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Lines from Political Thinking with Nick Robinson have been withdrawn from this page while we check who is speaking.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 is the Government’s belief that there are compelling reasons for proceeding with this order, and this is a view shared by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which in its report on 9 December agreed that the Government have such reasons and recommended that Parliament approve the order. The Committee stated that “in these exceptional and unusual circumstances…the Government has sufficiently compelling reasons to proceed by way of remedial order.” I want to set out what the Government believe those reasons to be. First, we must provide clarity on immunity and remove the bar on civil claims as quickly as possible. This is essential for all involved—victims, survivors and veterans—and is a prerequisite for building trust.”
House of Commons17 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. This remedial order is a clear signal of the Government’s commitment to legislation that can command support across Northern Ireland. Its purpose is clear: to formally remove some of the provisions in the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 that were found by the courts in Dillon to be incompatible with our human rights obligations. Specifically, this means removing the provisions on immunity from prosecution and the bar on troubles-related civil cases. Although the immunity provisions never commenced, it is essential that we formally remove them from the statute book.”
House of Commons17 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I do not agree with his assessment and have made the position clear to him in the correspondence we have had—I think an exchange of two emails and two letters. I can confirm to the House that in July 2024 the Government formally abandoned their appeal concerning the declaration of incompatibility relating to immunity from prosecution. That declaration was not part of the appeal that is now before the Supreme Court, and the fact that the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement was granted permission to intervene does not alter that legal reality.”
House of Commons17 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the point he has raised, but the argument he puts is not correct. The appeal was abandoned by the Government in July 2024—he says for reasons that have never been disclosed, but the Government have been absolutely clear from the beginning that we disagree with immunity, and that we are committed to repeal and replace the legacy Act. Section 10 of the Human Rights Act gives a Secretary of State the ability to make a remedial order when a declaration of incompatibility has been made and any appeal “has been determined or abandoned”. It has been abandoned by the Government. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the ongoing Supreme Court appeal in Dillon means that the conditions have not been met, and therefore that we might lack the vires to lay the order.”
House of Commons17 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I say to those on the Opposition Front Bench that at some point they need to recognise that that provision for immunity for terrorists—because the last Government said, “We wish to give immunity to terrorists”—had no support in Northern Ireland. I am sorry that they do not recognise that. As I have said on many occasions, we cannot make progress in dealing with the problem of legacy when the provision in the current legislation, which we are committed to repealing and replacing, has no support in the place that suffered more than anywhere else during the troubles.”
House of Commons17 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I do agree with my hon. Friend. It seems that the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) and the Conservative party remain wedded to immunity. [ Interruption. ] The hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) says, as he does in all these debates, “Conditional immunity.” I think the last time we debated it, I reminded him that the previous Government’s legislation said that the commission must give immunity—must give immunity—if the conditions for giving immunity are met, which are, quite clearly— [ Interruption. ] Opposition Members have not reminded themselves of what their legislation said. All that was required was for somebody to come forward and say what they had done, and if what they had done was an offence, the commission must grant them immunity.”
House of Commons17 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It was acknowledging the arguments that had been made that led the Government to amend the remedial order, which we then put before the House on 14 October.”
House of Commons17 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That was because we listened to the representations that had been made, particularly by the Opposition, on the subject of interim custody orders in respect of sections 46 and 47, and in relation to the Supreme Court judgment in 2020. After reflecting on that, we found what we think is an alternative way of achieving the same objective, which is to be found in clauses 89 and 90 of the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, which is currently before the House. I simply point out that the previous Government tried for two and a half years to find a way of dealing with the Supreme Court judgment in the Adams case and were not able to do so, and eventually accepted the amendments moved in the other place, which became sections 46 and 47.”
House of Commons17 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he says and for his support for what we are seeking to do in the remedial order. I acknowledge the responsibility that the Government have. These are quite unusual circumstances. The reason why we are debating this matter is because the Joint Committee on Human Rights has acknowledged the unusual circumstances and, despite having made other comments in its report, which we will all have read, has come to the conclusion that it gives its approval to the order and recommends that the House support it. I welcome what the Joint Committee on Human Rights has said. I will point out one other thing. I acknowledge that the Government did take a bit of time between the report on 28 February and producing the revised draft remedial order on 14 October.”
