Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Jo Stevens)
Wales is leading the UK’s clean energy mission and secured two major projects in the UK Government’s contracts for difference scheme last week: Erebus, which is Wales’s first floating offshore wind project in the Celtic sea, and Awel y Môr offshore wind farm, off the coast of north Wales. It is the most successful auction round in European history, and a huge vote of confidence in Wales’s clean energy sector, which will deliver thousands of good jobs.
Perran Moon
Meur ras ha myttin da. I was delighted to see the Erebus project in the Celtic sea secure a contract for difference in the highly successful auction round. It is fantastic news for the floating offshore wind sector—the new frontier in renewable energy generation—and for local supply chains. Does the Secretary of State agree that we now need long-term investment in those supply chains, not just in Wales but in the closest land mass to most of the Celtic sea projects, which is Cornwall, so that our Welsh cousins can support the unleashing of the Cornish Celtic tiger?
Jo Stevens
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that investment in our offshore wind sector is integral to realising our potential as a clean energy superpower, and to creating thousands of high-skilled jobs in Wales and among our Celtic cousins in Cornwall. That is why last week’s auction round was such an historic moment, and why this Labour Government have announced a landmark £1 billion clean energy supply chain fund to deliver offshore wind, with £300 million from Great British Energy, £400 million from the Crown Estate and £300 million from the offshore wind industry.
Bill Esterson
The Secretary of State quite rightly mentioned the jobs and growth that will result from the projects at Awel y Môr and Erebus in the Celtic sea, but the price in auction round 7 was 40% lower than the equivalent for new gas-fired power stations, and Putin’s latest remarks have reminded us of the volatility of the gas price. Does she agree that Welsh consumers will benefit from cheaper bills, and that the projects will give us greater security, as well as the benefits she outlined earlier?
Jo Stevens
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This was the most successful auction round in European history, as I have mentioned. Awel y Môr is the first offshore wind project in Wales to win a contract in over a decade, and Erebus will be Wales’s first floating offshore wind farm. These projects will power almost 1 million homes and bring £2.6 billion of investment to Welsh coastal and industrial communities, but as he says, and most importantly, they will create thousands of jobs and bring down bills as we produce more, cheaper clean energy and gain our energy independence.
Steve Race
I, too, congratulate the Government and welcome last week’s announcement of the most successful European auction round to date. It is great news for the UK and for our action on climate change, and it bodes well for the full Celtic sea floating offshore wind opportunity, which is important for Exeter, the wider south-west and Wales too. Will the Secretary of State explain how this landmark step forward for offshore wind will mean new jobs and lower bills for constituents in Exeter, Wales and right across the country?
Jo Stevens
The Celtic sea is at the frontier of our green energy revolution. The capacity for offshore wind will support over 5,000 new jobs and bring billions of pounds of investment. Erebus is a test and demonstration project and will kick-start the early development of FLOW in Wales, ahead of larger projects being advanced through the Crown Estate’s three FLOW sites in the Celtic sea that have been leased to Equinor, Gwynt Glas and Ocean Winds. I cannot stress enough that this is a once-in-a-century opportunity for Wales, as it is for the south-west. That is why this Labour Government are doing whatever it takes to realise that potential.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
When it comes to clean energy, I think we are all delighted to see that a new nuclear power plant will be constructed in Wales. Does the Minister agree that it is worse than a crying shame—in fact, it is a disgrace—that the Scottish Government set their face totally against any nuclear developments in Scotland, such as at Dounreay in my constituency?
Jo Stevens
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue, particularly as it is Nuclear Week this week. We have announced the new fleet of small modular reactors at Wylfa, which are expected to support 3,000 jobs at peak construction and to power up to 3 million homes, with the capacity for further fleets in the future. I am not sure why the Scottish Government refuse investment in nuclear. Not only do they waste money, but they refuse investment and jobs in their own country.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State very much for her answers, and she is absolutely right to develop green energy and clean energy. The Irish sea separates Northern Ireland and Wales, and the winds blow up and down the west coast of England and Wales and the east coast of Northern Ireland, which is something we can all take advantage of. Has she had an opportunity to discuss working with the Northern Ireland Assembly and others to take advantage of that, and to discuss the future potential for us all?
Jo Stevens
I would be very happy to have a conversation with the hon. Gentleman about that. We are investing in our green industries because that is how we will bring down bills for everybody, secure our energy supplies for everybody, and create jobs and improve living standards for everybody.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
Mid-Wales is beautiful, but plans for 200 metre tall wind turbines in Radnor forest—turbines twice the height of Big Ben—will blight the landscape, impact local communities and harm the area’s vital tourism sector, and we are seeing similar proposals across Brecon and Radnorshire. The concerns of local communities, businesses and councils must be properly considered in planning decisions for energy infrastructure, not simply overridden by Government Ministers in Cardiff Bay to meet their own agenda. Does the Secretary of State agree?
Jo Stevens
The hon. Member obviously does not want energy bills to come down, does not want jobs in mid-Wales and does not want the investment to happen. Labour is the only party committed to our renewable energy revolution. Plaid, the Greens and the Lib Dems all try to block renewable infrastructure, while the SNP rejects the jobs, as we have just heard; and now the Tories and Reform do not want this revolution, but want to scrap net zero altogether.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
The Secretary of State has been highly critical of the legitimate concerns that my constituents have raised about the numerous wind farm proposals across mid-Wales. Now the Ministry of Defence has raised its concerns that at least one of the proposed wind farms has the potential to form a physical obstruction to air traffic movements and military activities at the Sennybridge training area. If the Labour Government will not listen to the concerns raised by my residents, will they at least listen to their own military?
Jo Stevens
I thank the hon. Member for his question, but can I suggest that he raises that with Defence Ministers? If he would like to contact me afterwards, I am happy to raise that with the Secretary of State for Defence.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr, Llefarydd. On 9 January, Consumer Energy Solutions went into administration, and 300 people across Wales lost their jobs. In my constituency alone, more than 40 households have told me that they have been left in limbo, often without heating or hot water, and many of these people are elderly or ill. Given that the right hon. Member’s Government scrapped the energy company obligation 4 scheme abruptly, what support will be provided to make sure that householders are not left to pay after CES walks away?
Jo Stevens
I thank the right hon. Lady for raising the matter, and I really do feel for people who have found themselves in this situation, including her constituents, through absolutely no fault of their own. She will know that we inherited this scheme from the Conservative Government, and both ECO and the Great British insulation schemes had well-documented problems, which is why we took decisive action to end them. We are urgently working with scheme providers to ensure that customers of Consumer Energy Solutions are supported, and we will provide further updates as soon as possible.
Liz Saville Roberts
We are expecting an announcement on the warm homes plan, which is of course to be welcomed, but we cannot rerun the errors of ECO4. An investigation by the National Audit Office into wall insulation revealed fraud and shoddy work. Will the Secretary of State therefore join me in calling for a public investigation into ECO4 air source heat pumps and solar panels, so we get a full, independent evaluation of the incidence of bad practice, questionable profits and fraud?
Jo Stevens
I simply say what I have already said to the right hon. Lady, which is that we inherited these schemes; they had well-documented problems, and that is why we have taken decisive action to end them. She will have seen our announcement today on the warm homes plan and the £15 billion fund to help people across the country.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Jo Stevens)
I hold a range of discussions with Ministers in the Welsh Government, including about our crucial investment in the Welsh rail network. We are investing at least £445 million in Welsh rail to right years of underfunding by previous Tory Governments. That will mean new stations, and more and faster trains on the key lines in north and south Wales and into England to improve cross-border connectivity, create jobs and boost economic growth.
Ann Davies
Diolch yn fawr, Mr Llefarydd. The Treasury has confirmed that Northern Powerhouse Rail will again be classified as an England and Wales project, again depriving Wales of £1 billion in funding. Instead, we are being asked to celebrate £445 million being spent over 10 years in east Wales. This decision means no electrification beyond Cardiff, no new station for St Clears, even though it was promised through the levelling-up fund, and no upgrades for Carmarthen station. What influence can the Secretary of State bring to bear on the Treasury, so that the 1.5 million people who live outside the investment area, who are excluded, get the funding that they deserve?
Jo Stevens
Heavy rail projects in both countries are classified as England and Wales whether the track is in Wales, England or both. They do not attract Barnett consequentials because heavy rail is reserved. Examples of such projects include Padeswood in north Wales and the regeneration of Cardiff Central station. Surely the hon. Lady knows that the economic corridor between north Wales and the north-west is vital for regional integration and the economic growth of north Wales. The scheme paves the way for more services, more regular services and faster services across north Wales and the north-west.
Andrew Ranger (Wrexham) (Lab)
Last year, the Welsh Labour Government introduced a £1 bus fare cap for young people. Since then, these reduced fares have been used on 2 million journeys. Earlier this month, Welsh Labour announced in my constituency that after the Senedd election in May, we will build on that success with a £2 bus fare for all fares and more than 100 new routes across Wales. Would my right hon. Friend join me in supporting this announcement, and can she update the House on what else the UK and Welsh Labour Governments are doing together to improve Wales’s transport infrastructure?
Jo Stevens
The introduction of the £1 bus fare cap for young people, and now a £2 cap on all fares from the Welsh Labour Government, has been great news; it will help everyone with the cost of living. The 100 new bus routes right across Wales, which will be introduced if Welsh Labour are re-elected in May, will further help people take advantage of the new opportunities and jobs that we are creating across Wales. All this has been made possible because there are two Labour Governments working together for Wales. Our record-breaking Budget settlement for the Welsh Government has delivered nearly £6 billion more in spending power, enabling them to invest more in transport and other public services.
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
Following a freedom of information request, several questions at the Dispatch Box and my pre-Christmas letter to the Secretary of State, a serious explanation of railway funding in Wales is still lacking. Previously, she said in the Chamber:
“We are investing…to right the years of underfunding”—[Official Report, 16 July 2025; Vol. 771, c. 282.]
She told the Welsh Affairs Committee that there was
“widespread agreement… and many others have expressed similar sentiments.”
That is not evidence of underfunding; it is an opinion. Will she finally tell the House what method she is using to form her opinion, and will she outline how much Network Rail intends to invest in Welsh railways?
Jo Stevens
The hon. Member will know very well from my reply to her letter that her assertion is fundamentally wrong, because she is using a combination of operations, maintenance, renewals and enhancement funding to reach the total figure provided under Conservative Governments. The Labour Government have announced nearly £500 million of investment in Welsh rail, specifically and solely in enhancement funding. That money is being front-loaded in this spending review period to deliver new stations and more and faster trains as soon as possible. She should carry on trying desperately to defend her party’s appalling record in government, because all she is doing is reminding everybody about it.
John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Anna McMorrin)
The UK and Welsh Governments are working closely together to support the agricultural sector, particularly when it comes to cross-border movements and disease control. As always, our message to farmers is to remain vigilant, vaccinate where possible, source responsibly and test. Through that approach, we can minimise disruption.
John Whitby
Given the integrated nature of livestock markets across England and Wales, farmers in my constituency still face challenges from restrictions linked to bluetongue. What discussions have occurred with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Welsh Government about minimising disruption to cross-border livestock movements arising from bluetongue testing and certification requirements?
Anna McMorrin
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the integrated nature of livestock markets across Wales and England. I reassure him that the Government are working together with the Welsh Government on all animal health-related issues, including bluetongue. I regularly speak to my colleague Huw Irranca-Davies, Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, on these matters. Through that collective effort, we have ensured that livestock movements can continue, but I stress once again the importance of being vigilant, vaccinating, sourcing responsibly and testing.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
What assessment has the Minister made of the value of a single, UK-wide digital livestock traceability system, to support Welsh farmers and reduce welfare and compliance risks for Northern Ireland processors who rely on Welsh farmers?
Anna McMorrin
I am sorry; it was very hard to hear the question. Let me assure the hon. Gentleman that our new sanitary and phytosanitary agreement with the EU will facilitate the smooth flow of agrifood and plants from Wales to Northern Ireland, protecting the UK’s internal market, reducing cost to business and improving consumer choice.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Anna McMorrin)
Welsh language broadcasting plays a critical role in shaping Welsh identity and culture. S4C has played a vital role in helping to revitalise the language, and ensures that it is kept relevant among the ever-growing number of people who speak it, not just in Wales but around the world. Its essential contribution is reflected in the BBC charter review Green Paper, published just last month.
Torcuil Crichton
Welsh does very well out of broadcasting, but I am glad that the Western Isles are well represented on the airwaves just now. The stand-out star of this season’s “The Traitors” is Stephen Libby from the Isle of Lewis—I think he is going to win it this weekend. I am glad that Gaelic has its place in the Government’s Green Paper on broadcasting, but the UK Government give S4C £7.5 million a year to develop digital broadcasting, while BBC Alba, the Scottish channel, gets nothing. Will the Minister join me in my efforts to get the UK Government to re-engage with Gaelic broadcasting as a cultural and economic dynamo?
Anna McMorrin
I think we are all glued to “The Traitors” this season. With the exodus from the Tory Benches to Reform, it is hard not to believe that we are living through a real-life “Traitors”. I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Welsh and Gaelic were the first languages of their nations, and have a strong social, cultural and economic significance. As a Welsh speaker, I know just how important that is. The Government recognise the contribution that MG Alba makes to the lives of Gaelic speakers across Scotland and the UK. My hon. Friend will be aware of the BBC charter review launched in December; it will consider how the BBC can best support minority languages, including Gaelic.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
The Minister will be aware that Ofcom is consulting on a draft code of practice on the prominence of public service broadcasters on digital platforms. Does she agree that it is essential that S4C is included in any measures that come out of that consultation, so that it is given greater prominence on smart TVs and other digital platforms?
Anna McMorrin
The hon. Member raises a very important point—one that I regularly discuss with S4C and my colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. It is fantastic news that last week, the BBC and S4C announced plans for a major new streaming partnership, giving greater prominence to S4C on iPlayer, but I know that there is more to do on this issue, and I will continue to work with my colleagues and broadcasters on this matter.
Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)
The Welsh Affairs Committee took evidence from the chief executive officer and chair of S4C last week, and it was good to hear their plans for the future. What discussions has the Minister had with S4C and other broadcasters to further the development of the Welsh language across Wales and beyond?
Anna McMorrin
I thank my hon. Friend for her question about the importance and sustainability of S4C, which is, crucially, reflected in the BBC charter review, launched in December. I will continue to have those conversations with my colleagues, both here and in the Welsh Government, and with the broadcasters.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Jo Stevens)
The Government are absolutely determined to lower the cost of living for families across Wales and the whole UK. That is why we are benefiting 69,000 children in Wales by scrapping the two-child limit. It is why we are slashing household energy bills by an average of £150 a year, and why we are again increasing the national minimum and living wage, building on the previous increase, which boosted the incomes of up to 160,000 workers in Wales.
Rachel Taylor
The latest interest rate cut—the sixth since Labour formed this Government—is great news for mortgage holders in Wales, North Warwickshire and Bedworth and across the UK, bringing down the cost of family mortgages by almost £1,400 a year. Will the Secretary of State update the House on how this Government’s policies are helping to strengthen our economy and improve the cost of living as a result?
Jo Stevens
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; this Government are supporting people across Wales and the UK with the cost of living. In comparison with when we came into government, households that take out a new mortgage are saving around £1,400 a year on their mortgage repayments. We have also increased the state pension by 4.8%, which will take effect in April, benefiting 700,000 pensioners across Wales. We have also uprated the universal credit standard allowance by over 6%—the first ever permanent real-terms increase—benefiting 320,000 households in Wales.
Dame Nia Griffith
The cost of living is still a major concern for my constituents in Llanelli, so I very much welcome the decision by this Labour Government to give households £150 to help with their domestic energy bills, but can the Secretary of State explain exactly who is eligible and when and how they will receive the money?
Jo Stevens
Energy bills are a significant issue for people across the country. That is why, thanks to this Labour Government, from April this year all households will see an average £150 reduction in costs on their energy bills. Energy suppliers will pass on the savings automatically to households.
My hon. Friend will have seen today the launch of our warm homes plan, which is a £15 billion fund. In Wales, it will make grants available for households to replace gas boilers with heat pumps, and it will mean stronger standards for landlords who privately rent homes, so that they are safer, warmer and more affordable to run.
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
Wales could be disproportionately affected by US tariffs, which could be a challenge for many Welsh businesses—the words of Labour First Minister Baroness Eluned Morgan in correspondence to the Prime Minister. There has been lots of talk about traitors, but over the past 27 years we, the Conservatives, are the ones who have seriously scrutinised, challenged and exposed the failings of Welsh Labour, which is clearly propped up by Plaid and the Lib Dems. Will the Secretary of State confirm that it is the two fabled Labour Governments who simply cannot work together who are making the cost of living and unemployment worse in Wales?
Jo Stevens
Wages are up, and inward investment is up. Inactivity is down on the year, and unemployment is down on the year. We have also had six cuts in interest rates, meaning that families taking out a new mortgage are £1,400 a year better off than they were under the Tories.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Anna McMorrin)
As two Governments, we are committed to working together to keep cross-border arrangements fair, transparent and patient-centred. I am proud that last year’s spending review saw the largest financial settlement in the history of devolution. Working in partnership, we will fix the NHS and make it fit for the future.
Shaun Davies
The incredible Lingen Davies cancer charity provides lifesaving and life-changing cancer care, working with the NHS to support patients across Wales, Telford and wider Shropshire. The charity and the NHS have plans to double the capacity of cancer treatment. I am proud to support this campaign. Will the Secretary of State and the Minister meet me to discuss how they, the Welsh Government and the Welsh NHS can work together to double cancer treatment capacity across our area?
Anna McMorrin
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the important work of the Lingen Davies charity. I understand that its appeal is seeking to raise £5 million to grow cancer care awareness in his area. The Government are committed to catching cancer earlier and treating it faster. I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the charity’s fundraising campaign.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Powys health board has been categorising the needs of its patients based on cost rather than clinical need, and that is causing a real problem for the Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt orthopaedic hospital in my constituency and the associated Headley Court veterans’ centre, because they need to prioritise patients based on clinical need, not whether Powys health board will pay for them this year. What is the Secretary of State doing about Powys health board to ensure that patients are treated according to clinical need and in a way that my hospital trust can manage?
Anna McMorrin
I can certainly write to the hon. Member with the detail of what we are doing about the Powys health board. I can assure her that this Government are committed to working with the Welsh Government to ensure that cross-border arrangements are fair and transparent and focused on patient need. These are two Labour Governments working together in partnership and delivering together.
Mr Speaker
Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I extend a warm welcome to the President of the Storting, the Norwegian Parliament, and his delegation, who are with us in the Gallery today.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
In recent days, I have spoken extensively to our international allies, including European leaders and others, the US and NATO. We will continue to engage constructively to resolve issues, particularly those relating to international security, applying the principles and values that I set out on Monday.
In addition, this week, the Government have announced a landmark investment to support children with special educational needs, overhauled our water system, and today launched a £15 billion plan to create warm homes. At home and abroad, this Labour Government are delivering for the British people.
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.
Dr Sandher
We face an affordability crisis in this country. In the short term, our dependence on fossil fuels has led to a rise in energy bills, and in the longer term, the aftershocks of Thatcher mean that there are not enough good, non-graduate jobs. That is why today’s warm homes plan is such good news: batteries, solar, home insulation; getting bills down and wages rising; making life affordable. But we must go further, so can I ask the Prime Minister to do even more to make sure that life is affordable for my constituents—
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend. I know how much he cares about making life affordable. We are taking £150 off energy bills. That is £300 for the 6 million poorest families, including almost 3,700 households in his constituency. The warm homes plan we are announcing today is the biggest ever public investment in upgrading British homes. It will lift 1 million households out of fuel poverty, tackling the cost of living. That is the difference a Labour Government make.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
I welcome the Prime Minister following our lead on children accessing social media. In particular, I thank the shadow Education Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), 61 Labour MPs and the Greater Manchester Mayor for forcing him to think again.
The Prime Minister and I agree: the future of Greenland should only be decided by the people of Greenland. When the Prime Minister made that point to President Trump on Monday, did the President agree or disagree?
The Prime Minister
Engaging constructively on international security matters hugely, particularly when it comes to security in the Arctic, and that is the context in which this discussion about Greenland is going on. As we engage constructively, I have made my position clear on our principles and values. The first of those is that the future of Greenland is for the people of Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark alone. The second is that threats of tariffs to pressurise allies are completely wrong. We will continue to engage constructively. I have had many international calls in recent days, and the Prime Minister of Denmark is coming to the United Kingdom tomorrow for bilateral talks. I want to be clear with the House: I will not yield—Britain will not yield—on our principles and values about the future of Greenland under threats of tariffs, and that is my clear position.
Mrs Badenoch
I am very glad to hear the Prime Minister say that. We all know that the people of Greenland do not want to be ruled by America, but does he agree that just as those in Greenland should decide their own future, so should the Chagossians?
The Prime Minister
I made my position on Greenland absolutely clear on Monday and a moment ago. President Trump deployed words on Chagos yesterday that were different to his previous words of welcome and support when I met him in the White House. He deployed those words yesterday for the express purpose of putting pressure on me and Britain in relation to my values and principles on the future of Greenland. He wants me to yield on my position and I am not going to do so. Given that that was his express purpose, I am surprised that the Leader of the Opposition has jumped on the bandwagon. I had understood—[Interruption.] I had understood her position to be that she supported the Government’s position on the future of Greenland. Now she appears to support words by President Trump to undermine the Government’s position on the future of Greenland. She has chosen naked opportunism over the national interest.
Mrs Badenoch
We will note that when I asked him what the President told him, he could not tell us. Now he expects us to believe that he knows what is going on in President Trump’s mind. Let me remind him that his Deputy Prime Minister, then Foreign Secretary, used to say that if President Trump did not like the deal, it would not go ahead. Let us look at what President Trump actually said. The Chagos deal is
“an act of GREAT STUPIDITY”,
and a sign of “total weakness.” We did not need President Trump to tell us that; we have been saying that for 12 months.
Let us remind the Prime Minister: President Trump thought that the Prime Minister was doing this for money. The Prime Minister is giving away territory we own and paying £35 billion for the privilege. Why does he not just scrap this terrible deal and put the money into our armed forces?
The Prime Minister
The words from President Trump were expressly intended to put pressure on me to yield on my principles. What he said about Chagos was literally in the same sentence as what he said about Greenland. That was his purpose. The future of Greenland is a binary issue that is splitting the world at the moment, with material consequences. I have been clear and consistent in my position on the future of Greenland: the future is for Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark alone. The Leader of the Opposition has taken three positions in 10 days. Ten days ago she said that Greenland was “a second order issue”; four days ago she said she supported our position on Greenland; and now she is backing arguments intended to undermine our position—Britain’s position—on Greenland. This is an important national moment and yet again the Leader of the Opposition has shown that she is uncapable of rising to it.
Mrs Badenoch
I have already told the Prime Minister that we agree on Greenland; I am asking about the Chagos deal. That money—that £35 billion—should go to the armed forces. The world is changing and we are in a very different place—the most dangerous international environment since the end of the cold war. Last week, the head of the armed forces—not me, the head of the armed forces—warned that our military faces a £28 billion shortfall. Is he right?
The Prime Minister
I am proud that we are spending more on defence than at any time since the last Labour Government. [Interruption.] The strategic defence review has backed the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the cold war. That is £270 billion this Parliament, making defence an engine of growth. That is a stark contrast. Ben Wallace, the longest-serving Conservative Defence Secretary, openly admitted that under the Conservatives’ watch our armed forces were “hollowed out”. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Bowie and Mr Cartlidge, it is continuous, week in and week out. There are a couple on the Government Benches who will also be going out for a cup of tea with you. Please, calm it down or you know the consequence.
The Prime Minister
They shout on a Wednesday and they defect on a Thursday. The loudest shouter used to be the former shadow Justice Secretary. We should take a note of who is shouting most loudly this week.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister wants to talk about defections. Let me tell him that when I had someone undermining my party, I sacked him. If he sacked—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. We are going to get through this Prime Minister’s questions. I want to hear the Leader of the Opposition and I want to hear the Prime Minister—[Interruption.] Those who do not may leave the Chamber.
Mrs Badenoch
We all know that if the Prime Minister sacked everyone undermining his party, his Front Bench would be empty. Jokes aside, these questions I am asking are about our national interest. We support our armed forces in every possible way. Later today, my party will vote to protect our veterans from unfair prosecution; he is ordering his MPs to vote against them. In our national interest, and for the sake of all the brave people in the armed forces, past, present and future, will the Prime Minister do the right thing and vote in support of our veterans, not against them?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady is claiming strength. She read the guy’s defection letter and then at that point decided to sack him. What was she going to do? Correct the typos and give it back to him? [Hon. Members: “More!”] She should have sacked him when he made disgraceful comments about faces in Birmingham, but she failed to do so. And she smiles, saying it is a good thing she has cleared out—a good thing there are fewer Tory MPs. The rest of the country agrees with her completely in relation to that.
