1. What assessment he has made of the potential implications for his Department’s policies of the Supreme Court judgment in the Dillon case [2026] UKSC 15. (900186)

2. What assessment he has made of the potential implications for his Department’s policies of the Supreme Court judgment in the Dillon case [2026] UKSC 15. (900188)

7. What assessment he has made of the potential implications for his Department’s policies of the Supreme Court judgment in the Dillon case [2026] UKSC 15. (900193)

Before answering, I pay tribute to Sir Desmond Rea who died recently. He played an important role in the peace process in Northern Ireland, particularly through the transformation of policing as the first chair of the Northern Ireland Policing Board. I am sure the whole House will join me in sending condolences to his family.

I welcome the clarity provided by the Supreme Court in the Dillon case, which has confirmed that the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery is capable of delivering human rights-compliant investigations and reaffirms the Government’s position on the interpretation and application of article 2 of the Windsor framework.

Terrorists were responsible for the vast majority of deaths during the troubles. Many of those murders remain unsolved, and the last Tory Government’s Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 sought to offer immunity to the perpetrators. Does the Secretary of State agree that that is wrong in principle, and can he provide an update on when he plans to move the approval motion for the remedial order to repeal it in the other place?

I agree with my hon. Friend that seeking to give immunity to terrorists who committed the most terrible crimes, including the killing of police officers, soldiers and many members of the public, was profoundly wrong. It is also wrong in principle. On the remedial order, now that we have the Dillon judgment we will be bringing it forward as soon as parliamentary time allows.

The Supreme Court found wholly in the Government’s favour. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Government now have a responsibility to put in place legislation that delivers justice for victims and survivors of the troubles, who are both civilians and veterans, and that upholds the special duty of care to veterans?

I do indeed agree with my hon. Friend—that is exactly what the troubles Bill will do. It is essential to build confidence across all communities, which the legacy Act failed to do, to put in place protections for our veterans and to enable all families who are seeking answers to request information through a reformed legacy commission.

As the proud son of a Northern Ireland veteran myself, I wish to put on the record my eternal gratitude to the brave men and women of our armed forces who served our nation in Operation Banner. With that in mind, can the Secretary of State reiterate to the House how many veterans have been convicted for offences committed during the troubles and how that compares with the number of paramilitaries who have been successfully prosecuted?

I ask my hon. Friend to pass on my thanks and, I am sure, the thanks of the whole House for his father’s service. He and all those who served deserve our eternal gratitude. As my hon. Friend knows, the number of service personnel convicted of troubles-related offences was very small—only one in the last 28 years—whereas between 25,000 and 35,000 paramilitaries were sent to prison during the troubles. Of the current 10 live cases, eight relate to paramilitaries accused of killing or attempting to kill soldiers and police officers—paramilitaries whom the last Government wanted to give immunity to.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the Supreme Court judgment in the Dillon case reinforces vital legal protections for our security forces, creating a more secure environment? Will he join me in thanking the courageous men and women of our army and police who fought and defeated terrorism with integrity?

I will certainly join the hon. Member in expressing those thanks to all those who served with such distinction in Northern Ireland during the troubles to keep people safe. The Dillon judgment has provided extremely important clarity about the correct interpretation of the Windsor framework, as I said a moment ago. It also reinforces the case that the Government make: that we need to put protections for veterans, which were not contained in the last legacy Act, on the statute book.

I welcome the rebuff in the Dillon judgment for the article 2 expansionist demands of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and of the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland. Does the Secretary of State accept that rights in Northern Ireland must evolve according to United Kingdom law, not European Union law? Thus, on the gender issue, does he accept that the ruling of the Supreme Court on the supremacy of biological sex must prevail?

That is indeed what the Supreme Court found in that particular important case. The Equality Act 2010 applies in only limited ways in Northern Ireland, as the hon. and learned Member knows. I agree with him on his first point. The Government took the appeal because they felt that the interpretation of the Windsor framework, particularly article 2, by the Northern Ireland courts was too broad. The Supreme Court has agreed with the Government and said that it is a much more narrow interpretation, relating to the troubles, not the expansive interpretation that we have previously seen.

I call the shadow spokesperson.

May I echo the Secretary of State’s comments in relation to the sad passing of Sir Desmond Rea?

