served our country. Fourthly, the Bill will enable information to be provided to families through the new Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery. Fifthly, we need new and effective safeguards for our veterans and other former service personnel. Crucially, the legacy Act did not provide those protections, and we have developed them for veterans and others who served.”
“Finally, I want to make clear why, although we welcome the Supreme Court’s determination of certain aspects of the legacy Act, we cannot leave the statute book as it is. The central underpinning of the legacy Act, which was the immunity scheme, was wrong and has failed, so we need a new system. The troubles Bill is essential for a number of reasons. First, while we know that the commission is capable of doing investigations, it has not delivered so far and it must be reformed. The Bill will implement various changes to address these matters, including reformed governance and enhanced investigatory functions. Secondly, we need the Bill to avoid endless legal disputes in future—for example, the clauses on interim custody orders will put beyond doubt that the Carltona principle applied in the context of those orders.”
“I now turn to what this means for the question of immunity. Contrary to what has been claimed by some, the UK Supreme Court has not endorsed the immunity scheme—it remains incompatible with our human rights obligations. It is also important to dispel the suggestion that the Government do not have the power to make the remedial order. As I have previously made clear, the conditions for laying a remedial order under the Human Rights Act are that: “An appeal brought within that time has been determined or abandoned.” The Government’s appeal regarding the immunity scheme in the legacy Act had already been abandoned. The Supreme Court recognised that, and therefore that was not an issue before it, but it did state very clearly that no exceptions in case law exist to justify the granting of immunity for breaches of articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR.”
“However, the Government recognise the importance of next-of-kin involvement in the reformed Legacy Commission’s inquisitorial proceedings, and we are providing for that in the troubles Bill. On disclosure, the Supreme Court was unequivocal, saying that “there must be a system restricting disclosure in circumstances where disclosure may or would risk prejudicing the national security interests of the United Kingdom”, but it went on to say that “the Secretary of State does not have an unrestrained power to ‘veto’ the disclosure of information” and that “any decision to do so is subject to challenge by way of judicial review.” This Government are committed to ensuring the maximum possible disclosure of information while protecting life and national security, hence the changes I am bringing forward in the troubles Bill to create a fairer disclosure regime with greater transparency in how decisions are made.”
“While reaffirming the Government’s position on this matter, the Supreme Court found that the relevant provisions of the legacy Act should not have been disapplied by article 2 of the Windsor framework. The purpose of bringing the appeal was to obtain clarity on how article 2 should be interpreted in the future, not to defend immunity. On next-of-kin participation and disclosure of information, the Supreme Court found that the commission is currently capable of conducting investigations that are compliant with our obligations under the European convention on human rights. The Supreme Court also concluded that the provision of legal aid for the cross-examination of witnesses is not always necessary for an investigation to be fully compliant with human rights.”
“I am pleased to report that last week the Supreme Court upheld our appeal, finding wholly in the Government’s favour. Article 2 of the Windsor framework ensures that there is no diminution of rights, safeguards or equality of opportunity in Northern Ireland as a result of the UK leaving the European Union. The Government are firmly committed to those human rights and equalities provisions but felt that article 2 had been interpreted too broadly by the lower courts. The Supreme Court’s judgment has provided important clarity on this question and confirmed the Government’s long-standing position that the rights protected by article 2 of the Windsor framework are those concerned with ending the sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland.”
“That scheme, which would have offered immunity to terrorists, had no support in Northern Ireland or from victims and their families. It was wrong in principle and provided no effective protections for veterans, not least because the provisions were never commenced by the previous Government. That is why, when we came into government, we immediately withdrew the appeal on immunity. However, the Court of Appeal’s interpretation of article 2 of the Windsor framework and its findings on next-of-kin participation and disclosure had wider implications for the Government’s ability to legislate effectively across the UK and protect national security. It was for those reasons that the Government appealed against that judgment to the Supreme Court.”
“In February 2024, the High Court of Northern Ireland found the conditional immunity scheme and other provisions of the legacy Act to be incompatible with our obligations under articles 2 and 3 of the European convention on human rights. Those findings were endorsed in September 2024 by the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal. It also made judgments that two additional matters with regard to investigations by the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery—namely, next-of-kin participation in investigations and the role of the Secretary of State in decisions about the disclosure of sensitive information—did not meet the standard required to be compatible with the ECHR. This Government have been clear that we are opposed to aspects of the legacy Act, including immunity.”