On the question of veterans protection, the last Government passed legislation that was struck down, leaving our veterans utterly exposed. We are putting in place proper measures to protect them.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister wants to talk about leadership. Three of his own Cabinet Ministers told The Times on Saturday that he needed to learn from me—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I am telling Members now, I am having no more. Do we understand each other? Thank you.
Mrs Badenoch
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Back to the national interest. Instead of acting in it, the Prime Minister just tries to get through the day. On the Chinese spy hub embassy, he is too weak. On Chagos, he is too weak. On funding for the armed forces, he is too weak. On protecting our veterans from prosecution, he is too weak. I will support the Prime Minister when he does the right thing, but time after time, this Prime Minister has done the wrong thing for our country. Is it not the truth that he is too weak to stand up for our national interests?
The Prime Minister
I have spent the week working with our NATO allies to protect our national security and ensure we have unity in NATO. That is a matter of national importance, and the right hon. Lady has utterly failed to rise to the occasion and show the solidarity she could have shown in this House. She has spent the week trying to hold together what is left of the Tory party. She says I should learn from her. She has no judgment! Only a week ago, in relation to Greenland, she shrugged and said it was some “second order issue”. Terrible judgment! Then she flip-flopped with three different positions in 10 days on Greenland. She said Liz Truss’s mini-Budget was “100% right”. She said last week that she was “100% confident” there would be no more defections, just before the latest defection. I am beginning to think her judgment is not 100% reliable.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I am pleased to confirm that last week saw the second biggest fall in NHS waiting times for 15 years. Waiting lists are down by more than 300,000, an extra 2,900 GPs have been recruited, and ambulances are arriving nearly 15 minutes faster this winter than they were last year. There is much more to do, which is why we are delivering the biggest upgrade to our ambulance fleet for many years. That progress has been made possible by Labour’s decisions, which are opposed by the opposition parties.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
We remember how Tony Blair ignored warnings from these opposition Benches and tied himself to an unpopular American President and a disastrous foreign policy, while close allies such as Canada and France looked on in horror. With Donald Trump increasingly acting like a crime boss running a protection racket, threatening to smash up our economy unless he gets his hands on Greenland, will the Prime Minister avoid Blair’s historic mistake, take our advice this time and join Prime Minister Carney and President Macron in standing up far more strongly to President Trump?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Member is clearly not listening. I said that I will not yield on the principles and values that I uphold, and that this country upholds, in relation to the future of Greenland. But the relationship with the US matters, especially on defence, security and intelligence, and nuclear capability, and also on trade and prosperity. While he is trying to get soundbites, we must not forget that a war is raging in Europe—it is in its fourth year. The Russians are raining bombs down on Ukrainian civilians day and night, the temperature was minus 20° in Kyiv last night, and 60% of the people there are without power. People are erecting tents to keep themselves warm. We have to work with our allies, including the US, on security guarantees to ensure that we can do what we must do in relation to Ukraine. That does not mean we agree with the US on everything, and I have been absolutely clear about my position on Greenland and my position on tariffs, but it is foolhardy to think that we should rip up our relationship with the US and abandon Ukraine and so many of the other things that are important to our defence, security and intelligence.
Ed Davey
Of course we are not arguing that; we are arguing that the Prime Minister follows France and Canada—our close allies. Here is one thing that we can agree on: that the UK should strengthen our defensive capabilities, as the Prime Minister said earlier. But the Government are going far too slow in investing in our defensive industries. They have not even published the defence investment plan that was promised last autumn. That delay is putting critical industries, such as helicopter manufacturing based in Yeovil, at risk. Putin is waging a war in Europe, and Trump is threatening to undermine NATO. We have to rearm fast. So why will the Prime Minister not just get on with buying Great British helicopters made in the west country? [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]
The Prime Minister
That’s about the same cheer we hear across the whole country.
We are increasing defence spend to the biggest spend since the last Labour Government. We are doing that because of the decisions we took at the Budget in relation to the money that is available. The right hon. Member wants more money for defence spending, and he wants it faster, but what did he do at the Budget? Did he stand up and say, “I support this”? No, he voted against it, against the measures necessary to carry out the upgrade.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I send my deepest sympathies to Beryl’s family, and I will make sure that the Roads Minister meets them at the earliest opportunity. This shows why tackling potholes really matters. We are investing £2 billion in the east midlands to fix the roads and improve local transport. We are also putting in place tough new standards so that councils must prove they are fixing roads properly, and I am pleased that many excellent Labour councils across the country are leading by example.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
For decades, our rivers, lakes and seas have paid the price of a failing system. The water White Paper is a welcome first step in beginning to set things right, but there is a glaring gap: agricultural pollution contributes 40% of the pollution in our waterways but merits only a single page in this White Paper. Can the Prime Minister tell me why on earth this is the case? When will he start working with farmers to support river-friendly farming practices and treat agricultural pollution as seriously as sewage pollution?
The Prime Minister
We inherited a real mess on water, and we are taking the most effective and far-reaching measures to deal with it. I wonder what the hon. Lady, as someone who stood to lead her party, makes of how her leader is responding to this global uncertainty. He is saying that this is the time to withdraw from NATO; that this is the time to kick the US out of our military bases; that this is the time to negotiate—hear this—with Putin to give up our nuclear deterrent. I am sure that Putin would be very quick on the line for that one. It is as reckless and irresponsible as their plan to legalise heroin and crack cocaine. That is the Green party now—high on drugs, soft on Putin.
Mr Speaker
Order. We do not ask the Opposition questions. These are questions for the Prime Minister, not the other way around.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I am very pleased that we are backing my hon. Friend’s home town of Clydebank with £20 million of Pride in Place funding. Just this week we hosted a reception to meet people who are working hard to change their neighbourhoods across the United Kingdom. That is Labour delivering on national renewal. As my hon. Friend rightly says, compare that with the SNP, which is more interested in squabbling over independence than using a record settlement to fix Scotland’s public services.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
The Prime Minister
We delivered a record settlement for Northern Ireland in the Budget to strengthen public services and to kick-start growth. The local growth fund, designed in partnership with the Executive, will see £45 million every year to support local growth. I am very happy to make sure that Ministers meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss his particular concerns.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister
I pay tribute to Jessica and all the women, and others, who are campaigning on these vital issues. Far too many women are left waiting for care in serious pain. That is why we are investing £8 million in research on diagnosis, treatment and pain management. I know that the Minister for women’s health will be keen to talk to my hon. Friend about her proposals on this issue, which I thank her for raising.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member for raising this case, and I am truly sorry to hear about his constituent. If he would not mind following up with the details of the case, I will make sure that it is dealt with urgently on behalf of his constituent.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
May I congratulate Kevin and thank police across our country who are working hard to protect our communities? The Conservative party decimated local policing, and we are restoring it. There will be 3,000 more neighbourhood police on our streets by spring, which is an example of the change that people will feel this year. Our Crime and Policing Bill will give officers more powers to tackle knife crime, shoplifting and antisocial behaviour. I want officers to have those powers as swiftly as possible; the Tories and Reform voted against them.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
The Prime Minister
That comes from the party that broke our criminal justice system, just as it broke our economy and our NHS. It hollowed out local policing; we are restoring it, with 3,000 new officers in the spring of this year.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I have made our position clear. I have set out my principles, and I am not going to yield on those principles. As I said on Monday, of course we need to protect our national interest, and we will always protect our national interest, but simply hurtling into a trade war at the first opportunity would hurt working people and businesses across the country. That is why I am working hard to ensure that we do not get to that point, and I will continue to act in the national interest.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
The Prime Minister may be aware that my local authority in the East Riding of Yorkshire is the lowest-funded per pupil for children with special educational needs and disabilities, and his local authority in Camden is the highest—an inequality that he has repeatedly pledged to end. Well, the results are in: next year, children in my local area will receive just under £1,000, and children in his local area will receive over £3,800. The gap is getting wider. Will he explain to the House why he thinks that children in my constituency are worth so much less than children in his?
The Prime Minister
We are applying their formula—the one that you put in place in government—[Interruption.] We are changing it—[Interruption.] Special educational needs are probably raised with me more than any other issue that is raised in the House. We are proposing reforms. The problem that the hon. Gentleman has highlighted—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry to interrupt, Prime Minister, but Mr Holden, as shadow Secretary of State for Transport, you will be getting the express train out of here.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman may be making himself the next candidate for the Thursday defections—[Interruption.] Oh, maybe it is someone else. Those that shout loudest end up on the Reform UK Bench—[Interruption.] Reform is supporting our recycling moves, because soon it will be a party entirely made up of—
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I was humbled to visit Greater Manchester police after the Heaton Park synagogue attack. The professionalism and bravery that they showed was remarkable. We have boosted total police funding and Greater Manchester will receive up to £902 million, an increase of over £31 million. I reassure my hon. Friend that we will continue to work with her and local leaders to make our streets safe.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
My constituency of Melksham and Devizes does not have a minor injuries unit, leaving many to travel far afield, to Bath or Swindon, to access A&E services. Will the Prime Minister meet me to discuss the need for an expanded hospital provision in my constituency?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this on behalf of his constituents. I will ensure he gets a meeting with the relevant Minister to talk through his particular concerns, so that we can seek to address them.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Labour is boosting funding for councils that were chronically underfunded by the Conservatives. I pay tribute to Labour councils delivering results for my hon. Friend’s community, in stark contrast to the division and chaos we have seen from Reform councils, wherever they have been elected.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
Tens of thousands of people across Kent and Sussex were without running water last week. While the response of South East Water was shambolic, the Staplehurst emergency help team got a bottled water supplier, set up a collection station and delivered water to vulnerable people. Using only volunteers, they supported local people, businesses, farms and care homes with 20,000 bottles of water. Does the Prime Minister think, as I do, that South East Water should be ashamed to be schooled in crisis response by the volunteers of the Staplehurst emergency help team? Has he, like many of my constituents and many of our colleagues, lost confidence in South East Water’s chief executive?
The Prime Minister
The situation is completely unacceptable. We welcome Ofwat’s investigation into the company—that is the right thing to do. The Environment Secretary met company bosses last week to stress the need for accountability, and Ministers are continuing to chair daily meetings, but the situation is totally unacceptable and needs to be fixed.
Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I am proud of this Labour Government delivering the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation. We are ending exploitative zero-hours contracts and unscrupulous fire and rehire practices, plus we have changes to parental leave and sick pay. Workers will benefit from those rights in April, and they should never forget that Reform and the Tories opposed every single one of them.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)
One of the last meetings that I took as shadow Justice Secretary was with the parents of Lenny Scott. Lenny Scott was an exceptionally brave prison officer who uncovered corruption in his prison. He left the service, and years later he was hunted down and brutally murdered. Because he died after leaving active service, there was never any compensation paid to the children he left behind. I know that the Prime Minister would want to right that wrong. I wrote to the Justice Secretary privately after I discovered this—I should say that Lenny Scott’s parents never asked for any support. Will the Prime Minister correct this, ensure that this brave man’s children have the support that they need as they grow up without the father they deserve, and join me in thanking all the brave men and women who serve us in our Prison Service?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising this matter. I will make sure that it is looked into as a matter of urgency, given the circumstances that he has set out.
Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
This is an issue of real concern to parents. As the father of two teenage children, I know just how much of a concern it is. That is why we will have a consultation to look at expert and international evidence to get this right, and we will respond by the summer. That includes looking at the question of the age at which children can access social media and at restrictions on addictive features. I am also concerned, as is the Education Secretary, about the screen time of those under the age of five. We will look at all those issues and make sure that Ofsted checks the enforcement of bans during school.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
The Bertie Arms is a fantastic family pub, but because of the Chancellor’s tax raid on local business, it faces a 2,000% increase in its business rates by 2029. That means that the Treasury will lose £200,000 in tax take and Uffington will lose the heart of its community. The Prime Minister promised not to put up taxes on working people, so how does he justify a 2,000% tax attack on working family businesses like this pub?
The Prime Minister
We are working with the sector to put in the necessary support. I remind the hon. Lady that 7,000 pubs closed on the Conservatives’ watch, and she did not say a word about it.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister
Since day one, my hon. Friend has fought for her constituents on this issue, and I pay tribute to her for that. I agree that the University of East Anglia would be an excellent candidate for any future additional funded dentistry places available. We are also reforming contracts and making sure that dentists spend more time working in the NHS, delivering thousands of extra appointments to fix the failure we were left with.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
Children with disabilities and special educational needs in Somerset will be severely hit if the Government go ahead with removing the remoteness uplift from authorities. Will the Government commit to ensuring that councils with the largest land areas—of which Somerset is one—are properly reimbursed for the costs of remoteness, so that children in my constituency do not suffer?
The Prime Minister
We understand the challenges in rural communities, and we will look at that as part of the work we are doing on reform.
Mr Speaker
Order. I do not have responsibility for answers from the Prime Minister, and I certainly do not want that responsibility. How the Prime Minister answers questions is up to him, which is why I closed him down and said that he is not there to ask questions of your party. I think we will leave it at that; I am not continuing the debate at this stage.
Warm Homes Plan
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement about the warm homes plan, which we publish today. It is a plan focused on the No. 1 issue facing our country, which is the cost of living crisis, and on the scourge of fuel poverty, which affects millions of families across Britain.
At the Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor took an average of £150 off the costs of energy bills from April. This winter, we have expanded the warm home discount to a total of six million families, and today, we allocate £15 billion in our warm homes plan. That represents a more than doubling of public investment in home upgrades compared with the last Parliament—in fact, it is the biggest public investment in home upgrades in British history to cut bills and tackle fuel poverty.
In making this investment, we turn the page on the lost decade of the last Government’s failure, with home insulation levels falling by more than 90% between 2010 and 2024, the promise of minimum energy efficiency standards for renters broken, the cancellation of the zero carbon homes standard, the repeated failures of schemes such as the green deal, the green homes grant and the energy company obligation scheme, and—worst of all—our dependence on fossil fuels leaving us exposed to the worst energy bills crisis in generations. The last Government failed time after time; this Government are doing the work to put it right.
The starting point for this plan is that clean energy is the right choice, not only for energy security and reducing emissions, but for cutting people’s bills. The public agree: they are showing record demand for technologies such as solar, batteries and heat pumps that can save families hundreds of pounds a year. Heat pump sales in Britain have grown by around 50% annually—it is one of the fastest-growing markets in Europe—and last year saw a record number of rooftop solar installations. The driving purpose of this plan is to ensure those benefits are available, not just to the wealthiest, but to families throughout our country at every level of income. The driving purpose of this Labour Government is to stand up for working people and tackle the affordability crisis.
Let me set out the measures we are announcing in our plan today. First, today we announce £5 billion of public investment to directly deliver home upgrades for low-income families. This will help families living in social housing and low-income owner-occupiers to have warmer homes and lower bills. In setting out this plan, we are abolishing the failed ECO scheme and making the principled decision that we should fund support through public investment, not levies on bills. Our plan also pays heed to all the evidence that says that funding is best delivered with local authorities and mayors in the driving seat—with those representing local people delivering for local people.
At the same time, we recognise the challenges facing suppliers who used to deliver the ECO scheme, so we will ensure that this extra money is used to help support them. The Minister for Energy Consumers will convene a working group of contractors, social housing providers and local authorities to oversee this work. Overall, this allocation is the biggest public investment in tackling fuel poverty in our history.
Secondly, it is a scandal that 1.6 million children live in private accommodation are suffering from cold, damp or mould, according to Citizens Advice. We on the Government Benches believe in a simple principle: if someone rents a home, private or social, their landlord has a responsibility to ensure it is safe, warm and affordable to heat. The last Government promised higher standards, and then they ripped up that promise. Today, we deliver. By 2030, private landlords will have to upgrade their properties to meet minimum standards of energy efficiency, and we have consulted on similar rules in the social rented sector, tackling the scourge of poor-quality rented homes and cutting bills for renters. These measures alone will lift more than half a million families out of fuel poverty.
Thirdly, it is right that we target help at those most in need, but we know the affordability crisis stretches well beyond those on low incomes. We want to make it easier for all households to cut their bills by choosing a heat pump, solar or batteries. Building on the steps we took at the Budget to make electricity cheaper, we are expanding the boiler upgrade scheme, increasing investment every year out to 2030. For the first time, we have a universal offer of £2,500 for a heat battery or air-to-air heat pump, as well as £7,500 to install a conventional heat pump, but I want to go further. Currently, just one in 20 homes in Britain has solar panels installed on the roof. We are determined to unleash a rooftop revolution, helping many more families to generate their own energy in order to cut their bills. I can announce that the Government are, for the first time ever, setting aside up to £2 billion to subsidise zero and low-interest loans for solar panels, batteries and other technologies, learning from the successful experience of other countries and meeting demand for this technology. That is just a first step, with a further £3 billion available for loans and investments over the coming years through our warm homes fund.
Fourthly, as we upgrade existing homes, we will ensure that new homes are built cheaper to run, with solar and clean heating as standard. That is just common sense. People cannot understand why we are building new homes with higher bills. The reason is that the previous Government refused to act. We are putting an end to this absurd situation. We will publish the future homes standard shortly. For the first time, solar panels will be fitted as standard in new homes. Alongside the other measures I have set out, this is designed to help treble the number of homes with solar by the end of the decade.
Fifthly, to make these changes happen, we cannot go on with the old system of accountability and delivery that has failed. People have had to navigate a fragmented and confusing system of home upgrades, delivered through a bewildering number of organisations and schemes. We need to face up to the fact that, after the previous Government’s repeated failures to deliver schemes effectively, we need a specialist body with the technical expertise and focus required. By consolidating functions from Ofgem and other organisations and abolishing Salix—there will be no increase in arm’s length bodies—we will establish a new warm homes agency. It will deliver impartial advice and guidance, work with local authorities and businesses and oversee Government schemes, and it will be backed by a reformed system of consumer protection. We will put an end to the scandalous failure of accountability and regulation, and waste of public money, that we saw under the previous Government.
Finally, we are determined to ensure that this roll-out delivers not just for consumers, but for workers. We are the largest producer of gas boilers in Europe, and there is a huge opportunity to harness this expertise to produce heat pumps, too. Manufacturers are already embracing this opportunity, including Ideal Heating in Hull, Vaillant in Derbyshire, which I visited last year, and Copeland in Northern Ireland, but currently less than 40% of heat pumps sold in Britain are made in Britain. We are setting a new aim of at least 70% of heat pumps installed in the UK being made in the UK, backed by a trebling of public investment in heat pump manufacturing, with £90 million set aside today.
Overall, we expect the warm homes plan to support up to 180,000 additional jobs in energy efficiency, heat pumps and heat networks by the end of the decade. That will create opportunities for builders, electricians, plumbers and installers, as well as new workers entering the industry. We will establish a new taskforce with the TUC, working with business, to ensure that those jobs are well paid and highly skilled, with a proper role for trade unions. Because we are a Labour Government, we expect the rights of working people to be at the heart of this industry’s future.
Taken together, these are the elements of a landmark plan that stands in a great reforming tradition of Labour Governments: after 1945, delivering on the promise of “homes for the people”, modernising the nation’s housing stock under Harold Wilson in the 1960s and introducing the decent homes standard for social housing in the 2000s, with each Labour Government meeting the rightful expectations of working people that the next generation can expect higher standards of living than the last. That is what this Government seek to do in our time, with a plan to cut bills for millions, help lift a million families out of fuel poverty, and create good jobs. I commend the statement to the House.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for the advance copy of his statement.
Today’s announcement is long overdue—overdue by an entire year, to be exact. During the general election, the Labour party claimed that it would cut household bills. This announcement should be part of that, but in that time, since the general election and on this Secretary of State’s watch, energy bills have not fallen; they have gone in the opposite direction. Energy bills are up by £200 since the election, partly as a result of the Secretary of State’s own political choices.
We believe that there is a greater role in our energy system for home batteries, we support a more technology-agnostic approach to air-to-air heat pumps, and, of course, we believe that rooftop solar is much better than carpeting the countryside in huge solar farms, but the Secretary of State is ignoring the core problem. We are in an electricity price crisis of his own making. Even if we are as charitable as possible and accept that the Government will reach the 5 million households who they say will benefit from this plan, it will do nothing to cut bills for 83% of the country. However, all those households will pay much higher taxes because of Labour’s Budget, including taxes to fund the Secretary of State’s £15 billion plan, and they are struggling with their energy bills now because of the choices of the Secretary of State.
Let me now turn to the specific measures in the plan. The Department’s own figures show that the public are becoming more sceptical about heat pumps. Between winter 2024 and spring 2025, the proportion of people saying that they were unlikely to install an air source heat pump increased from 38% to 45%, and if you ask anyone why they do not want a heat pump, they will say it is because of the high up-front costs. [Interruption.] Yes, they will—but it is also because of the high ongoing running costs, which often make heat pumps more expensive to run than gas boilers.
There is a serious risk that the Government’s legally binding targets are forcing them to push people into buying heat pumps, but all those families will be locked into sky-high running costs, because the Government have a political target that is pushing up electricity bills at the same time. This plan does nothing to address those high ongoing running costs. Indeed, last week the Government announced that they were locking the country into higher energy prices for decades through their botched wind auction. Just imagine that there was a plan on the table to cut the cost of running a heat pump by 20% instantly: a cheap power plan that would not involve raising taxes on working people to fund handouts; a plan that would axe the carbon tax, and scrap the Secretary of State’s rip-off wind subsidies to cut bills for every family in the country. Would that not be a far better approach to making make heat pumps much more attractive?
What steps will the Department take to ensure that low-interest loans will provide good value for money? How many homes will benefit from the low-interest and zero-interest loans scheme, and how will it be determined who gets a low-interest loan or a zero-interest loan?
As for the changes to the minimum energy efficiency standards for rented homes, the Secretary of State will know that the previous Government did more than any other to improve energy efficiency standards, with half of all homes having an energy performance certificate rating of C or above when we left office, compared to 14% when the Secretary of State left office in 2010. Has his Department carried out any impact assessment of what the 2030 deadline will cost landlords, and how much of the cost will be passed on to renters? His own Government’s data shows that it will cost more than £12,000 to upgrade a home from EPC E to C—£12,000 that will then be passed on to families in increased rents. We cannot ignore all the costs that this Government are imposing on the housing sector, and the impact that they will have on the cost of living for families.
The Government are going to set up a new quango, the warm homes agency, to administer these schemes. Can the Secretary of State tell us how much this quango will cost the taxpayer, how it will be held accountable, and why he decided to spend money on setting up a new quango rather than those functions being delivered by his own Department, which he controls?
The Secretary of State has already been forced, by this House, to ban Great British Energy from spending taxpayers’ money on solar panels when there is evidence of forced labour in the supply chain, and of course we welcome that, but can he assure the House that he will apply that same ban on slave labour to solar panel installations funded by the warm homes plan? When will he publish details of how that mechanism will work, so that it can be scrutinised by the House?
The Government are ignoring the fact that the affordability crisis that the Secretary State talks about is a crisis of his own making. They are ignoring the fact that they are locking the country into paying higher bills for far longer. If they truly want to encourage people to adopt green technology, like heat pumps or electric vehicles, they need to make electricity cheap. They could adopt the Conservatives’ cheap power plan to cut everyone’s electricity bills by 20% and scrap the reckless clean power 2030 target, which is locking everyone into paying higher bills for far longer.
Ed Miliband
It is always a pleasure to be opposite the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie). Let me make a few points to him, in the gentlest way I can. Let me deal first with his point about the cost of electricity. In her Budget, the Chancellor did more in one decision—namely, to transfer 75% of the renewables obligation to public spending to cut electricity costs—than the last Government did in 14 years in power.
Ed Miliband
The hon. Gentleman is shouting about bills. Let me tell him that the average bill in 2025 was lower in real terms than in 2024, and so was the price cap, as he will know from the figures. I am incredibly proud that this Government, unlike the last Government, are taking £150 of costs off bills thanks to the Chancellor’s decision, funded by taxes on the wealthy—and the Conservatives oppose all those tax measures.