In response to the Dillon judgment, a Northern Ireland spokesperson said on 7 May:

“We welcome the clarity provided today by the Supreme Court, which has confirmed that the ICRIR is fully equipped to deliver human rights-compliant investigations”.

Does the Secretary of State therefore accept that the courts have determined that the ICRIR as presently constituted is sufficiently independent to conduct its investigations? If so, why is there any need to make these cumbersome changes in his proposed Bill?

As I have said from the Dispatch Box many times before, the courts had previously found that the ICRIR was independent. The Supreme Court has dealt with the two particular issues identified by the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland. I have already indicated to the House that the Government propose to make amendments to the disclosure provisions, which I think are right and proper compared with those that were contained in the legacy Act. It remains the case that the last legacy Act did not command confidence on the part of all—[Interruption.] It is no good hon. Members on the Conservative Front Bench shaking their heads; it did not command confidence on the part of all communities in Northern Ireland, and that is why the changes are necessary.

The Secretary of State will know that the howls of outrage from the article 2 expansionists have been proven to be wrong, yet those same howls of outrage have been repeated ad nauseum by the Irish Government. They continue with their state case against this country and they continue to assert that there is an incompatibility with the ICRIR. In doing so, they refuse to respond to the requests of victims; they have not responded once to the ICRIR’s requests for information from the Guards; and, as the Secretary of State heard with the victim in our presence just last week, the much-fêted Garda unit does not even answer the phone. Will he now challenge the Irish Republican Government to withdraw their case and to recognise compatibility with article 2?

As I have said to the right hon. Gentleman a number of times before, the Government’s view, which is reinforced by the Dillon judgment, is that the legislation that we are bringing forward, combined with the judgment, means that there is no basis for the inter-state case; but it is a matter for the Irish Government to take a decision about what they do about that. The other argument for the legislation that we are putting forward is that it will enable precisely the co-operation that the right hon. Gentleman is seeking and that will be so important to many families in Northern Ireland, including the families of service and police personnel who were killed and injured during the troubles. There may well be information that the Irish Government can now provide, and that is another strong argument for the legislation.

The Secretary of State must know that victims in Northern Ireland would like him to stand up for them, to challenge the excess and the eccentricities of the Republic of Ireland Government, and to ensure, when they promise that they will provide information, that they do, and that their reluctance to do so has now been proven hollow. Gender has already been mentioned and he knows that the Dillon case was silent on some of the other expansionist parts of the quest on article 2. He has indicated his support for the Supreme Court’s view, but will he ensure that he defends that view in court?

I reject the suggestion that in some way I am not standing up for victims, because the legislation that we have brought forward is about trying to give confidence to all victims in Northern Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman was one of many critics the immunity provisions in the legacy Act, which had no support in Northern Ireland, did not command support from any of the political parties, was wrong in principle and was never even commenced by the last Government. In relation to the Irish Government, we should judge each other by the steps that we take. Since we last had an exchange on this matter, the Irish Government have now legislated—it is just awaiting the Irish President’s signature—to enable witness evidence to be given to the Omagh bombing inquiry. That is a sign of the Irish Government’s good faith.

3. What assessment he has made of the potential economic impact of the defence growth deal on Northern Ireland. (900189)

4. What assessment he has made of the potential economic impact of the defence growth deal on Northern Ireland. (900190)

There is rightly huge pride in the defence sector in Northern Ireland, where aerospace and defence are worth more than £2 billion a year. The defence growth deal will unlock even more opportunities for businesses, workers and apprentices.

One of the many things I have learned on the excellent armed forces parliamentary scheme with the Navy this year is the importance of UK defence manufacturing for our economy and our national security. In Southampton we have Tekever and Leonardo, and of course in Northern Ireland there is Navy shipbuilding at Harland & Wolff. Does the Minister agree that the Northern Ireland defence sector plays a vital role in defending the UK and protecting our allies?

My hon. Friend is right. Not only are businesses thriving and creating good jobs, but they are protecting us and our allies, including protecting Ukraine from Russian aggression. I am proud of Northern Ireland’s critical role in defending our country and protecting our allies.