House of Commons17 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I do agree. Although the circumstances are unusual, the Government believe we have a compelling case, and the JCHR has agreed with the Government’s assessment.”
House of Commons17 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we have only to look at the figures to see that the prospect of any prosecution in any case is increasingly remote, because of the passage of time and the difficulty of obtaining evidence. The Government, having listened very carefully to the representations made by veterans, have set out in legislation the protections—this will return to the House when we consider the Bill in Committee—including protection from repeated investigation, the right to stay at home and to seek anonymity, protection in old age, protection from cold calling, and the right to be heard. I hope that when veterans get a chance to see the protections in the legislation and precisely how they will work, they will be reassured that the Government are looking out for their interests.”
House of Commons17 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I have had many such meetings. I have met the Victims and Survivors Forum, for example, twice in the recent past to explain the legislation that the Government have published. There is a great lack of trust on the part of victims and survivors in Northern Ireland, who feel they have been let down many times before, and trust undermined is very hard to rebuild. They are taking account of the legislation the Government have passed. It will not surprise the House if I say that I believe it provides a foundation for moving forward, but it is really important, as my hon. Friend says, that the voices of people in Northern Ireland are heard, and heard loudly.”
House of Commons17 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I do not accept the characterisation that the hon. Member puts before the House. The Government are not engaging in lawfare against veterans.”
House of Commons17 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Well, I have read that letter and many others, and I refute the suggestion that the Government are engaging in lawfare. We have met a very large number of veterans organisations—I myself have met the SAS Regimental Association and others, and Ministers in the Ministry of Defence have met others—and we are listening. When the troubles Bill reaches Committee stage, the House will see the results of our considerations. The Government are absolutely determined to ensure the proper protections, in recognition of the hugely important and dangerous role that those who served in Operation Banner performed in trying to keep the people of Northern Ireland, and indeed the United Kingdom, safe.”
House of Commons17 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I say to my hon. Friend, who is a distinguished member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, that I am grateful for the support that the Committee has given for the remedial order and the Government’s assessment of the compelling reasons. Personally, I am not accusing anybody of anything. I want to try to get this legislation right, as I have said to the House many times before, and I will work with all hon. Members who will join me in that task.”
House of Commons17 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“There are those I have spoken to who say, “As long as it is still on the statute book, even though it has been declared incompatible, we doubt whether we can trust the process.” Having decided to keep the commission but to reform it, I think it is right that we remove that uncertainty as swiftly as possible. That is what the remedial order seeks to do.”
House of Commons17 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I would say two things to the right hon. Gentleman. First, I reject the suggestion that I or the Government have misappropriated a remedial order or misapplied section 10 of the Human Rights Act, and I would cite in aid of that argument that the JCHR, whose job it is— [ Interruption. ] He is shaking his head, but it is the Committee’s job to scrutinise. If it had come the House and said, “We don’t think the case is made”, the Government would of course have respected that. That is not what the JCHR said. The second point is that time is not waiting for the victims.”
House of Commons17 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I agree with that statement completely, which is why I must confess my disappointment that the Opposition are still clinging to the notion of immunity, including immunity for terrorists. The Veterans Commissioners are quite right; they want fairness, and that is what the Government are determined to deliver.”
House of Commons17 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will make two points to the right hon. Gentleman, who served with such distinction in Northern Ireland. First, as we have just heard, immunity was never commenced. It was declared incompatible, and it was struck down under article 2. Secondly, I reject again the suggestion that the Government are somehow abusing the process. If that was an argument, one might have expected the Joint Committee on Human Rights to have agreed with it, but it did not. The Committee heard all the points that have been put and concluded that in these particular circumstances it was right to proceed, and that is why it recommends that the House should support the remedial order.”
House of Commons17 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“On Monday night I met the families who had come over for the unveiling of the quilts. I would urge all Members who have not yet had a chance to go up to the Upper Waiting Hall and have a look to do so, because the story that the quilts tell is profoundly moving and a reminder of the continuing search for justice that so many people in Northern Ireland are going through. I would say that those quilts are an argument for what we are trying to do to secure legislation that can help find those answers for all the people who are remembered on the quilts.”
