House of Commons
(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Oral Answers to Questions
(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Liz Kendall)
Happy Christmas to one and all here, and to all our constituents and loved ones.
I am very proud that this Labour Government are putting the biggest ever investment into research and development, including a record £38.6 billion for UK Research and Innovation. Alongside continuing to support curiosity-led research, the funding will for the first time focus on key Government priorities, including the eight sectors of our modern industrial strategy. We back our brilliant scientists, researchers, innovators and manufacturers to boost jobs and growth in every part of the country.
Andy McDonald
I thank the Secretary of State for her answer. Can I take this opportunity to welcome the passage of the Employment Rights Bill through the Lords? It will deliver the greatest uplift in workers’ rights in a generation.
Less than two weeks ago, I took part in a steel signing ceremony at the new NETA engineering training centre in Thornaby in my constituency, following the opening of Middlesbrough college’s new TTE centre, and all dovetailing with Teesside University’s Net Zero Industry Innovation Centre. With all those new facilities, does the Secretary of State agree that Middlesbrough and Thornaby East is helping to lead the delivery of the UK’s modern industrial strategy, and will she take the opportunity to visit some of our fantastic new industrial and digital facilities on Teesside?
Liz Kendall
I absolutely agree that Middlesbrough and Thornaby East is leading the way in delivering our modern industrial strategy, creating more good jobs that pay a decent wage and building the future economy that our country needs. I would be delighted to see more of that excellent work, and I believe that my office has already been in contact with my hon. Friend’s office to arrange it. This Government are backing manufacturers, including by putting in £800 million for advanced technical education to equip young people with engineering and manufacturing skills in clean energy, artificial intelligence and advanced manufacturing.
Adam Thompson
I thank the Secretary of State for her answers. I used to be one of those research scientists. I worked in metrology for advanced manufacturing, so I am glad that the Government have identified advanced manufacturing as one of the eight sectors with the greatest growth potential.
From the Victorian gentlemen scientists who redefined the way we see our universe to the women driving the fourth industrial revolution, the British have always been able to make the best things. How is the Secretary of State supporting novel technologies through the technology readiness scale to maximise growth for small and medium-sized enterprises in Erewash, such as Atlas Composite Technologies, Status Metrology and R. A. Labone?
Liz Kendall
I am very proud that my hon. Friend sits on the Government Benches, with all his experience in this critical area. As part of our backing for research and development, we are doubling R&D investment in critical technologies such as engineering biology, AI and quantum, with R&D investment in AI alone growing from £600 million to £1.6 billion. Today—in a mere 20 minutes, I believe—UKRI will publish the level of direct support to be given to each of the industrial strategy sectors, and that includes the support we are providing to our vital small businesses. Backing the UK’s leading strength in these areas and backing our world-leading scientists and researchers is the only route to better growth and more opportunities in Erewash and right across the country.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Thank you, Mr Speaker—what a lovely birthday present.
Last week I met my constituent Kevin, the programme lead for TESTBED Dorset. He told me that although life sciences is one of the key sectors in the modern industrial strategy, none of the seven projects is in the south-west, and there is not a single reference to Dorset. The living science park will create a vast area for academic research based in our landscapes, supported by landowners, universities from Bournemouth, Bristol and Southampton, the National Trust and Natural England, focused on a “one health” approach. Will the Secretary of State meet me and those lead organisations to hear more about the programme and consider it for the future?
Liz Kendall
I also wish the hon. Lady a happy birthday. I am happy for either me or Patrick Vallance—the life sciences Minister in the other place—to meet her and her colleagues. Later today, UKRI will set out future funding for the eight areas of our industrial strategy, which it—and I—will want to ensure is spread fairly across the country. I am more than happy to discuss that with her further.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
The Secretary of State will know that in my constituency we have an advanced manufacturing cluster and proudly boast over 5,000 high-skilled jobs in defence, maritime and aerospace. She will understand that last week Boeing concluded its deal to become the successor owner of Short Brothers. Will she confirm that the Government will continue to support advanced manufacturing in my constituency, whether it be with Boeing, Airbus, Thales or Harland & Wolff?
Liz Kendall
Yes, I absolutely reaffirm that commitment. The right hon. Member will know that we are increasing our defence spending, and alongside that is the work we are doing in our Department. The defence sector is critical for jobs and backing the research and development that will lead to further demand and further innovation. I really hope that next year I may be able to visit Northern Ireland, and I would very much like to see what is happening in his constituency.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)
Online content depicting or promoting animal torture is horrific and—let me be clear—unacceptable. Under the Online Safety Act 2023, animal cruelty is a priority offence, which needs proactive steps from platforms to counter it. We will keep the pressure on to enforce that.
Johanna Baxter
Earlier this year, two teenagers were prosecuted for the torture and killing of kittens in a public park. A BBC investigation has since uncovered a disturbing international network sharing videos of extreme cruelty to cats and kittens, and users here in the UK and those prosecuted have been found to be in possession of that material. Online animal abuse is not a harmless niche; it is a recognised warning sign for escalating violence, including serious crimes against women and girls. I am pleased that the Prime Minister’s Christmas card promotes kindness towards animals. Will my hon. Friend outline what further work his Department is doing to ensure that we address harmful content?
Kanishka Narayan
May I first pay tribute to my hon. Friend—and indeed her cats Clement Cattlee and Mo Meowlam—for being right at the vanguard of campaigning on this serious issue. Animal cruelty is a priority offence in the law, as I mentioned, and Ofcom must enforce it and platforms must act on it. The Government will keep the pressure on, as we have done in our engagements with the platforms, to ensure that our cats—our animals—are safe from cruelty.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
Can the Government do more to ensure proactive detection of this vile material, such as by using artificial intelligence tools and human moderators with specialist training in animal cruelty, so that such content is swiftly identified and removed, and put robust measures in place to prevent it from reappearing online?
Kanishka Narayan
I thank the hon. Member for an apt question on this theme. As I mentioned, animal cruelty is a priority offence under the law. Platforms must take proactive steps, including to assess risk before it pertains and to remove content where it clearly falls foul of the law. The Government will keep making sure that enforcement through the regulator and via platforms continues at pace.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)
Online harassment has no place in our society. Under the Online Safety Act, platforms must take steps to remove illegal content. These duties apply to abuse, to harassment, to threats and hate crimes, and to disinformation and misinformation that amounts to illegal content. What is more, the Government have already written to Ofcom to accelerate the final phase of implementation of the Online Safety Act. We will continue to ensure that we are empowering users against harassment.
Sarah Smith
The family of my constituent Jay Slater, who tragically lost his life last summer, have been subject to the most horrendous harassment and misinformation online while grieving their son. Sadly, it does not appear to be an isolated case, and there is evidence of the same content creators targeting multiple victims through tragedy trolling. Will the Minister agree to meet victims to explore how we can tackle this horrific abuse and give families the space they should have to grieve in peace?
Kanishka Narayan
I thank my hon. Friend and pay tribute to Debbie, the mother of Jay Slater, who has had to deal not just with the tragedy of her son’s death, but with all the subsequent harassment that she, family and friends have experienced. After I met my hon. Friend and Debbie, I raised the issue with the platforms. I know that the Secretary of State will meet bereaved families in the new year as well. I am keen to continue our engagement to make sure that we support victims and work hard to ensure that no other bereaved families face what Debbie and Jay’s family have had to face.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
Online harm and harassment amplifies real-world violence. In West Dorset, 14-year-old Isabella was brutally attacked, but the lasting trauma came from the assault being deliberately filmed and circulated online and in group chats in schools across the local area. It was designed deliberately to humiliate her and led to her being further harassed online and in person. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that online safety measures properly address the sharing of real-world violent content that retraumatises victims and leads to further harassment?
Kanishka Narayan
I thank the hon. Member for raising a very important point. The Online Safety Act 2023 already focuses on areas of illegal content, in particular to keep young people safe under the child safety duties. If there are particular instances that the hon. Member wishes to write to me about, I will be happy to raise them. Notwithstanding the fact that Ofcom continues to be the regulator, we are keeping the pressure on both Ofcom and platforms to act robustly.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
I join colleagues in wishing you and everyone a merry Christmas, and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) a happy birthday.
Alongside online harassment, online fraud is also on the rise. Nobody wants a broken heart for Christmas, and online romance fraud is not only ruining lives but emptying bank accounts. Liberal Democrat analysis has shown that romance fraud has more than tripled in the last decade, but the Government’s fraud strategy has been delayed and Labour’s proposals in opposition, which looked at ensuring that there was joint financial responsibility to victims for social media giants, has now vanished. Does the Minister agree that those online social media giants must do more to tackle the scams and also agree with Liberal Democrat calls that they be financially responsible for the fraud that takes place on their platforms?
Kanishka Narayan
While love might be in the air at this festive moment, we want to make sure that it is financially responsible. In that spirit, therefore, I will continue to engage with both the regulator and platforms to ensure that the existing provisions of the Online Safety Act are robustly enforced when it comes to online fraud and scams, which so many of us experience both directly and indirectly through our constituents.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his fantastic event in Parliament last week on this subject. I am delighted that Queen’s University Belfast is benefiting from £5 million in funding from the programme, which is part of a £13 million wider package from this Government to support making UK supply chains more resilient. The Government are investing a record £86 billion over the spending review period, which is the largest ever investment in research and development, and Ministers regularly discuss a range of issues with Cabinet colleagues to ensure that those programmes align with wider Government priorities on economic resilience and innovation.