The Northern Ireland defence sector already makes a substantial contribution to the local economy, supporting well-paid, highly skilled jobs right across the region, with at least 900 jobs directly supported. Does the Minister agree that, as well as benefiting national security, this new investment will benefit the wider economy, including in my Ashford constituency?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This investment is a win-win-win—we protect ourselves, our allies and our economy, and with that we boost opportunities for people to get good, long-lasting and rewarding jobs.

Has the Minister seen the report published this week by techUK, which has members across Northern Ireland in the defence sector, focusing particularly on tech? The report expressed concern that the absence of the defence industrial strategy has been the single biggest cause of retardation of its members’ business, and is particularly affecting employment. What does that say for growth in Northern Ireland?

I have not read the report from techUK, but I look forward to reading it. I think the right hon. Member might mean the defence investment plan, which we are hoping will be published next month before the NATO summit.

Northern Ireland has skills, technology and infrastructure to contribute to the defence industry across the United Kingdom, but the Sinn Féin Economy Minister does not want defence jobs. Will the Minister assure us that the attitude of Sinn Féin will not be a deterrent to those vital jobs coming to Northern Ireland?

We are very proud of the investment we are making in the Northern Ireland economy and in an already booming defence sector. I think people from right across Northern Ireland welcome that investment in good jobs.

5. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the defence industrial strategy 2025 on Northern Ireland. (900191)

The first duty of any Government is to protect their people, and this Government are ensuring that we all feel the benefit of the investment in defence. Take, for example, the £1.6 billion deal to supply missiles to Ukraine—manufactured in Belfast and built by Thales—which is supporting hundreds of jobs and tripling production capacity. This is important work that I am sure the whole House welcomes.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. I also welcome the good news that this week alone, Thales in Belfast has been given a £36 million contract to provide those multi-role missiles, which will support 700 highly skilled jobs in Belfast. Does the Minister agree that the defence industrial strategy represents a huge opportunity for job creation and economic growth in regions such as Northern Ireland and constituencies such as mine in North Northumberland?

Of course. The dedication and professionalism of our armed forces is respected across this House, the country and the world, and we must have a strong defence industry standing behind them. Through the defence industrial strategy, businesses right across the United Kingdom can play their part in taking our defence industry to the next level.

Taking into account the world-class engineering capabilities already proven by industrial icons such as Shorts, Harland & Wolff and Thales in Northern Ireland, will the Minister ensure that the defence growth deal specifically leverages the existing high-tech supply chains and advanced manufacturing skills base across areas such as Strangford, to supercharge our regional private sector growth and ensure that this rising tide lifts all the manufacturing ships in Northern Ireland, which have the capacity to do so much more?

I will do all that I can to ensure that. I have met many of those businesses and many small businesses from across Northern Ireland to discuss the defence growth deal. The hon. Member will be pleased to see there is a focus on skills and supply chains to support more of those businesses.

6. What steps he is taking to replace the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. (900192)

10. What steps he is taking to replace the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. (900196)

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.

In the Secretary of State’s wide consultation, did he consult General Sir Nick Parker, who suggested that there should be no further criminal investigations, inquests, inquiries or prosecutions unless there is new and compelling evidence that was not available at the time of the event?

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.

In the previous Session, the troubles Bill drew criticism from nine former four-star generals, regimental associations and veterans across the country. The Defence Secretary told this House earlier this week that he had “dealt with their concerns” and would make “significant amendments”, but every time we ask for detail, we are stonewalled. Will the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland lay out today exactly what protections he is proposing and guarantee that no veteran will be hounded through the courts?

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.

I call the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.

During our Committee’s inquiry on legacy, we heard serious concerns from victims and survivors about the Government’s approach to information disclosure. In the Dillon case, the Supreme Court showed a significant degree of deference to Government on national security grounds. What reassurances can the Secretary of State give to families and survivors that national security will not be invoked to withhold information simply because it is uncomfortable for the state, rather than because its disclosure would present a genuine risk to the public?

As my hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee knows only too well, responsibility for national security ultimately rests with Ministers, and the Dillon and the Thompson judgments confirmed that. As I have already indicated, I have proposed changes to the disclosure provisions in the Bill, including requiring the Secretary of State to conduct a balancing exercise when considering each case and also to give reasons. The Supreme Court made it clear that the Secretary of State does not have a veto, because any decision can be subject to judicial review.