House of Commons17 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I have many meetings with Irish Ministers and discussions with the Tánaiste and the Taoiseach. My most recent meeting was with Helen McEntee, who has just taken over from Simon Harris at the Foreign Affairs Ministry. I very much welcome the fact that the Irish Government have announced that they are preparing to draft the legislation, as Simon Harris had committed to do while standing next to me, in time for the next hearings of the Omagh bombing inquiry. That is evidence that the Irish Government intend to fulfil the commitments they made in the joint framework.”
House of Commons17 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I think that all Members of the House have a shared commitment to trying to ensure that the peace that Northern Ireland has enjoyed since the signing of the Good Friday agreement is maintained—I think all of us do. We have a difference of view in some respects about the right way of seeking to do that, and I am always willing to be challenged on the arguments that I put on behalf of the Government and to challenge the arguments that I hear from the Opposition Front Benches. In the end, we know that we have to deal with this, because the last bit of legislation, whatever its intentions, failed to achieve its purpose. It did not command support in Northern Ireland, and that is why we have to make progress.”
House of Commons17 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“] Well, there are currently nine live cases before the courts relating to the troubles; seven of them relate to paramilitaries, and six of those relate to the Provisional IRA. I have heard the argument from Opposition Members that, “Oh, none of the paramilitaries are getting prosecuted.” That is not the case. It is really important that we have these debates on the basis of facts.”
House of Commons17 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If I may, I will correct what I think is the interpretation that the right hon. Member has put on what I had said. I made it clear a moment ago that had the Joint Committee on Human Rights reached a different conclusion about the appropriateness of the remedial order, the Government would of course have respected that. I also made it clear in my earlier comments that the Government came into office committed to get rid of immunity—we have been quite clear about that from the start—and the remedial order will seek to give effect to that. We have discussed prosecutions of veterans. If one looks at the figures, one sees that there has been one successful prosecution of a veteran since the signing of the Good Friday agreement. The point I was making, if one looks at the figures— [ Interruption.”
House of Commons17 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As I have indicated, I reject the suggestion that the Government are in any way engaging in lawfare against veterans, in the same way that I reject any suggestion that there are such things as politically motivated or vexatious prosecutions. [ Interruption. ] I hear “Oh, come on” from the Opposition Front Bench; I have heard that from Opposition Members in previous debates on these questions. There will no doubt be a number of amendments and suggestions made when we come to detailed consideration of the Bill, and we will consider them at that time.”
House of Commons17 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Once again, I do not accept that the Government are acting on an unlawful basis. Given the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s distinguished legal credentials and experience, I say to him that I note he encourages me to speculate on a potential outcome— [ Interruption. ] Well, he does. The Government have to deal with the position as we find it. I have already set out to the House why the Government are absolutely clear in our view that, because the appeal was withdrawn, we are able to make use of section 10 of the Human Rights Act in order to remove conditional immunity.”
House of Commons17 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I meet many young people in my constituency and on other duties who are keen to come to serve the nation in the armed forces. I am not aware of any figures that suggest there has been a decline in recruitment. If the hon. Member has seen them, perhaps she could draw them to my attention. Trying to deal with the past correctly, particularly given the threats we face in the modern world, should not affect the willingness of young people and others to come forward and serve the nation, as people have done over the centuries.”
House of Commons17 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I have already made it clear to the House that as long as I am in this post I have no intention of appointing those who have engaged in paramilitary activity to any of the posts contained in the Bill. On the protections, we all have a responsibility to explain and point out that they are in the draft legislation in clauses 30, 31, 36, 91, 84, 54, 56, 69 and 8. They are real, tangible protections, and they respond directly to the concerns that veterans have raised with the Government. We have introduced them because of our determination to ensure that veterans are treated properly.”
House of Commons17 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As the hon. Gentleman will be well aware, there is a long-standing tradition that the Government do not reveal the legal advice they receive. All Governments receive legal advice, but we do not share it, because that is part of the business of government. I have already made reference to the Irish Government’s announcement in respect of legislation to enable witnesses to give evidence to the Omagh bombing inquiry, which I welcome.”
House of Commons17 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“There is the clearest distinction between the two groups of people that the hon. Member refers to, and I have made that clear from the Dispatch Box on a number of occasions. There is absolutely no equivalence between those who sought to protect the public and those who committed the most appalling terrorist atrocities. I have respectfully to disagree with the hon. Member, because if she is arguing that prosecutions have been vexatious, she is saying that our independent prosecutors are working on a basis that is outwith their task, which is, in all cases, to look at the evidence and to ask whether there is a reasonable prospect of conviction and whether it is in the public interest to prosecute. If we undermine the independence of independent prosecutors—the separation between the Government and the court system—we are sunk as a nation.”