Robin Swann
The Minister mentioned our investment event held last week, where I and the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) hosted Antrim and Newtownabbey borough council for its first Westminster economic investment showcase. How do the Government expect that UK Research and Innovation-funded supply chain research will align with city deal investments, such as the Advanced Manufacturing Innovation Centre—AMIC—in my constituency?
Ian Murray
I think the hon. Gentleman acknowledges in his question the amount of funding that is going into the area that he represents and the wider Northern Ireland communities. UKRI plays a key role in strengthening supply chains, supporting regional innovation hubs and aligning research with local economic development goals. This Government’s funding rounds highlight partnership opportunities, including with the Advanced Manufacturing Innovation Centre that he has mentioned, where projects can complement those facilities, boosting regional innovation and productivity. That builds on initiatives such as the local innovation partnership funding, which empowers local leaders to target research and development investment and unleash the full potential of innovation in his and the wider Northern Ireland region.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
This afternoon, UKRI will publish its detailed funding allocations for programmes such as ReImagining Supply Chains. Does the Minister agree with the Office for Budget Responsibility that the bursting of the AI bubble presents a significant downside risk to the UK economy? What steps are his Department and UKRI taking to protect their investment in innovative companies that would undoubtedly be affected by an AI market correction?
Ian Murray
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for her question. Of course, technological advancement in AI is going to change the way that the Government work, and the way that all of us work, but the key thing about the publication of UK Research and Innovation’s document this afternoon is that it is implementing a record £86 billion-worth of investment over the spending review period—the largest ever investment in research and development. We have to trust UKRI and this Government to put that money into the places that will benefit the country most, and that means more jobs in more communities all over the country.
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Liz Kendall)
This Government are determined to ensure that young people can seize the opportunities that AI brings. That is why we are giving 1 million secondary school pupils skills in tech and AI as part of our TechFirst skills programme. It is why we are replacing the currently over-narrow computer science GCSE and exploring a new qualification in data science and AI for 16 to 18-year-olds, so that we can tear down the barriers to success and give young people the chances and choices they deserve to get the jobs of the future.
Tony Vaughan
Research commissioned by DSIT estimates that by 2035 approximately 10 million UK workers will be in jobs where AI will be part of their responsibilities. PwC estimates that 18% of existing UK jobs face a high probability of automation by 2035, so what steps are the Government taking to ensure that young people in my constituency are well prepared for the integration of AI into their daily working lives, so that we can minimise the chances of unemployment in the future?
Liz Kendall
My hon. Friend has hit on one of the biggest challenges and opportunities we face as a country: how AI is going to transform how we live, earn and learn. We must prepare not only our young people but the entire workforce for the changes that AI inevitably brings. That is why, alongside the changes I have already outlined for young people, we will upskill 7.5 million workers in AI skills over the course of the next five years, so that people in every part of our country and all walks of life can shape their own future, not just be shaped by it.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
Science and technology skills are vital if we are to fully realise the economic and social opportunities available to us, and I am sure the Secretary of State would agree that science centres are a vital part of that ecosystem in engaging and enthusing young people in science, technology, engineering and maths—STEM—learning. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Government’s funding of science centres has to date, as described by the sector, been piecemeal? Will she take action in support of the Science Centres for Our Future campaign and get science centres into sustainable and predictable funding arrangements?
Liz Kendall
I do not agree that this Government’s approach to supporting STEM has been piecemeal. As I have said, we have announced the biggest investment into research and development by any Government ever. As part of that, alongside supporting curiosity-led research, we are for the first time directing taxpayers’ money towards key Government priorities and key British strengths, including in STEM courses. I want to make sure that everyone in this country has those opportunities, but I am more than happy to discuss with the hon. Gentleman what more he thinks we could be doing.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and Cabinet Office Ministers are working closely to deliver the new digital ID scheme. The scheme will be inclusive, secure and effective. It will give the public more control over their data than they have now, and it will make public services easier to access. A major inclusion programme, backed by £11.7 million, will support those at risk of digital exclusion, ensuring that the system is accessible and secure for all as we modernise our public services.
Alison Griffiths
A very happy Christmas to you, Mr Speaker. More than 5,300 of my constituents have signed a petition opposing digital ID, alongside nearly 3 million people nationally. In my own local survey, two thirds opposed it outright. Digital ID did not appear anywhere in Labour’s manifesto. The Government have no mandate for it and no consent from the public, so when will the Minister explain to the House on what democratic basis the Government believe they are entitled to enact their nationwide digital ID plan?
Ian Murray
Modernising government was at the heart of our manifesto, and the Government are proposing this national digital ID scheme to modernise our public services, improve security and streamline right-to-work checks. Since we introduced the digital veterans card, it has been downloaded 11,000 times, and 260,000 people have already downloaded the gov.uk app and 13.2 million people have started to use One Login as part of the gov.uk service. In the new year, a public consultation will be launched, alongside wider engagement, which has already begun, with expert organisations and wider stakeholders. A major digital inclusion programme will also be rolled out alongside that.
Harriet Cross
The parliamentary petition against digital ID has been signed by more than 3 million people, including many in my Gordon and Buchan constituency. It is the fourth most signed petition in history. Why does the Minister think digital ID is so unpopular?
Ian Murray
It is up to the Petitions Committee to schedule those debates, and I am sure the Committee will schedule that debate in Westminster Hall in due course. I can only reiterate that the Government are proposing this national ID scheme to modernise public services, improve security, streamline right-to-work checks and give the public control over their data. I am not quite so sure why the hon. Lady objects to the government modernising. We have analogue government with a digital population, and we live in a new world where the economy is modernising and digitising all the time, and government has to catch up.
Mr Speaker
I didn’t realise you had changed your name to Gareth Snell, Mr Jopp. I know you are due to be called, but I have to take two questions from each side to get the political balance.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
When the Minister rolls out digital ID, will he give serious thought to engaging organisations like conformity assessment bodies and the public libraries network so that those who need the ID can get help at the point of application?
Ian Murray
One of the aspects of digital ID that is under-debated in this House is the fact that those who are furthest away geographically and economically from digital inclusion will benefit the most from it. That is why we are investing millions of pounds into the digital inclusion programme, which has just announced 80 projects, including many in my hon. Friend’s constituency. We have to make sure that the entirety of the public, wherever they are in the country and whichever economic situation they are in, benefit from digital government and better public services.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Digital IDs have the potential to make life much easier for my constituents in Harlow. However, I have constituents who are concerned about data security. What reassurance can the Minister give them that their data will be safe with this new system?
Ian Murray
The data will be safe. It will be a fragmented system, and it will have the highest possible data security standards attached.
Lincoln Jopp
Last night in the Strangers Bar, I bumped into a very influential Labour Back Bencher who told me with great authority that digital ID simply is not going to happen. That is good news, of course, because it is going to 1.8 billion quid we have not got, and it is deeply unpopular in the country. Why does the Secretary of State not give us all an early Christmas present and simply announce that she is ditching the policy today?
Ian Murray
I can merely give the Christmas advice to the hon. Gentleman not to drink in Strangers Bar and listen to people who are in there.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Liz Kendall)
This Government are committed to giving women and girls from all walks of life the chances they need to get the jobs and opportunities of the future. Last week, I met British women tech founders in San Francisco, and this week we held the first meeting of our new women in tech taskforce to give opportunities to women to grow our economy and build a better future for Britain.
Zöe Franklin
The Molly Rose Foundation’s latest report makes it clear that bereaved families are deeply concerned that Ofcom has relied on voluntary measures, such as geo-blocking, to deal with pro-suicide forums. Can the Secretary of State explain what steps her Government are taking to ensure Ofcom moves beyond voluntary compliance and uses its full Online Safety Act 2023 powers to require the removal or blocking of suicide-promoting content?
Liz Kendall
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. This is a serious issue, and we need to make swifter and stronger progress on it. I regularly meet Ofcom and its chief executive; indeed, I did so yesterday. I want to make sure that we do not have the delays and that we have stronger action, and this is a point I will be bringing up in future.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
The Minister for Digital Government and Data (Ian Murray)
Space is fundamental to many civil and defence requirements. It is vital that we collaborate closely across Government and with our allies. Just last month, the European Space Agency Council of Ministers committed £1.7 billion of funding focused on just that: growth and national security.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
Ministers are making very big claims about the pharmaceuticals deal with America, to make up for the billions lost in life sciences investment under Labour. Life sciences firms are telling me that unless the Government reveal what is actually in the deal, those claims are completely hollow. Can the Secretary of State reveal—she could not tell us this two weeks ago—how much the deal is costing the NHS and when she will publish the full legal text, so that we know the details of what the most favoured nation mitigations actually are?
Liz Kendall
I may have to offer the hon. Lady a mince pie because she is talking baubles. This pharmaceutical deal will deliver faster access to new medicines for NHS patients and the security and stability that our world-leading pharmaceutical sector needs, including 0% tariffs on its exports to America for three years. We are also updating the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines for the first time in 20 years. This is a significant deal, which the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry has welcomed. It is a pity that the hon. Lady continues to act like Scrooge.
