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Lines from Political Thinking with Nick Robinson have been withdrawn from this page while we check who is speaking.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
“It does not rule it out under section 10 for this reason: there are two parts to the court’s ruling in relation to immunity. The first part was that the court found immunity to be incompatible with our international human rights obligations. The Government withdrew an appeal against that finding. That finding remains because the appeal was abandoned by the Government, and that gives the Government the right to proceed with the remedial order. The second part of the judgment was that, in addition to finding the immunity provisions incompatible with the ECHR, the court decided to strike them down under article 2 of the Windsor framework. The hon.”
House of Commons21 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“With great respect, I disagree. In answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman’s first intervention, I tried to explain that he is right in what he reads out in relation to article 2; it is the subject of a continuing appeal. However, the declaration of incompatibility under the ECHR remains, because the court ruled both of those things. It is not at issue in the appeal, and that gives the Government the ability to bring forward an order under section 10. I will give way to the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), but then I will bring my remarks to a close.”
House of Commons21 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Although the Government have indeed introduced primary legislation, we are clear that these repeals need to happen as quickly as possible. Why? Because we need to provide clarity on immunity to build trust among victims, survivors and, indeed, veterans in the independent commission, because while immunity remains on the statute book, it will be harder for them to obtain the confidence of some victims and survivors.”
House of Commons21 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am of the view that I listen. I quoted what David Crabbe said earlier, and he was opposed to immunity. The Government have listened to what the veterans commissioners and many others have said, which is, “We do not want immunity, and we are not calling for immunity; we want fairness under the law.” I have made it clear to the House that the Government do not agree with immunity as a matter of principle. When our brave soldiers put on the King’s uniform, they are upholding the law and operating underneath it. As Ben Wallace, the distinguished former Defence Secretary, said, “We abide by the rule of law; that is what makes us better than the terrorists.” Section 10 of the Human Rights Act also requires that I have “compelling reasons” to proceed.”
House of Commons21 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I have described it as a downpayment on trust ahead of the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, and I will do so again. That is why I am firmly of the view that the Government have compelling reasons for proceeding with this order. Even more importantly, this is also the view of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, to which I am grateful for its diligent consideration of this matter.”
House of Commons21 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will continue. I have tried to cover the point that some have argued, particularly in the other place, that we should delay the remedial order until the Supreme Court ruling in the Dillon judgment. It is really easy to ask the Government to wait, but I think it is much harder to ask families who have endured unimaginable suffering at the hands of paramilitary violence, including forces families, to continue to wait while time marches on. As we know, many of them are elderly and have been waiting a very long time for answers. In my view, and in the Government’s view, we should make these repeals as early as possible through the remedial order so that we have a legal framework that is fair, just and compliant with human rights.”
House of Commons21 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“What the Irish Government do with that case is a matter for them, but it will have no basis and it will not be able to go anywhere, because the House of Commons and the other place will have remedied the incompatibilities. I am grateful to the Joint Committee on Human Rights for its diligent consideration of this matter.”
House of Commons21 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The basis of the Republic of Ireland’s inter-state case, which is a matter for the Republic of Ireland— [ Interruption. ] Just let me answer the question; I will do my best to respond. The basis of the inter-state case was that the last Government’s legacy Act was incompatible with the European convention on human rights. It is correct in advancing that argument, because the courts in Northern Ireland have found the last Government’s legacy Act to be incompatible in a number of respects. The Government’s job is to ensure that the legislation is made compatible, so that everyone in Northern Ireland can have confidence in the framework that we are trying to put in place, with as much support as possible. At that moment, there will be no basis for the inter-state case any more.”
House of Commons21 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I was not about to advance the argument that it was a unanimous decision, but many a piece of legislation and many a report of a Committee throughout the history of this House has been passed on a majority vote. That is how we reach decisions, and the JCHR could not have been clearer in its second report: recognising the “unique and delicate circumstances surrounding Northern Ireland legacy matters…the Government has” sufficiently “compelling reasons to proceed by way of remedial order”. The Committee has recommended that this order be approved by both Houses of Parliament, and I urge the House to heed that recommendation by voting for the order tonight.”
House of Commons21 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“First, the order will deal with the failure of the previous Government’s legacy Act, for the reasons that I tried to set out in my opening remarks: failure legally and failure because it gained no consent from people in Northern Ireland.”