House of Commons17 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As I have said to the House before, I will, of course, look carefully at all the amendments tabled when we come to debate the Bill in Committee and on Report. The test for prosecutions, as I indicated in answer to the previous question, is the same now, and will be the same in future, as it has been for the last 30, 50 or 70 years—those who have greater legal experience can tell the House how long that has been the case. It will not change, because it depends on the evidence. We are setting out in the Bill that to reinvestigate things the commission has to be of the view that it is essential to do so. That word “essential” is a very high bar.”
House of Commons17 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I have the greatest respect for the hon. Gentleman. I think that he, I and, I hope, the whole House share the desire to enable answers for all those families who are living with the pain of not knowing what happened to their loved ones. The Kenova report has made an important contribution to seeking to uncover the truth. In drafting the legislation, we have drawn on a number of the lessons of Kenova, including that of the victims and survivors advisory panel, because many people said that that was one of the great things about the way Kenova went about its job. It is in the draft Bill that the House will consider again shortly.”
House of Commons17 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson).”
House of Commons9 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We now have that, but that was not the case in the 1970s and the 1980s.”
House of Commons9 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The behaviour reported on, including collusion by individual members of the security forces, is shocking. The Government will respond to the full Denton report when it is published, bearing in mind that related legal proceedings are ongoing in this case and in the case of Stakeknife. The Government responded to a number of the other recommendations in the interim Kenova report in August. That is available in the Library and is also addressed in the written ministerial statement.”
House of Commons9 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The use of agents is nowadays subject to strict regulation, overseen by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. On Operation Kenova’s request to the Government to name Stakeknife, I told Sir Iain Livingstone in August: “Due to ongoing litigation relevant to the Neither Confirm Nor Deny [NCND] policy, namely the Thompson Supreme Court appeal, a substantive and final response to your request will be provided after judgment has issued in that case.” The Government’s first duty is to protect national security, and identifying agents risks jeopardising that. Today’s report also makes public the high-level findings of Operation Denton, which looked at killings carried out by the Ulster Volunteer Force Glenanne gang.”
House of Commons9 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Operation Kenova has set a standard for future legacy investigations, and we have drawn on a number of those lessons in drafting the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. I wish to express my heartfelt condolences to all the families who lost loved ones in the appalling circumstances described in this sobering report. Operation Kenova was asked to establish whether there was evidence of criminal offences by the alleged agent known as Stakeknife or their alleged handlers. The behaviour described of the alleged agent and their role in the Provisional IRA is deeply disturbing, and it should not have happened. In recent decades, there have been significant reforms to agent handling practice, including through legislation.”
House of Commons9 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question. I inform the House that I will lay a written ministerial statement on this matter later today. Operation Kenova has published its final report, which covers the activities of the alleged agent Stakeknife, as well as other investigations referred to it by the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Let me begin by commending the Kenova team, led by Sir Iain Livingstone and Jon Boutcher, for the exemplary way in which they carried out their work, built trust with families, put victims first and provided many answers about what happened to their loved ones. Operation Turma, which was part of Operation Kenova, resulted in the prosecution of an individual now extradited from Ireland and awaiting trial for the murder of three Royal Ulster Constabulary officers in 1982.”
House of Commons9 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I hope all Members will welcome that, because the more information we can get about what happened, the more families will be able to find out exactly what happened to their loved ones.”
House of Commons9 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Gentleman’s final point about us all wishing to learn from the past—and I think that in order to learn from the past, one has to try to tell the truth about it—I simply draw his attention to the framework agreement reached between the UK Government and the Irish Government in September. I draw his attention to the steps that have been taken by the Irish Government to co-operate with the Omagh inquiry, which he and I have debated many times before, as well as the commitment that the Irish Government have given to the fullest possible co-operation with a reformed legacy commission. The Government’s troubles Bill is seeking to put that reformed commission in place, with the consent and will of the House.”