Julia Lopez
If we are making Christmas jokes, I think this deal is all tinsel and no tree. The problem is that Labour trumpets about these deals and is then completely sketchy about what has actually been agreed—just like the US-UK tech deal: we now find out from President Trump that he has put that deal on ice. Can the Secretary of State confirm that, despite all the golden carriage action in September and the Prime Minister honking on about his negotiating skills, the Prime Minister has actually nailed down none of the key details on pharma, no zero-tariff pact on steel and no deal on tech?
Liz Kendall
We have signed a ground-breaking US-UK tech partnership deal that has delivered over £30 billion of investment to the UK, alongside our biggest ever investment into research and development, with four AI growth zones, delivering 13,000 jobs in north Wales, south Wales, the south-east and the north-east. There is our plan to upskill 7.5 million workers in AI skills and our backing of great British scientists. That is a record that I am proud of; it is a pity that the hon. Lady remains the ghost of Christmas past.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
The antisemitic terror attack on Bondi Beach was sickening. It has had a profound impact around the world, including on Jewish communities here in the United Kingdom. These incidents are not isolated; we think of the appalling attack at Heaton Park earlier this year. These incidents are chillingly focused on some of the holiest days in the Jewish calendar. Over the last few days, I have been in touch with the Community Security Trust, the Home Office and the Chief Rabbi about security for Hanukkah events here in the United Kingdom. Last night, we held a Hanukkah reception in Downing Street, where I reaffirmed our fight against the poison of antisemitism. We will use all our powers to make sure that Jewish communities are safe and secure, as they should be.
Mr Speaker, may I take this opportunity to wish you, all the staff in Parliament, and every Member across the House and their families a very happy Christmas? I have a little festive advice to those in Reform: if mysterious men from the east appear bearing gifts, this time report it to the police.
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Melanie Ward
I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s condemnation of the horrific attacks in Australia. We must be clear that antisemitic terrorism is always an outrage.
At Christmas time, many across our country will be thinking of Bethlehem, where the situation remains extremely difficult. The Government’s important scheme for students from Gaza with scholarships to study in the UK expires on 31 December, but a number of scholarship holders and their children have not yet been permitted to leave Gaza. If the scheme closes, these brilliant Palestinians will lose their university places and we will lose their talent. Will the Prime Minister extend the UK’s existing scheme into next year to prevent that from happening?
The Prime Minister
I know that Gazan students face huge challenges in taking up their places, and we are considering solutions for those yet to arrive. Let me be clear: I want them to be able to take up their places and continue their education in the United Kingdom. I am proud that we have also created a medical evacuation scheme for children from Gaza, and last week I met some of those who have been brought to the United Kingdom for specialist treatment in the NHS. We continue to focus on aid into Gaza, and I will make sure that my hon. Friend is kept updated on the next steps for students.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister for his words on antisemitism. What happened at Bondi Beach was an atrocity, but words of solidarity are not enough. We know the evil we face. Islamic extremism is a threat to western civilisation. It abuses our democracies and subverts our institutions. It is incompatible with British values. It is not enough just to protect Jewish communities—we must drive Islamic extremism out of this country.
I would also like to send my best wishes to our armed forces, the emergency services and everyone who will be working over Christmas. I would like to take this opportunity to wish you, Mr Speaker, the House staff and all Members of this House, including the Prime Minister, a very merry Christmas.
It is the Prime Minister’s second Christmas in Downing Street, and by his own admission he is not in control. He says that nothing happens when he pulls the levers. Does he blame himself or the levers?
The Prime Minister
I will just set out what we have achieved this week. We are setting out our violence against women and girls strategy tomorrow, which will offer specialist support for abuse victims and 999 call experts—
Mr Speaker
Order. Sorry, Prime Minister. Mr Obese-Jecty, I expect better from you, an ex-serving officer. We expect the standards of a good officer.
The Prime Minister
The next lever was 500 jobs protected at Grangemouth, partnering with Ineos to safeguard the plant’s future. The next lever was rejoining the Erasmus scheme from 2027, which will be announced later today. The next lever is the Employment Rights Bill becoming law, with the biggest uplift in workers’ rights in a generation. There is a whole lot more on the list; I could go on for a very long time.
Mrs Badenoch
I am not sure exactly what that had to do with the question. The fact is that the Prime Minister promised economic growth, but the only thing that has grown is his list of broken promises. He promised to reduce unemployment, but yesterday unemployment hit its highest level since the pandemic—it has gone up every single month since he came into office. Why is that?
The Prime Minister
These are the facts: there are 350,000 more people in work this year and we have the lowest inactivity rate for five years. We are taking a number of measures to address unemployment, particularly with the young unemployed. I remind the Conservatives that, under their watch, unemployment averaged 5.4%—higher than it is today.
Mrs Badenoch
I do not know what planet the Prime Minister is living on, but unemployment has gone up every single month under him, youth unemployment is at record levels, and graduate recruitment is at its lowest ever. He promised that he would not increase taxes on working people, but he has. Last year he increased national insurance and last month he froze income tax thresholds, so will the Prime Minister finally be honest and admit that he broke his promise on tax?
The Prime Minister
I am very proud that at the Budget, we had record investment into our public services, we stabilised the economy and we bore down on the cost of living. The Conservatives voted against all those measures, but it is the season of good will, so let me congratulate the Leader of the Opposition, because she has broken her own record since last week. Last week, 21 former Tory MPs had walked away to Reform; this week the number has gone to 22, as the former vice-chair has now gone. The question is, who’s next? It is hard to name anyone because, according to the shadow Transport Secretary, the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), the shadow Cabinet is full of “non-entities”—that’s you lot. He should know.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister is talking about non-entities. Has he looked at his Cabinet? They are a bunch of turkeys; they could fit right in at a Bernard Matthews factory. He is one to talk. Last week, his MPs were calling him a “caretaker Prime Minister”; after what he has done to the economy, they should be calling him the undertaker Prime Minister.
Let us look at what else the Prime Minister has promised. He gave his word that he would help pubs, yet they face a 15% rise in business rates because of his Budget. Will he be honest and admit that his taxes are forcing pubs to close?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady knows very well that the temporary relief put in place during covid has come to an end. That was the scheme that the Conservatives put in place; we supported it, but it was always a temporary scheme coming to an end. We have now put in place a £4 billion transitional relief. We have also taken other measures, creating hospitality zones and greater licensing freedoms, and tackling late payments. We are also bearing down on the cost of living so that more people can enjoy a drink or a meal out. Freezing rail fares, freezing prescription charges, £150 off energy bills, driving wages up: what did the Conservatives do in relation to each of those? They voted against each and every one of those measures.
Mrs Badenoch
What pubs has the Prime Minister been speaking to? Labour Members have been barred from all of them! [Interruption.] I do not know why Labour Members are shaking their heads; it is not my fault that they have nowhere to drown their sorrows.
Let us look at another broken promise. The Prime Minister promised to end the doctors’ strike. He gave the doctors a 28.9% pay rise. What did he get in return? This morning, they have gone back on strike for the third time, in the middle of winter—in the middle of the worst flu crisis in years. This should not be allowed. We already ban strikes by the police and the Army, so why does he not put patients first, show some backbone and ban doctors’ strikes?
The Prime Minister
Let me be clear about the strikes: they are dangerous and utterly irresponsible. My message to resident doctors is: don’t abandon patients—work with us to improve conditions and rebuild the NHS. The Conservatives left the NHS absolutely on its knees, with waiting lists through the roof and confidence absolutely at rock bottom. I will take no lectures from them on industrial harmony; more days were lost to strike action on their watch than in any year since the 1980s.
Mrs Badenoch
Of course the Prime Minister is not going to ban doctors’ strikes; he does not have the baubles! [Interruption.] Labour Members can shake their heads all they like, but we all know who is running their party, and it is not him. The trade unions did not just buy him for Christmas; they bought him for life. This matters for all those people out there facing a difficult new year.
The Prime Minister has lost control. It is not the levers that do not work; it is him. He is breaking every promise he has made. He promised to bring down unemployment—it is up. He promised that he would not increase taxes—they are up. He promised to end the doctors’ strike—they are on strike, again. He said that his main mission was economic growth, but the economy is shrinking. With a year like that, is it any surprise that all his MPs want for Christmas is a new leader?
The Prime Minister
Mr Speaker, we have “The Muppet Christmas Carol” here. The defections are happening so fast that at Christmas, the Leader of the Opposition is going to be left “Home Alone”. And the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) is clearly dreaming of a “White Christmas”.
We know what the Leader of the Opposition wants for Christmas. Her list to Santa is this: “Dear Santa, please freeze the minimum wage. Please push hundreds of thousands of kids back into poverty and scrap maternity leave.” Merry Christmas from the Tories! What we are bringing is cheaper mortgages, new rights for workers, and lifting half a million people out of poverty. We have achieved more in 14 months than the Tories achieved in 14 miserable years.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I heartily agree with my hon. Friend—British families have shown incredible kindness and hospitality. To support Ukrainians in their hour of need, we have been working with our allies on the issue of frozen Russian assets. Today, I can announce that we are issuing a licence to transfer £2.5 billion—funds that have been frozen since 2022—from the sale of Chelsea football club. My message to Abramovich is this. The clock is ticking. Honour the commitment that you made and pay up now. If you do not, we are prepared to go to court so that every penny reaches those whose lives have been torn apart by Putin’s illegal war.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wish you, everyone in the House and the whole country, a merry and peaceful Christmas.