The hon. Gentleman talked about renters. I think that, basically, what I heard—and perhaps it should not surprise me—was that he is actually against the higher standards for renters. He would leave private renters languishing in cold, damp homes, which is what the Conservatives did during their 14 years in power. We are proud of the decision that we are making. Thanks to the brilliant work of the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West (Martin McCluskey), we actually have a supportive quote from the landlords. Even the landlords want more action than the Conservative party when it comes to the renters! To amuse the House briefly, I will read out that quote. Ben Beadle, chief executive of the National Residential Landlords Association, said:
“a clear roadmap for the reform of PRS MEES is welcome.”
Even the landlords are more on the side of renters than the Conservative party.
The hon. Gentleman asked why we were setting up the warm homes agency. I will tell him why. He said, “Wouldn’t it be better to do this within Government?” The Conservatives presided over a scandalous and shocking disaster in the ECO scheme, a mess that we are having to clear up. We are going to reform the system so that we have a proper agency with proper technical expertise to ensure that nothing like what they visited on thousands of families across the country ever happens again.
I like the hon. Gentleman, and I feel a bit of sympathy for him because he has nothing to say about this issue. Let us just be honest about this: the Conservatives failed over 14 years, and we are delivering.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
I congratulate the Secretary of State—very warmly—on the warm homes plan, and not least on the universal nature of the offer: the support for people in fuel poverty, the health co-benefits in addressing cold, damp and mould, and the availability of cheap finance so that everybody can take part in the technical solutions that are available.
The ECO scheme, which failed so badly, has left a legacy. May I encourage the Secretary of State to address the concerns among consumers, industry representatives and the workforce, and also not to lose sight of the benefits in reduced bills through insulation, particularly loft insulation? On the subject of cheaper bills, the Select Committee has heard again and again that if people are to benefit to the maximum extent from the warm homes plan, we have to see reductions in the price of electricity, and a reduction in the gap between the price of electricity and the price of gas. The Secretary of State mentioned some welcome measures in his statement—the £150 off bills in April being a very good start—but can he confirm that more action will be taken to bring down the cost of electricity, so that as many people as possible can benefit from the warm homes plan to the maximum extent?
Ed Miliband
Let me address my hon. Friend’s questions; he speaks with great knowledge on these issues. On the ECO scheme, I think he refers to the installers, and it is important to emphasise the point I made in my statement: we want the extra money—the £1.5 billion allocated at the Budget—to help the installers, because they are going to face a difficult transition. He raises an important issue.
As I said in reply to the shadow Minister, the measures that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor took in the Budget are important in cutting the cost of electricity. All the evidence I have seen says that, with the right tariff, running a heat pump is cheaper than running a boiler. We continue to look at whether there are other ways we can bring down the cost of electricity, and my hon. Friend is right that we should do so.
On my hon. Friend’s point about insulation, my maxim is that the measures that will cut bills the most are what matters to me. I am not ideological about this. Whether it is insulation, heat pumps, batteries or solar, we should go for whatever can give us most bang for our buck in bringing down bills.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, who has two and a half minutes.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
We have been asking for the warm homes plan for Christmas for the past two years. It is better late than never, but we have mixed feelings in unwrapping it. The Liberal Democrats have long called for an emergency home energy upgrade scheme with free insulation and heat pumps, and we have recently submitted proposals for low-interest loan schemes, so we really welcome this significant investment by the Government in low-carbon heating.
It is folly for anyone to think that we can rely on Putin’s Russia or Trump’s America for the gas to heat our homes, so it is right for the Government to help households make this shift. Every solar panel, heat pump and battery installed will protect families from volatile fossil fuel costs and make homes cheaper to both warm and cool, which is a key point. However, I share the concerns of the energy efficiency sector about the balance that is being struck between insulation and electrification. As the Secretary of State said, we have seen fuel poverty rise and rates of insulation fall over the last five years, and the UK has some of the least energy-efficient housing in Europe, leading to serious health problems and cold, damp, Dickensian home conditions.
Despite our warnings, there is still no clarity in this plan about what will replace the ECO programme, leaving supply chains in limbo and skilled installers going bankrupt. The delay—I will call this out—could leave us without an operational national fuel poverty strategy over the coming winter. We hope that is not the case, and we will therefore hold the Government to account on this and other things that have been mentioned. The gas and electricity price reform has been postponed again, and efficiency standards for landlords have been weakened.
Thank you so much for taking on board the rooftop revolution on the back of the New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), but the future homes standard is still missing in action. We cannot afford more failures. We welcome this significant investment, and there is no time to waste.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I welcome the hon. Lady’s thanks, but it is not down to me; it is down to the Secretary of State. We must stop using the word “you”.
Ed Miliband
I am always glad to deliver the Liberal Democrats a late Christmas present. I agree with some of the hon. Lady’s points, particularly on our dependence on fossil fuels and on why clean energy is the way to give us energy security and sovereignty in a dangerous world. I want to reassure her on insulation. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), we continue to see a really important role for insulation, but I hope that she and other Members of the House will agree that what matters when we invest public money is what will do most to tackle the affordability crisis, and that is our test. Insulation is absolutely a key part of that.
On the ECO supply chain, I will expand a little on what I said earlier to my hon. Friend. We recognise, and I know from my own personal conversations, the issues facing organisations in the supply chain. That is why we are going to make sure that the £1.5 billion, which is on top of the £13 billion or so that was previously allocated to the warm homes plan, is spent through the ECO installers to help them make the transition to the new system. My hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West (Martin McCluskey) is getting to work straight away on a group representing the installers and local authorities, which are obviously going to be responsible for the procurement and the spending, because we want to do everything we can to help the supply chain.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
I am really pleased to see this warm homes plan, as a warm home for everyone was one of my key election pledges. In my constituency of Morecambe and Lunesdale, Green Rose CIC has been helping people for years with energy efficiency and making their homes warmer. Can the Secretary of State tell me how local experts such as Green Rose CIC will be used to deliver this change for our constituents?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend asks a really important question, and I congratulate Green Rose CIC on its work. We see organisations like that as central to this plan, and we are working with local authorities to give local people advice. I do not know whether this applies to Green Rose CIC, but we are also working on our local power plan, which will come out soon. It will provide opportunities for local community energy schemes, because community ownership is a big part of it. I see organisations like that, which really reflect the enthusiasm on the ground, as crucial to this plan.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
My hon. Friend the shadow Minister asked whether or not Chinese supply chains—slave labour supply chains—will be allowed in the procurement of any part of the solar panels involved in this scheme, but the Secretary of State did not manage to answer. Can he please confirm that not a single aspect of this project will come off the back of slave labour supply chains?
Ed Miliband
I have to say to the hon. Lady that we inherited from the Conservatives—
Ed Miliband
I will get to the question. We inherited the system from them, and we have raised the standards in the solar road map through the solar stewardship initiative with the solar industry, we have raised the standards through GB Energy, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy is working with colleagues across Government to ensure that slave labour is not used in the supply chain.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on this warm homes plan? It has been a long time coming—perhaps a little longer than Conservative Members are prepared to admit, given that he and I worked on something very similar before the Tories abandoned the warm homes ambitions that we now see fulfilled. Under the current calculation, one in six households in my constituency lives in fuel poverty, predominantly in places such as Cliftonville and Ramsgate town centre, where incomes are low and buildings are old. Incidentally, such households are predominantly in the private rented sector. Will my right hon. Friend consider revising the fuel poverty calculation to truly reflect how many people struggle to keep their homes warm in winter and cool in summer? As 28% of my residents live in private rented accommodation, will he say a bit more about the information that might be available to support landlords to make this shift? Will he confirm that he will support an energy social tariff to support the transition to a cheaper and cleaner form of energy?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend is right. Working with the private rented sector to raise the standards is incredibly important and, frankly, we cannot let this scandalous situation, which affects so many private tenants, carry on. She makes another important point: upgrading the nation’s housing stock is a big journey. We have been left a long and bad legacy, and we are determined to make a difference.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Orkney and Shetland are home to some of the worst levels of fuel poverty in the United Kingdom, as well as some of the largest onshore wind farms in the country. Solar panels are of limited usefulness to us, because it is coldest in the winter and we might have as little as five hours of daylight in the depths of winter. What would make a difference to us is meaningful support for community benefit from or even for community ownership of some of the installed wind farms that we have in the isles, or an isles tariff for communities such as ours and the Western Isles. When will we hear something from the Secretary of State on those ideas?
Ed Miliband
I thank the right hon. Member for his really important question. We will shortly publish our local power plan, which is precisely about the community ownership he mentions. We see that as having a central role. It plays much more of a role in countries such as Germany and Denmark than it does here. We want to expand it, and we want his constituents to benefit.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
It was interesting to hear the Liberal Democrats really struggle to say that they admire this policy, given that they seem to be getting everything they want from it, and it is disappointing to see the deserted Conservative Benches for this statement. [Interruption.] Oh, I offer my apologies to the shadow Minister, who is not with allies.
It is disappointing to hear the Conservatives move from being climate change converts to sustainability sceptics yet again. They left our country vulnerable to the energy price spikes that meant the last Government had to spend at least £78 billion to deal with the cost of living crisis, whereas this Government are investing big. We announced Europe’s biggest ever wind auction last week. Now we are seeing clean power from day one—new builds, new power. Does the Secretary of State agree that a major motive for this plan is to cut hundreds of pounds off bills in Bournemouth East by going solar as standard, and that a rooftop revolution will not only bring down bills, but keep bills down in the long term?
Ed Miliband
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I guess the shadow Minister will be wondering where his hon. Friends have gone, and whether they are going to another political party. Let me say to my hon. Friend that this is absolutely about his constituents and absolutely about cutting bills. We have a long-term affordability crisis, and this is a long-term plan to help tackle it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I have confidence that the Secretary of State is across his brief and does not need to be warmed up before a question, so get straight to the question so that we get on to the next Member.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
I welcome the additional investment in energy efficiency measures, which is a good thing. I certainly welcome the simplification of the energy efficiency systems that people can bid into, which can only be a good thing for consumers because that has been a veritable maze. However, the biggest barrier for many of my constituents and people across Scotland is price. They cannot invest in their home if they cannot get a decent price for their energy and deal with the cost of living that is affecting them right now, with the bills they are getting on their doorstep right now. The north of Scotland has the highest energy prices in the UK, and the SNP has put forward proposals for a social tariff. Will the Secretary of State seriously consider those measures, and put in place a social tariff to enable people to take advantage of such schemes?
Ed Miliband
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. It is because we recognise the immediacy of the affordability crisis that we took the action we did in the Budget to take £150 of costs off bills. It is because we recognise the affordability crisis that we significantly increased the numbers eligible for the warm home discount, for which I think hundreds of thousands more people in Scotland are now eligible. I would point out that the Scottish Government have some responsibility here, having cut some of their own schemes, but we want to work with the Scottish Government and do all we can to help his constituents.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend has once again pulled quite a rabbit out of the Chancellor’s hat, so I congratulate him on that. He is clearly her favourite Secretary of State.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that we know what happens when we do not rely on renewables? The previous Government had to pay £44 billion to subsidise bills, at the same time that our constituents were struggling to pay them. I agree with the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), that we still need to be driving down electricity costs. What does the Secretary of State think are the key things we can do to address the skills shortages in the heat pump installation sector, and how many heat pumps should we expect to be installed by 2030?
Ed Miliband
The target we are setting in this plan for 2030 is 450,000. Our skills taskforce is designed to do what my hon. Friend set out, which is to meet the skills needs—the very significant skills needs—we are going to have.
On the first part of my hon. Friend’s question, I do think that the Chancellor deserves real credit for this plan, because she has recognised the importance of long-term public investment, which the last Government singularly did not. The easy thing in difficult times is to cut public investment, but she did not do that. She has increased it, and she is investing very significantly in this area.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
I warmly welcome this plan and the ambition that the Government are showing, and I will try to dispel some of the official Opposition’s misconceptions. I am sure we have all been out knocking on doors in our constituency. When I was doing so in Worcester Park last week, a lady came to the door in a big jacket, and I moved to let her pass, because I thought she was on her way out. However, she was not going out; she was in her home in a jacket because she did not have the heating on. I am sure we have all experienced that.
We know how the cost of living crisis is hitting our residents, whether through their grocery bills, their rent or their energy costs. Can the Secretary of State give a bit more detail on how we will address energy costs and insulation issues in the short term? Are there programmes in the plan that can fund easy wins, so that we get fewer energy leaks from existing gas boilers, while the industry spools up by getting those with the right skills to install heat pumps, and while we are getting production lines ready?
Ed Miliband
What the hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his question will resonate with every Member of this House, because so many people are facing a chronic and acute cost of living crisis. This has been going on for a very long time, which is what makes it really hard for people.
The hon. Gentleman asked what difference we can make in the short term. That is why the £150 is important: because it is immediate relief. It is also why the warm home discount and its expansion is important. I encourage people watching this—and I ask Members to encourage their constituents—to go to the gov.uk website to see what schemes are available. People can also get that information from their local authority. There is money available, and we want to get as much help to people as possible, as quickly as possible. This money is sometimes underspent by local authorities, but we want them to get this money out to help people.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I wonder where the Tory MPs are. They cannot all be having cosy chats with Robert Jenrick—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. We do not reference Members by their names, but by their constituencies. Get straight to the question!
Peter Swallow
Of course, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do apologise.
I welcome the warm homes plan for the support that it will give, not only to the constituents most in need in Bracknell Forest, but to everyone who is making important upgrades to their home, including through low and no-interest loans for solar panel upgrades. What thought has my right hon. Friend given to supporting leaseholders in making these changes, and to ensuring that they are not held back by freeholders turning down common-sense requests?
Ed Miliband
We absolutely see leaseholders as being eligible for this help, and it is very important that they are. My hon. Friend, with his constituency experience, speaks compellingly about this issue. We want as many people as possible to be helped as quickly as possible through this plan.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Despite the fact that the plan will not apply to Northern Ireland, I welcome the aspect that applies to rented accommodation. Could the Secretary of State confirm whether there will be a Barnett consequential for Northern Ireland? Does he recognise that, even with this plan, there will still be an up-front cost, so low-income families will have to borrow, which will be an impediment? Does he also recognise that despite what he has done on electricity prices, running costs will still be higher, because that is offset by the cost of his net zero policies, which cause electricity to be dearer than gas?
Ed Miliband
I thought that for the first time in 20 years, we were going to agree completely, and we nearly got there. However, three-quarters agreement is better than we have done in 20 years. On the first part of what the right hon. Member said, Barnett consequentials have already been allocated for this. It is obviously for the Executive in Northern Ireland to make their own decisions about how they spend the money. We want the warm homes agency to work with the devolved Governments as well. We also want to look at how a zero or low-interest loan scheme could work across the United Kingdom. We want to work as much as possible with the devolved Governments to help people across the UK.
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. I particularly welcome the new requirements placed on private landlords, which will be a huge boost to tenants in the Buckingham and Bletchley constituency. My question concerns rural communities, which often face high energy costs and other practical barriers, such as the limited availability of those who install things like heat pumps. Can he set out in a bit more detail how his Department will work with relevant local authorities and suppliers to ensure that rural communities, such as those in north Buckinghamshire, are not left behind?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend asks a really important question, and I want to tell him a nerdy fact. I like nerdy facts; it is in character. Nearly half the people on the boiler upgrade scheme are in rural areas, and I think am I right in saying that a third are off the gas grid. That tells you something about the appetite, particularly in rural communities and among those who are off the gas grid, to find alternatives. Hopefully, the continuation and expansion of such schemes will help my hon. Friend’s constituents.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I warmly welcome the publication of the long-awaited warm homes plan. The Green party has tirelessly campaigned for many of the things in it: a more consistent, clearer, straightforward, nationwide system for people to access support; better inspection and accountability of installers; and of course solar panels on roofs as default. However, I have two questions for the Secretary of State. First, this is supposed to be a warm homes plan, but there is a lot of focus on energy supply improvements, and less than I would expect on energy demand management and insulation, which is crucial to reducing bills. Why is that? Secondly, the scale of this plan is still nowhere close to matching the scale of the need. According to the Government’s statistics, there are 2.7 million households in fuel poverty; it is 6 million households, according to other statistics. This plan aims to address only 1 million of those households, and it represents a 25% cut to the amount previously promised for this work. Why is that, and what will the Government do to reach the millions of additional households that will not be covered?
Ed Miliband
I half thank the hon. Lady for her questions. On the second question, by anyone’s reckoning, this is a very substantial investment. It is multiple times more than was invested in the last Parliament, and there needs to be recognition of that. I recognise that there is further to go. This will help 5 million homes; there are a lot more homes that we want to help, but this is, by any measure, making a difference. On her first point, I reassure the hon. Lady that we absolutely see the value of making fabric and insulation part of this agenda, but the focus has to be on what works to cut bills. That is what our constituents want us to focus on.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
I, too, warmly welcome the warm homes plan, which will benefit families in Luton South and South Bedfordshire, and especially the measures targeted at helping low-income families out of fuel poverty. Does the Secretary of State agree that, after a decade of failure from the Conservative party, the Labour Government recognise the cost of living crisis, and are taking definitive action, through this record public investment in home upgrades, to help reduce bills for good?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend puts it very well. We are turning the page on a decade of failure. It is really important that the public know that we get the scale of the crisis that they are facing—the long-term crisis that this Government were determined to deal with when we came into office. We are not over-claiming for this plan, but it will make a difference. We are about making a difference to the costs that people face, so that we can help tackle the cost of living crisis.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
As the Secretary of State has pointed out, in rural areas, we tend to have older housing stock and lots of people off-grid. They are very keen to see upgrades made to their home, and we welcome this announcement. In my constituency, a number of people engaged with the energy company obligation 4 scheme. Unfortunately, they have been let down badly by rogue installers, who have left their bills higher and their homes damaged, and who have taken money from the taxpayer. What is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that does not happen this time, and what remedy might be available for those who have been let down by rogue actors in ECO4?
Ed Miliband
Any cases should be brought to the attention of the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West (Martin McCluskey). I feel a deep sense of sympathy for the people who have been badly affected by ECO4 and its problems. It was brought to our attention when we came into office, and we are determined to have remediation for all the people affected. The fundamental principle must be that those who, through no fault of their own, were badly let down by the system deserve to have that made good.
On the hon. Lady’s point about how we stop the same thing happening in the future, I would say a couple of things. First, our experience is that local authority schemes had many fewer problems and much higher standards of safeguards. Secondly, the point of the warm homes agency is to have a proper system of regulation that Government oversee. That is the fundamental principle here. We had a piecemeal, privatised, fragmented system, and that is partly what led to the problems. We cannot allow that to continue.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
I wholeheartedly welcome this announcement from the Secretary of State, and his work over many years in this important policy area. This is an enormous issue in my constituency, where there are many older houses, and many people struggling to pay their bills, so I wholeheartedly welcome the plan. Might he say a little bit about the important work that many local authorities are doing? In my area, Labour-run Reading borough council has invested heavily in new council houses, and it will shortly open 300 new council houses, built to a very high standard. Those houses will ensure that people live in warm homes and have secure family finances and lower heating bills.
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend makes a really important point. I was with all the mayors on Monday, talking to them about their role in the warm homes plan. Local authorities and regional mayors have the best sense about what their area needs, and they are the people to help co-ordinate this and make it happen. Lots of people have rightly said that we need to do more—that this is good, but could we go further? This will be a 15 or 20-year project for the country. That is the way to think about it. This is a national mission to transform our housing stock. It is long overdue. We are making a really important start, and there is further to go.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
There is much to welcome in the warm homes plan. Wales has the oldest housing stock in Europe, with around a third of houses built before 1919. Because of that, Wales is rightly a net beneficiary of ECO schemes; it accounts for 6% of all ECO measures and 12% of ECO4. The Secretary of State will recognise that that is higher than the Barnett consequential funding, based on population share. Can he explain how the warm homes funding for Wales will be sufficient to meet the extreme challenges facing Welsh homeowners?
Ed Miliband
This scheme is really important for Wales. It will have a great impact, even if we take just the boiler upgrade scheme. We are determined to work with the Welsh Government to make sure that the scheme makes a difference for people in Wales. That is the work that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is doing.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I welcome this £15 billion investment, which will tackle energy security issues and make sure that family finances are protected from fossil fuel price spikes. In my constituency, there is a fantastic organisation, co-founded by a lady named Jane, called Women in Retrofit, which focuses on getting more women and girls into the retrofit industry. We simply will not be able to meet our targets without using that part of the workforce. What has the Secretary of State considered, when it comes to getting more women and girls into this work?
Ed Miliband
I congratulate Jane and Women in Retrofit. They sound like ideal people for the taskforce led by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to talk to. My hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) makes such a powerful point about the diversity of opportunities here, and we want as many people as possible to take advantage of them.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
As co-chair of the net zero all-party parliamentary group, I welcome the expansion of the funding for solar and heat pumps. Prior to coming to this place, I spent the better part of a decade riding the solarcoaster, so I know for a fact that the biggest drag on solar expansion is the skills shortage. Would the Secretary of State fill us in on what the Government and other Departments plan to do to ensure that the skills are there for installations to go ahead?
Ed Miliband
The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point. The solar road map set out some of the work that we are doing, but the whole point of the taskforce—this is a much more intentional way of thinking about the workforce challenges than the previous Government’s way—is to make sure that we have the workforce in place. There were more than 200,000 installations last year; that shows the demand for rooftop solar. Some of the eco organisations that are struggling with the transition could be part of this. We want to make sure that happens.
Kevin McKenna (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)
I am really pleased to see this plan. It is such a welcome change from the lukewarm gusts of air that came from the Opposition when they were in government. It is practical, pragmatic and deliverable. Lots of people in my constituency will welcome how fair it is, particularly for people on lower incomes, but also for those on middle incomes, houseowners and renters—everyone. The worry for people in my constituency is that we have a local authority in Kent county council that is committed to climate denialism. It is obsessed with it. How can people in my constituency get the advantages for their houses, jobs and employment, including the tradespeople who really want to be part of this?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend makes a really important point. I would say to the council that he talks about, “Leave your dogma at the door and help local people. Work with us to help local people.”
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
The Labour-run Kirklees council failed to apply for the first round of Government warm homes local grants last year. In a cost of living crisis, that is an unforgiveable abdication of duty and a total failure by Labour councillors, resulting in a loss of between £1.5 million and £7 million that was secured by neighbouring authorities. I welcome the Government’s warm homes plan, but will the Secretary of State confirm that the cost of the plan will not be added to monthly household bills? Under the previous Government, my constituents were left with incomplete, dangerous and ineffective installations that they had to pay thousands to remove. Will he ensure that they will not be faced with the same issue?
Ed Miliband
First, that sounds like negative propaganda against Kirklees council, which I am sceptical about. Secondly, on the wider issue, the whole point of the plan is that we are doing it through public investment. That is the decision the Chancellor took and I think it is the right decision.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I really welcome today’s announcement. Stoke-on-Trent is routinely ranked at No. 1 in the country for fuel poverty. We have old, terraced housing, often with single glazing and small yards, so space for heat pumps and so on is a concern, but I am sure we will work that out. We are very fortunate that Fiona Miller and the Beat the Cold team, who recently met the Minister for energy consumers, my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West (Martin McCluskey), do a lot of work on the ground. The Secretary of State says that the plan will be run through local authorities. How can good partnerships in localities already doing the work be involved in the programme?
My right hon. Friend also says that he is aware of the challenges that suppliers of the ECO scheme face, having lost contracts. In my constituency, that is lots of jobs that have now been lost. How soon will the information be available to them, so they can start workforce planning for the delivery of the programme and get people back into work delivering the upgrades we need?
Ed Miliband
On my hon. Friend’s first point, we want to use local partnerships that are already in place. On ECO installers, that is the work that the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West will be cracking on with. We did not want just to say that we will allocate the money and that it needs to go through the ECO installers. We want to make sure that happens and we will work urgently on that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Questions need to be much shorter, as do the answers from the Secretary of State.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and welcome much of it, including the fact that it recognises the challenge facing suppliers and that it will support 80,000 jobs. Will the Government commit to working with small local businesses to deliver the scheme, which will help the local economy, or will it just be for the big boys?
Ed Miliband
Small and medium-sized enterprises will be crucial to the scheme.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
The cost of living is the No. 1 issue for my constituents, so I welcome this record investment in warmer homes and lower bills. Measures such as zero-interest and low-interest loans for solar batteries and heat pumps, greater protections for renters, and solar on new homes will all make a huge amount of difference. When will my constituents be able to begin applying for those low and zero-interest loans? For many, there is no time to wait.
