YouSaid · the spoken record
Hilary Benn
Lines from Political Thinking with Nick Robinson have been withdrawn from this page while we check who is speaking. See the correction.
On the record 2004–2026
hansard
This is everything the corpus holds for Hilary Benn. It is not everything they have said on the record.
Every line below is reproduced as it was said and credited to the record it came from, and links to that record wherever it can be linked. Nothing here is summarised or generated. Directory · Search · Corrections
“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.”
House of Commons3 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons3 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons3 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons3 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons3 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons3 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons3 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That gives a very clear indication of where the balance of evidence and effort currently lies.”
House of Commons14 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons14 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons14 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons14 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons14 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons14 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons14 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons14 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons14 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons14 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons14 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons14 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons14 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons14 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons14 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons14 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons14 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons14 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons14 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons14 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his representation of his constituents, and for what he has just said. I join him in paying tribute to those who served with such bravery in Northern Ireland. As he will be aware, the courts and coroners in Northern Ireland have on many occasions recognised the point that was made to the Prime Minister in the opening of the King’s Speech debate yesterday: members of our armed forces had to take split-second decisions. The courts recognise and understand that, and have on many occasions said that what they did was entirely lawful. Nobody who acted lawfully, in line with lawful orders, has anything to fear at all; indeed, the very small number of cases in which members of the armed forces have been convicted for offences during the troubles is evidence of that. The commitment that I give to my hon.”
House of Commons14 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We now know that they were not going to work, they have been found to be incompatible, they had no support in Northern Ireland and they were never commenced by the last Government. We do no service to our veterans by continuing to argue, as some have done, that that is the alternative—it is not.”
House of Commons14 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am grateful to the hon. Member for his comments, not least because of his service. As he will know, we have been engaged in very close discussion and consultation with many organisations representing veterans. The honest answer to his question is that people will make a judgment when they see the detail of the amendments that the Government are committed to bringing forward, and those amendments will then be carefully scrutinised and debated in the House. Again, we have to strike a balance that is fair and proper, but I assure him that the Government are extremely seized of their obligations to make sure that the arrangements that we put in place are fair to veterans. What is not fair is to pretend that somehow the immunity provisions contained in the legacy Act were ever going to work.”
House of Commons14 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The estimates are that between 25,000 and 35,000 paramilitaries were convicted for offences, including murder, bombings and other things, during the course of the troubles. There were four soldiers convicted of troubles-related offences during that time, one of whom was freed on appeal. Since the Good Friday agreement, there has been one conviction of a member of the armed forces, who received a suspended sentence. There are currently 10 live prosecutions, eight of which relate to paramilitaries, including people accused of killing members of the police and our armed forces. That lays to rest the argument that I have heard from some that the paramilitaries are not being pursued any more—that is not the case. Of the two other cases, one relates to the Royal Ulster Constabulary and one relates to members of our armed forces.”
House of Commons14 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I have the greatest respect for the hon. Gentleman, but I do not accept his characterisation or that it is right to accuse the courts of weaponising anything. The courts looked at the case before them and reached a judgment, but the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land and, in the Government’s view, its interpretation of article 2 of the Windsor framework was right: the courts did not have the power to disapply the immunity provisions. That is separate from whether immunity continues to be incompatible—as it does—with the European convention. Secondly, I cannot think of any case where Government Departments are not following the law as it is and as we now understand it to be as a result of a very clear finding by the Supreme Court. That is why I have welcomed that finding on behalf of the Government.”
House of Commons14 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We are also looking at how the protections can be overseen to ensure that they work in the way that the Government intended, and at the extent to which both coroners and the commission take into account the circumstances under which those who served were operating at the time, including around things such as orders, instructions and so on. Understanding the context in which split-second decisions were made by those who served is very important to ensuring that there is justice for all.”
House of Commons14 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I quite understand why the hon. Gentleman makes that point, and I thank him for his service on behalf of our country. It is right and proper that it is the House of Commons that sees the detail of the amendments first, and I give the House that commitment. In addition to what is in the troubles Bill—the hon. Gentleman will see what it says—I have indicated that we are looking at the question of equivalence. The argument has been made strongly to the Government by veterans and others, and I accept it. As I have said at this Dispatch Box on a number of occasions, of course there was no equivalence between those who served the state to protect the people of Northern Ireland and those who were seeking to kill.”
House of Commons14 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is such an important part of enabling people in Northern Ireland who still live in the shadow of the troubles to reconcile themselves with what happened—people come to that in very different ways, as I know from the many conversations that I have had—so that Northern Ireland’s society can move forward. It has already been transformed in the last 28 years and we all applaud that.”
House of Commons14 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Member raises an extremely important point. As I am sure she is aware, our troubles Bill leaves in place part 4 of the legacy Act. Not everything in the 2023 Act was wrong, and that part deals with memorialisation and digitisation of records. I agree with the hon. Member that it is not either/or; these things need to be pursued in parallel. However, for people to be reconciled, it is really important that they are able to feel—in so far as it is possible; it will not be in all cases—that they have finally been given an answer as to how and at whose hands their loved ones died.”
House of Commons14 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Supreme Court recognised that, and therefore there was nothing for it to rule on. The incompatibility with the convention of immunity remains, but the Court went out of its way to explain why case law means that there is not an exception on grounds of reconciliation that would in any way justify the immunity provisions that were contained in the last Government’s legislation.”