I join the Prime Minister in expressing our horror at the appalling antisemitic terror attacks on Bondi Beach on the first day of Hanukkah. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families and friends of all those who have been killed and injured in this senseless act of violence, and our thoughts are with the whole Jewish community. I am sure we have all heard British Jews explain how they no longer feel safe in this country. Many of us have friends who volunteer to put on stab vests and stand guard outside their synagogue, and at Heaton Park in October, we saw why. Antisemitism is real, it is poisonous, and we must all work together to stamp it out. The Board of Deputies of British Jews has called for a comprehensive Government strategy to tackle antisemitism. Will the Prime Minister commit to that today and set out what concrete steps he is taking to make sure Jewish people are safe in Britain?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising this really important issue. It is important that we take actions that match the words we have expressed in response to these horrific attacks. The actions we have taken so far include increasing the funding for Jewish security up to £28 million. I am pleased to do that, but I am sad to do it—having to pay more money to provide security for people to be at their place of worship and to go to school is a sad thing for this country to have to do. I have ordered a review of protest and hate crime laws to stop protests breeding hatred; we are looking at new police powers to deal with repeated, targeted protests; and we have launched a review and training to tackle antisemitism in the NHS. There are other steps that we are talking to the community about taking, but all those actions have already started.
Ed Davey
I thank the Prime Minister for that answer, and I hope he will look at the proposal from the Board of Deputies. I think we can work across this House to end the scourge of antisemitism.
Turning to the NHS, even before today’s irresponsible strike by the resident doctors, patients were facing a terrible winter crisis. Thousands have been left on trolleys in hospital corridors for hours, with no privacy and no dignity; some have even soiled themselves because there was no response. There have even been tragic cases of people dying on those trolleys and left undiscovered for hours. The expectation is that this could get worse. Will the Prime Minister make ending this crisis his No. 1 priority, through a mass vaccination programme to stop so many people ending up in hospital with this virus and through funding the social care places that people need to leave hospital when they are ready?
The Prime Minister
May I say how unacceptable the conditions that some are enduring in our hospitals are? There is no excuse, and it is our No. 1 priority. On vaccinations, we have had over 17 million patients vaccinated this year. That is an increase on last year, but I want to drive that up again next year, because vaccinations make such a difference both to patients and to staff within the hospitals, and of course we will take action on social care.
Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Carers are incredibly skilled workers. My sister is one of them, and I am very proud of them and her for their invaluable work. I am pleased that we have increased the carer’s allowance earnings limit by the largest amount since it was introduced, and we are providing £500 million to fund the first ever fair pay agreement through the Employment Rights Bill that was passed yesterday, to ensure that care workers are properly recognised and rewarded.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
It is indeed the season of good will, so with that in mind, I do not intend to ask the Prime Minister about his broken promises on energy bills, the 1,000 jobs being lost in the North sea, or the fact that Peter Mandelson is still a Member of the House of Lords. I will not even ask the Prime Minister about the chaos that is engulfing the Labour party, his Budget or his own leadership. I simply want to wish him a happy Christmas. How does he intend to spend his final one in Downing Street?
The Prime Minister
I am going to get an update from the Chancellor on Grangemouth in just a minute. The right hon. Gentleman is clearly not interested in Grangemouth. I would have thought, on a day like this, that he would want to welcome the £120 million investment into Grangemouth. It is a landmark investment protecting 500 jobs there and hundreds more across Scotland’s supply chain, and he cannot even bring himself to mention it. That is on top of the Typhoon defence jobs in Edinburgh and the shipbuilding jobs on the Clyde. After decades of SNP rule, its Members are totally out of ideas and they cannot even welcome the Grangemouth news. Scotland deserves change next year with Anas Sarwar.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
May I send the condolences of the whole House, I am sure, to Andrew’s family? It is an awful case and every life that is lost to dangerous driving is a tragedy. The range of measures that we are taking to protect young drivers include penalties for driving uninsured and unlicensed, and measures to reduce the risks posed by unroadworthy vehicles. On her constituents being able to have an influence, I would be very happy to set up an appropriate meeting for them.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is right to remind us of what was a terrible scandal, and I will ask the Water Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), to meet him and his constituents to discuss it. He and the public are right to be furious that companies are still polluting our seas, lakes and rivers. We have taken action by banning bonuses for bosses in six polluting companies, changing the law so that those who hide sewage spills can be locked up, and issuing almost £30 million in fines to clean up waterways. We are clearing up the mess that the party over there left, like everything else.
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Apparently the leader of Reform is in the “lounge”. I know that he likes an early getaway at Christmas to get to his place in France. He lobbied for economic sanctions against his own country when he was in the United States, with no thought for British workers and zero patriotism. The difference is that our US deal secured the best deal for the car industry, providing certainty for the workforce at JLR—and there is more good news for the car industry this week, because Nissan is now building its new electric Leaf in Sunderland. That is the difference that a Labour Government make.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
The Prime Minister
It is an important sector. At the heart of this challenge is the end of the temporary relief that was introduced during covid. That is why we put in place the transitional measures and invested half a million in a hospitality support scheme to help rural pubs to diversify. On issues such as the cost of living, we have taken a number of measures to make it easier for people to go out and enjoy themselves in pubs, and we will always look at what measures we can put in place to support pubs.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
The hub means more regular services for up to 15 stations across the region. That is vital, given that the Lichfield-to-Birmingham service was slashed under the previous Government. The construction will create about 13,000 jobs, and we are delivering them as quickly as possible, with Network Rail awarding design contracts this week. We are also freezing rail fares. It is the first time that that has happened in 30 years, and it will save my hon. Friend’s constituents about £90 a year on the commute to Birmingham.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Happy Christmas! I saw that the hon. Member was asking the public to suggest questions for today. I actually put in a bid—I filled it in—but I assume that he missed my question. I said he should ask about the 6,000 well-paid, high-skilled jobs that we have secured in his constituency to build Typhoons, thanks to an £8 billion deal with Turkey. I am disappointed that he did not want to talk about good, well-paid jobs in his constituency that have been secured by this Labour Government.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
It is deeply concerning to hear about the closure of eight Derbyshire care homes by the Reform-led Derbyshire county council. It will be hugely concerning to residents and their families, while we are making £3.7 billion of extra funding available to councils to fund social care. Let me say to the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who is relaxing in the lounge, that Christmas is a time for forgiveness. It is never too late to apologise to former classmates.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
The Prime Minister
We had a mandate for change, because we inherited major challenges across the country. If only the hon. Gentleman had done something to solve these problems when he was working in Downing Street. He left a complete mess.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
We are replacing a failed settlement system with one that is fair and that recognises contribution. It is right to apply more stringent controls, and we are currently consulting on the right approach. I recognise the huge contribution of those working in our NHS, and we will not change the rules for those who already have settled status.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Jimmy Lai is 78 and is a British citizen. He has already been in prison in Hong Kong for five years, simply for being a journalist. If he receives a further sentence on 12 January, he is likely to die in prison. Will the Prime Minister make it clear that his visit to Beijing can go ahead only if Jimmy Lai is released?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising this really important case. As he knows, we continually raise it with our counterparts, and we will continue to do so. I condemn the conviction. Obviously we await the sentence, but it is absolutely clear that Jimmy Lai has been targeted by the authorities. It is wrongful, and I call it out. It is important that we continue to engage, so that we can raise this issue with those counterparts.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this really important issue. The scale of violence and abuse suffered by women and girls is a national emergency, and the violence against women and girls strategy will be published tomorrow, setting out concrete steps to deal with this. We have already taken action to protect victims, including placing domestic abuse specialists in the first five 999 control rooms, and we are launching a new national policing centre to co-ordinate the police response and target these crimes. I will make sure that Ministers look specifically at the issues that he has raised.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
Yesterday, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards), declined a meeting with the representatives of a number of hunger strikers in prison at the present time. These are all remand prisoners; they have not been convicted of anything. Since then, a further prisoner, Qesser, has been taken to hospital, as others have been. Many people are very concerned about the regular breaches of prison conditions and prison rules in respect of these hunger strikers. Will the Prime Minister make arrangements for the Ministry of Justice to meet representatives of the hunger strikers to discuss these breaches of the conditions that they are experiencing?
The Prime Minister
As the right hon. Member will appreciate, there are rules and procedures in place in relation to hunger strikes, and we are following those rules and procedures.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Yes is the simple answer to that question, and our decisions are already holding polluters to account—new severe fines, banning bonuses, and a record 83 criminal investigations have been launched. We have also secured over £100 billion of investment to upgrade infrastructure to deliver better services to constituents.
Several hon. Members rose—
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
On Sunday at Arlington cemetery, I will have the honour of joining the families and friends of many of the victims of the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie on 21 December 1988—the worst terrorist atrocity in the United Kingdom. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that, especially after all these years, those families and friends deserve both truth and justice, and will the United Kingdom Government continue to do all they can to bring about that outcome?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Member for raising this matter. Nobody could forget the shocking scenes at Lockerbie, and I know the huge impact it has had on the community that he grew up in, where people have responded with such compassion and strength. He has rightly stood by their search for justice and truth through all the intervening years, and I pay tribute to that. All our thoughts remain with the families and friends of all the victims, who deserve truth, and I urge the Scottish authorities to consider the points that he raises.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker
You did not ask a question, so I do not know how you can have a point of order.