House of Commons21 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We have had a very full and wide-ranging debate in which many different contributions have been made, demonstrating once again just how difficult it is to deal with legacy—I think that is a truth around which we can all rally. If it were easy, it would have been dealt with a very long time ago, but its difficulty does not mean that we should not attempt to deal with it. The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) made his case. I gently say that I was slightly disappointed when he suggested at the end that the Government are doing this for reasons that are, in some way, hidden or unknown, or that may only be discovered in the years to come. I hope he would accept that the Government’s reasons are very clear.”
House of Commons21 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I have listened very carefully to every single contribution, and I think it is fair to say that the majority of people speaking in this debate do not agree with immunity. They might not all vote for the remedial order tonight, but they do not agree with immunity, and that is the Government’s position. I respect those who take a different view, but I think it is a failed policy—it does not exist. We are charged with taking away something that does not exist, was never enacted and was found incompatible by the courts.”
House of Commons21 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“What I am saying is that the Government do not agree with the conditional immunity contained in the legacy Act. The word “conditional” is always used as if it does not necessarily guarantee that immunity will be granted, but I urge Members who think that to go and read the legislation passed by the last Government. If someone comes forward, whoever they are, and gives a full and truthful account that persuades the commission that it is a full and truthful account of what they did which would have been a criminal offence, the legislation does not say, “Well, you can make your mind up and decide whether to grant it or not.” The legislation passed by the last Government said that the commission must grant immunity. In those circumstances, it does not sound very conditional to me.”
House of Commons21 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As he will know, the Kingsmill massacre is currently the subject of an investigation by the legacy commission, and I hope that, along with all those investigations, it is able to make progress.”
House of Commons21 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Friends the Members for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger), and for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey). If I may say so, the hon. Members for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) and for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) both made extremely strong and well-argued cases. The right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) says that we should wait. He is perfectly entitled to advance that argument, but he is one of the majority of those who have taken part in the debate who are in favour of getting rid of immunity, which is what the remedial order does. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) said that nobody is interested in those who were affected by the Kingsmill massacre. I disagree with that.”
House of Commons21 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am going to make some progress because I am trying to respond to the many points raised in the debate. The second reason we are doing this is that we want those who are still seeking answers to be able to seek them in a system that they have confidence in, and there has not been confidence under the previous Government’s legacy Act, for the reasons we have heard, including from Northern Ireland Members. The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) made a very powerful contribution in defence of our human rights obligations, and I am grateful for his support and that of his party for the remedial order. We heard important contributions on both sides of the argument—I recognise that, and I recognise the sincerity and force with which those arguments were made. On the Government Benches we heard contributions from my hon.”
House of Commons21 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) spoke about his friend Robert Nairac, and we are all living in hope that his remains, and the other three sets of remains, will be found. The Independent Commission for the Location of Victims’ Remains said, “If you give information about the location of remains, anything that is found and the information you have given us cannot be used in a prosecution”.”
House of Commons21 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That did not uphold the Carltona principle—which, as the House knows, has long held that anything signed by a junior Minister has the force of the signature of the Secretary of State. In that case, the Supreme Court decided that it would not apply that to the signing of interim custody orders. We decided to leave that defence there, even though it has proved flimsy because it did not win out in the Fitzsimons case, and we are bringing forward legislation that we think will do the task of restoring the legality of those interim custody orders that were signed, whether by the Secretary of State at the time or by other Ministers. That is extremely important. The right hon.”
House of Commons21 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We are all subject to the decisions of the Court. The right hon. Gentleman asks a hypothetical question, and, like answers to all hypotheticals, I would say that we will cross that bridge if and when we come to it. I am afraid that the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) is wrong on the question of interim custody orders, because he has not caught up with what the Government have done. The one difference between the first version of the remedial order and the one we are debating, is that the Government listened to arguments that were made, which said, “Why are you taking sections 46 and 47 off the legislation?” Those sections were added very late in the day during consideration of the legacy Bill in an attempt to deal with the consequences of the 2020 Supreme Court judgment.”
House of Commons21 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am not going to give way because I want to respond to the other points raised. What the commission set out is what is known as a protected disclosure—a protected disclosure that the previous Government agreed to when they reached the Stormont House agreement and came up with the idea of the information recovery body. That is part of the troubles Bill that we have published, but there is a world of difference between a protected disclosure and immunity from prosecution. It has been suggested that this is about relitigating who won, but the answer to that question is already crystal clear: peace won. Peace won in Northern Ireland because of the Good Friday agreement. This is not about placating anyone; it is about seeking to do the right thing. It is not about dredging up the past.”