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend raises an important point. We will be working urgently with the banks and others—indeed, I think a roundtable is being convened next week—to work out how quickly we can get on with this process. We want to do this as soon as possible. It will take time, and if there is one lesson from the past it is that we need to get this right. We do not want a green deal and all of that malarkey happening. We want to get it right, but we want to do it as quickly as we can.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I particularly welcome the investment in low-cost loans for solar panels, which will really boost jobs. However, the grid is not currently resilient enough to cope when our electric vehicle cars are providing microgeneration and, as the rays become more efficient, hit the target for distribution network operator approval. What assurances will the warm homes plan provide on investment in the grid and the capacity of DNOs, so that the revolution is successful and not a failed bright idea?
Ed Miliband
We are making big investment in the transmission infrastructure and I urge all hon. Members locally to support, not oppose, that. We are also doing a big reordering of the grid queue, which is crucial because we then get the projects in the places where we need them.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
I welcome this significant investment. My constituents were badly let down by the previous faulty cavity wall insulation scheme. They were then chased for adverse legal costs. Ensuring confidence in future schemes will be really important. How are we supporting the really good suppliers under the ECO scheme and how quickly will the transition be in place to support them?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend makes a really important point about the fragility of consumer confidence. We have to support it. The point of the oversight group that the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West will chair is to make sure that we do as much as we can to support good ECO suppliers.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
I warmly welcome the new minimum energy efficiency standards for privately rented homes in the long-awaited warm homes plan, but will the Secretary of State lay out how he will ensure that landlords do not simply pass on to renters the costs of meeting those standards? Will he perhaps ask his colleague the Housing Secretary to introduce rent controls to ensure that renters can actually afford to rent these new warm homes?
Ed Miliband
I am not going to do that, but what I will say to the hon. Lady is that lots of landlords already meet the standards. Secondly, we want to provide some help for landlords to make that happen. This is an important point. Some of the schemes we have been talking about will be available to landlords. Through a combination of some landlords already meeting the standards and that help, we are confident that costs will be reduced and it will not lead to higher rents.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I am sure the Secretary of State will agree that it is not just about having the right policy, which I am sure this is; it is also about the right implementation. My constituents Mr and Mrs Henley-Smith had a heat pump installed under a previous Government scheme. The heat pump was so badly installed by Greener Living that the installer had to offer a back-up gas boiler to get their home hot enough. Greener Living went bust. Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that under his schemes any installations will be by competent companies, and that if the installation goes wrong the Government will stand behind people and ensure rectification work is done to a proper standard?
Ed Miliband
Absolutely, yes. I am so sorry to hear about the experience of my hon. Friend’s constituents. We must ensure that we do not let that kind of thing happen.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
In my constituency, there are hundreds of residential park homes occupied by elderly residents. They are very energy-inefficient homes and very complex to retrofit. Previous home upgrade grants were ineffective and bureaucratic, because of the batching application process to retrofit homes, so they did not reach many park homes. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the warm homes plan will effectively deliver for park home residents?
Ed Miliband
As an MP with park homes in my constituency, I am very sympathetic to the issues facing people who live in park homes. To give the hon. Lady a proper answer, I will take that away and pass it on to the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I, too, warmly welcome the plan and the investment that is coming with it, and I strongly commend the leadership of the Secretary of State in this area. It is great news that small businesses are the vehicle that will drive home the upgrades in our local communities, but they too have struggled. I have over 5,000 small businesses in Sheffield Central. Will he outline how those small businesses will benefit from this plan?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend is right. Small businesses are eligible for the boiler upgrade scheme and there is a substantial investment in that. We want them to benefit from the solar loans, too. We also want to help them through local authority procurement. She is right that this is a massive job creation opportunity, but we need the SME sector to get its fair share.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend on a deliverable warm homes plan. On Friday, I am hosting a utility cost of living event with energy and water suppliers and banks, because Portsmouth North residents were let down dramatically by the previous Government. Does the Secretary of State agree that home upgrades are one of the most effective ways to bring down energy bills, particularly for families? In Portsmouth North, we have 5,000 households officially living in fuel poverty, and more struggling with energy costs because prefabs and Victorian and other older buildings are less efficient to heat.
Ed Miliband
I congratulate my hon. Friend on convening people locally on the crucial issue of the cost of living crisis. I am sure that that will be a really effective and important event. She is absolutely right that home upgrades for her constituents in Portsmouth North and elsewhere are absolutely the long-term answer to the cost of living crisis.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. I especially welcome the fact that the plan will now ensure a degree of localisation and devolution when it comes to decision making, and hopefully it will get rid of the problems we saw with the previous Government’s scheme. Thousands of residents in my constituency have fallen victim to substandard work. The Secretary of State mentioned that there will be remediation. Will that remediation allow them to apply for the new scheme?
Ed Miliband
I think that remediation of the previous works should happen whatever, and residents should not be required to apply. There should be a process with TrustMark, which I think is the overseer in the case that the hon. Member is talking about. This is an issue that my Department is very focused on. It would have been much better if the mess had not been created in the first place, but we are determined to clean it up. If he knows of areas where it has not been cleaned up, he should draw them to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister for energy consumers.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Some 15% of my constituents live in fuel poverty, and many more go without in order to pay the outrageous energy bills they face. Many vulnerable people, children and elderly people are living in properties that are too cold and too damp. That is not acceptable to me, and I know that it is not acceptable to the Secretary of State. How will we ensure that the welcome measures in this plan reach the most vulnerable people in communities in Hartlepool and beyond?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend speaks eloquently, and I am sure that what he said will resonate with Members across the House when they think of constituents who are poor and vulnerable and face a choice between heating and eating. The key priority is to get the money out to local and combined authorities. They are the best people to deliver the plan. Looking back over previous years, it is the experience of those authorities that means they are the best way to get help to people most urgently.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. It really is good news, and we all welcome the warm homes plan and help for families. However, I have some concerns. I know that the Barnett consequential for the devolved nations has been confirmed, and that is good news, but the Executive will be the administrative body for the plan in Northern Ireland. Can the Secretary of State outline how they will ensure access to and deliver the scheme, and—I ask this gently—how will the so-called squeezed middle-income families obtain help for insulation? Those squeezed middle-income families are highly taxed due to fiscal drag and struggle to heat their homes and pay their mortgage.
Ed Miliband
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his important question. The Minister for energy consumers met the Minister for Communities yesterday to talk about how we can work together—for example on the Warm Homes Agency, which is UK-wide, and hopefully on the solar loans as well. We want to do everything we can to work with the Northern Ireland Executive to help serve the people of Northern Ireland.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
I very much welcome the publication of this £15 billion warm homes plan, which will get people’s bills down and reduce our impact on the environment. I was particularly interested to hear of the £90 million that has been set aside for the development of heat pumps, because Vaillant—one of the world’s leading manufacturers of heat pumps—is based in Belper in my constituency. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that the £90 million will be spent well? Will he engage with Vaillant to make sure that we can draw on its experience, and can we use that money to create more good jobs in this very important sector in Derbyshire?
Ed Miliband
We love Vaillant and what it does. The Minister for climate, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Katie White), loves it so much that she is going to visit tomorrow. It is part of the £90 million heat pump investment accelerator programme. This plan is about working with companies such as Vaillant so that we can get domestic manufacturing in this country, which I am sure is what Members across the House would like to see.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I warmly welcome the statement from the Secretary of State. I had a visit from Citizens Advice Harlow yesterday, and it told me what we probably already know: the No. 1 issue facing residents in Harlow is damp, mould and fuel poverty. The homes in Harlow were not built in 1919, because Harlow did not exist in 1919, but new towns have a unique problem in that they were all built at the same time, sometimes quickly after the war, so they are suffering from these problems at the same time. Will the Secretary of State take the new towns challenge into consideration, and can he detail how this plan will make a huge difference for residents in my constituency?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend speaks about a really important issue, which I am aware of from my experiences of visiting such areas. The Minister for Energy Consumers, my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West (Martin McCluskey), has heard his statement, and we do need to think about this, because there are areas such as Harlow and elsewhere that have particular challenges.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
There are 44,000 homes in York that are energy-insecure, so we really welcome today’s announcement. However, scaling the skills is really important. How is the Secretary of State working with the Education Secretary to ensure that further education has the resources it needs to scale the workforce for the future?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend speaks with typical eloquence on this issue, which came up at the mayors meeting on Monday, when we discussed how we will ensure that the FE sector in particular is geared up to train people for these opportunities. We will work on this with Skills England and mayors, and Ministers will be taking it forward.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State will recall a visit to Derby where he officially opened Vaillant’s heat source cylinder facility. Will he outline what today’s announcement will mean for such facilities and how it will create more clean energy jobs in Derby and across the UK?
Ed Miliband
I very much enjoyed the visit to Vaillant and was incredibly impressed by what it is doing. Programmes such as the heat pump investment accelerator are designed to help companies such as Vaillant capitalise on this growing market.
Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
I, too, welcome the warm homes plan, which will lower constituents’ heating bills and provide for the biggest home upgrade in British history. How will the Secretary of State ensure that clean energy is the right choice not only for clean emissions but for cutting bills, while avoiding past Conservative failures on insulation that left tens of thousands of homes with severe damp, mould and structural damage?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend speaks with very good sense on this issue. This plan is a huge opportunity for people. We are seeing record demand, and the question for this House and for all of us is whether we want that to be just for the wealthiest or for everyone. The point of the public investment is to bring opportunities within the reach of ordinary families. That is what is at the heart of this plan.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and his commitment to improve energy efficiency in people’s homes and reduce bills for constituents like mine. As the chair of the future homes, skills and innovations all-party parliamentary group, I would welcome more details on the taskforce identified in the plan, to ensure that we have the skills and innovation to meet the ambition, so that my constituents can benefit from warmer homes as well as the good jobs that the sector can provide.
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend puts it very well. I am sure that the Minister for Energy Consumers will be happy to talk to her about how we can make sure that the taskforce does what she thinks is necessary to get the workforce we need.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I would like to thank the Secretary of State on behalf of the over 5,000 households in my constituency that experience fuel poverty. Constituents have also benefited from Saltaire Retrofit Reimagined, a community initiative focused on improving energy efficiency within the Saltaire world heritage site. Will the Secretary of State assure residents of listed properties, such as those in Saltaire, that they too can benefit from the upgrades?
Ed Miliband
Absolutely, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her work on this issue. We want the benefits to be spread as widely as possible. The Minister for Energy Consumers tells me that he will shortly visit that project with my hon. Friend.
As this is the final question, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to say one final thing. I want to thank the civil service team that have worked on this plan. They have worked on it tirelessly over many months, so I really want to put on record my thanks and the thanks of other Members. We look forward to engaging with Members across the House on implementing the plan.
Water White Paper
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Reynolds)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the publication of the Government’s water White Paper, “A New Vision for Water”. The paper sets out once-in-a-generation reforms, putting consumers and the environment first and building a water system fit for the future.
For too long, the last Conservative Government turned a blind eye—perhaps that is why there is not a single Conservative Back Bencher in the Chamber to discuss this issue. They neglected the needs of people and the environment. The result: a whole-system failure, companies profiting at customers’ expense, vital infrastructure left to crumble, record levels of pollution in our waterways and public trust destroyed. It is no wonder that none of them—we may have one of two—has turned up to sit on the Back Benches.
This Government inherited that terrible failure, and we are not shying away from it. Every family in this country deserves clean water from their taps, seas safe for their children to swim in, and bills that are fair and affordable. This Government is turning the page on that Tory failure. Our goal is simple: a water system that delivers safe and secure water supplies, better water quality and a fair deal for customers and investors.
Within weeks of coming into office, this Government asked Sir Jon Cunliffe to lead an independent water commission. Sir Jon met over 150 stakeholders, including environmental groups, investors, Members of both Houses, and local communities. His call for evidence received more than 50,000 responses—there is much more interest from people out there than from the Conservative party. I thank Sir Jon and all those who contributed, including right hon. and hon. Members. The White Paper sets out our response to his recommendations.
The Cunliffe review was vital, but we did not wait for its conclusions to act. In our first year in office, we laid the foundations for the transformation that this White Paper sets out. We passed the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 to give the regulator the power to ban bonuses for polluting water bosses and issue automatic fines for pollution; we ringfenced the money from consumers’ bills, so that it can be spent only on fixing and upgrading infrastructure and improving water quality, not diverted to pay bonuses or dividends; we secured an historic £104 billion of private sector investment to rebuild the water network; and we established the brand-new water delivery taskforce to get spades in the ground, fast-track the delivery of new infrastructure projects and drive economic growth.
This White Paper builds on those strong foundations and sets out a new vision for water in this country. Our reforms deliver three fundamental shifts. The first is the shift from fragmentation to co-ordination. Today, responsibility for water is scattered across four different regulators. The result is confusion, duplication and regulatory gaps. We will change that. We will abolish Ofwat and create a new and more powerful regulator, integrating economic and environmental regulation. We will hold water companies to account by moving away from a system of self-monitoring, in which water companies have been marking their own homework, to a more proactive and preventive approach.
There will be nowhere to hide for poorly performing water companies. We will introduce an MOT approach for water company infrastructure, requiring maintenance checks on pipes, pumps and water treatment works; we will introduce a chief engineer and ensure that there is engineering capability in the new regulator, so that decisions are grounded in practical understanding; we will take a new supervisory approach, holding companies to account in detail and recognising the different challenges they face; and our new performance improvement regime will give the regulator the power to step in faster and put things right earlier. That is prevention-first regulation.
However, regulation alone will not clean up our rivers, lakes and seas. We need everyone with a stake in our waterways to be pulling in the same direction. New reforms for regional planning will bring councils, water companies, farmers and developers together to tackle local pollution, manage water resources and support housing growth. That will strengthen community voices in the water system and drive greater use of nature-based solutions.
The second shift is from corporate interest to public interest. We must never lose sight of who this reform is for: customers and the environment. We will introduce an independent water ombudsman to resolve consumer disputes fairly. We will keep bills affordable through the wider roll-out of smart meters to help those who need it most. There will be a new water efficiency label on every appliance, so that when customers buy a washing machine or a shower, they will know exactly what it will cost not just to buy it, but to run it—to help bring their bills down. We are also cracking down on pollution at its source. We will tighten agricultural standards, including on sludge spreading. We will double funding for catchment partnerships, harnessing the power of nature to protect our rivers.
The third shift is from short-term thinking to long-term planning. For too long, the water sector has lurched from one five-year price review to the next, with no clear picture of where we are headed. We will publish a transition plan to provide a clear, simple road map for water companies, investors and the regulators. The plan will set out how the next price review will deliver those reforms, how we drive better co-ordination between existing regulators during the transition, and how we will make leadership appointments at the earliest opportunity to the new regulator’s board, including a chair-designate.
For too long the previous Conservative Government turned a blind eye to water system failure. Infrastructure was neglected, pollution went unchecked and public trust was betrayed. This White Paper draws a line under that era. It lays the groundwork for our upcoming water Bill and puts us on a new path; a path where water companies act responsibly, where customers get the service they deserve, where investors can invest with confidence, and where we can all enjoy clean rivers, lakes and seas. The British public voted for change, and we are delivering that change by building a system fit for the future. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for an advance copy of her statement. Indeed, I welcome the Secretary of State to the Chamber. It is not often that she puts in an appearance, from the publication of the Minette Batters report to the animal welfare strategy, which was published two days before Christmas eve, to the family farm tax fiasco, the Secretary of State has been noticeable by her absence. Indeed, she intervened on the South East Water crisis only seven days ago, months after Tunbridge Wells, East Grinstead and other areas began suffering from the crisis.
The Secretary of State talks about this statement. Why does she have so little pride in her own water White Paper? She announced it to the press on Monday, and we were waiting and ready for a statement—there was no statement. The Government were, however, able to cancel their business on the public accountability legislation—that is ironic. We were waiting for a statement yesterday—there was no statement—and today she has finally given a statement on the White Paper because there was an urgent question. When it comes to scrutiny and accountability, I think the Secretary of State should be a little bit careful before she criticises others over their presence in the Chamber.
That being said, we do cautiously welcome elements of these proposals. Indeed, many of the Government’s measures on water match our plans from before the 2024 election. When we entered Government in 2010, only 7% of storm overflows were monitored by the previous Labour Government. Now that figure stands at 100%. The Water (Special Measures) Act last year repackaged Conservative regulatory proposals, such as banning unfair bonuses for water bosses, and we welcome that. The so-called private investment that the Secretary of State keeps referring to is in fact paid for by bill payers, so let us not pretend otherwise. This investment, although it is needed, is being paid for by all of our constituents through their bills.
Talking about delay, in June and July last year Sir Jon Cunliffe and his team published their review of the water sector. That report contained 88 recommendations. How many of those 88 recommendations were accepted by the Government and included in the water White Paper? Given that the Secretary of State for Energy has just announced that £15 billion worth of taxpayers’ money is to be spent on heat pumps and solar bills—to put that in context, it is equivalent to most of the police funding for England and Wales—can the Secretary of State tell us how much taxpayer and bill payer money has been allocated to this White Paper and over what timeframe these taxes and bills will be used to pay for the work in the White Paper?
Can the Secretary of State confirm whether the Government will extend environmental permit regimes to cattle farmers? If so, how does she intend to ensure that the beef sector—which has already been hit by higher taxes under this Government, by the abrupt halt of farm funding, which has not been replaced, and by the family farm tax fiasco—is not sunk by thousands of pounds in extra costs each year? How will the Secretary of State make sure that infrastructure is upgraded to ensure that catastrophic failures, such as those seen under South East Water in the last two months, do not happen again? A glaring gap in the Government’s rhetoric on water is conserving and ensuring water security. That means improving supply. How and when will the Government improve water security?
Given Ministers’ habits of missing their own deadlines, will the Secretary of State give an iron-clad commitment that the transition plan will be published in parliamentary time this year? How long will the transition take? People expect change in the water sector and are beginning to tire of the sloth-like way in which this Government conduct themselves. The Opposition fully support efforts by the Government to hold water companies to account, building on the work of the last Conservative Government to improve water quality and deliver meaningful reform of the sector. We just need the Government to get on with it.
Emma Reynolds
Oh my gosh! Well, I say to the right hon. Lady that I will not take any lectures from the Conservative party. Not only can they not be bothered to turn up for the statement, which shows an absolute disregard for the concerns of the public about the levels of pollution in our waterways—[Interruption.] I will answer her questions. We have done more in 18 months than the Conservatives did in 14 years, so I will not take any lectures from her. I am proud of our water White Paper and that my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed), commissioned somebody of the stature of Sir Jon Cunliffe and appointed the Independent Water Commission to do the most fundamental review of our water system since privatisation—a privatisation that happened under their Thatcher Government.
The shadow Secretary of State asked how many recommendations we are taking forward. It is the vast majority and more, because we are also looking at agricultural pollution, which we did not ask Sir Jon to look at. The water White Paper talks about tackling that kind of pollution and I will not shy away from that. We are working in partnership with farmers, the National Farmers Union and others because that it is an important source of water pollution.
Again, I will not take lectures from the right hon. Lady about the environmental land management programme when the Conservatives underspent the farming budget. They could not even be bothered to get the money out of the door. She asked about infrastructure upgrades. The White Paper introduces a system that moves away from water companies marking their own homework to a regulator with teeth that gets a grip on the delivery of the £104 billion infrastructure investment. Under the Conservative Government, the pipes and pumps were left in a shocking state of disrepair because there was not the regulation nor the strong regulator that we need. That is what this water White Paper and the upcoming water Bill will deliver.
The right hon. Lady talks about improving water supply. It is absolutely correct—maybe we can agree on something—that we have seen very poor performance from South East Water in recent weeks, and I was in the area last week to meet constituents of the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin)—[Interruption.] The right hon. Lady asked whether I should have gone earlier. Did she bother to go? [Interruption.] Listen, this is a privatised industry because of decisions made in 1989. I called on the regulator Ofwat to examine the licence conditions and whether they had been breached by South East Water. I do not remember her saying any such thing. I have also hauled in the chair of South East Water to ask for an urgent investigation into what happened last week and the week before, as well as for two weeks before Christmas.
This water White Paper is the most ambitious reform in a generation to our water system. It is severely needed because of the blind eye that the Conservatives turned when they were in government and the record levels of pollution in our waterways.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
I welcome the White Paper because customers right across the country have been failed by their water company, and all too often, when turning to Ofwat for support and to hold executives to account, they have been met with bureaucracy and a weak response. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the creation of a new combined, powerful water ombudsman, set out in the White Paper, will finally give customers a route to resolve complaints quickly when companies fail to deliver this most basic of public services?
Emma Reynolds
I agree with my hon. Friend. That is why the main focus of our reforms is to create a single, more powerful and integrated regulator. At the moment, as I said in my statement, we have duplication as well as gaps. We have consumers who are not being served well, so we need a regulator that gets a grip on the investment in maintaining our water infrastructure and on bearing down on pollution incidents. We have already made a start on that, but the new regulator will have more teeth and more power to do that. My hon. Friend is right to say that we need that single, more powerful and integrated regulator to ensure we deliver better outcomes for consumers and the environment.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Although some proposals in this White Paper are welcome, it does not go far enough to guarantee the promised fundamental reforms. Record sewage spills of over 45,000 hours were recorded in Glastonbury and Somerton last year. The public are left in the dark as the Government refuse to record the true scale of the volume of sewage dumped, rather than just the duration. Fat cat-retention payments continue as water companies evade the 2025 ban on bonuses, with the former Wessex Water chief executive officer landing a £170,000 bonus through the parent company YTL, with Ofwat apparently powerless to oppose it. Why do the Government refuse to address the failed ownership model that has allowed pollution, under-investment and profiteering to persist for decades? Will the Secretary of State listen to Liberal Democrat calls for water companies to become mutually owned public benefit corporations?
Emma Reynolds
I thank the hon. Lady for, I think, some support for the White Paper and what she has said. We both share real concerns about the status quo. On mutual ownership, I do not really hear a plan from the Liberal Democrats as to how to get to that point—[Interruption.] Hear me out. If it involves wholesale nationalisation, given that these are private companies, that would cost around £100 billion, would be legally complex and take years of wrangling through the courts. My focus is on improving the status quo and ensuring that we are tackling pollution, which she rightly says is still happening. Since January of last year, 100% of storm overflows are being monitored, so we are shining a light of some of the pollution. We still have a way to go, but we are bearing down on the pollution that she rightly talks about.
My solution to this crisis and this issue is to make sure that we have a complete overhaul of regulation, the regulators and the way that consumers are not, at the moment, put at the centre of things. That way, we protect the consumer in a much more meaningful way by introducing a water ombudsman with statutory powers. We are making some progress and we will make more. I know that she and I agree on some things, although we may disagree on some of the details. We are determined to deliver a system that provides better outcomes for consumers and the environment.
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
Those of us in this House who sit on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and grilled the water bosses know all too well how broken this industry is, so I welcome the Government’s commitment to addressing the failures of the industry with these important reforms. As the Secretary of State knows, in Hastings and Rye, we have faced major water outages. In May 2024, the main pipe supplying Hastings burst, leaving 30,000 homes without water for days. It also burst this Christmas, leaving people without water on Christmas day.
We have since found out that Southern Water received planning permission in 2007 to replace the pipe but sat on its hands instead. This month, it begins the work to replace the pipe because of the pressure that I and this Government have put on the water industry. The measure of introducing MOTs on broken water infrastructure will also be critical for preventing that kind of thing from happening.
One of the things that I campaigned on is having clear guidance in the event of an outage and on the conditions that water companies must comply with—not just bottled water, but hygiene facilities and portaloos. Indeed, the Committee has also recommended that. Will the Secretary of State look at that request so we can be better prepared if outages occur?
Emma Reynolds
I commend my hon. Friend’s leadership on this issue. I know that she was putting pressure on Southern Water on Christmas eve. She was concerned about the previous outages, but also about those that were likely to occur. She is absolutely right to say that we need more emphasis on ensuring that companies such as Southern Water are investing in the infrastructure that is needed to prevent these outages in the first place. We are moving from a system of “fix on failure” to one of prevention. That is what this White Paper is all about.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I welcome what is in the White Paper, and it should lead to more effective regulation, but I have just a couple of words of caution. First, the Drinking Water Inspectorate is the only part of the set-up that works well, so folding it into a new regulator should not involve it losing that ability. On agricultural pollution, can the Secretary of State work with the farmers to ensure that this does not just become another stick with which to beat them? She has referred to a whole-system failure, and she is right about that. She will have seen from her recent welcome engagement with South East Water, however, that what we have there is corporate failure, not just of management but of non-executive directors and shareholders. As the Select Committee said, this is an industry that has a real problem with its culture, and what we have in the White Paper, welcome as it is, is not going to shift that. When will we hear from the Government about what they are going to do to change the culture in the industry?