Mr Speaker
No, you did not ask a question. Maybe if it came from somebody who had asked a question, that would be better.
Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation
(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Speaker
We now come to the urgent question on the draft Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 (Remedial) Order 2025. I remind the House that on 19 November 2024, I granted a waiver from the House’s sub judice resolution in respect of the related case of Dillon and others v. the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. As such, reference may be made to the case during proceedings. I call the shadow Secretary of State to ask his urgent question.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to make a statement on the draft Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 (Remedial) Order 2025.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
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.
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. 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. 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.
Alex Burghart
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question, which I have asked because I think there is a very real danger that the Government may be about to break the law. It is very important that the House is aware that the Joint Committee on Human Rights was not in possession of all the facts when it wrote its report. [Interruption.]
Last year, the High Court in Belfast found parts of the legacy Act to be incompatible with the European convention on human rights. At the time of the election, the Conservative Government were appealing that highly disputable decision. The incoming Labour Government, for reasons they have never disclosed, chose to drop that appeal, and have subsequently laid a draft remedial order to amend the legislation.
The problem is that earlier this year the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement was granted permission to intervene in the case before the Supreme Court. On 15 October, Lord Wolfson KC, acting for the movement, did just that and made written and oral submissions that the Court is now considering. Consequently, it is entirely possible that the declarations of incompatibility relied on by the Secretary of State to lay the remedial order will be quashed. The case is very much live. That is very important, because under section 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 a Government have the authority to use a remedial order only unless and until all appeals in relation to declarations of incompatibility have been “determined or abandoned”. That test is not met.
If the Government decide to push ahead with their remedial order, not only will they be acting ultra vires, but they will be setting a terrible precedent that will mean that future Governments may use remedial orders in ways they were never intended to be used. To avoid that, all the Government need to do is commit to not pushing their remedial order to a vote until the Supreme Court has finally ruled. Will the Secretary of State make that commitment?
Hilary Benn
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. 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.
Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)
Last month, the House debated the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, and we heard many moving contributions about the devastating loss experienced by families, including military families, many of whom are still seeking answers. Does the Secretary of State agree that the voices of those the Government’s legislation is for should be at the forefront of our minds when we debate it and every time we debate it?
Hilary Benn
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.
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.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I remind colleagues that if they wish to ask a question, they should be bobbing, and that we should try to reduce chuntering from the Front Benches. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
The introduction of a remedial order is welcome and necessary, even if its timing is potentially vexed. The order promises to finally end the policy of conditional immunity that was integral to the 2023 legacy Act—a policy that may have had benign intentions, but that put us at odds with our international legal obligations and regrettably drew a moral equivalence between UK service personnel and terrorist paramilitaries. I note that the second report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, published last week, recommended the order’s approval. However, I note also the Committee’s concern regarding the unusual sequencing and timing of the remedial order, in relation to the forthcoming primary legislation.
Given the overtly political processes that led to the 2023 Act, I suggest there is an additional responsibility on the Government to ensure that this process is handled properly and that the process, as much as the policy, is seen to be fair-handed. There is broad recognition of the need to repeal and replace the 2023 legacy Act, but we also need to acknowledge that the removal of conditional immunity has created real anxiety, particularly among veterans groups, who fear the risk of prosecution.
I particularly welcome the Secretary of State’s letter, circulated yesterday, at annexe A. If I may, I will ask the Secretary of State three things. First of all, to clarify—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. You had exactly one minute and you have gone over. My apologies—I call the Secretary of State.
Hilary Benn
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. 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. 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.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
The Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a member, published our second report on the Northern Ireland remedial order on 9 December. The Standing Orders of both Houses require the JCHR to scrutinise all remedial orders. The Committee concluded that the vires of the order were satisfied and that all statutory requirements were fulfilled. However, the Committee also felt that, under the circumstances, it was appropriate only because the Government gave compelling reasons as to why it would have to come forward in this way, with a Bill progressing through the House and a Supreme Court case ongoing. Does the Secretary of State agree that although the circumstances and the timing are not ideal, this is the best way forward?
Hilary Benn
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.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
A lot of very complex legal arguments have been alluded to today, but I think what concerns the public—and what concerns me—is the state of mind of our veterans, some of them quite elderly, who sought only to serve their country decades ago. The Secretary of State is a very moderate, clever and reasonable person. Given that there is, in reality, no chance of a successful prosecution, and that people would be horrified if there was one, what comfort can the Secretary of State give to our veterans?
Hilary Benn
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.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
It is always important for Northern Ireland to be discussed on the Floor of the House—we are, after all, one United Kingdom—so I thank the shadow Secretary of State for securing the urgent question. We must never forget the people of Northern Ireland. Can my right hon. Friend say what recent engagement he has had with victims, survivors and the organisations representing them as part of his work to address the legacy of the past?
Hilary Benn
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.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
On 12 November, I raised with the Prime Minister the alarming statement from nine former generals who attacked the Government’s approach on lawfare against our armed forces, which they said would erode trust in the justice system and is a threat to national security. Can the Secretary of State confirm whether the Prime Minister has met with those nine former generals and whether that has changed his approach to attacking veterans?
Hilary Benn
I do not accept the characterisation that the hon. Member puts before the House. The Government are not engaging in lawfare against veterans.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
That’s what the generals said.
Hilary Benn
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.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
As a member of the JCHR, I am concerned that the shadow Northern Ireland Secretary may have inadvertently misled the House when he suggested that our Committee did not discharge our roles seriously and consider all the evidence in this case when we produced our report.
Peter Swallow
Our report recommended that this remedial order be made in no small part because of the incredible sensitivity around anything to do with the Northern Ireland troubles and the need to make sure that we are building bridges across communities, and in no small part, too, because of the seriousness with which the Committee feels the Secretary of State takes this issue. It is therefore quite right, I believe, that the Secretary of State make this remedial order. Does he agree that it is not right, and not serious politics, to play party politics with such a delicate issue?
Hilary Benn
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.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
The Secretary of State is perfectly entitled to pursue a policy desire of removing immunity. Indeed, he knows that my colleagues and I support that position and we found it quite difficult that yet another Government were prepared to offer a different variation of immunity for the perpetrators of terror in Northern Ireland. We found that repugnant, so we support the notion that immunity should not stand.
But that is not the question before the Secretary of State today. The question is whether the Secretary of State should misappropriate a remedial order process, which is about dealing with the incompatibility of human rights law—not incompatibility with his policy objectives. For as long as the question still remains before the Supreme Court—which it does, though it is not his appeal but that of the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement—given that he has acknowledged that there is an issue of trust on this issue, does he not think it would be better if he at least just waited?
Hilary Benn
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. 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.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I think the whole House can agree that this is a very serious and sensitive topic. I ask hon. Members to be mindful of their language and to ensure that they are not heckling while seated. I call David Smith, a member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has already confirmed that under the legacy Act the immunity provisions were never commenced, so it is important to say that nobody was ever granted immunity under those provisions. Sticking with the subject of immunity, the three Veterans Commissioners for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales have all said that they are calling not for immunity under the law but for fairness under the law. Does the Secretary of State agree?
Hilary Benn
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.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I simply say to the Secretary of State that it does seem like ridiculous haste when the Bill is going through the House right now. Surely to do this when he knows for a fact that there is already an appeal going on does, as has already been said, become abusive of the real purpose of a remedial order. I suggest to him that all the stuff about people being let off and the whole point about immunity is not the issue. The issue today is whether the Government are misusing their powers to rush something through that they could have dealt with through the passage of the Bill.
Hilary Benn
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.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
This week’s exhibition in the Upper Waiting Hall is a memorial quilt produced my members of the South East Fermanagh Foundation. It is a very moving way to remember the innocent victims of terrorism. The dates on the quilt panels remind us of how long the families have been fighting for justice. Can I ask the Secretary of State what message he wants to send out to every person who has produced one of the quilt panels for SEFF and to all the other families?
Hilary Benn
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.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
Regarding the accusation that the Secretary of State is rushing this through, he will be conscious of an Irish Government who are not rushing anything through with regard to support. Yesterday the Justice Minister in the Republic of Ireland received permission from the Government to draft priority legislation to enable state bodies to give oral evidence to the Omagh inquiry. That was only because the Omagh families are taking legal action. What engagement has the Secretary of State had with the Irish Government about bringing forward legislation that matches what he is bringing forward in this place? Can I also ask him who he is dealing with at the minute? It used to be the Tánaiste, Simon Harris, who has now been promoted. Is it the Justice Minister, who is bringing this forward, or is it the new Foreign Affairs Minister?
Hilary Benn
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.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I commend the Secretary of State for the care that he is taking to work as fast possible for the victims, survivors and veterans families, who need to hear answers, while making sure that this is legally correct. I echo the comments about the South East Fermanagh Foundation quilts, which remind us of the need to get those answers for families. Can he confirm that he is as concerned as I am that the Opposition are just interested in making political points rather than really building peace, which is what we need to do together as Members of the House? Will he confirm that the remedial order removes what would have been immunity for terrorists?