House of Commons21 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We will return to the troubles Bill in Committee, and I hope that the House will be able to come together to fashion a system that more people can have confidence in, so that the people we have met and heard from, who are still tortured by the fact that they have not had answers as to what happened to their loved ones, may have the chance to find those answers. It is in that spirit that I ask the House to support this remedial order. Question put,”
House of Commons21 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Government are seeking to put in place a system in which more people can have confidence—because there was not widespread confidence in the previous Government’s legacy Act on the part of victims, survivors, political parties and others in Northern Ireland—so that, where it is possible, answers can be found. You only have to look at the figures for prosecutions to see that they are diminishing rapidly. There are nine cases that are currently live and, by the way, seven of them relate to paramilitaries and one relates to the Army. When it is said that these measures are only about the armed forces, that is not correct because that is not what the evidence shows currently; there are nine live cases, seven of which relate to paramilitaries.”
House of Commons21 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“No, it is not about dredging up the past. Like many right hon. and hon. Members, I have met far too many people—the families of victims—who live with the past every single day, and have done for the past 20, 30, 40 or 50 years. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) laid bare the pain, the sorrow and the heartache that the loss of loved ones has caused to so many people across Northern Ireland. That pain, sorrow and heartache is as powerful today as it was, I suspect, on the day that they first heard the news of the death of their loved ones.”
House of Commons21 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I regularly meet a variety of stakeholders to talk about the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, including veterans groups, political parties in Northern Ireland, and victims and families who are still living with the effects of those decades of terrible violence.”
House of Commons7 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am very happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. I did indeed meet the Special Air Service Regimental Association recently, as part of the discussions that I and my colleagues in the Ministry of Defence are having with veterans. We are listening to the concerns being expressed and, as I have said to the House on a number of occasions, we want to ensure that the legislation responds to them.”
House of Commons7 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My hon. Friend is quite right to draw attention to one of the implications of the 2023 legacy Act in shutting down all those investigations. He is right that families are perfectly free to refer cases to the commission. I know that the commission is keen to investigate as many cases as come its way, in order to provide answers for those families, who have waited so long.”
House of Commons7 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I have already given the House that assurance from this Dispatch Box. When we consider the Bill in Committee, we will have the opportunity to debate the Bill in its current form and the many amendments that I can see have already been tabled.”
House of Commons7 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“All the political parties in Northern Ireland that expressed their profound opposition to immunity have welcomed the fact that immunity will go under the legislation that we have brought before the House—that includes the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), the DUP leader, who supports its removal. That is a sign that the Government have been listening to views in Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, the Legacy Act failed to do that.”
House of Commons7 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I do not agree with either of the characterisations that the hon. Gentleman just referred to. I am confident that the protections, which we have designed specifically for veterans, will change their experience in relation to the legacy process. However, as I have said to the House, we continue to talk to veterans and veterans organisations. I want to produce a Bill that can offer the reassurance they are looking for: that we have a fair and proportionate system that recognises their service to the country.”
House of Commons7 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Government had to do something about the previous Government’s failed legacy Act, which had no support in Northern Ireland. If one is seeking to help the people of Northern Ireland to deal with the continuing consequences of the troubles, the legislation has to have that support, and the previous Government failed to do that. On the impact on recruitment, as the hon. Gentleman will have heard when the Minister for the Armed Forces answered the urgent question on Monday, inflows continue to improve. Indeed, inflow is up by 13% this year compared with September 2024.”
House of Commons7 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I apologise to the hon. Gentleman that he has not received the letter to which he referred, and I assure him that I will remedy that very promptly. Defence Ministers and I have met a large number of organisations, and I would just point out that none of the six protections that the Government have put forward were contained in the previous Government’s legacy Act—not a single one. We intend to continue to listen, and to respond to the concerns that have been raised.”
House of Commons7 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The European convention on human rights underpins not only the Good Friday agreement, but key international agreements on trade, security and migration. The Government are committed to the ECHR. We also remain determined to uphold the Good Friday agreement and human rights in Northern Ireland.”
House of Commons7 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I do agree with my hon. Friend, and it is clear that those advocating leaving the ECHR have not given any serious consideration to the implications for the Good Friday agreement. Indeed, when pressed on that in the summer, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) noted that it could take “years and years to solve, so that will not be at the forefront of what we do.” I would simply say that that is not good enough, and that those who advocate leaving the ECHR need to reflect on what they are arguing for.”
House of Commons7 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As I have told the House before, I think it would be extremely irresponsible. As the House needs no reminding, the Good Friday agreement was very carefully negotiated between several parties, and it would be reckless for one party to march in and seek to remove one of its founding pillars.”
House of Commons7 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I agree with my hon. Friend. We need to remember that it is the Human Rights Act that gives all of us access to the rights and protections contained in the European convention on human rights. To leave it would put us alone in Europe, in the company of Russia and Belarus. Is that really where the Opposition want to be—welcomed with a pat on the back by President Putin?”