Emma Reynolds
I thank the EFRA Committee Chair for his thoughtful reflections. I agree with him on the Drinking Water Inspectorate—it does a magnificent job—and we will ensure that we transfer its strengths into the new single water regulator, as he suggests. I also agree with him that we will work, and we are working, in partnership with farmers to make sure we get this right. We are looking at what we can do with the ELM schemes to ensure that we give them the support they need to tackle the pollution of our waterways from agriculture. He talks about culture. He has a point, but I would say that the leadership of some of these companies is very varied, and we see good leadership in some of the companies. For example, I have visited Severn Trent, and it has a terrific apprenticeship programme. We need to ensure that we see better performance in the water industry across the board, sharing that best practice from those companies that are actually doing the right thing.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
Last night, a 30-inch water main burst at Holland Park roundabout on the boundary of my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell). Homes and cars were flooded to a depth of 3 feet, and since the water was diverted away from the burst, thousands of residents across west London have had little or no fresh water, schools are closed and traffic is in chaos. This and hundreds of smaller bursts in the recent cold weather are the legacy of Thames Water’s failure over not years but decades. Can I thank the Minister for her statement? For my constituents, effective inspection and regulation cannot come soon enough.
Emma Reynolds
I am being kept regularly updated on the issue in Holland Park that my hon. Friend has raised. I understand that 2,000 households are off supply. That is unacceptable, and the regulator, DEFRA and I are working closely with the water company to ensure that we get on top of the issue.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
Not only are the likes of South East Water and Southern Water failing Eastbourne, with yet another outage last week, but shipping companies are also damaging our water quality. Thousands of bags of oven chips have washed up on Eastbourne beach, and their decomposition will have a serious impact on marine wildlife and the local ecosystem. I know that Sussex MPs along the shore have experienced a similar thing, whether with onions, bananas or body lotion from the White Company. However, shipping companies are not mentioned at all in the White Paper. Will the Minister meet me and Sussex MPs with constituencies on the coastline to address this issue, to ensure that the shipping companies pay their fair share towards cleaning up our seas?
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Much shorter questions, please.
Emma Reynolds
Either myself or the Water Minister would be happy to meet the hon. Member. I heard about the incident of the chips on the beach. In the White Paper we are looking more broadly at other sources of pollution, including those from transport and agriculture, but we would be happy to have a meeting with him to discuss the issue.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
After 18 months and an independent inquiry, the Government’s answer is more regulation, not enforcing the law as it is. Not one water company has lost its licence, yet we think that more bureaucracy and more regulation will make a difference. More bureaucracy will not fix our water. I am afraid the Secretary of State needs to know that the problem is ownership. Private monopolies with guaranteed incomes have asset-stripped, polluted rivers and paid themselves billions. Until that changes, nothing will change. Will the Secretary of State meet me and other water campaigners to discuss this document? We cannot see any public consultation in the White Paper, so will she at least commit to that, please?
Emma Reynolds
I am always happy to meet with hon. Friends, as my hon. Friend well knows, but Sir Jon met many stakeholders and members of the public and we had 50,000 responses to the Independent Water Commission. It is right that the Government now get on with things, set the direction and lay the foundations for the water White Paper. I disagree with him on introducing more regulation. We need a regulator with more teeth and more powers to enforce the law as it stands, and that is what we are getting on with.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I welcome many of the measures in this White Paper. More regulation will help, but—let’s be honest—it does not get to the heart of the problem: the failure of the privatisation of the water industry. We need to be talking about ownership, but that is absent from the White Paper. I have heard the conversations in the Chamber today about nationalisation, and I agree with the Secretary of State. There would be some drawbacks to a model of nationalisation. It would put substantial liabilities on the book and would put sewerage infrastructure investment up against investment in schools and hospitals in every Budget. But there is another model, which the Liberal Democrats are putting forward: the co-operative or mutualisation model. Will the Secretary of State take that into serious consideration?
Emma Reynolds
This Government care deeply about mutuals. We have pledged overall to double the number of mutuals. I do not have a problem with mutual ownership. The problem I have is that the Liberal Democrats have not got a plan together.
James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)
My constituents are not receiving the service they deserve. Many are facing real issues over water pressure, which is intermittent, unreliable and on some days non-existent. This issue has even been raised with me by primary school children when I am on school visits. Can the Secretary of State reassure my constituents that the White Paper will begin to force the water companies to take action on these day-to-day issues that really affect people’s lives? If they do not do so, will the regulator give weight to those complaints and will it have the kind of teeth that forces the companies to act, so that my constituents can get the service they deserve and, frankly, are already paying for?
Emma Reynolds
Yes, indeed. The new water regulator, when we are able to legislate for that and set it up, will indeed look at these issues and put consumers at the heart of what it is doing.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
I was supposed to meet representatives of Severn Trent at a local treatment works in my constituency in December. That meeting was cancelled at short notice after heavy rainfall. They said they did not want me to get my feet wet. I smell a cover-up. The Government’s well-intentioned White Paper is doomed to fail, though, if they do not mandate water companies to measure their sewage outflows by volume. Are the Government going to do that?
Emma Reynolds
We are absolutely determined to bear down on pollution. We are looking more at the number of incidents and ensuring that we have a better picture of the coverage of storm overflows. We have 100% coverage from January last year, and we are looking to increase the amount of coverage for emergency overflows. The White Paper will ensure that the new, more powerful regulator has the teeth and the powers to crack down on pollution and to shine a light on pollution incidents so that there is nowhere to hide when it comes to the illegal use of overflows that we have seen in the past.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary of State for this White Paper, and I concur with many of the comments from colleagues. I attended a community meeting last week on the Kennington Park estate in my constituency to hear from residents of Blythe House, Alverstone House and Lockwood House. Many of them have not had water since Christmas. The responsibility fell on the housing association, and I want to give credit to Hyde Housing for responding and providing water to the residents, especially as many have children, many are elderly and many have mobility issues. We have a situation whereby Thames Water thinks it is not its job to inform councils and housing associations when it is going to lower the pressure on the estates when it is doing works. Can we please ensure that the new regulator will have the right teeth to go after these companies? They ignore everything—all the fines and the warnings. This regulator needs to have teeth. If it does not, this is going to be a slap in the face for all our hard-working constituents.
Emma Reynolds
I can promise my hon. Friend that that is exactly what we are going to deliver: a new, more powerful regulator with teeth. I am concerned about the incident that she describes, so the Water Minister or I will be happy to meet her to discuss it.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I broadly welcome the White Paper and its evidence-based recognition that sewage and waste water failures are central to poor water quality, rather than defaulting to blaming agriculture. That approach is entirely absent in Northern Ireland where the Agriculture Minister, Mr Muir, is advancing an extreme, one-sided environmental agenda in the form of a nutrients action programme and blaming farmers alone while Northern Ireland Water pumps over 20 million tonnes of sewage into rivers and loughs each year. Will the Secretary of State agree to engage with the Northern Ireland Executive and share the learning, so that they can learn from what is happening here in GB?
Emma Reynolds
I would not like to get involved in Northern Irish politics—that is not for me to do. I can reassure the hon. Lady, however, that we are working in close co-operation with all the devolved Governments. I met Andrew Muir at the Oxford farming conference, and we discussed water. Early last year, at an interministerial group meeting, we discussed different sources of pollution and how the different devolved Governments are dealing with them.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Hartlepool is a coastal community home to some of the most beautiful beaches in the north-east, but they are too often polluted by water companies to the detriment of my constituents. I absolutely agree with the Secretary of State that this Government have done more in 18 months to fix this mess than any other Government in history, but does she agree that once we have forced these failed water companies to get their house in order and clean up our waters, we should get them out of the ownership of foreign nationals, hedge funds and private equity, and reverse the worst privatisation in British history?
Emma Reynolds
I would like to see longer-term investors, such as pension funds—I am a former Pensions Minister—being more attracted to invest in the water system. We need a more stable, long-term regulatory approach to get more of those investors involved. I met the Maple Eight when I was in Toronto last year, and there is great interest in investing in our water system, but we have to get the regulatory system right first.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I am lucky enough to represent the constituency of Hazel Grove, which includes the junction of the Macclesfield and Peak Forest canals. My constituents value our canals because they are green veins throughout our area and a link to our industrial heritage, but they are concerned about the sustainability of funding for our canal network, given what has happened recently with the breach at Whitchurch and a few years ago at the Toddbrook reservoir. The Secretary of State will know the role of the Canal and River Trust when it comes to water management; it looks after 74 reservoirs nationally. She will also know that the ownership model means it cannot pass on the uplift in costs to customers in the way that water companies do. Could the Secretary of State meet me to talk about the funding given to CRT to ensure that our canal network is sustainable for the future, and that we treat it as the asset it is and not a liability to be managed?
Emma Reynolds
I know Whitchurch quite well—I grew up not too far away. The Water Minister or I will happily meet the hon. Member to discuss that matter.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s action to reform water regulation after years of neglect during which my constituents have endured leaks, outages and sewage pollution for far too long. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the new independent water ombudsman will deliver swift, binding redress for consumers, and that it will be fully operational in time to oversee the 2029 price review, which will set household bills and company investment plans through to 2035?
Emma Reynolds
We will set up the water ombudsman; we need the primary legislation to do that. The ombudsman will have statutory powers and will be able to take forward consumer complaints and disputes.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr iawn, Dirprwy Lefarydd. I would say to the Secretary of State “Cofiwch Dryweryn”, because water has always been political in Wales. The White Paper suggests that the UK Government may finally devolve additional powers over water to the Welsh Government. Considering that could have happened years ago under section 48 of the Wales Act 2017, which was delayed—incredibly—at the request of the Labour Welsh Government, can she now set a timeline for when the people of Wales will have power over our own water?
Emma Reynolds
As the right hon. Member will know, there is already a big degree of devolution and we work closely with the Welsh Government. I saw the Deputy First Minister recently, and we discussed the water White Paper that we are publishing today, but also the Green Paper that the Welsh Government are bringing forward in the next few weeks. We are working in lockstep with them, aligning our approaches. We have to do that because, as she says, there are some real cross-border problems, and lots of people—on either side of the border—are affected.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
The chief executive of Yorkshire Water said her bonus may
“feel like it’s a lot of money”
and that she gets “paid what the board decide” she “ought to be paid”; £1.5 million through an offshore company feels like a lot of money because it is a lot of money. She was rewarded for failure, and as my constituency still deals with burst water pipes, it feels like her board decides she should be rewarded for failure. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the new water ombudsman will enforce the prevention of these hidden bonuses, and that infrastructure development will not just end up in higher bills for customers?
Emma Reynolds
This will be an issue for the new regulator, rather than the ombudsman. As a result of the Water (Special Measures) Act, 10 water bosses last year were denied £4 million in bonuses, but there is still more to do. I urge companies to respect the spirit as well as the letter of the law. Ofwat is considering further action to hold these companies to account.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, in which she talked about new reforms for regional planning supporting housing growth. Right across the south-east, we have both very high housing targets, but a totally unreliable fresh water system, as I know the Secretary of State experienced herself when she visited Tunbridge Wells recently. How can these two things be realised when fundamentally we are dealing with, as she puts it, whole-system failure?
Emma Reynolds
We do think these two objectives can be realised. Far too many people in their 20s and 30s are denied the dream of home ownership because of the failure of the previous Government to build the homes we need, but we have also seen a failure to build reservoirs and to maintain the infrastructure we had in the first place. We have not built a reservoir in this country for 30 years, so I am glad that there are now plans to build nine of them. The hon. Member is right that we need water supply to underpin the growth we need in our housing as well.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
I have seen at first hand the brilliant work that the volunteers of the Earl of Harrington’s angling club and the Midland canoe club do to test water quality and to clear up and look after our waterways, including our beautiful River Derwent. How will the action that this Government are taking ensure that river pollution and sewage are tackled, and not left to volunteers to clear up, while also bringing down water bills?
Emma Reynolds
I pay tribute to those volunteers. The new regulator will take a more supervisory approach to water companies. We will look at pre-pipe solutions to reduce the volume of rainwater and pollutants entering the sewage system in the first place, trying to move away from a system where we are fixing on failure and towards prevention. That is the right way to ensure that we clean up our waterways as my hon. Friend suggests.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
The Office for Environmental Protection said in its progress report last week
“Government have made it a priority to clean up our rivers, lakes and seas”,
but there is
“a lack of coherent, detailed delivery plans to address all major pressures”,
especially agricultural water pollution. Agriculture is the source of at least 40% of water pollution, and yet it seems to merit only one page in the White Paper. In my constituency, agriculture accounts for 70% of the issue. I ask the Secretary of State the same question that the Prime Minister dodged earlier: why on earth does it not have adequate attention here? Will she work with farmers to support river-friendly farming methods, and will she meet me and MPs across the House from the Wye catchment to address how we can tackle this major problem?
Emma Reynolds
I agree with the hon. Lady that the water pollution we see in the River Wye is completely unacceptable. That is why we are working closely with the Welsh Government, such as through the £1 million research grant to look at the sources of pollution affecting the River Wye. We are also doubling funding for the Environment Agency to inspect farms so that we have a clearer picture and can better enforce the regulations we already have, and we are streamlining those regulations so that farmers can comply.
The hon. Lady is right that there is a real problem here. I do not count it in the number of words, but there is real action in the document. It sets out what we are going to do to work in partnership with farmers, strengthen regional planning and better target our environmental land management schemes. She will have seen that the environmental improvement plan contains a comprehensive plan to tackle agricultural pollution. I refer her to the document we published before Christmas.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
I see that Tory MPs are too scared to turn up to hear how we are cleaning up their mess. As a Newcastle MP, as an engineer and as a cold water swimmer—the North sea is very cold—I welcome the Government’s new vision for water, which will deliver the water my constituents deserve at a price they can afford. I am, quite frankly, tired of the continual chorus that whatever the failure, whatever the fault, the costs must be passed on to the consumer. In a competitive market, consumers can go elsewhere if they do not like the service they are receiving. With water, we have no choice. Will the Minister confirm that if there is a failure or a mess-up by the companies, either they, their shareholders or their management will pay for it, not my constituents?
Emma Reynolds
I admire my hon. Friend for swimming in the sea at all times of the year, by the sound of it. This new approach, the overhaul we are announcing in the White Paper, will establish a more powerful, integrated regulator that has more teeth, and a system that puts an end to the water companies marking their own homework—a system in which there is nowhere to hide for poor performance.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
Last year, Southern Water’s chief executive saw their pay double to over £1 million a year, while my constituents in Chichester face rising water bills, sewage outflows that continue for days at a time and the continuing over-abstraction of our chalk streams. What are the Government going to do about these water companies that are evading the bonus ban? Does she agree that a public interest model is the overhaul that we actually need?
Emma Reynolds
As I said, we have already blocked 10 company bosses from taking £4 million-worth of bonuses. I am urging them to respect both the spirit and the letter of the law, and Ofwat is considering further action to hold these companies to account.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
This is the second major programme of business we have seen in this Parliament, which shows that the Government are getting on with cleaning up our rivers and sorting out the water sector. That will be very welcome in Exeter, where the River Exe has borne the brunt of agricultural run-off and pollution over the last few years.
Exeter is also home to the Centre for Resilience in Environment, Water and Waste, which works with partners to explore some of the new challenges that have come up, including better upstream water management, microplastics and pollutants. What would the Minister say about making sure that all water companies work in partnership to look at innovative solutions to the bigger water challenges that we face? Will she visit to see the centre’s fantastic work?
Emma Reynolds
I am always very happy to visit my hon. Friend. I know that the Nature Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh), visited last year.
My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Steve Race) is absolutely right that we have to strengthen the system. We will strengthen the regional planning system and we are doubling the funding for catchment partnerships. We have to bear down on all sources of water pollution because, as he said, we have to protect our beloved rivers—the one in his constituency and many across the country—that saw record levels of pollution under the previous Government.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
The White Paper does not go far enough. It leaves water in private hands while prices rise, pipes rot, rivers are polluted and shareholders profit. Why should my constituents have to pay for the consequences of private mismanagement? Does the Secretary of State accept what many across this Chamber have already said: that the only meaningful change or reform is to bring water back into public ownership?
Emma Reynolds
I understand the frustration that the hon. Gentleman expresses. Like him, I am really frustrated with the levels of pollution in our waterways, and with some of the poor consumer service we see. I do not think the right answer is to embark on a hugely expensive and legally complicated nationalisation, because it would detract from the good work we are doing to get a grip on regulation and to set up a new regulator. He may think it is the right answer, but where would the money come from? Does he want less spending on schools and hospitals as a result?
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
There is much to welcome in the White Paper, including the MOT for assets, the increase in funding for community and catchment partnerships, and the greater say for communities in regional planning. However, my Shipley constituents have been let down by Yorkshire Water over many decades, through its blatant profiteering at the expense of customers, leveraging debt of some £6.2 billion. I may have missed it, but will the Secretary of State please assure me that the regulator will have powers to step in when companies such as Yorkshire Water, and more importantly its owner Kelda Holdings, have consistently failed customers?
Emma Reynolds
I thank my hon. Friend for her interest, and indeed for her submission to the Independent Water Commission. On the financial management of our water companies, we have set out in the White Paper that the new regulator will have the power to step in to ensure that unmanageable levels of debt are not taken on by water companies. We have seen some very poor financial dealings in the past, which have led to poor performance and poor maintenance of water assets.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
I welcome the White Paper and a more effective regulator, which is really good. However, I am concerned by the lack of urgency on clean water supply capacity. The report talks of a shortage of 5 billion litres a day by 2050. Meanwhile, we read warnings that seven English regions will be in serious water stress by 2030, and gov.uk and the NFU have warned of potential droughts this summer if not enough rain is captured over January, which has been dry until now. Will the Government accelerate plans for more clean water supply before the 2050 and 2055 dates?
Emma Reynolds
First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for welcoming the White Paper and the work on the new regulator. He is right to underline the importance of water capacity. My hon. Friend the Water Minister has really got a grip on this and is looking at how we prepare for events such as droughts. Perhaps I could set up a meeting for both of them to discuss that.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
Wessex Water, which serves my Poole constituency, was previously banned from paying bonuses to its company bosses. However, it was able to get around the ban by calling the payments something else or using other mechanisms to pay for failure. Will the Secretary of State therefore explain whether the new White Paper will finally clamp down on these unacceptable practices?
Emma Reynolds
I agree with my hon. Friend that it is unacceptable. These companies should respect both the spirit and the letter of the law. As I have said, Ofwat is considering what further action it can take to ensure that these companies obey the law that this House passed last year.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
I welcome the White Paper and thank the Secretary of State and her team for their work. I am keen to understand how it will work in practice. As the Secretary of State will know, Thames Water’s largest equity shareholder wrote down its shareholding to zero in May 2024, so the equity is widely regarded as worthless. That leaves the debt, three quarters of which is held by the London & Valley consortium, the class A creditor. Does she agree that, given that the equity is worthless, leaving only the debt, the consortium obviously has material influence over the company?
Emma Reynolds
I am sorry, but I cannot get into the specifics of Thames Water at what is quite a sensitive moment. What I can say is that it is financially stable, but the Government are prepared for all eventualities, including a special administration regime if one were needed, but I cannot go into the detail of what is happening.
Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)
Earlier this week, my team and I secured a £12,000 refund from Thames Water for one of my constituents whose pipes had been left to leak for almost half a year. Half a year ago, when I first met Thames Water bosses, I asked them to explain how they would be using higher bills to pay for better pipes and infrastructure in my constituency. It is now almost the end of the financial year and they have set out no explanation. What more can the Secretary of State do to ensure that my constituents are getting their money’s worth out of Thames Water?
Emma Reynolds
Before we legislate for the new regulator, we are encouraging and working with Ofwat to see what can be done to move to a more supervisory approach—similar to what we do in financial services, of which my hon. Friend is well aware—so that we can have a much more tailored and targeted approach. Different water companies are in different situations: some are performing better than others, and some are performing very poorly. I am really sorry to hear what she said. This Government have more than doubled the compensation that consumers will receive if there are outages and problems, which is to be welcomed.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I welcome the statement from the Secretary of State and the White Paper. Some £7.6 billion has gone from the pockets of my constituents in Dewsbury and Batley, and all other customers of Yorkshire Water, into the pockets of shareholders in the form of dividends. In addition, there has been £1.4 billion in interest payments on money held by the company, yet bills have risen by an eye-watering 28% to 34% in the past year, and are predicted to rise by a further 30% between now and 2030. What steps will the Secretary of State and the Government take, and will they consider retrospective penalties for past failures to claw back dividends that went to shareholders instead of being invested in pipes or used to reduce customers’ bills?
Emma Reynolds
I thank the hon. Member for the kind words with which he started his question. Within days of taking office, my predecessor ringfenced the money that should be invested in maintaining the water infrastructure he talks about. If it is not spent on that, it will go back to customers. We took that action as soon as we got into government.
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
This week, work begins on storage tanks to stop raw sewage pouring into the River Ouzel during periods of heavy rainfall—I know that my constituents and residents welcome that, as I am sure do the fish in the river. Does the Secretary of State agree that since we have had a Labour Government, it really has been all cisterns go on issues such as this?
Emma Reynolds
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. We must look at the pre-pipe solutions that she talks about, and the water White Paper emphasises the need to ensure that we reduce the volume of rainwater and pollutants entering the sewerage system in the first place.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
The White Paper says that, along with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, DEFRA will implement a new “plan-making system”—a term I have frankly never heard before. I do not know what it means, but it says that water companies will be designated a consultation body for this new plan-making system. Separately, it says that the Government will only consider making water companies statutory consultees in planning applications. Meanwhile, the White Paper says that the Government will ensure that the “right to connect” supports their house building targets. Does the Secretary of State understand that if water companies are not statutory consultees, and we keep building more housing and connecting it to the system, we will simply get more sewage?
Emma Reynolds
The Water Minister chairs a water delivery taskforce, and she is getting a grip on the investment in water assets and infrastructure that water companies have promised. That will ensure that there are fewer leaks and that there is less pressure on the system. We believe there is a way to ensure that we boost water capacity and build more homes in our country.
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
Incredibly, last year saw the fifth incident of agricultural pollution in just three years in the River Weaver, which runs through the centre of Nantwich in my constituency, resulting in thousands of dead fish and a stench that permeated our town centre. I pay tribute to Stuart Mitton from the Restore the Weaver action group, local angling groups and local ward councillor Anna Burton for the work they are doing on this, and I welcome the White Paper. How will its proposals ensure that we tackle agricultural run-off into rivers such as the River Weaver and, crucially, that where pollution does occur, we see swift justice?
Emma Reynolds
As I have said, the environmental improvement plan that we published before Christmas sets out a comprehensive plan to tackle agricultural pollution. We are building on that in the White Paper, and we will consult on options to reform how sludge use in agriculture is regulated—that is one measure in the White Paper. We are also doubling the funding for the Environment Agency so that it can increase the number of farm inspections and work in partnership with farmers to get this right.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
At the first Prime Minister’s questions of this Parliament I had the opportunity to invite the Prime Minister to scrap Ofwat, so I am delighted to see that in the White Paper.
The Minister has said that Ofwat will now protect consumers better. We had terrible floods in my constituency in September 2024 from surface water. The lead local flood authority investigated those and, as is its responsibility, produced section 19 reports. I was shocked to learn that the LLFA has no powers to compel water companies to act on the recommendations—Thames Water had failed to inspect a critical pump for over 20 years. Will the Secretary of State set out how the new regulator will ensure that section 19 recommendations are taken forward to protect consumers better in future?
Emma Reynolds
The hon. Member is right to say that we need to abolish Ofwat—we might have had that idea previously too, by the way. As he knows, at the moment we have four regulators, and sometimes there are duplications or regulatory gaps. That is why the focus of our reforms is on ensuring that we integrate the environmental regulation and the economic regulation of water, because for too long those things have been separate. I would be happy to write to him to respond on the specific issue that he raises.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
My constituents in Rushcliffe, notably in East Leake, have faced sewage spills for far too long, so I am pleased to be working with Severn Trent Water to ensure that new pumping stations and rising mains are installed in East Leake, Wysall and Willoughby-on-the-Wolds over the current price period. How will having a new single water regulator, with real teeth, ensure that that commitment is delivered in the current price period?