House of Commons14 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I do not agree with the hon. Member that we should leave the European convention on human rights, because it provides protections for all of us as citizens. The point I was seeking to address—and I thought it was very important to bring clarity to the House in relation to immunity and whether the appeal had been withdrawn—was this. It was argued from the Conservative Benches, because of the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement’s intervention, that in some way the appeal on that matter remained live. It was also put to me that the United Kingdom Supreme Court was likely to rule on the question. I wanted to come to the House today, at the first available opportunity, to make it quite clear that, I am afraid, those two arguments were wrong. The appeal had been withdrawn.”
House of Commons14 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is their tireless work that keeps our communities safe, and this Government will continue to support those efforts as together we seek to bring to account those responsible for terrorism.”
House of Commons27 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This was a shameless and cowardly attack on the brave men and women who work so hard to keep our communities safe in Northern Ireland. Urgent investigations into both incidents are, of course, continuing and I urge anyone who has any information to contact the PSNI. Over the decades, Northern Ireland has been transformed into a much more peaceful society. However, a very small number of people who represent no one but themselves remain determined to try to cause harm to our communities. I join with the Prime Minister and all those from across the political spectrum in Northern Ireland who have condemned what happened on Saturday, and I know the House will join me in paying tribute to the extraordinary efforts of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, led by Jon Boutcher, and to our security partners.”
House of Commons27 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I know that the thoughts of the whole House will be with all those affected—residents who had to leave their homes, the police officers who were helping with that evacuation when the device exploded, and the delivery driver, who has been through a traumatic experience. It is incredibly fortunate that nobody was killed or injured. A similar attack on the police station in Lurgan was attempted on 30 March, when a fast food delivery driver was also hijacked by two masked men, who placed an object in the boot of the car and ordered him to drive it to Lurgan police station or be killed. Mercifully, on that occasion ammunition technical officers were able to carry out a controlled explosion. They confirmed that it was a crude but viable improvised explosive device, and the New IRA later claimed responsibility.”
House of Commons27 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) for her question. Shortly before 11 pm on Saturday 25 April, a vehicle was abandoned just outside the front gate of the Police Service of Northern Ireland station at Dunmurry. The vehicle had been hijacked in the Twinbrook area of west Belfast a short time before, where a gas cylinder was placed in the boot of the vehicle and the driver was ordered to drive to the police station. When he got there, the driver informed the police, who immediately and very bravely evacuated nearby homes. A number of residents, including two babies, were being taken to safety when the device exploded.”
House of Commons27 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is for the Executive to determine how much it chooses to devote to policing out of the record settlement that we give.”
House of Commons27 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I join the hon. Member in her expression of thanks to the police and in her expressions of concern for all those who have been affected. As she well knows, PSNI resources are determined by the Northern Ireland Executive, but it is our job as a Government to play our part. We have given a record settlement to the Executive in the spending review last summer, and we have implemented the first increase in the additional security funding in more than a decade; it will be £130 million over three years. I also draw attention to the fact that there is a Home Office counter-terrorism policing grant. The level of funding per head is the same as that given by the additional security funding. Northern Ireland received Barnett consequentials on top of that as a result of the announcement of the Home Office counter-terrorism policing grant.”
House of Commons27 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We have also acted against the New IRA and two individuals associated with the group through the Treasury’s counter-terrorism financial sanctions regime, which in effect takes control of the finances of those individuals. It is a very powerful tool to use, and, as my hon. Friend will see, we have already applied it on two occasions.”
House of Commons27 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I certainly do. That is why anyone with any information has a responsibility to provide it to the PSNI so that people may be called to account. The police and our security partners work hard every single day of the year to try to identify those responsible. For reasons that the House will well understand, a great deal of that work is unseen by the general public, but I assure my hon. Friend and the House that it is taking place, and we have seen that in recent times. In December, two men were sentenced to lengthy jail terms for preparatory acts of terrorism. PSNI investigations into drug criminality linked to the New IRA led to a man being sentenced last month in relation to the supply of drugs.”
House of Commons27 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“On the question of legacy, under the previous Government’s Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, which established the commission, every request for disclosure and information falls to the police service and other partners. That was already the case, regardless of anything contained in the legislation that we are currently taking through the House.”
House of Commons27 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I join the hon. Member in his tribute to the Police Service of Northern Ireland, and agree with him that the response from all communities in Northern Ireland to this terrible attack is a sign of the new Northern Ireland and shows that those responsible have no support at all. Sadly, though, they do have some capacity. As he knows, the enforcement of the law is a job for the police service, and if criminal offences have been identified, it is for prosecutors to take decisions. I hope the hon. Member will agree that my answer to the question from the Chair of the Select Committee about recent convictions and steps taken, shows that there certainly is capacity within the PSNI to go after people and—if the evidence can be found—to enable a prosecution to take place.”
House of Commons27 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I say to my hon. Friend that the huge significance of the Good Friday agreement is that it charted a way forward and made clear the peaceful means by which those who wish to seek constitutional change in Northern Ireland can pursue it, but I also make the point that there never was any justification for the violence. There was always an alternative to the violence, and that was shown in the negotiation of the Good Friday agreement.”
House of Commons27 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Yes, it is a reserved matter, but there is a shared responsibility across Northern Ireland to defeat terrorism. That is a political responsibility and it is a policing and security responsibility. As I have set out to the House, the budget of the PSNI is determined by the Executive. We as a Government are playing our part by making sure there has been a record settlement. As I said, we have increased additional security funding for the first time in a decade, and the Home Office counter-terrorism grant was Barnetted across to the Northern Ireland Executive. It is for the Northern Ireland Executive to take the decisions about how they choose to spend the significant resources we are making available.”
House of Commons27 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