Hilary Benn
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.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
May I ask the Secretary of State to clarify whether his earlier remarks mean what I think they do, which is that even if it had not been for the guidance of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Government would have wanted anyway to have repealed the legislation of the legacy Act? It is a political decision. Given that he said that he did not believe that there would be convictions at the end of the process, does that not mean that there will be several, if not many, trials? If no one is convicted at the end of the process, how does that help anyone? How does that avoid just torturing the people put through a trial?
Hilary Benn
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.] 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.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
The Secretary of State does not need me to tell him that he and the Government are struggling to command veteran support for his Bill. In order to address that deficit of support, should he not consider an amendment to clause 3 to have the Veterans Commissioner for Northern Ireland serve on the legacy commission? Would that not be a token of making good on his affirmation that this is about capturing the confidence of veterans and not pursuing lawfare against them?
Hilary Benn
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.
Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and Tavistock) (Con)
I wonder whether the Secretary of State can assist me with this problem. The Supreme Court is at the moment seized of the issue as to the lawfulness of the declaration of incompatibility. The fact that the Government have withdrawn their appeal does not prevent the Supreme Court from ruling on it. Let us suppose that the Supreme Court rules that the declaration of incompatibility is void. The legal position is that the declaration of incompatibility would then be void, and therefore the basis on which the Secretary of State is proceeding with the order would be removed. Surely it would be prudent to wait to see if the Supreme Court rules on it. Otherwise, we will be proceeding with an unlawful order. I ask in the spirit of genuine curiosity and inquiry, not political partisanship. It would bring the entire process into disrepute if he is in fact acting on an unlawful basis.
Hilary Benn
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.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
Yesterday, Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Knighton highlighted the need to recruit people to our armed forces to protect this nation. How does the Secretary of State expect to do that when those who served gallantly in Northern Ireland face prosecution? Why would young men and women join our armed forces with the risk of that happening to them? What message does that send to those young people?
Hilary Benn
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.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State has spoken of additional protections in his legislation. Why does he think that Operation Banner veterans, some of whom I represent, remain unconvinced and troubled? Why does he think that the Irish Prime Minister believes there are no additional protections? While he is about it, can he do something to reassure veterans who are feeling very unhappy about this situation, perhaps along the lines of saying categorically that no former terrorists or members of proscribed organisations will serve on the legacy commission?
Hilary Benn
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.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
Secretary of State, the official Opposition are saying to hold off the remedial order until the Supreme Court judgment. Have you sought any legal advice on that? Can you share it with the House?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Use of the word “you” is not appropriate. Would the hon. Member like to rephrase and quickly get to his point?
Alex Easton
I apologise. Has the Secretary of State sought any legal advice on the issue, and can he share it with the House? Will he also update us on making sure that the Irish Government produce all legal papers on their role, on the IRA and on the involvement of the Garda Síochána?
Hilary Benn
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.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Will the Secretary confirm whether the remedial order will have to be voted on in the other place?
Hilary Benn
Yes, it will be voted on in both Houses in the new year.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Despite what the Secretary of State continues to say in the House, the prosecution of elderly veterans has been vexatious. In the Soldier F trial, the judge agreed with the submissions of the defence that the threshold to prosecute was far from being reached; political interference brought that matter to court. If the Secretary of State cannot even accept that there have been vexatious prosecutions, how will he ensure that the remedial order will give a clear distinction between the bomber who presents him or herself as a victim and the ordinary man, woman or child who was murdered or maimed by the actions of terrorists?
Hilary Benn
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. That is why I am so firm in saying that there is no such thing as a vexatious prosecution.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Notwithstanding the fact that the Secretary of State has said that the chances of a successful prosecution are very limited indeed, the punishment is in the process of investigation and trial in the first place. Will the Secretary of State look sympathetically at appropriate amendments to the Bill to make sure that the bar is raised very high, so that it is almost impossible for one of our brave veterans to be prosecuted in our courts?
Hilary Benn
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.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
For the final question, I call Jim Shannon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Kenova report was clear in proving that there was no evidence of state collusion or machinations. Yet the republican drum still bangs to cover the sound of the voices of the innocents calling for justice and to be heard. How will the Secretary of State respond to the lack of protection for the service personnel and the perpetual and deliberate focus on them, and will he look at the 2,057 murders carried out by republicans and the 1,027 loyalist murders that have not received any justice at all? Will there be yet another whitewash over the blood of the innocents that has been shed and the impact that that still has on all those families throughout the Province?
Hilary Benn
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.
Point of Order
(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The point I was trying to raise in my question to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was that on any issue to do with the Northern Irish troubles, we must tread with appropriate solemnity and seriousness. It was therefore disappointing to be accused of being an idiot by a Member on the Opposition Front Bench while making that very point. What advice would you give on ensuring that the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) apologises appropriately, not to me but to the whole House, for lowering the tone of that serious debate?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
If I had heard any inappropriate language, I would have dealt with it very swiftly and dealt with that Member involved. No inappropriate language should be used in the Chamber. On such a highly charged, emotional and very serious topic, we need to double down and make sure that we are using the most appropriate language. Mr Francois, before you respond, please remember that you are also responding to me in the Chair. No doubt, you will not want to displease me either with any of your response.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am too experienced to try to displease you in any way. For clarity, I was responding to the fact that the hon. Gentleman had accused—[Interruption.] Pardon me. He had accused my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) of saying something that, as Hansard will prove conclusively in the morning, he clearly did not say. If the hon. Gentleman and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, feel that that word was inappropriate, I withdraw it. However, I still believe that the hon. Gentleman was wrong.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I do not wish to prolong the debate, and no doubt that will be seen, by most, as an apology.
Puberty Suppressants Trial
(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care if he will make a statement on the pathways puberty blockers trial.
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
Let me just start by acknowledging the sensitivities around this issue and the strong beliefs held around this House. For all the division and divided opinion, I believe that there is a determination shared by everyone in this House to do the right thing by a vulnerable group of children and young people. It is for those reasons that I am taking the course of action that I am. Put simply, that is to follow expert clinical advice and take an evidence-led approach.
The Cass review found shocking levels of unprofessionalism, a lack of clinical oversight and puberty blockers prescribed to children without sufficient evidence that doing so was safe or beneficial to those children and young people. What Dr Hilary Cass uncovered was a scandal. That is why, on coming to office, I made the temporary ban brought in by my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), a permanent one. Dr Cass also recommended a thorough study to establish how best to support children and young people who suffer gender incongruence. That is the pathways study.
The study has four main parts, one of which is the clinical trial to study the effects of puberty-suppressing hormones on young people’s physical, social and emotional wellbeing. The other aspects of the pathways study will track the physical, social and emotional wellbeing of all young people attending UK NHS gender services. It will look at young people’s thinking and brain development, following both those who are and are not taking puberty-suppressing hormones, and it will gather evidence directly from young people, parents and staff about their experiences of living with gender incongruence.
The bar for the trial to be approved was extremely high and oversight will be rigorous. Children cannot consent to being on the trial, so places will require parental consent, as well as the assent of young people. It is because protecting and promoting the health and wellbeing of affected young people is our primary concern that there are also strict eligibility criteria in place to join the pathways clinical trial. As such, the number of young people who would expect to qualify for the trial will also be low. Participants must undergo thorough mental and physical assessments and will be followed over a number of years with regular wellbeing checks. Puberty blockers have also been used to delay puberty in children and young people who start puberty much too early. Use in those cases has been extensively tested and has met strict safety requirements for that use.
The study is led by King’s College London and the South London and Maudsley NHS foundation trust. It has been carefully checked by independent scientists who advise the National Institute for Health and Care Research and by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, and received approval from a research ethics committee. I am treading cautiously in this area because the safety of children must come first.
Dr Johnson
I must first declare my interest as a consultant paediatrician who has looked after children with gender dysphoria in the past and is likely to do so in the future. We must remember that we are talking about vulnerable children.
The first and most obvious question is: why? Why have this Government chosen to fund experiments with puberty blockers on physically healthy children? Despite saying he was comfortable with this trial in a briefing to MPs, the Secretary of State told the media on Friday and the Select Committee this morning that he is in fact uncomfortable with it. Why is it even being considered before the data linkage study is complete?
Some 9,000 children went through the Tavistock clinic, and many of them came out regretting being encouraged to irreversibly damage their bodies. We should look carefully at those outcomes before we make the same mistakes. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to secure the data from the Tavistock and have it analysed? What steps is he taking to hold to account those obstructing access to data linkage information? What assessment has he made of the motivations of those obstructing that data, when this is a study to safeguard children?
And what of the trial itself? We know that 226 children will go through this trial. Is that a limit or a target? Those children will be randomised to get puberty blockers now or in a year’s time, and all will be analysed at two years. They will still be children. They might be only 11 years old. How can the results demonstrate a meaningful outcome? The control group is not properly randomised, but chosen from the Horizon intensive trial group. Is the Secretary of State concerned that this will introduce bias?
The criteria for getting puberty blockers in this trial require just one parent to consent and the clinician to think that it will benefit the child, but on what basis will the clinician decide? The Cass review said that the vast majority of children with gender dysphoria would recover, with only a few persisting with trans identities into adulthood. It is not possible to predict which those children will be, so does the Secretary of State accept that the vast majority of children in this, his Streeting trial, who will be given drugs will be physically healthy children whose distress would get better without any puberty blockers, and that the vast majority of the children in this trial are therefore being unnecessarily experimented on with risky medications under his leadership?