Emma Reynolds
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and the opportunity to mention that we will be publishing a transition plan which, as I mentioned in my statement, will set out a road map from where we are now to having the opportunity to legislate. I want to make progress before that Bill is in the House, so that we can start to shift the dial, build on what we did last year in the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, and move towards that supervisory system that will give the regulator more teeth. We need that new regulator and those new powers in legislation to bear down on incidents such as the one my hon. Friend is talking about.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
I welcome the abolition of Ofwat, but I wish to let the Secretary of State know about one of my constituents. Marion from Axminster is aged 85. Her direct debit to South West Water this month is £45, but next month it will nearly treble to over £118. Residents who I represent are fed up with being ripped off by these profiteers. Will the Government look again at Liberal Democrat proposals for a new ownership model, whereby water companies such as South West Water are mutually owned by customers?
Emma Reynolds
As I said previously, I do not have a problem with mutual ownership—I think it is a good thing—but the question the Liberal Democrats have to answer is how they will get there.
Finally, may I say a big thank you to my officials? The water White Paper was a very heavy lift, and there is more detail to come in the transition plan and the water Bill. I also thank Members for the interest we have had across the House, other than from the Conservatives.
Rail Passengers’ Charter
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a Rail Passengers’ Charter, setting out certain guarantees and targets in relation to the provision of passenger rail services; to make provision for penalties for failures to comply with the Charter; and for connected purposes.
Our railway network is relied on by millions of people every day, both as passengers and as beneficiaries of rail freight. The Railways Bill currently making its way through Parliament will make the biggest change in over 30 years. It is therefore right that we seize this opportunity to bring our experience of using the railway into line with 21st-century expectations and challenges.
Passenger charters are not new. I have further burnished my credentials as a dull dinner party guest by reading a few of them in recent days. Every train operating company has one, but this Bill would introduce greater consistency, cut the gap between good intentions and reality and, critically, create a charter with the teeth needed to truly put passenger experience and value for money first.
All of this is not to deny that aspects of our railway have improved. The route I frequently take to travel to this place, between Didcot and London Paddington, has a far more generous off-peak train service than 30 years ago, with four fast trains per hour compared with one back then. Trains are more frequent on most routes across the country than they were, and online and digital ticketing brings convenience for many. However, problems remain. With the exception of tickets with seat reservations, standard class tickets do not come with any guarantee of a seat, many trains lack the necessary space for storage of luggage and similar bulky items, and usability of wi-fi and mobile phone signal reception is highly variable.
Perhaps the gravest issue is that of overcrowding on trains and its unpredictability. Overcrowding is sometimes understandable, and perhaps even forgivable, for example if there is extreme unforeseen disruption, for a major sporting event where efforts to increase service provision have not matched demand, or for short commuter hops at peak times. However, much overcrowding in recent years seems to have been the result of a conscious decision, made not by frequently demonised private train operating companies but by central Government tightly managing post-pandemic contracts with those train operators.
There are, alas, examples from Oxfordshire, home to my Didcot and Wantage constituency. My wonderful parliamentary assistant, Hayleigh, is now on maternity leave, but for many months, she commuted while she was pregnant. Such was the frequency of five-car intercity trains operated by Great Western Railway, including on long-distance routes, such as those between Swansea and Cardiff to London, even at peak times, that she frequently opted to delay her journey to work by 90 minutes, until a more suitable nine-car train was shown on websites to be running.
The issue she faced on such five-car trains was not the willingness of other passengers to give up their seat for her, but the fact that she could not even get beyond the vestibule area, next to the doors, into the main saloon of the train because it was often full of people who were having to stand. The commonness of five-car trains on the GWR network is partly a result of retiring older trains in the west country without immediate replacements, leading to the fleet needing to be more thinly spread, which is now gradually being rectified.
Another example is CrossCountry, which still runs a timetable well below pre-pandemic levels half a decade on from those difficult times. CrossCountry is acquiring more trains, which will reduce crowding problems, but for many years it has been common for trains of just four or five carriages to run only once per hour between Reading, Oxford, Birmingham and beyond, including at peak times. My own experience of trying to board the 17:40 from Oxford to Manchester resembled the railway version of “The Hunger Games”.
Punctuality and getting a seat are core expectations, but rail passengers rightly expect more, particularly for longer-distance journeys. Intercity trains introduced this decade on the east coast main line, between London and Edinburgh, lack the dedicated vehicles of their InterCity 225 predecessors for surge luggage capacity, which is badly needed during the summer and the Edinburgh festival. Elsewhere, provision for pushchairs and bicycles is often patchy, and sometimes in competition. Space for such items is not necessarily at the cost of seats, as it often stated. I have been on trains where carriage of additional bicycles was refused due to lack of flexible storage space, despite half the seats on the train being available.
Much of the network remains inaccessible to people using wheelchairs, and they find booked assistance services inconsistent and less reliable than they should be. Toilet reliability can also cause frustration, discomfort and real distress for passengers. There are train journeys of over three hours in duration, for example the South Western Railway service between London and Exeter, that lack provision of any on-board refreshments. That might sound like a trivial issue, and stations often have much in the way of a retail offer, but if, for one reason or another, people are held up on the way to the station, whether because of traffic or a last-minute delay on the tube, and they run out of time to get something to eat or drink, in the case of SWR on that route they are stuffed.
On-board wi-fi or the ability to receive a decent mobile phone signal suitable for modern working methods is often lacking, as my colleague Ruth experiences on her journeys between Northumberland and London. To some, these may sound like minor inconveniences and mere whingeing trifles. Indeed, despite the valiant efforts of many of those who work on the railway, it can seem that railway passengers are almost viewed as hostages, with no viable alternative, which reduces the focus on tackling these problems.
However, we live in changing times. Not only does public transport continue to compete with the car’s convenient, connection-free journey from A to B, the economics and operation of cars are changing rapidly. To what degree is the public transport of the 2020s ready for a possible future of widespread driverless and electric cars? An example of the changing economics of long-distance travel is that of my friends Mark and Kev, who live in Newton-le-Willows, halfway between Manchester and Liverpool. Their electric car now makes the journey to London significantly cheaper than it would be by train, and some suboptimal experiences of Avanti West Coast’s train service further push them in the car direction.
Critics of public transport may ask, well, if the car is becoming greener and cheaper, does it matter if the passenger railway gets left behind? It is my strong contention that it does indeed matter, as it is far from certain that the electric and driverless car revolution will benefit everyone. Nothing can match the train for its ability to convey large numbers of people efficiently, particularly in urban areas, or to offer an on-board environment conducive to work, sleep, rest, eating or listening to music, although in the case of the latter I would ask that everybody uses earphones.
High-quality and reliable public transport is essential for social and economic inclusion, so how can a 21st-century refresh of the railway passengers’ charter contribute to a better future? First, we must protect charter arrangements already in place, which principally take the form of delay repay. Perhaps because the UK’s delay compensation arrangements are more generous than elsewhere in Europe, I keep hearing murmurs about ideas to water it down. That would be the wrong approach. The best way to reduce delay repay costs is, of course, to prevent and reduce delays in the first place.
Secondly, a refreshed passengers’ charter should be used to learn from past mistakes, regarding design and specification of trains. It was an error on the part of the Government and the public sector, not the private sector, not to specify fold-down tables, comfortable seats, device-charging sockets or wi-fi for the class 700 Thameslink fleet, ordered in the early 2010s. Given that trains have a lifespan of 30 to 40 years, it is important that we get them right from the beginning, so let us now get this right, with a clear set of minimum and consistent standards for commuter, rural, regional and express passenger trains.
Once train fleets consistently have the amenities the modern passenger expects, charters should be expanded to include the principle that what is offered on a given train fleet, whether that is seats, toilets or wi-fi, should be working. The existing delay repay partial refund concept should be expanded to cover such amenities, with appropriate exclusions, such as the entitlement to a seat waived for journeys of under 30 minutes or during major disruption or special events.
The advancement of the charter concept brings with it the hope of a truly 21st-century railway, which will attract the patronage needed for the railway’s financial sustainability: a train service that even commuters may look forward to using, because instead of a daily grind, it will be a chance for a relaxed transition between home and workplace, and a long-distance train service that is less of a distress purchase, and more a comfortable, relaxing or productive alternative to a car, whether self-driven or otherwise. Our railway recently celebrated its 250th anniversary, so what better time to reset our ambition and ensure that we will feel even more proud of our railway’s achievements at the 300th anniversary, in 2074?
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Olly Glover, Edward Morello, Mr Will Forster, Helen Morgan, Steff Aquarone, Helen Maguire, Zöe Franklin, Daisy Cooper, Ian Roome, Martin Wrigley, Charlotte Cane and Liz Jarvis present the Bill.
Olly Glover accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 February, and to be printed (Bill 370).
National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
15:24 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 191 / Noes: 326 - Question accordingly negatived.
15:39 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 195 / Noes: 317 - Question accordingly negatived.
16:01 - The House divided: - Ayes: 316 / Noes: 194 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)
I remind Members that, in Committee, Members should not address the Chair as “Deputy Speaker”. Please use our names or “Madam Chair”, “Chair” and “Madam Chairman”.
Clause 1
Employer pensions contributions pursuant to optional remuneration arrangements: Great Britain
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 5, page 1, line 10, after “income tax” insert—
“at the higher or additional rate”.
This amendment would exempt basic rate taxpayers in England, Wales and Scotland from the £2,000 cap.
The Second Deputy Chairman
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 7, page 2, line 26, leave out from “as” to end and insert—
“the amount calculated under subsection (5) for a tax year (but subject to any provision made in reliance on subsection (6C)(a) or (b) of that section).
(5) In 2029-30 the contributions limit must be set at a figure equal to £2,000 uprated by any percentage change in the consumer price index between 2026-27 and 2028-29.
(6) In subsequent tax years the contributions limit must be uprated by the same percentage change as that applied to the consumer price index that year.”
This amendment would uprate the £2,000 cap by the percentage change in the consumer price index during the period before 2029-30, and would require the cap to be uprated by the same percentage as the change in the consumer price index each year thereafter.
Clause 1 stand part.
Amendment 6, clause 2, page 2, line 38, after “income tax” insert—
“at the higher or additional rate”.
This amendment would exempt basic rate taxpayers in Northern Ireland from the £2,000 cap.
Amendment 8, page 3, line 39, leave out from “as” to end and insert—
“the amount calculated under subsection (5) for a tax year (but subject to any provision made in reliance on subsection (6C)(a) or (b) of that section).
(5) In 2029-30 the contributions limit must be set at a figure equal to £2,000 uprated by any percentage change in the consumer price index between 2026-27 and 2028-29.
(6) In subsequent tax years the contributions limit must be uprated by the same percentage change as that applied to the consumer price index that year.”
This amendment would uprate the £2,000 cap in Northern Ireland by the percentage change in the consumer price index during the period before 2029-30, and would require the cap to be uprated by the same percentage as the change in the consumer price index each year thereafter.
Clause 2 stand part.
Clause 3 stand part.
New clause 1—Review of impact on SME recruitment and retention—
“(1) The Treasury must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report assessing the effect of its provisions on small and medium-sized businesses with regard to the—
(a) recruitment of staff, and
(b) retention of staff.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must also consider the cumulative impact of changes to employer’s national insurance on businesses affected by this Act since July 2024.”
This new clause would require the Treasury to review and report on the impact of the Bill’s provisions relating to National Insurance contributions on the ability of SMEs to recruit and retain staff.
New clause 2—Review of impact on small and medium-sized business tax liabilities—
“(1) The Treasury must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report assessing the effect of its provisions on small and medium-sized businesses with regard to—
(a) businesses’ overall tax burden,
(b) employment costs, and
(c) business solvency.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must also consider the cumulative impact of changes to employer’s national insurance on businesses affected by this Act since July 2024.”
This new clause would require the Treasury to review and report on the impact of the Bill’s provisions relating to National Insurance contributions on the overall tax burden and employment costs faced by SMEs.
New clause 3—Review of impact on employee marginal tax rates—
“(1) The Treasury must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report assessing the effect of its provisions on the number of employees brought into a higher marginal rate of income tax.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must give particular regard to the impact of the freezing of income tax thresholds between April 2022 and April 2031.”
This new clause would require the Treasury to review and report on the impact of the Bill’s provisions relating to National Insurance contributions on the number of employees who move into a higher tax band due the increase in their taxable income due to the effects of this Bill.
New clause 4—Reviews of the impact of the Act—
“(1) The Treasury must, before March 2029, lay before Parliament an assessment of the impact of the changes made under this Act.
(2) The assessment made under subsection (1) must consider—
(a) the adequacy of pension contributions made by or on behalf of individuals affected by this Act,
(b) use of salary sacrifice schemes and optional remuneration arrangements, and
(c) any effects on the investment capability of UK pension funds.
(3) The Treasury must lay before Parliament a follow-up assessment of the impact of the changes made under this Act before March 2034.”
This new clause would require the Treasury to undertake an impact assessment of the effect of the change made under this Act, before they take effect, and again five years later.
New clause 5—Calculation and publication of lifetime pension values—
“(1) The Treasury must calculate and publish the projected lifetime value of an individual’s pension before and after the changes made by under this Act.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the projected lifetime value is the total amount of pension income an individual is expected to receive over their lifetime.
(3) The calculations made under subsection (1) must—
(a) be based on clearly stated assumptions, and
(b) include illustrative examples covering different pension entitlements.”
New clause 6—Assessment of changes to pension saving through salary sacrifice schemes—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within 15 months of the provisions of this Act coming into effect, lay before Parliament an assessment of the effect of this Act on the amount saved into pensions through salary sacrifice schemes.
(2) The assessment made under subsection (1) must include an—
(a) estimate of the total amount saved into pensions through salary sacrifice schemes in the 12 months preceding the provisions of this Act coming into effect,
(b) estimate of the total amount saved into pensions through salary sacrifice schemes in the 12 months following the provisions of this Act coming into effect, and
(c) an assessment of the difference between those amounts.”
Mark Garnier
It is a great pleasure to be with you yet again, Ms Nokes. I enjoyed our last sparring with the Pensions Minister just before Christmas, which cheered us up to no end.
Let me speak to amendments 5, 7, 6 and 8 as well as new clause 4, which all stand in my name. It will not surprise the Pensions Minister to hear that we are not at all happy with this Bill, which actually will do nothing to enhance pension savings. I will go through each of our amendments in the reverse order of importance.
New clause 4 would require the Government to assess the impact of the Bill, should it receive Royal Assent, before and after its implementation in 2029. We think it is important that the Government do their homework before implementing policies. We asked for something similar in the Pension Schemes Bill, but the Pensions Minister described it as unnecessary. In this case, the Government seem not to have listened to industry, to experts or to savers. Our new clause asks the Government to do that, so that we can better understand the impact. First, how will the Bill affect pensions adequacy? That will be after the pensions review has concluded, so we do need to know. Secondly, how many people use salary sacrifice or optional remuneration arrangements? Thirdly, what are the investment capability of UK pensions?
There has been a certain amount of commentary on this matter. The Association of British Insurers has said:
“We have consistently raised concerns about the potential impact of a cap on pension salary sacrifice on both people’s savings and employers’ resources.”
There are some issues that are of great concern to many people on this matter, so have the Government fully considered the knock-on effect that it will have on investment from UK pension funds? Also, will the Government update the terms of reference for the pensions commissioner, which is being led by Baroness Drake, to ensure that this is considered?
We are unlikely to press new clause 4 to a vote. However, I believe that the Liberal Democrats’ new clause 5 would have a similar effect. Should the Liberal Democrats wish to move the new clause, we would support it.
Amendments 7 and 8 concern the indexation of the cap. These amendments look to make the £2,000 cap naturally rise in line with the consumer prices index. We have brought these amendments forward because if the cap remains static, it will become increasingly meaningless. We have seen today, when we have had an above-expectation inflation rise of 3.4%, that would clearly devalue the value of the cap, even by the time that it is implemented in 2029. Our amendments seek to address that so that salary sacrifice arrangements do not become redundant without parliamentary intervention. Obviously, we use CPI because it is the basis for inflation. Again, the ABI has made a similar argument, as the cap does not allow for inflationary changes. Having said that, we do not propose to press those amendments.
Let me move on to amendments 5 and 6, which we feel particularly strongly about. They are mirror arrangements for each other. Importantly, we are trying to make what we feel is a very poor Bill into something that is less poor. The amendments would make basic rate taxpayers exempt from the £2,000 cap. They would support the group in the UK that typically under-saves and is the least prepared for retirement. According to the Society of Pension Professionals, a quarter of the people who enjoy salary sacrifice, who will be hit by the changes that this Bill brings in, are basic rate taxpayers. Around 850,000 basic rate taxpayers will be affected by the cap.
More fundamental to that is the fact that this group of people—lower-paid workers—will be hit disproportionately hard. Salary sacrifice allows an employee to give up a certain amount of their salary to be contributed to their pension directly by the employer. We all understand that, but it not only takes advantage of the income tax allowance, as with all pension contributions, but allows national insurance contributions to be included and transferred into the pension, in the case of an employee national insurance, and allows for employer national insurance to be used at the discretion of the employer.
The employee element—the national insurance that we all pay as employees—is the important part of this matter. While higher rate taxpayers will continue to enjoy 40% tax relief at their higher rate, the national insurance is just 2 percentage points—around one-twentieth of the tax break on the income tax. While a basic rate taxpayer enjoys just 20% income tax breaks, their national insurance contribution is 8%. The effect on lower-paid workers is four times that on higher-paid workers. That is not a good thing—indeed, 8% is two-fifths of the value of the other contribution for which they benefit from their income tax savings.
In absolute terms, as I have said, the marginal rate is four times more expensive for lower rate taxpayers than it is for higher rate taxpayers, but there is an even bigger problem: this is a harder attack on other types of savers than we had anticipated. Another group of people affected are those paying back student loans. Graduates pay back their student loans once they pass the thresholds of £28,745, and they do so at a rate of 9%. Graduates who would otherwise enjoy that 9% that goes into student loans being paid into a pension will not see it being paid into their pension because of the salary sacrifice cap. The effective loss for a graduate paying back student loans is 9%. Graduates on the basic rate of tax will see not just a loss of 8% for their national insurance schemes, but a total loss of 17% of the benefit at the marginal level above the £2,000 cap.
The director of the Chartered Institute of Taxation agrees. She said:
“The change will disproportionately affect basic rate taxpayers because they will pay at 8% NIC on contributions over the £2,000 cap, compared with a 2% charge on higher earners. It will also disproportionately impact those with student loans who earn above the repayment threshold, as they will have incurred an extra 9% student loan deduction from their pay.”
At a time when we are trying to get people to do the right thing and save for the future, it seems that the Government want to whack the lower-paid harder. Because of the way that this system works, they will whack the lower paid. They also want to whack a younger generation even harder than those who enjoyed free university education. That younger generation cannot afford to buy a house and have to pay for university education. The Government have made it far harder to get a job, with their jobs tax, and at a time when we are desperately trying to get people to save for their retirement, they are making it harder to save for a pension.
I challenge Labour MPs. Why are they being whipped to vote against these measures and against the interests of lower-paid people? Why are they being asked to vote against the interests of graduates and younger people and vote for a regressive tax?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the shadow Minister for what he is saying. This is about not just those on lower incomes, but those on middle incomes. It is about the mums and dads of the students—all this falls back on their shoulders. Does he agree that this Bill is an attack on younger people who have aspirations and hopes for the future? We should be encouraging young people and helping them, and the Government have very clearly fallen down on that.
Mark Garnier
I completely agree. That is a fundamental problem. We are doing completely the wrong thing for people who want to do the right thing. We are disincentivising people taking responsibility for their future at a time when the state pension is coming under a lot of pressure. It is expected in 11 or 12 years, I think, that less money will be paid into the pension schemes pot than is withdrawn by those of us who are approaching retirement—I declare an interest, in my own case.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
You have years to go.
Mark Garnier
I am trying to finish my speech—in fact, I had finished my speech.
This is a very important point, and we will push amendment 5 to a vote. As I said, we will challenge Labour MPs not to do the wrong thing for their constituents—for the young, hard-working graduates who are desperate to do the right thing.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
My chief concern with this Bill is that, like a lot of the measures that the Chancellor announced in the Budget, it looks like it may be a route to some medium-term increased tax revenues, but it gives no thought to longer-term consequences. That will help the Chancellor meet her fiscal rules, but I say “may” because the Bill does not kick in this year, next year, the year after or the year after that; rather conveniently, it will kick in during the election year of 2029-30. That is pretty useful if you are fighting an election and want to meet your fiscal rules, but it is not very useful if you are trying to be fiscally prudent, so that leads to some scepticism about what is actually going on here.
Given the pressures on the state pension and the social care system, it seems extremely counterproductive to reduce the incentives for those who can afford to save more towards their retirement. Let us look at the impact that small businesses have warned about. Pensions UK and the Federation of Small Businesses have jointly expressed their concern that these changes will increase costs for businesses that rely on salary sacrifice to support staff retention and reward. They state:
“Higher National Insurance costs and operational disruption would make it harder to offer competitive benefits, invest in growth, or plan effectively.”
We need to remember the wider context that small businesses are operating in. Even before this Bill, they were battling the sharply rising costs of everything from rents to energy bills, supplies, business rates, the costs of Brexit and so on, and they also have to adjust to the changes in their NICs bills that the Chancellor announced a year ago. One can imagine how that must feel for small business owners—the additional burden heaped on them feels unsustainable.
This Bill is a double whammy on last year’s national insurance hikes—the NICs burden went up last year due to the rate increase, and now this measure is raising their NICs bills for a second time. I would be interested to hear from the Minister what assessment the Government have made of the impact of these changes on businesses, and on small businesses in particular. That is why the Liberal Democrats have tabled amendments requiring the Government to publish full assessments of the impact of the Bill on the recruitment and retention and the tax liabilities of businesses.
Let us now consider the potential damage that this choice will do further down the road by disincentivising saving. Earlier this year, research by Scottish Widows found that 39% of people in the UK are not on track for a minimum lifestyle in retirement, which is a 4% increase since 2023. Research showed that people were actually saving more towards their pension in the last year, but projected retirement income was still failing to keep pace, given the rising cost of living.
Chris Vince
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), challenged Labour MPs to champion their constituencies. One of the biggest concerns I have about pensions in my constituency of Harlow is the number of people who are not paying into any pension at all, particularly those who are self-employed or lower earners. Does the Liberal Democrat spokesperson agree that the real conversation that we in this place need to be having about pensions is how we encourage people in my constituency and beyond to save for their futures, which I think is what he is suggesting?
Charlie Maynard
I absolutely agree—well said.
The Government may well say that the Bill will not affect low earners, who are likely not to be saving £2,000 in a given year, as the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) has just said. However, that is too simplistic a way to look at this issue. The impact assessment by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs found that an estimated 7.7 million employees currently use salary sacrifice to make pension contributions—that is around 25% of all employees. Of these, 3.3 million sacrifice more than £2,000 of salary or bonuses. That leaves millions of middle earners who are already feeling a significant squeeze as a result of myriad other cost of living pressures, who have had their taxes raised by the previous Conservative Government, and who are now facing an even greater hit due to this Government’s jobs tax and the extension of frozen income tax thresholds. If this Bill discourages those people from putting money away for their safety net in later life, the Treasury will pay the price in the long run.
Before the Budget, the Association of British Insurers warned that two in five Brits will save less in their pension if a cap on salary sacrifice schemes is introduced. With social care budgets also stretched to breaking point, we should be doing everything we can to incentivise people who are able to put money aside for a comfortable and supported retirement to do so. As the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales pointed out in its response:
“At a time when there is a pensions commission considering the adequacy of pension saving, this demonstrates a lack of joined-up thinking from the government.”
Torsten Bell
I thank the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) for the reminder of the excellent debate we had before the Christmas break. I thank him and the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) for their contributions. I will briefly reiterate the case for the three short and perfectly formed clauses of this Bill before focusing my remarks on the hon. Members’ amendments.
As hon. Members know, this reform was inevitable. We have had a detailed discussion of the last Government’s secret plan to implement a very similar proposal—the “secret plan” label came from the Conservative party, not Government Front Benchers—and the cost of pensions salary sacrifice was due to almost treble, from £2.8 billion in 2017 to £8 billion by 2030. That is the equivalent of the cost of the Royal Air Force. The status quo is also hard to defend when low earners and the 4.4 million self-employed people across the UK are entirely excluded, reinforcing the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince).
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
The Minister will recall our many happy hours together in Committee on the Pension Schemes Bill. One of the issues that the Liberal Democrats raised was the need for an MOT for people as they approach pension age, to see how their pension is going and test its adequacy. Does the Minister accept that putting these stark restrictions in place will significantly restrict the ability of somebody who realises that they are running out of time to make additional contributions to their pension to get to a better place? Would he consider extra flexibility, so that people could perhaps use 10-year allowances in three years?