House of Commons7 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I agree that it could have very wide-ranging implications for Northern Ireland in particular, as well as for the rest of the country. I have not made such an assessment, because that is not a policy that the Government advocate. It is for those proposing to leave the ECHR to answer the very fair question that my hon. Friend has just raised.”
House of Commons7 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The steps that I took in relation to the vote on the renewal of the Windsor framework arrangements were absolutely in line with the provisions that were put in place by this House, and Lord Murphy produced his report as a result. The hon. and learned Gentleman will have seen the practical steps that the Government are taking in response to Lord Murphy’s very sensible recommendations.”
House of Commons7 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is for all those who wish to argue about the rights that they feel the ECHR and the Human Rights Act give them to do so. I simply say that, in bringing the Bill forward, I as the Minister responsible have certified that the Bill complies with the European convention.”
House of Commons7 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that it is possible for signatories to the convention to withdraw, but it is a very bad idea and the Government do not support it.”
House of Commons7 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As I have said many times in the past, there is no such thing as vexatious prosecutions. The ECHR protects the rights of all our all citizens, including the veterans who served with such distinction in Operation Banner.”
House of Commons7 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Northern Ireland’s economy is one of the strongest of any part of the United Kingdom: it has the lowest unemployment and its economic growth outpaced the rest of the UK in the year ending the second quarter of 2025. That performance is being supported by this Government’s policies, including significant investment in economic development and a record settlement for the Executive.”
House of Commons7 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Northern Ireland Executive have very considerable responsibilities in respect of the Northern Ireland economy. I note that the Finance Minister has published a draft three-year budget; the fact that we had a three-year spending review has given the Northern Ireland Executive the opportunity to do the same for the first time in a number of years. As the Minister said, there are choices that the Executive have to make—that is true of all Governments around the world—and I look forward to seeing the Executive come forward with a proposal for a balanced budget.”
House of Commons7 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This Budget provided Northern Ireland with an additional £370 million, on top of the record settlement of £19.3 billion each year on average over the spending review period. The decisions we have taken will ease trade within the UK, and will ensure that families across Northern Ireland benefit from help with the cost of living, through policies such as cutting energy bills and lifting the two-child benefit cap.”
House of Commons7 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I do agree with my hon. Friend. That is why the Government’s decision to lift the two-child benefit cap was widely welcomed in Northern Ireland. I would also point out that Northern Ireland is being funded slightly above its level of need; it gets 24% more than equivalent spending in England, meaning that the Executive have more money to make their decisions with.”
House of Commons7 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The public services transformation fund is a very important demonstration of the partnership between the UK Government and the Northern Ireland Executive. As the hon. Member will be well aware, the first six projects have been funded, and good progress is being made on them. The transformation board is currently considering bids that are coming in for the next phase of funding. Of course, we are keen—as are the Executive—to see that money spent on transformation of how public services are delivered in Northern Ireland, which is hugely needed.”
House of Commons7 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The whole House will agree that we owe our Operation Banner veterans an enormous debt of gratitude. That is why the Government are introducing six protections for veterans involved in legal processes relating to their service. We are confident that this will change their experience and ensure that the process is fair and balanced.”
House of Commons7 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I do not agree with that assessment. I have had many discussions with the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner, and if one looks at the facts, including at the prosecutions that have taken place, there have been more prosecutions of paramilitary terrorists than of soldiers. Indeed, there has been one conviction of a soldier for a troubles-related offence in the past 27 and a half years.”
House of Commons7 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is why I am so firm in saying that there is no such thing as a vexatious prosecution.”
House of Commons17 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is the Government’s view that these changes should therefore be made through the remedial order as soon as possible. The Government have a clear mandate, compelling reasons and a procedural basis which the JCHR has endorsed, and the House will have an opportunity to debate the order in the new year.”
House of Commons17 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Secondly, providing this clarity is vital to enable the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery to continue its work. It is my view that while immunity, a key plank of the 2023 legacy Act, remains on the statute book, it will be difficult for the ICRIR to obtain the confidence of all victims and survivors. As the JCHR rightly noted, the legacy of the past continues to have a profound and lasting impact, and we know that families and political parties were vehemently opposed to the immunity provisions. While the repeal of immunity is only one aspect of reforming the arrangements put in place by the 2023 Act, I am confident that its repeal will result in a greater confidence for referrals to be made. Given that many individuals are elderly, they cannot keep on waiting.”
House of Commons17 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