Wes Streeting
The shadow Minister asks, “Why?” There is a simple answer. It is because this was recommended by Dr Cass in the Cass review, which was commissioned by my predecessor, Sir Sajid Javid. I think that was the right thing to do, and it is why, when my predecessor brought forward the Cass review, I supported it in opposition. I certainly did not try to play politics with an extremely vulnerable group of children and young people.
I will tell the hon. Lady why. It is because, under the previous Government, those puberty-suppressing hormones were prescribed without proper oversight, supervision or safety, yet we did not hear a peep about that fact for years until Dr Cass, commissioned by Sir Sajid Javid—who deserves enormous credit—did the study, which was published and widely supported and which contained this recommendation. The Conservatives may have changed their tune in opposition, but I remember what they said in government when they published the Cass review and supported its recommendations, so I think their response now is a real shame.
The shadow Minister accuses me of inconsistency, so let me be clear. Am I comfortable that this clinical trial has undergone the proper process and ethical approval to ensure the highest standards and supervision? Yes, I am comfortable about that. Am I uncomfortable about puberty-suppressing hormones for this group of young people for this particular condition? Yes, I am—because of risks. It is why I was also uncomfortable when I upheld the temporary ban by my predecessor and then put in place a permanent ban. The reason I was uncomfortable with that, too, is because I had to look children and young people, and their parents, in the eye when they told me in no uncertain terms that that decision was harmful to them, as have many other clinicians who have opposed that decision.
Whatever my discomfort in this extremely sensitive area, the reason that I have made this decision is that I am following clinical advice and, as Health Secretary, it is my responsibility to follow expert advice. Had the Tavistock clinic faced such challenge and scrutiny a decade ago, we would not be in this mess. The Conservatives were right to commission the Cass review and they were right to accept its recommendations. I accept that there is now a difference on this particular recommendation, but I would urge Members not to walk away from the cross-party consensus we built behind that approach but to build on the work that Dr Cass has done.
Let me turn to the important questions raised by shadow Minister. There will be two groups within the trial, as well as a further control group of children and young people with gender incongruence who do not receive puberty-suppressing hormones. At least 226 participants are required in order to detect a statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups. However, this is not a target and no young person will find themselves on this trial because there is a drive to make sure that a certain number of young people are participating. In order for anyone to participate in this trial, it has to have the most robust clinical oversight from clinicians within the service, as well as national oversight and the consent of parents. It is only where young people will be deemed to benefit that they will be on this programme.
The shadow Minister asks about the data linkage study. That is important. The data linkage study will be undertaken, but when it is completed it will not provide us with the same evidence as this clinical trial. That is why Dr Cass made a distinction between this trial and the data linkage study.
The hon. Lady also asks about the motivations of those who withheld data. That is an extremely important question. It is utterly appalling that anyone in a position of responsibility in the NHS withheld data on a very vulnerable group of children and young people. I accept that there were many well-meaning people involved in these services at the Tavistock clinic, but the fact that Dr Cass found such a lack of rigour, such a lack of standards and such a lack of proper oversight is disgraceful. It is the clinicians who are well meaning and ideologically driven who have given me the most cause for concern in this whole debacle and who have done more harm to children, young people and the trans community than most other people who have taken part in this debate.
I appreciate the work that Dr Cass has done, and I am glad that she is in the other place, bringing welcome scrutiny. Were she not supportive of this approach, I might think again, but she has made her recommendation and given her support. I am following clinical advice. It is not comfortable, but I do believe it is the right thing to do, on balance.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Health and Social Care Committee member Danny Beales.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
The hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) asks, “Why?” Well, it is because trans people exist and their health needs exist. As the Secretary of State has clearly outlined, an independent review made a series of recommendations. There were clearly failures of healthcare, and a further recommendation was that a clinical trial should address this issue. I believe that the Conservatives supported the Cass review, but when it comes to implementing this part of it, they suddenly have collective amnesia about what Dr Cass recommended. Does the Secretary State agree that, in the absence of a trial, there will still be access to these drugs? We know that young people are seeking out private provision. They are seeking unregulated providers of these drugs, so is not a clinical trial both appropriate and the best and safest way of managing any potential risks?
Wes Streeting
The risk that my hon. Friend sets out was one of the considerations that I had to when weigh up—first when upholding the temporary ban, and then when making the ban permanent. I do worry that, outside of a trial, we may continue to see unsafe or unethical practice. I think we will be doing a service to medicine in this country as well as internationally if we have a high-quality trial with the highest standards of ethics, approvals, oversight and research from some of our country’s leading universities and healthcare providers to ensure that, for this particular vulnerable group of children and young people, we are taking an evidence-based approach to health and care.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson; you have one minute.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I hope that everyone in this House can agree that medical treatment should always follow the evidence on safety and effectiveness. It is right that expert clinicians are building this evidence base and therefore right that the Government are seeking to run this trial, because it should be led by evidence and not by ideology.
Given that the numbers on the trial will be very small and the waiting list for talking therapies, which are so important for children and their parents, is very long, with hundreds of thousands waiting, can the Secretary of State explain how he will increase access to NHS talking therapies so people can get the help they need and deserve? In a field with so little research, will he confirm if the pathways trial will look at international best practice in order to take learnings from abroad?
Wes Streeting
I can absolutely assure the hon. Member that we are doing that wider research and that of course we will take into account high-quality international evidence, as well as the research we are undertaking domestically. It is so important that we recognise that, for many young people with gender incongruence, even if approved, puberty blockers will never be the right medication. One of the things I have been most saddened by in the discourse among adults in this debate, many of whom should know better, is the elevation of puberty blockers to the status they have received in public discourse and debate; many young people out there think not only is this the gold standard of care, but that it is the only care available, and, of course, that is not true.
NHS England has opened three new children and young people’s gender services in the north-west, London and Bristol, with a fourth planned for the east of England in 2026. We aim to have a service in every region of England in the coming years. These services use a different model with multidisciplinary teams, including mental health support and paediatrics, within specialist children’s hospitals to provide good clinical care. The new services will increase capacity and reduce waiting times so that patients can be seen sooner and closer to home. We have also commissioned additional support for young people waiting to be seen through local children and young people’s mental health services.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his leadership. As a former children’s services manager, I am concerned that credible safeguarding warnings from clinicians and academics about puberty suppression in children are not being heard. Will the Secretary of State meet those experts and review the younger age limit for participation in this trial, given that children as young as 10 are currently set to be involved?
Wes Streeting
Let me reassure my hon. Friend and the House that I am absolutely open to receiving representations and evidence from clinicians involved in the care of children and young people, with insight, expertise and data, including those who might be critical of the approach that the trial team is setting out or, indeed, critical that the Cass review included this recommendation. That is important because the many things that have gone horribly wrong in this area have included the silencing of whistleblowers and the silencing of rigorous debate and discussion.
We have to have this debate with due care and sensitivity for young people in this vulnerable group in particular and for the wider trans community, who feel extremely vulnerable in this country at the moment, including as a result of decisions I have taken as the Health and Social Care Secretary. We have to consider all of that in the round, but we must make sure that at all times we are following the evidence, that we are open to scrutiny and challenge, and that where we are making these finely balanced judgments, we are doing so with rigorous debate, testing the arguments, the evidence and the data. That is why I welcome the urgent question and this discussion.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I call Health and Social Care Committee member Joe Robertson.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
The Secretary of State said earlier that there is an extremely high bar for him stepping in and stopping these tests using puberty blockers. What bar could be higher than a Government protecting children from being tested on with drugs specifically to stop or alter their sexual development? There is not a unified clinical view on this. It is his choice; he is the Secretary of State. These tests are on him.
Wes Streeting
I certainly do not need to be told what my responsibilities are on this. I always take responsibility for the decisions I take. I acknowledge the extent to which the hon. Gentleman and members of his party seek to weaponise this issue, and to personalise it. [Interruption.] We can simply refer back to his question and to the shadow Minister’s reference to the “Streeting trial”—if that is not personalising, I do not know what is.
I’ll tell you what: I will take an evidence-based approach. I have done that on this issue from day one. Had the Conservatives done so, we would never have seen the Tavistock scandal. We would never have seen puberty blockers dished out willy-nilly to children and young people in this vulnerable patient group. I have sought at all times, including when I sat on the Opposition Benches, to treat this debate with the care, sensitivity and humility it deserves, and not to be tribal in my interactions. I only wish this Conservative Opposition would take the same approach.
Madam Deputy Speaker
We are only at the start of this urgent question, so I ask Members to reduce the temperature in the Chamber.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for the care and sensitivity he has taken to this subject all along. It has been an undeniably difficult year for transgender people in Britain. I have spoken to young trans people who have been pushed to the brink of suicide by what they hear—that they do not have a right to exist, that they do not deserve rights, that they are legitimate targets for ridicule. We all in this House have a responsibility to lower the temperature and focus on their welfare, health and dignity.
King’s College operates the highest standards of safety. Does the Secretary of State agree that its expertise and rigour will support the wellbeing of participants and ensure that we get the robust evidence we need and that vulnerable children are no longer treated as political punchbags?