The Second Deputy Chairman
Order. I remind Members that the scope of this Bill is very narrow indeed, and we really ought not to be bringing in new concepts.
Torsten Bell
Thank you, Ms Nokes. I will follow your advice, but will try to respond to some of the hon. Member’s points when I address the question of how we have gone about making the changes that this Bill introduces.
As I have said, change is inevitable, but it is important to take a pragmatic approach, which is my answer to the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling). The Bill is pragmatic in that it continues to allow £2,000 to be salary sacrificed free of any NICs charge, ensuring that 95% of those earning £30,000 or less will be entirely unaffected. It is pragmatic in that it gives employers and the industry four years to prepare.
Chris Vince
The Minister has said that the cost to the Exchequer of the salary sacrifice scheme is going to triple by the end of this decade. Does he agree that that is unsustainable for the Treasury, and also that we in this Chamber have to get real? The reason why people in my constituency of Harlow cannot even begin to think about pensions or savings is that they are living day to day. What this Government need to do is tackle the cost of living crisis, and that is what they are doing.
Torsten Bell
In a shock move, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Members of those parties who have said that they intend to vote against this Bill today cannot keep coming to this Chamber, day after day, calling for additional spending in more areas, while opposing any means of raising taxes. [Interruption.] Well, you have raised the welfare budget, and without trying—
The Second Deputy Chairman
Order. First, I have not raised anything. Secondly, we are not here to debate the welfare budget. This is a very narrow Bill with limited scope. The Minister can listen to the same strictures I have given to other Members.
Torsten Bell
I am listening to every word of your strictures, Ms Nokes. This Bill is also pragmatic by providing time to adjust and by ensuring that saving into a pension remains hugely tax-advantaged. I say gently to Members who do not agree with the detail of this Bill that they should be careful not to give the impression to savers or those not saving that there is not already a strong financial incentive to continue pension saving in exactly the way people have been doing. Clause 1 provides for that pragmatic approach in Great Britain. Clause 2 does the same for Northern Ireland, and clause 3 provides for the territorial extent and start date of these measures.
I will turn more substantively to the amendments tabled by the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Witney. At one level, I was glad to see amendments 5 and 6 tabled by the shadow Minister, which aim to exempt basic rate taxpayers. It shows the Opposition, as part of the secret plan that I mentioned earlier, accepting the inevitability of change and instead grappling with what the right pragmatic version of that looks like. In many ways, the amendments aim to deliver the same objective as the £2,000 cap, which, as I said, will mean that 95% of those earning less than £30,000 are unaffected, as are the vast majority of basic rate taxpayers.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Can the Minister explain what is pragmatic about withdrawing a 2p in the pound tax relief from a higher rate taxpayer without a student loan, while withdrawing a 17p in the pound tax relief from a basic rate taxpayer who happens to have a student loan?
Torsten Bell
The pragmatic approach is to allow people to continue with salary sacrifice up to £2,000 and to not bring in the measure for four years, so that people have time to adjust. Opposition Members will need to justify wanting to spend more than is being spent on the Royal Air Force on that—I sat through Prime Minister’s questions today, and I heard people calling for more defence spending—while not being able to live up to what that requires, which is taking seriously that we spend tax reliefs effectively. For everybody, there will still be a strong tax incentive to save into their pension.
Taking the approach that the Opposition propose, rather than our proposed cap, would likely be impossible to implement in practice and add unnecessary complexity. That is not least because employers would in many cases not know which employees would end up being basic rate taxpayers. They certainly would not know for sure until the end of the financial year, or at least late on into it.
Amendments 7 and 8 would uprate the cap by inflation. The Government have set out our policy intent for a £2,000 cap to be introduced in April 2029, with the timing driven by the desire to give everyone time to adjust. In that context, it does not make sense to index that cap ahead of 2029. Our view is that the future level of the cap in the next decade and beyond is for Budgets in those decades—or at least significantly closer to them. I know that Members are keen to start debating the 2031 Budget, but having heard from Ms Nokes, I think we should leave that for another day.
Our approach is consistent with the one that this House has taken under Governments of all three main parties, which is to have key elements of the pension tax system that are not routinely indexed, including the annual allowance. It is of course right that this and all Governments will want to keep the cap under review to ensure that it continues to meet the objectives we have set out today.
Several of the new clauses probe at the impact of the changes. The Government have published a tax information and impact note alongside the Bill. It sets out the impact of the policy on the Exchequer, the economy and individuals and businesses. It also provides an overview of the equality impacts.
New clauses 1 and 2 focus on SMEs. I have heard suggestions—this has been gently hinted at today—that SMEs are more likely to be affected. The opposite is true. Only 39% of employers offer pension salary sacrifices, and small businesses are less likely to do so than larger businesses. Indeed, the status quo puts SMEs at a disadvantage relative to their larger competitors, which is the opposite of the point that the hon. Member for Witney wanted to make.
New clause 3 focuses on marginal tax rates, but the changes in the Bill do not directly affect a person’s marginal tax. Those wanting to make pension contributions to keep their taxable income below a certain level can continue to do so, and I have read much misleading commentary on that point.
New clause 4 proposes an impact assessment of the changes before they take effect and five years after. I again commend the hon. Member for Wyre Forest, who is showing admirable zeal for supporting the argument that I made on Second Reading that any responsible Government should keep the £500 billion of tax reliefs under review to ensure that they are delivering efficiently on their objectives. That is the exact thought pattern that identified this relief as needing reform. I look forward to the shadow Minister changing his mind and supporting our measures. The Government should and will continue to keep this and all taxes and tax reliefs under review, rather than singling this particular relief out via primary legislation.
I turn briefly to new clauses 5 and 6, which focus on the impact on pension savings. I can reassure the Committee that the Office for Budget Responsibility has set out that it does not expect any material impact on savings as a result of the Budget 2025 tax changes. I hope that these remarks reassure Members on the points that their amendments have raised. I commend the Bill to the Committee.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Torsten Bell
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill amends the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, creating a power to apply employer and employee national insurance contributions on salary sacrifice pension contributions above £2,000 a year from April 2029. Reform of this type, as I have said, was inevitable. The cost to the Exchequer of salary sacrifice pension schemes was due to almost treble by 2030 without reform. The Government are taking a pragmatic and balanced approach to that reform: first, by introducing a cap so that ordinary workers are, in the vast majority of cases, unaffected; secondly, by giving employers, employees and providers a long lead-in time, so that everybody has plenty of time to prepare; and thirdly, by ensuring that saving into a pension, including via salary sacrifice, remains hugely tax-advantageous. The Government continue to provide over £70 billion of income tax and national insurance relief on pension contributions each year. Employer pension contributions will remain the most tax-advantaged part of the system.
In this debate and others on pensions, we have heard strong cross-party consensus that greater pension adequacy is important. We all look at the forecasts for private pension income and see that they show lower private pension income on average for those retiring in 2050 relative to those retiring today. That is not an acceptable place to be. Answering that question is the job of the Pensions Commission, which we have put in place with cross-party support. It is rightly examining the question of retirement income adequacy and fairness. I gently note that those groups that we all agree are under-saving for retirement, such as low earners and the self-employed, are precluded from using salary sacrifice or are much less likely to use it than other groups.
Part of what we are doing through the Bill is delivering badly needed reforms to the tax system alongside other measures from the Budget. These measures are what it takes to keep waiting lists falling, cut borrowing and cut energy bills in the years ahead. Those who do not wish to support changes like these cannot have it both ways and call for additional spending, additional support on energy bills and the rest.
More generally, it is important that we all consider the effectiveness of tax reliefs in the system, which cost a cumulative £500 billion a year. If we defend the status quo, even in the face of tax reliefs, which are hard to justify and whose costs are rising significantly, that means that higher taxes for everybody else. We are not prepared to see that happen.
Indeed, I am sure that in their hearts the Opposition parties also believe that these reforms are necessary. As a test of that, I invite the shadow Minister to stand up and commit to reversing the changes if—though it is very unlikely—the Conservatives ever happen to form a Government again. I am 100% sure that he will not do that, because he knows that these changes need to be made. On the basis of what should be cross-party support, I commend the Bill to the House.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
The Pensions Minister is absolutely right that there is an awful lot that we agree on. It is always a great pleasure to spar with him and agree on certain things, but this Bill is not one of them. Let me be clear why we disagree with the Minister.
First, the contributors to the research done by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs were absolutely against this Bill. The report, which was published last year and which the Minister mentioned on Second Reading, concluded that all the hypothetical scenarios explored in the research, including the £2,000 cap, were viewed negatively. It also pointed out that the £2,000 cap was the most complicated option presented. Given that the Government tabled no amendments to address the genuine concerns of savers and industry, it seems that the Minister is still apparently chuffed that he is implementing a policy that is, at best, the least worst option for everybody who was asked to comment.
Secondly, the Government are voting for a Bill that will add to the administrative burden on businesses. The pensions system is already incredibly complex for experts to navigate, let alone the general public. That is why salary sacrifice arrangements have been such a popular savings tool for both employees and employers. The principles are easy to understand, with the only real piece of admin being on the employer to ensure that the employee does not fall below the national living wage. But what are the Government doing? They are going for the option that the report considered to be the most complicated.
The Government are choosing to confuse with complications a system that is currently the simplest to deliver. The changes will add an estimated £30 million each year in administrative costs to employers—and this comes at a time when businesses and the wider economy already pay an estimated £15.4 billion just to comply with the tax system. What about the effects on businesses, which see a 15% employer national insurance bonus through helping people to save? The changes will mean that employers will be hit with a 15% increase on the costs of employment.
The savings that employers achieve through salary sacrifice arrangements are often invested back into their employees and their businesses, including through increased pension contributions to all employees, higher wages, or more investment into plant and machinery for growth. That is a good thing. The Government are now taking money away from the productive part of the economy and putting it into other parts. No wonder businesses think that this is a nonsensical policy delivered by a directionless Government, who forget that businesses are the ones that create wealth in our economy, add value to it and drive growth.
Thirdly, the Government are supporting a Bill that will not actually raise the stated revenue. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) pointed out when winding up on Second Reading, the change appears to have been timed to maximise revenue in 2029-30: the year that counts for the Chancellor’s fiscal rules. That is £4.8 billion to fill the Chancellor’s black hole—she will have one by then—in order to make a cynical attempt to stick to a fiscal rule. This is a cynical measure that destroys a lifetime of savings opportunities for just one year of revenue. Frankly, it is also likely that the Government will not raise anywhere near the £4.8 billion budgeted for, as higher earners max out the benefits of the scheme before it comes into force in 2029; and, in any event, people are figuring out a workaround.
Fourthly, the Government are voting for a Bill that harms lower earners the most. As I pointed out earlier, the Society of Pension Professionals estimates that over 850,000 basic rate taxpayers who use salary sacrifice will be affected by the changes, and those 850,000 people will be taxed at a higher rate than their wealthier colleagues—something that the Government apparently seek to target with this policy. And I always thought that Labour Governments were meant to be on the side of working people, Madam Deputy Speaker!
Fifthly, and finally, the Government are voting for a Bill that will make the impending pension adequacy crisis worse. As I said in my introduction, there is widespread agreement that people are not saving enough, so why make the second largest revenue-raising measure of last year’s Budget one that goes after people’s savings for later life? It goes against that basic, important and agreed objective of people planning for their futures. More importantly, it goes against the Government’s own financial inclusion strategy.
As the Economic Secretary to the Treasury set out in November,
“Our aim is to create a culture in which everyone is supported to build a savings habit, building their financial resilience in the long term.”
How does the Bill accomplish that reasonable ambition? It won’t, because it disincentivises employees from saving more in their pensions and it disincentivises employers from providing it as an option in the first place.
Altogether, it is the wrong policy that sends the wrong message at the wrong time. We gave the Government a chance to address some of those concerns earlier, and they did not take it. We hear all those concerns loud and clear from businesses, savers and all the rest of them, which is why we want the Government to think again on this issue and why we will vote against this Bill on Third Reading.
People are simply not saving enough for their retirement. Rather than restricting the options, we should be encouraging the creation of new incentives that encourage people to save more. Instead, the Government are pushing through a Bill that will do the opposite. It is unbelievably unpopular because it punishes 3.3 million people who actively try to save for retirement by punishing the 290,000 employers who incentivise their employees to save. Worst of all, it breaks another of Labour’s manifesto promises: that it will not increase taxes on working people. It remains the wrong policy to pursue, and that is why we will vote against it.
Charlie Maynard
I will let it pass from here.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Business of the House (Today)
Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:12 - The House divided: - Ayes: 373 / Noes: 106 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
I beg to move,
That the draft Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 (Remedial) Order 2025, which was laid before this House on 14 October 2025, be approved.
As every one of us knows, Northern Ireland continues to live with the legacy of the troubles. Over 3,500 people lost their lives during that period of brutal violence, including almost 2,000 civilians and over 1,000 people who were killed while bravely serving the state. We owe them, and always will, a huge debt of gratitude. Ninety per cent of all those who lost their lives were killed by paramilitaries. Each person was someone’s father, brother, sister, mother or child; each one a tragic loss of life.
In 1998, the people of Northern Ireland chose to leave this legacy of violence behind them when they voted for the Good Friday agreement, but for too many families of the victims, questions remain as to why their loved ones died and at whose hands. There have been many efforts to address the legacy of the troubles since, including the Stormont House agreement, reached between the last Government and the Irish Government in 2014, and, most recently, the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023.
It is now beyond doubt that that last attempt—the legacy Act—whatever its intentions, fundamentally failed. It failed because it has been found in many respects to be incompatible with our human rights obligations; the legislation simply did not work on its own terms. But even more importantly, it failed because it did not command any support in Northern Ireland among victims and survivors or the political parties.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I commend the Secretary of State for the careful and thoughtful work that he has done to bring the House to this place today. Does he agree that, with this remedial order, he is doing the right thing for victims? That means ordinary people, including veterans and the wider armed forces community, all of whom were injured or lost loved ones. They are the people we have in our minds today. It was the Conservatives’ bad legislation that led us to have to pass a remedial order, for only the 11th time since the second world war. Does he agree that—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. This is a very long intervention. Many speakers wish to get in this afternoon, so I urge Members to keep interventions short.
Hilary Benn
I agree with my hon. Friend that the legacy Act needed dealing with. Any Government that came into office in summer 2024 would have to be doing what we are doing.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
It is worth bringing to the House’s attention again the fact that the legacy Act, whatever its legality or otherwise, was predicated on our membership of the European convention on human rights. Does the Secretary of State agree, and will he reflect on the fact, that there was an appeal against the supposed illegality of the Act at the time of the general election by the previous Government, and this Government decided to ditch it?
Hilary Benn
That is indeed a wholly accurate description of the sequence of events, because this Government do not agree with immunity as a matter of principle—I will go on to advance the argument a little later—but the Act was also, as the right hon. Gentleman points out, found to be incompatible with our obligations as a nation because we continue to be signatories to the European convention on human rights.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I am extremely grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way; he is an immensely courteous Member of this House and always has been. He will be aware, however, that there is a live legal case by the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement, and that the very Human Rights Act he cited says that this kind of order ought not to be moved—indeed, it would be ultra vires—while a case is proceeding. How does he feel about that, and will he explain to the House why we are debating this at all given all that I have said?
Hilary Benn
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that point. If he will bear with me, I will come very directly to precisely that point a little later in my speech.
It is the Government’s view that there is both a legal necessity and an imperative for us to act, and this remedial order is the first step in that process. The remedial order will remove two key effects of the provisions of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 that were found by the courts in the Dillon case to be incompatible with our human rights obligations.
One of the main reasons for the failure of the legacy Act was its attempt to grant immunity, including to terrorists who murdered, in cold blood, soldiers and civilians in Northern Ireland and in towns and cities across England. In fairness, it probably seemed reassuring to veterans, and it was almost certainly reassuring to terrorists who had committed those acts, but it was a false promise that protected no one. It was never commenced, which is a very important fact. It was rejected by the courts as being incompatible with our legal obligations and, as a result, it was never implemented. No one ever got immunity, and while it may remain on the statute book, in practice it does not exist.
Nevertheless, while the Act has not been commenced, for many families any uncertainty about their loved ones’ killers being granted immunity has been a deterrent to coming forward to seek answers from the independent commission. There has also been opposition from some who served in Northern Ireland, because immunity undermines the rule of law that they were seeking to uphold.
David Crabbe, an Ulster Defence Regiment veteran who sits on the victims and survivors forum, said of immunity:
“The vast majority of veterans living in Northern Ireland did not want or feel as if they needed this protection. It was viewed as a perversion of the law, that went against the ethos of what those who served stood for, and what their role was in preserving law and order.”
And it was not only a false promise; it created a false equivalence between veterans on the one hand and terrorists on the other, and it still technically sits on the statute book today.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
May I remind the Secretary of State—I know that he knows it, as he has heard it from me and others many times before—that there is nothing about creating a false equivalence between the two? Everybody is equal before the law. If anything created a false equivalence, it was the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, which said that no matter how many murders a paramilitary had committed, and no matter how many illegal acts, if any, a soldier had committed, neither of them would ever serve more than two years of a sentence. That equivalence is there. It is not moral equivalence; it is equivalence before the law, and the 2023 Act did not initiate it.
Hilary Benn
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right when he describes the provisions of the 1998 legislation, but as he knows, that policy, along with the rest of the Good Friday agreement, was supported by just over 70% of the people of Northern Ireland in the referendum. It was a very bitter pill to swallow for many people in Northern Ireland, but it was a price to be paid for peace.
The point I am making in relation to this remedial order is that the last Government chose to legislate to give immunity to veterans and to terrorists on the same basis. The noble Lord Dodds said of the legacy Bill—which, by the way, he described as “rotten”—that it
“basically elevates terrorists and perpetrators of violence above their victims. That is fundamentally wrong.”
That is why we are bringing forward this remedial order to remove those provisions on immunity that have done so much damage to trust in Northern Ireland. Doing so will provide clarity and certainty ahead of the wider, significant reforms contained in the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill.
The remedial order will also remove the bar on troubles-related civil cases that stripped UK citizens of their right to seek redress. Section 43 of the 2023 Act left some 800 troubles-related civil cases involving the Ministry of Defence untouched.
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend may shortly be coming on to this, but civil cases have been raised as a concern given the potential for lawfare, notwithstanding that people like Gerry Adams are also subject to civil action in the coming months. Will he outline what he expects in terms of civil cases against those who served in our military or security services?
Hilary Benn
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. Those 800 cases were untouched and the Act allowed them to carry on—that is a very important point, given some very inaccurate press reporting at the beginning of this week, of which I am sure many right hon. and hon. Members are aware—but it did stop about 230 new civil claims proceeding. Those claims were lodged after First Reading of the legacy Bill, and about 120 of them are against the MOD. It also prevented any more claims from being brought in future. The point I am making is that there are 800 cases already there, left untouched by the last Government’s legacy Act, and 120 cases against the MOD that have been added since that will be enabled to proceed if the remedial order passes. As we know, that bar on new civil cases was found by the courts to be incompatible with our legal obligations.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
I intend to return to this matter in my contribution later on, but the issue of civil cases highlights most starkly the discord even between the courts. The High Court in Belfast focused only on the retrospective application of the provisions on civil cases, but the Court of Appeal then said that not only should it not be retrospective, but it should have no application in the future. There was a disagreement between the High Court and the Court of Appeal about the import of the measure, yet the Secretary of State, more determined to pursue his policy objective than the law, decided not to appeal that issue in the Supreme Court. That is why there are questions about the appropriate nature of this remedial order—does he accept that?
Hilary Benn
It is not unusual for higher courts to take a different view on a matter to that taken by lower courts—that is the way the law works. I would give the same answer to the right hon. Gentleman that I gave to an earlier intervention, which is that the Government’s view is that citizens of the United Kingdom should be able to bring civil cases as a matter of principle.
Hilary Benn
The right hon. Gentleman may disagree, but that is the view of the Government, and that is why we withdrew the appeal in relation to that element of the judgments to which he just referred.
We should remember that civil cases have been brought by family members of victims who were murdered during the troubles against the paramilitaries who were responsible. In 2009, four individuals were found by a civil court to be responsible for the Omagh bombing. There has also been a civil case looking into the Hyde Park bombing, where John Downey was found to be an active participant in the killing of four soldiers, and—this was referred to a moment ago—a civil case against Gerry Adams is due to take place in London this year. Therefore, to vote against this remedial order would be to prevent any more such cases from being brought against paramilitaries in future.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
As the Secretary of State well knows, the Blair Government handed out hundreds of so-called letters of comfort to alleged IRA paramilitaries following their release from prison. John Downey, the alleged Hyde Park bomber, produced such a letter during his trial at the Old Bailey, whereupon the trial was immediately abandoned. Our Northern Ireland veterans have no such letters of comfort. Does the Secretary of State agree that that letter of comfort let John Downey off on that particular occasion?
Hilary Benn
As I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is well aware, in that case Mr Downey was issued with a letter of comfort wrongly. The letter said, “We’re not seeking you for anything,” when clearly the state was seeking him for something because he had been charged with the Hyde Park bombing. As I recall, the judge said, “Well, I’m afraid this is an abuse of process,” and stopped the case. However, the letter that Mr Downey received did not give him immunity, because he is currently—this is a matter of public record—awaiting trial, charged with the murder of two soldiers in, I think, 1972. That proves what many have said, including former Prime Ministers, the chief constable and judges, which is that the letters of comfort—the on-the-run letters—never did, and do not now, grant anybody immunity.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman changes the subject, from what the letter of comfort was given for to what it was not given for, which does not prove anything about the letter of comfort. What is the case is that the judge said at the time that he could not rule on the case because the state had made a promise to Mr Downey, and that prevented the case. We also have the Queen’s grant of mercy, which is an amnesty, and people were released early, which is another form of amnesty. For the Secretary of State to say that the Good Friday agreement did not involve amnesties is simply in defiance of the facts.
Hilary Benn
If we are going to get on to the facts, the early release scheme was part of the Good Friday agreement, and the people of Northern Ireland voted for that agreement knowing what it involved. The royal prerogative of mercy was granted, but it never gave pardons and the convictions of those who received it were never quashed. It was put in place to allow for those individuals who, for technical reasons, could not be eligible for the early release scheme—that is the history of that. On the letters of comfort, the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), who is very learned in these matters, has not challenged the basic argument that I have put, which is that the fact that Mr Downey is currently awaiting prosecution proves that the letter he received did not give him immunity from prosecution.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
On that point, will the Secretary of State give way?
Hilary Benn
I will make some progress.
We cannot and should not allow the victims of the troubles to be denied redress through the courts. That is our view of principle, although I recognise that the leader of the Democratic Unionist party, the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), takes a different view.
I will now turn to the argument that the House should delay the approval of the remedial order, which we heard advanced in the House before Christmas. Section 10(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 allows a remedial order to be made on two grounds: first, if there has been declaration of incompatibility in relation to a provision of legislation and an appeal against the declaration has been “determined or abandoned”—the word “abandoned” is really important here—and secondly, if there are “compelling reasons” to do so.
The High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland clearly made a declaration of incompatibility in relation to immunity, and in July 2024 the newly elected Government abandoned these aspects of our appeal. The Government are therefore clear that the issue of incompatibility for the immunity and civil claims provisions are no longer part of the appeal now before the Supreme Court.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
The Secretary of State needs to go back to what the High Court judgment said in the Dillon case. If he looks at paragraph 710, he will see that the basis of ruling that immunity was unlawful was not just in respect of the ECHR, but also in respect of article 2 of the Windsor framework. That aspect, which is wholly intertwined with this question, is the subject of an appeal presently before the High Court. How can it be that a challenge that caused the High Court to decree that something was non-applicable was based upon the applicability of article 2 of the Windsor framework, and there is an appeal on that point? How is that not something that rules this order out under section 10?
Hilary Benn
It does not rule it out under section 10 for this reason: there are two parts to the court’s ruling in relation to immunity. The first part was that the court found immunity to be incompatible with our international human rights obligations. The Government withdrew an appeal against that finding. That finding remains because the appeal was abandoned by the Government, and that gives the Government the right to proceed with the remedial order. The second part of the judgment was that, in addition to finding the immunity provisions incompatible with the ECHR, the court decided to strike them down under article 2 of the Windsor framework. The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite correct that the Government are continuing with the appeal in that respect, because there is a genuine argument, which the Government have advanced, as to whether article 2 is being interpreted in the right way, because it seems like rather an expansive interpretation.