“With permission, I will make a statement on the recent Supreme Court judgment in the case of Dillon and others. It is a complex judgment, but I thought it right to come to the House at the first available opportunity to summarise its main findings. The case was originally brought against the previous Government following the passage of the legacy Act—the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act—in 2023. The applicants, a group of families who lost loved ones during the troubles, argued that various provisions of the legacy Act undermined rights protected by article 2 of the Windsor framework and by the Human Rights Act 1998, which gives effect to the European convention on human rights.”
“The fact remains that if a terrorist who committed one of many horrendous crimes—some of which are being investigated at the moment, such as the M62 coach bombing, what happened at Warrenpoint and the Kingsmill massacre—came to the commission and told the full truth, the last Government’s legislation said that the commission “must”, not “may”, grant them immunity from prosecution.”
“I can agree with the right hon. Gentleman when he describes the judgment as a complex one; he is absolutely right about that. I should make it clear that protected disclosure relating to the location of remains of those murdered by the IRA—in almost all cases, they were buried in the Republic of Ireland—is covered by separate arrangements that were introduced when the independent commission for the location of victims’ remains was created. That had support right across Northern Ireland, because people rightly judged that the most important thing was to enable families to be reunited with the remains of their loved ones. Sadly, there are four individuals whose remains have not yet been found. The right hon. Gentleman talks about the conditional immunity scheme.”
“Everybody recognises that with the passage of time, for reasons that all of us understand—and the facts demonstrate it—the chance of further, future prosecutions is rapidly diminishing. I also remind the right hon. Gentleman that any decisions about prosecutions are taken independently by independent prosecuting authorities.”
“That is why the Government brought the appeal, and we now have clarity that article 2 applies to certain things, but it is not capable of the broad interpretation that the Northern Ireland courts had given to it. Secondly, legal aid is a matter for the Northern Ireland Executive as it is their responsibility. On the troubles Bill, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, it is a carry-over Bill, and its Committee stage will come early in this new Session. I do not accept what he said about the Bill for the very simple reason that, as he well knows, the basis on which any decisions are taken about prosecutions has not changed and will not change under the legislation that the Government are bringing before the House.”
“In essence, the issue before the Supreme Court was this: was article 2 of the Windsor framework correctly interpreted by the courts in Northern Ireland when they decided to disapply the immunity provisions and in effect struck them down? The Court said clearly that that was incorrect. The Government brought the appeal because, although we disagree with immunity as a matter of principle and believe that it never existed, that judgment of the courts in Northern Ireland raised a much bigger question, which could be interpreted in other ways in respect of other policies; hon. Members will have seen some of the issues to do with immigration.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the reason why the immunity provisions had no support from any of the political parties in Northern Ireland and no support from victims and survivors’ organisations in Northern Ireland was that people were outraged by the suggestion that terrorists who committed appalling crimes should be able to walk away scot-free because of those immunity provisions. He also has to recognise that immunity remains incompatible with our human rights obligations. I turn to the three specific questions that the right hon. Gentleman asked. The first was about the interrelationship between the Dillon judgment and the Windsor framework. Clearly a very important part of the judgment is to do with the Windsor framework.”
“I very much agree with my hon. Friend. In the end, the legacy Act failed because it did not command support across all communities in Northern Ireland. How can we hope to make progress if that is the case? What we are trying to do, with the support and scrutiny of the House, is to come up with a system that is fair and reasonable but that enables those many families who are still searching for answers to find them. I hope that what I have said today provides some reassurance, in particular to those representing victims who were crestfallen on seeing parts of the Dillon judgment. I have tried to set out the Government’s commitment to ensuring that we have a system that can command confidence from all.”
“I agree with all of what the hon. Gentleman says about the failings of the 2023 legacy Act, and he has done the House a service in taking Members through the argument as to why it could not be sustained. As I have repeatedly said to the House, protections are already contained in the troubles Bill, and we intend to bring forward more protections. We have had many discussions with veterans’ organisations, and my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary and I are determined to ensure that we treat our veterans fairly and with care. The protections will be published in advance of Committee, and then the House will have a chance to debate them. I look forward to that moment.”
“Friend, and which I have already given to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, is that when we come to Committee, he will see the answer to the very fair question that he has put to me about the protections that we intend to put in place, and it will be made absolutely clear that there is no equivalence between those who sought to protect the public in Northern Ireland and those who tried to murder them.”