Wes Streeting
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we must engage with due care and sensitivity on this issue. I can share with the House that these exchanges, Government policy, what is said by me and others, are followed extremely closely by this group of children and young people, who are extremely online, and by the wider LGBT+ community. My hon. Friend is right that trans people are often at the wrong end of the statistics as victims of hate crime, discrimination and mental ill health. We must always tread carefully when talking about suicide in this context, and bear in mind the warnings of the Government’s adviser on suicide prevention, Professor Louis Appleby, and the way in which that issue has been deployed irresponsibly by critics of the ban on puberty blockers that was put in place—we bear all those things in mind. I do think we have a high-quality trial set up. I do have confidence in the clinicians. We have had a cross-party briefing from the clinical team. I am happy to repeat that exercise, to keep coming back to the House and to arrange briefings for MPs and peers on a cross-party basis so that we can follow this closely, as we should.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
I welcome the care with which the right hon. Member has approached much of this, and I appreciate that he has before him some very difficult decisions, especially because of the way the report was written. But I must come back to the simple truth that these are very young children, and decisions will be made for them—I appreciate by parents, taking that element of consent—that are genuinely irreversible. Whatever happens, we will see eight, nine, 10-year-olds grow up to be 18, 20, 25-year-olds—at least we hope we will—who have effectively been experimented on. Some of those children will resent greatly not just the system and their parents, but those who allowed this to happen, and here I identify the Department for Health and Social Care, not necessarily the Secretary of State himself. What provision is he putting in place to ensure that should those children wish to bring legal action against the Department, against those who took these decisions at a time when they were not able to give any form of informed consent, they will be able to have redress and their day in court?
Wes Streeting
I first thank the right hon. Member for the way in which he puts his concerns. I know he is concerned about this trial and that he has stated publicly his opposition to it, and I enormously respect the way in which he has done that. These are finely balanced judgments, and I acknowledge that.
The Cass review found that puberty blockers have been prescribed routinely without good evidence for their safety or effectiveness, and that is why a clinical trial was proposed. They are licensed and used safely in much younger children for precocious puberty or in older adults for certain cancers. For adolescents, the interaction with all the different processes of puberty may be very significant, which is why more evidence and a better understanding of their impact is needed in this patient group. Anyone on the trial can choose to stop taking puberty-suppressing hormones and leave the trial at any time; they do not need to give a reason. If a young person decides to stop taking puberty-suppressing hormones, their care in the NHS, including the gender service, will not change in any other way, and their doctors will explain to them and their parents or guardians what treatment options are available.
I know that there are concerns about the longer-term impacts on fertility. Prospective participants will be given comprehensive information on the advantages and potential risks of the hormones, including details about preserving fertility. Doctors will explain the possible long-term consequences and available options. Young people will also be offered consultation with a fertility specialist. The young person and their parent or guardian must clearly demonstrate a full understanding of all these issues—only then, after that, would a clinician sign off on admission to the trial.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I ask colleagues to keep their questions short and the Secretary of State to keep his responses on point. I call Health and Social Care Committee member, Josh Fenton-Glynn.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
I hope we can all agree that the young people involved should not be used by anyone as a political football. Can my right hon. Friend please assure me that the process and trial will be clinically led, not defined by rhetoric—in this place or anywhere else?
Wes Streeting
I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I also welcome the tone and sensitivity that the right hon. Gentleman has taken on this issue—not just today, but throughout. We all recognise that we should be led by evidence, which is absolutely vital. The trans community is a reality. They feel very vulnerable and very attacked. People who have been on the medications for some time are now concerned that they may no longer be available. What can the right hon. Gentleman tell us to reassure those people that they will be safe?
Wes Streeting
As I reported when we put in place the permanent ban, there have been arrangements for people who were previously being prescribed puberty blockers. People who wanted to access them, but could not once the ban came in, have not been able to do so through authorised means.
I recognised when I took the decision, and as a result of representations I have received, both directly and in writing, that it caused considerable pain and distress to a very vulnerable group of children and young people and to the people who care very much about them. I have not been indifferent to that; I have taken it very much into consideration. However, with respect to all the people I have met, no amount of political pressure should move a Health Secretary away from the clinical advice and expert opinion that should underpin these sorts of decisions.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
I welcome the trial. I commend the Secretary of State for following clinical advice and the Government for trying to build a consensus for one of the most minoritised communities in our country.
May I ask the Secretary of State—a man who I know to have empathy and thoughtfulness—to speak directly to trans people who will be watching this debate? At this Christmas time, they may be struggling with estrangement from family and with other difficulties. Can he speak to the dignity and worth to which they are entitled, and send a message that this House has their back?
Wes Streeting
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. I recognise that the decision I took, within days of coming into this office, was received by trans people in particular, and the wider LGBT+ community, as a negative decision that detrimentally impacted their rights and identity. That is why it was an uncomfortable decision for me to take; I knew how it would be received and had to balance up the risk. I believed—and still believe, by the way—that it was the right thing to do, for the right reasons: a clinically led decision.
When it comes to the care and health of children and young people in particular, I make no apology for exercising extreme caution. I do want trans people in our country to know that this Government respect them and their identity, and want them to live with dignity, safety and inclusion. That is the approach that the Government are taking. I realise that decisions that I have personally taken have not been received in that way. That has not been comfortable for me, but I do believe it has been the right thing to do.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
If we were resting this judgment on purely clinical evidence, we would tell every child that whatever sex they were was immutable and could not be changed, and that if they took these puberty blockers they might well find that they had irreversibly changed the course of their lives. How is a child of 10 or 11 going to be capable of making that judgment?
Whatever the Cass review says, in the end this is the Secretary of State’s judgment. I remember the covid inquiry repeatedly saying that it was wrong for Ministers to hide behind “the science”. Equally, there is no single clinical advice on this question: clinicians are as divided as the rest of society. We rely on the Secretary of State’s judgment. I am afraid that I think he has got it wrong.
Wes Streeting
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question and for how he puts his criticism, too. As I said earlier, and for the avoidance of doubt, I know what my responsibilities are. I understand the decisions that I take in this office and that I am accountable for those decisions. I do not resile from that. I am following clinical advice; I think that is the right thing to do in this area.
On the question of sex, the right hon. Gentleman is right: sex is immutable. Even if there has been treatment with hormones or surgery, underlying biology none the less means that trans women, for example, would still need to be screened and treated bearing in mind their biological sex, and the opposite is true for trans men. We have to draw that distinction between biological sex and gender identity.
Whatever my discomfort and personal views about this particular trial or about the notion of young people using puberty blockers in this way, I cannot ignore, and should convey faithfully to the House, conversations that I have had with trans young people and adults. They have described in powerful and unforgettable terms not just the life changing, but the life enhancing experience that they have had. I am thinking particularly of the university student I met; if she walked into this Chamber now, we would assume that she was born female. She is living her best life and described in very powerful and unforgettable terms the impact that treatment has had for her and her quality of life. At the same time, I think of high-profile cases such as Keira Bell’s. That is why we have to tread extremely carefully in this area, to follow evidence and to build an evidence base. It is also why these are such finely balanced judgements and why I can be simultaneously uncomfortable with the permanent ban that I put in place and uncomfortable with the clinical trial. I hope that I have reassured people that I think very deeply about these issues before taking decisions.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
As the Health Secretary has said, this is a deeply troubling time for the trans community; I have heard that loudly from my trans constituents who have come to surgeries and from my postbag, too. When suicide rates among trans people are much higher than among the general population, we know where denying that they exist or denying them life-saving healthcare lead. What reassurances can the Secretary of State give my trans constituents and the families who support them? They are extremely worried that they will not be able to access the healthcare that they need.
Wes Streeting
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. The reassurance that we can provide trans people in our country is that we are committed to making sure that they have access to the highest quality, evidence-based healthcare. That does not just apply in the case of children and young people; I also hope to report to the House before the Christmas recess the work undertaken in the learning disability mortality review into adult services. We are committed to making sure that we provide high-quality care to a particular vulnerable group of children and young people.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Although I disagreed with the permanent ban, it is to the Secretary of State’s credit that he has been very clear about all the competing issues that he is balancing to make his decisions, and I appreciate that. There are young people who are hoping to be part of the clinical trial and to receive puberty blockers, whether that will genuinely make a difference to their lives or they believe that it will make a difference to their lives. How will he ensure that appropriate support is given to those young people who do not get to be part of the trial, when they have been hoping that it will change their lives?
Wes Streeting
I am grateful to the hon. Member for the way that she asks her question, as a critic of some of the decisions that I have taken in this space. The reassurance that I can offer is that the study will look at the holistic care that this group of children and young people receives, and ensure that wider evidence-led therapeutic support, including mental health support, is available, so that regardless of whether a young person receives puberty blockers, they will certainly receive that wider range of support.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
I appreciate the science-based approach taken by the Secretary of State. We use puberty blockers for many different conditions, so will the trial look at the data that has been amassed from the use of puberty blockers for other conditions? I wish to state on the record that puberty blockers are reversible. The evidence shows that when people stop taking them, they stop working—that is the science behind them. Finally, young people in my constituency are more likely to age out of gender services than to get their first appointment, so what are we doing to shorten the waiting time, not just for puberty blockers but for the whole range of services provided to trans children by the NHS?