House of Commons9 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I also note what the report has to say about not finding any evidence of high-level collusion between the security forces and loyalist paramilitaries, in particular the UVF in respect of the work of the Glenanne gang, as they have been called. However, I do notice what it says about individual collusion. I used the word “shocking” deliberately, because it is shocking to learn now that—as Operation Kenova reports—serving police officers and serving members of the armed forces were colluding with those who were murdering a very large number of people. Over 120 people were murdered by that gang. On the right hon.”
House of Commons9 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for those points. I join him in recognising the huge contribution that was made by the intelligence services, the Army, the RUC and other security forces during the troubles to try to keep people safe and defeat those who were trying to destroy society through their terrorism. We all recognise that. The responsibility for the murder of around 1,700 people, often in the most brutal circumstances—in some cases killing people, burying them, and then for a long time providing no information as to where the remains of people’s loved ones could be found—rests with the Provisional IRA. I echo the comments that were made in the interim report and the final report about what they did.”
House of Commons9 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That will remain the case for the reformed legacy commission, because the commission has the ability to deal with closed material; the coronial system does not, as the House is aware. Precisely as my hon. Friend has said, it is vital for the confidence of families that they know the bodies that are charged with investigating what happened in the past—the people who are trying to find out what happened to their loved ones—are able to see all the relevant material.”
House of Commons9 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Select Committee, for what she has just said. She refers to the unfortunate episode in which MI5 discovered further files relating to the work of Operation Kenova that it had not previously been able to identify. The authors of the Kenova report say that they have no reason to believe that those files were withheld; MI5 was not able to find them, and the head of MI5 set up a process to review exactly what had occurred. Under the current legacy Act, the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, which will become the legacy commission under our legislation, has the ability to request and see all information.”
House of Commons9 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Tánaiste has said to me that the legislation to allow witness testimony to be given to the Omagh bombing inquiry will be in place by March, and we look forward to seeing, in due course, the outline of the Irish Government’s legislation that will implement the rest of the commitments when it comes to co-operation with the new legacy commission that we are seeking to establish by means of the legislation currently before the House. I am always happy to return to the House to provide further information and to answer further questions, but we are waiting for the Thompson judgment, which is absolutely about the “neither confirm nor deny” policy. That is why, when I wrote to Sir Iain Livingstone on, I think, 13 August, I said to him what I quoted in my original answer to the question from the right hon.”
House of Commons9 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments, and for the spirit and the tone in which he delivers them in relation to this extremely serious matter. I do indeed acknowledge—as I think I have already indicated—what he said about the nature of the collusion that has been discovered, and what it was and what it was not, for instance in respect of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. Those are very, very important findings. It is for the Irish Government to determine what information they reveal, but they have given commitments to me, to the UK Government and, indeed, to all of us about the co-operation that they will provide.”
House of Commons9 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“What I think is particularly important about the report published today is its confirmation of a point made by Jon Boutcher when he published the interim report: he said that in the absence of information about what happened, people form a view about what they think happened, and as a result what is finally produced—there is an example of this in relation to the final Operation Kenova report—may turn out to be not quite what everybody thought it was, and that is the argument for trying to be as open as possible about what happened. However, I wanted to make clear in coming to the House today that what has been revealed is, as I have said, disturbing and deeply shocking and should not have happened, and it is really important that we learn the lessons.”
House of Commons9 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I should say to my hon. Friend that I have not made such an assessment, but Operation Kenova itself had something to say in relation to the activities of the alleged agent Stakeknife. Its view was that the balance—I hate to use the term “balance sheet”—of lives lost and lives saved was not quite as it had been described by others.”
House of Commons9 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), in respect of the information that was subsequently discovered, but, of course, the use of agents— covert human intelligence sources—is nowadays subject to regulation under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Act 2021. Both those pieces of legislation show the determination of the House to learn from what has gone wrong in the past.”
House of Commons9 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The ultimate responsibility of Governments is to protect national security, and the moment that the “neither confirm nor deny” policy starts to be eroded—although in a small number of cases it has been set aside for particular reasons—that undermines the confidence of those who are serving the state today to keep us safe. They may start to ask themselves, “Will the Government still uphold that lifelong commitment not to reveal anything about what I have done?” The “neither confirm nor deny” policy is a really important protection for those who do very dangerous things in order to try to protect all of us. As for the hon. Gentleman’s question about MI5, I responded to the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon.”
House of Commons9 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