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

The Secretary of State will have seen reports in the Belfast Telegraph that prior to 1985, a large part of the gelignite used in IRA bombs was routinely stolen from a single factory in County Meath in the Republic. The supply amounted to many tonnes of explosives, and it took the lives of many hundreds of people. At the time, British intelligence repeatedly raised concerns with Dublin. Nothing was done, despite the factory’s allegedly being in receipt of Irish state subsidy. Following those revelations, will the Secretary of State commit to writing to the Taoiseach to ask him to hold an urgent public inquiry into the Enfield explosives factory?

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.

With all due respect, the Secretary of State did not answer my question. This is an extraordinary missing piece of the puzzle in the story of the troubles—in the story of how the IRA obtained weapons that killed people in our country. The Secretary of State is perfectly within his rights to raise this with his opposite numbers, and to ask them to conduct a full public inquiry on behalf of the victims. Will he do so?

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.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

The May review of the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery describes a “toxic”, “divided” and “disrespectful” senior culture, along with structural weaknesses in the governing legislation. It also raises concerns that the Government’s forthcoming troubles Bill will make matters worse. However, in his response to the review, the Secretary of State appeared to suggest that it was simply up to the ICRIR to sort this out, although the ICRIR is sponsored by his Department, the review was commissioned by his Department, and his Department is now legislating to rebadge this failing body as the legacy commission.

Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether he accepts that he is ultimately responsible for Peter May’s 19 recommendations being followed? Will he also give us an update on whether the Northern Ireland Office plan is still on schedule, and explain how the troubles Bill is to be amended to remedy the structural shortcomings exposed in the review?

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.

8. What steps he is taking to support public service reform in Northern Ireland. (900194)

9. What steps he is taking to support public service reform in Northern Ireland. (900195)

Public service reform is needed, and that is exactly what we are doing. Just last week we announced a £42 million package to be invested in the digitising of prescriptions. With 45 million prescriptions issued every year, the service is inefficient and expensive, and we are changing that.

Thanks to this Government’s investment in public services, Northern Ireland received a record funding settlement in the spending review. Given that settlement and the extra transformation funding, does my hon. Friend agree that it is now up to the Executive in Northern Ireland to deliver the changes in public services that are so clearly needed?

Yes, but, as I have always said, it is not just a question of cutting a cheque and walking away. Of course we have given more money to the Executive than has ever been received before in the history of devolution—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I am glad that that is welcomed on our Benches, but we also bring partnership working to ensure that public services can turn the corner.

Many of my constituents have close family ties to Northern Ireland, and understandably take an interest in health outcomes in Northern Ireland and in the United Kingdom as a whole. Does the Minister agree that when it comes to public health all parts of the UK can learn something from each other, and can he update the House on conversations between the UK Government and the Northern Ireland Executive on their respective successes in improving patient outcomes?

My hon. Friend is right: no person has a monopoly on good ideas, and no Government do either. I want the best for the whole United Kingdom. Where Northern Ireland leads the way, we can try to roll that out across the rest of the UK, but where it needs support—for instance on the digitising of prescriptions—we will provide that too. This is about working with the Executive to improve patient outcomes.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will not thank me for saying this, but whenever we have these discussions about the transformation of public services in Northern Ireland, it seems like we can have either good public finances or an unreformed Stormont, but we cannot have both. With three parties in Northern Ireland supporting reform proposals in the last number of weeks, when will the Government get serious about giving Northern Ireland the means to govern itself, and when will they get round the table to start discussions about the reform of Stormont?

Those conversations are ongoing. We had a recent Westminster Hall debate about those issues, and we will have further conversations with party leaders. I will gently say, however, that those conservations cannot be a substitute for improving services now. Improvements can be made. The hon. Member and I have talked about cancer waiting times; we can do those things now, and they do not have to wait for conversations about reform.

Transformation needs to be embedded through a recurrent budget. We are three months into this financial year, at Northern Ireland political speed, and we still do not have a recurrent budget. What steps is the Northern Ireland Office taking to bring about such a financial budget in Northern Ireland?

Not only have we given a record settlement—more than ever before in the Executive’s history since devolution—but we are supporting the Executive, having discussions with them and encouraging them to set a budget, so that the people of Northern Ireland can see the improvement in public services that they really need.