The fact that the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement was granted permission to intervene in relation to the interpretation of article 2 of the Windsor framework—that is what the court allowed it to come in and talk about—and the fact that the court is considering the question of the interpretation of article 2, do not and cannot alter the fundamental legal reality that immunity has been found to be incompatible with the European convention.
Several hon. Members rose—
Hilary Benn
I will give way to the two Members I have seen standing, and then I will bring my remarks to a close so that others can contribute.
Jim Allister
May I refer the Secretary of State to what paragraph 710(ii) of the Dillon judgment says? It says:
“Pursuant to section 7A of the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018 article 2 of the Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol/Windsor Framework has primacy over these provisions thereby rendering them of no force and effect. These provisions should therefore be disapplied”,
because of article 2. Article 2 is before the Supreme Court, so it is inextricably linked to section 10.
Hilary Benn
With great respect, I disagree. In answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman’s first intervention, I tried to explain that he is right in what he reads out in relation to article 2; it is the subject of a continuing appeal. However, the declaration of incompatibility under the ECHR remains, because the court ruled both of those things. It is not at issue in the appeal, and that gives the Government the ability to bring forward an order under section 10. I will give way to the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), but then I will bring my remarks to a close.
Lincoln Jopp
This is all getting quite technical, so I want to come back to the fundamentals of justice. If the Secretary of State were able to, would he like to give immunity to our veterans?
Hilary Benn
I am of the view that I listen. I quoted what David Crabbe said earlier, and he was opposed to immunity. The Government have listened to what the veterans commissioners and many others have said, which is, “We do not want immunity, and we are not calling for immunity; we want fairness under the law.” I have made it clear to the House that the Government do not agree with immunity as a matter of principle. When our brave soldiers put on the King’s uniform, they are upholding the law and operating underneath it. As Ben Wallace, the distinguished former Defence Secretary, said, “We abide by the rule of law; that is what makes us better than the terrorists.”
Section 10 of the Human Rights Act also requires that I have “compelling reasons” to proceed. Although the Government have indeed introduced primary legislation, we are clear that these repeals need to happen as quickly as possible. Why? Because we need to provide clarity on immunity to build trust among victims, survivors and, indeed, veterans in the independent commission, because while immunity remains on the statute book, it will be harder for them to obtain the confidence of some victims and survivors.
Hilary Benn
I will continue.
I have tried to cover the point that some have argued, particularly in the other place, that we should delay the remedial order until the Supreme Court ruling in the Dillon judgment. It is really easy to ask the Government to wait, but I think it is much harder to ask families who have endured unimaginable suffering at the hands of paramilitary violence, including forces families, to continue to wait while time marches on. As we know, many of them are elderly and have been waiting a very long time for answers.
In my view, and in the Government’s view, we should make these repeals as early as possible through the remedial order so that we have a legal framework that is fair, just and compliant with human rights. I have described it as a downpayment on trust ahead of the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, and I will do so again. That is why I am firmly of the view that the Government have compelling reasons for proceeding with this order. Even more importantly, this is also the view of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, to which I am grateful for its diligent consideration of this matter.
Hilary Benn
Since it is my friend the hon. Member, I will give way one last time.
Jim Shannon
On the point of trust, just so that we get it on record, is there any guarantee that the Republic of Ireland will withdraw the inter-state case if this legislation passes?
Hilary Benn
The basis of the Republic of Ireland’s inter-state case, which is a matter for the Republic of Ireland—[Interruption.] Just let me answer the question; I will do my best to respond. The basis of the inter-state case was that the last Government’s legacy Act was incompatible with the European convention on human rights. It is correct in advancing that argument, because the courts in Northern Ireland have found the last Government’s legacy Act to be incompatible in a number of respects. The Government’s job is to ensure that the legislation is made compatible, so that everyone in Northern Ireland can have confidence in the framework that we are trying to put in place, with as much support as possible. At that moment, there will be no basis for the inter-state case any more. What the Irish Government do with that case is a matter for them, but it will have no basis and it will not be able to go anywhere, because the House of Commons and the other place will have remedied the incompatibilities.
I am grateful to the Joint Committee on Human Rights for its diligent consideration of this matter.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Sir Desmond Swayne
I just ask the Secretary of State to acknowledge that the Committee’s opinion was not unanimous.
Hilary Benn
I was not about to advance the argument that it was a unanimous decision, but many a piece of legislation and many a report of a Committee throughout the history of this House has been passed on a majority vote. That is how we reach decisions, and the JCHR could not have been clearer in its second report: recognising the
“unique and delicate circumstances surrounding Northern Ireland legacy matters…the Government has”
sufficiently
“compelling reasons to proceed by way of remedial order”.
The Committee has recommended that this order be approved by both Houses of Parliament, and I urge the House to heed that recommendation by voting for the order tonight.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
It is an honour and a privilege to speak in this important debate. It is particularly important because there are some people watching this afternoon who themselves were on the line of action in what was surely one of the most difficult operations that British armed forces have ever had to deploy in. I know that some veterans are with us today in the House, and some are sitting on these green Benches. One of the things that all Members have a duty to keep in mind throughout this debate is our responsibility to them, the people who ultimately enabled peace to happen in Northern Ireland.
As we have discussed at a number of parliamentary events, we are opposed to the Government’s approach. We think that the Government have options that they are not taking, and that they are both compromising veterans’ peace of mind and endangering our military capability into the future. I noticed in The Telegraph today an important letter from some retired Special Air Service officers, who said that
“peace requires compromise, restraint, and the decision to stop refighting the past”.
The legislation that the previous Government brought in was specifically designed to try to draw a line under all of the events that had happened—not so that information would not be provided to families and victims, because the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery enabled that to happen, but so that we could move on from a new phase of the troubles conflict that was being fought in the courts.
We will obviously have a chance to go through what we are debating today in greater detail when the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill returns to the House for consideration in Committee of the whole House. With the legislation that we are debating, which seeks to delete parts of the 2023 legacy Act following the ruling of the Belfast Court of Appeal last year, the Government are saying that they have no choice but to act as they have and no choice but to try to change the legislation by means of remedial order. We do not believe that is the whole story. When they came to power, they had the option of appealing that decision by the Court of Appeal in Belfast. We know that, because the previous Conservative Administration had received legal advice saying that not only was a legal challenge possible, but had a high chance of success. Indeed, many legal experts outside of this House, in think-tanks such as Policy Exchange, set out why that might be the case.
The Government have implied two reasons why they dropped their appeal. The Secretary of State said in the House today, I think, and also on 17 December, that he believed that there was a moral outrage at the idea of immunity and a need to respect human rights law. On their own grounds, those are respectable positions, but they are also clearly not quite true. In the first instance, the human rights argument cannot stand on its own merits, because there were grounds to appeal, and the Government chose not to. The Government never found out what the actual position on human rights might have been, had they gone to the highest court in the land.
On the idea that immunity is a moral outrage, I fear that the Labour party is being at best disingenuous. I say that because the Secretary of State and other Labour Members often refer to the immunity in our 2023 Act. There was immunity under that Act, but it was conditional on people giving up information to ICRIR. That was not a novel concept. Indeed, that concept was a cornerstone of the legislation introduced after 1998. There are plenty of examples, such as the legislation around decommissioning of weapons, which actively allowed for the destruction of forensic evidence that could have led to prosecutions. The victims’ remains legislation allowed people to come forward and tell the authorities where victims were buried without fear of prosecution. We might call that immunity in return for information. We have already discussed the letters of comfort. There can be no doubt that John Downey effectively received immunity for the Hyde Park bombing case by dint of his letter of comfort, and so with the royal prerogative of mercy and so, most significantly of all, with the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill, which Peter Hain—now Lord Hain, then Secretary of State—brought to this House in 2005.
That Bill explicitly created—or would have, had it been passed—immunity for terrorists. That was immunity for terrorists, not for everyone. It was only when, under pressure from families and the Conservative party, the Government agreed to bring veterans into that legislation that it was dropped, because Sinn Féin ceased to support it. I say that respectfully, because the now Secretary of State was in the Cabinet at the time and would have been bound by collective responsibility on this issue.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
In essence, what my hon. Friend is talking about here with the agreements about the destruction of weaponry and the loss, therefore, of any ability to prosecute or proceed was, in a sense, one way. There is no way on earth that the same process would have been allowed for soldiers who had served in Northern Ireland. All evidence was kept, captured and can be used against them, whereas the weaponry that was destroyed and all other matters, such as letters of comfort, tended in one direction. When the Government talk about equivalence, they are wrong. It has never been about equivalence; it has been about one-way traffic.
Alex Burghart
My right hon. Friend could not be more correct. It has always been one-way traffic, and whenever the Conservative party has tried to create equivalence for veterans, the Labour party has backed down. We saw that with the 2005 legislation, and I am afraid that it is what we are seeing now.
When we introduced conditional immunity for veterans in the same way that conditional immunity had been used time and again after 1998, the Labour party opposed us. There is an incredibly selective memory over the issue of conditional immunity. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) made a point about the unlevel playing field. I was discussing that with my noble Friend Lord Caine, who served with a Northern Ireland brief for very many years. He reminded me last night that the IRA bombed a major forensic laboratory in Belfast in 1992. A 3,000 lb bomb, one of the largest ever planted, damaged about 1,000 houses, and obliterated an enormous amount of forensic evidence that had been kept on the IRA. To that extent, the IRA gave itself a form of immunity by destroying evidence in a way that the British state never would have done.
We have to ask ourselves this: why did the Government really drop their appeal? The Secretary of State says that it was because of immunity, but I am afraid I cannot believe that, because the Labour party supported immunity in the past. He also says that it was because of a lack of support for our legislation in Northern Ireland, and that is true. There was certainly not cross-party support for our legislation in Northern Ireland. However, I hate to break it to the Secretary of State, but there is not party support for his legislation in Northern Ireland either—and if this is really the case, I am not sure that the Secretary of State should be proceeding with what he is doing.
David Davis
The Secretary of State—who tells the truth—frequently says that the parties in Northern Ireland did not support the legacy legislation. I am speaking from memory, so these numbers are approximate, but when there was a poll of the population of Northern Ireland, 30-something per cent were in favour of the legislation and about 20-something per cent were against it, so it was about three to two. So if the Secretary of State is picking on popularity, on community support, he is in the wrong.
Alex Burghart
My right hon. Friend has always had a very good head for what is popular. I will check his figures, but I am sure they are correct, and he has made an important point. We cannot pretend that there was no support for what we were doing in Northern Ireland, because there are plenty of people in Northern Ireland who would like to move on. There are plenty of people who respect the decision to draw a line and move on.
David Smith
We can talk about political parties and we can talk about the general population, but does the shadow Secretary of State agree that there is nearly universal opposition among victims of terrorism to the conditional immunity in the legacy Act?
Alex Burghart
No, I do not acknowledge that. I have met victims, and people whose families were heavily affected by terrorism, who supported our legislation.
Sir Julian Lewis
It is often said, and rightly, that what is very important is that families should find out the truth about what happened. Which scenario makes it more likely that families will get the truth after all this time? Is it a scenario in which people can be prosecuted on either side, and therefore have an incentive, if they are guilty, to conceal the truth, or is it a scenario such as existed under the legislation introduced by our Government, whereby people are much encouraged to tell the truth about what happened because they know that they will not be punished if they do so?
Alex Burghart
My right hon. Friend has very succinctly summarised the central argument behind the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023: drawing a line does not mean covering up the past; drawing a line was an opportunity to open the past in a way that the adversarial system was never going to allow. Incidentally, I do not believe that the adversarial system will bring justice for very many people. We must remember that the peace process concluded in 1998, which is 28 years ago, and the troubles, by most reckonings, are deemed to have started in 1966, which is 60 years ago. We have recently seen the case of soldier F, in which one of the longest public inquiries in British legal history presented the most forensic evidence that could be imagined, but the court was unable to reach a conclusion. This means that the chances of any prosecution reaching a conclusion are very limited.
That does not matter, because for many veterans it is the process that is the punishment. We saw that in October last year, when a former SAS veteran, who was accused of having behaved wrongly in 1991, was dragged through the courts. Eventually, the judge in Belfast said the case was “ludicrous” and should never have come anywhere near him, but that individual had been pursued for four years. There are many such cases. If the process is the punishment, the fear of the process is a punishment for so many people.
David Davis
My hon. Friend makes a very good point about that specific case. The judge also criticised the allocation of legal aid for that case. He said that he could not understand how legal aid was given for such a futile case. Is it not a problem that the legal aid rules in Northern Ireland drive a machine that harms our soldiers?
Alex Burghart
Again, I agree with my right hon. Friend. In some quarters, there is an industry that I fear is allowing victims to believe that their chances of success are far greater than they are in practice. That is not pleasant, so we have to ask ourselves why the Government dropped their appeal.
Lincoln Jopp
As well as the self-licking lollipop of legislation and compensation, does my hon. Friend acknowledge that this is a proxy war? It is all about relitigating the question, “Who won?” Does he agree that we are allowing our brave servicemen and women, who served the nation incredibly bravely in Northern Ireland, to be used as pawns in a dreadful proxy game to relitigate the question, “Who won?”
Alex Burghart
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, who has great experience of these matters. The truth is that, for some people, this is the continuation of the troubles by other means. It is time to draw a line.
If the Government did not withdraw their appeal because of conditional immunity, which they supported in the past, and if they did not refuse to appeal because of views in Northern Ireland on their own legislation, it must be for another reason. I do not know what that reason is, and I suspect that we will never know, but I wonder whether it is connected with the desire of this Government to have a close relationship with the Irish Government as part of the European reset.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
Surely we are regrettably here because of our membership of a foreign court. Without our membership of the ECHR, we would not be in this mess or having this debate, and we could be moving on towards truth and reconciliation.
Alex Burghart
That is exactly one of the reasons why the next Conservative Government will leave the European convention on human rights.
Sir Desmond Swayne
The Human Rights Act 1998 does not require the Government to take any action as a consequence of the decisions that were made in the courts; it is entirely a matter for this House. The Government have made a choice. They had a choice to pursue the change through primary legislation or through this remedial order. They made a choice, notwithstanding the fact that they have a Bill coming down the line. Frankly, I think that was a ridiculous decision by my Committee, but there it is. [Laughter.]
Alex Burghart
I believe that we almost got a scintilla of insight into how my right hon. Friend feels about the latest Joint Committee on Human Rights report. I am grateful to him for pre-empting some of what I am about to say. I do worry that there is a bigger game going on in Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) said that veterans are being used as pawns in lawfare, but I wonder whether the case against veterans is a pawn in a bigger game that the Government are playing with the European Union. The Secretary of State says he has no choice, but of course His Majesty’s Government do have a choice. They have options.
The first option the Government had was to appeal, but they did not. The second option they have is to wait. On 15 October last year, the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement, represented pro bono by Lord Wolfson KC, was heard by the Court, and allowed to give oral and written evidence, which the Court is now considering. It is perfectly in scope for the UK Supreme Court to find that elements of the legacy Act are not actually incompatible with the European convention on human rights. However, if the Secretary of State’s remedial order has gone through both Houses by that time, we will be presented with legal chaos, because the Government will have used an order that they had no authority to use in order to remove primary legislation that should still be in place. The Government can avoid this: all they need do is wait and see what the Supreme Court says. In fairness, the Secretary of State thinks he knows what the Supreme Court will say. In reality, I am not sure that he does—but he has that option.
Lincoln Jopp
I hope I am not misquoting the Secretary of State, but he said the Government are using this guillotine motion to withdraw parts of an existing law before they have another one in place because of the urgency, and that that urgency was created by a desire to “build trust” in both the civilian victims of terrorism and the military victims of terrorism. In wanting to build trust, he seemed to miss out one group: military veterans, who will also come under consideration if he drops the guillotine on the existing Act today.
Alex Burghart
Once again, my hon. Friend is quite right, because if the remedial order goes through both Houses and the Supreme Court has not opined, from the next day civil cases will reopen and military veterans will be involved in such actions.
Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and Tavistock) (Con)
It seems to me that the Secretary of State is adopting a highly technical and extremely unmeritorious argument. He says that because the declaration of incompatibility is not the subject of the intervention of the veterans, that gives him the opportunity—entirely technically and devoid of any moral merit whatsoever—to bring in this remedial order, but he knows perfectly well that the substance of the argument on which the remedial order is based is very much in point in the deliberations of the Supreme Court, so what the Court will do, if it decides against him, is to remove the entire basis for the remedial order that he is bringing in. However, because technically he can bring it in, he has decided to do so. That is not like the Secretary of State.
Alex Burghart
I am delighted to have the support, on a matter of pure legal substance, of my right hon. Friend—
Alex Burghart
Yes, my right hon. and very learned Friend.
The truth is that, if one looks back at the debates on the Human Rights Act, one can see that the purpose of section 10 is to make sure that the Government cannot use a remedial order—an incredibly powerful tool, a statutory instrument that can strike down primary legislation—unless the case is fully decided. In this case, it clearly is not; it is open. That is why the Government are acting ultra vires.
Let me return briefly to the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), who represents the best part of the New Forest.
Alex Burghart
I meant to say, “the joint first best part of the New Forest”.
The Secretary of State has invoked the Joint Committee on Human Rights, but it is my understanding that when it wrote its report, it was unaware that the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement was being heard in the Supreme Court, and I rather think that that may have had a profound effect on what it wrote.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I am also a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Although I cannot respond directly to the claim that the hon. Gentleman just made, because that would be breaching parliamentary privilege, which I would not want to do, I will simply put on the record that our Committee considered all the relevant evidence when we created not just our second report on this remedial order but our first too. We considered all the evidence in front of us, we made our reports and we stand by both of them.
Alex Burghart
I am not doubting that the Committee examined all the evidence available to it; I am disputing what evidence it had available to it.
We are faced with a situation in which the Government do not really have a legal basis or a moral basis for what they are doing, and there are real-life consequences to their decisions.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
Would the hon. Gentleman consider that there is a political reason for the Northern Ireland Office to bring this measure forward: to placate the Irish Government and their timeline rather than the timeline of this place?
Alex Burghart
I suspect very strongly that the hon. Gentleman is right. I suspect that this is bound up in the agreement that the Secretary of State made with the Irish Government. He can correct that later if he wishes to. There were some things in that agreement that I welcomed at the time and which I welcome again now. If it leads to the Irish Government opening their books and being clear about collusion between the Garda and the Provisional IRA, I would welcome that. What I cannot welcome, thought, is the fact that there was an opportunity in that agreement to ask the Republic of Ireland to open its own inquiry into the Omagh bombing. At the time, it was recommended to the British Government that we should have our own full inquiry, but it was deemed to be pretty much a necessity for a similar inquiry to be conducted on the other side of the border, so that there was the opportunity to compel witnesses to give evidence under oath about what was known and about what, if any, collusion took place. I am very sorry that that opportunity was missed.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South and Mid Down) (SDLP)
I think that many of those supporting the Omagh families would like to see a parallel and comprehensive inquiry. Does the hon. Member agree that the logical thing to do would have been to co-design that, and for both Governments to bring forward inquiries in parallel, rather than his Government acting unilaterally when they announced theirs?
Alex Burghart
I would have been very open to that idea, but I believe that the previous Administration did not feel that there was the opportunity to proceed in that way. If we are thinking about the future, I think what the hon. Lady proposes is a perfectly sensible idea.
Jim Shannon
The reason we do not trust the Irish Government on legacy issues is clear. It was a murder haven for years. Many people who committed murders, some of which we might hear about later, escaped across the border. How are we going to rebuild bridges without honesty about state collusion that included IRA terrorists and the Irish Government? Quite clearly, their hands are dirty. When it comes to the legislation, I want to see the same accountability for the Republic of Ireland Government, their Ministers and the Garda Síochána officers. My constituents have never had justice. I want to see justice for them.
Alex Burghart
If my right hon. Friend will allow me, I will respond to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) briefly and then allow my right hon. Friend to supplement my answer.
The hon. Member for Strangford has very deep personal and professional experience of this matter. Of course, he is right that, just as the inquiry into the truth has been one-sided within the United Kingdom, it has also I think, for large periods, been unequal without it as well.
David Davis
My hon. Friend’s comments tie in directly to those from the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna). In the Omagh bombing, the bomb was constructed in Ireland, the detonator was made—at a factory, in effect—in Ireland, the car came from Ireland, they disappeared back into Ireland afterwards, and there is a suggestion that the Irish special branch knew a great deal about it before it actually happened; there is a very good reason why the Irish Government do not want to have an inquiry into their part in the matter.
Alex Burghart
Indeed. Those are all things that we would all love to get to the bottom of.
As I draw my remarks to a close, I say to Labour Back Benchers who are considering how they might vote, not just this evening but also when we get to the Bill proper, that this does not have to be done in this way.
Alex Burghart
I am happy to give way to the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.
Tonia Antoniazzi
I would like to make the point that a lot of work is done in good faith in this House, particularly on my Select Committee and particularly by the Secretary of State. I really do not appreciate the way in which this debate is being led by those on the Opposition Benches. The shadow Secretary of State should take a while to look through the recommendations contained in the Committee’s work on the troubles, take them Committee seriously and have productive conversations on how to move this matter forward.
Alex Burghart
I take everything the hon. Lady’s Committee does incredibly seriously. There is a good deal of experience on it and she always has interesting witnesses. I was very interested in the remarks made at her Committee the other day by experts in the Police Service of Northern Ireland. I hope to have the opportunity to talk to her about that, as well as to the people who were giving evidence.
I am afraid, though, that none of that takes away from the fact that there is a choice before this House. We do not have to go down the route of erasing the line we have attempted to draw under the troubles. I say to Labour Members that there is not just a moral risk; there is also a political risk for anyone who has doubts. Simply put, the Prime Minister has, over the course of the past few months, U-turned 12 or 13 times—which is it? [Interruption.] Oh, 14 times—I lose track. There is every possibility that, just as there was a U-turn 24 hours ago on social media for young people—because of representations that were made, I believe, by 60 Labour Back Benchers—so there is the opportunity to stop the Government in their tracks on this incredibly serious issue.
Lincoln Jopp
The shadow Secretary of State makes a very powerful point, but I think it is worth putting it on the record that it is pretty unlikely his words will carry the day on the basis that there are eight Labour Back Benchers here to hear this debate about applying a guillotine to gut a piece of existing legislation without putting anything else in place.
Alex Burghart
I am very pleased that my hon. Friend had the opportunity to put on the record. Sadly, there are not many Labour Back Benchers here to hear the debate. I wish there were, because, as I say, there is an alternative. I do believe that if Labour Back Benchers were to mount significant pressure in private, the Government would think again. If they did, they would create the opportunity, once again, for many of our brave veterans from Operation Banner to be able to sleep peacefully at night.
As I draw my remarks to a close, I remind all hon. Members to be mindful of the past and the future. The Conservatives sought to draw a line. This Government are erasing that line and in so doing dredging up the past in a way that will allow the troubles to be fought again and again in the courtroom. This continuation of the conflict by other means—by legal means—ultimately undermines and reduces the opportunity we have for reconciliation. It also undeniably comes at an operational cost. We know that because those who know most about military operations tell us it is so. General Sir Nick Parker and General Sir Peter Wall—both of whom have served our country at the very highest levels—write today in the Telegraph:
“Those currently serving, particularly in operations where judgement is exercised under extreme pressure, are watching closely. If lawful decisions taken in good faith can be re-examined endlessly decades later, confidence in command, willingness to serve and trust in political backing inevitably suffer. Enemies and allies notice this as well.”
Let us remember the generals’ words.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
I welcome the introduction of the remedial order. It is a necessary and overdue step if the Government are to retain the confidence of the people of Northern Ireland that they are serious about justice, accountability and dealing honestly with the legacy of the troubles.
As several hon. and gallant Members have said from the Government Benches, those who served never wanted special protection, exemptions or immunity from the law. They wanted and expected exactly what the public expect: to be judged by the same universal standards of justice that apply to everyone else. Accountability does not weaken the armed forces but strengthens trust in them.
The remedial order recognises that basic principle. It removes the conditional immunity and de facto amnesty contained in the 2023 legacy Act—provisions that were found unlawful by the courts in the Dillon case in Belfast. The High Court and the Court of Appeal were clear that those provisions breached articles 2 and 3 of the European convention on human rights and the Windsor framework. The Government accepted that judgment and rightly abandoned their appeal. Those immunity provisions never legally took effect, and it is right that they are now formally removed.
The order also restores access to civil claims, reopening an important route to truth and accountability that had been wrongly closed. These processes were never about witch hunts. Since the Good Friday agreement, only one former soldier has been convicted for a troubles-era killing, and he received a suspended sentence. That is not lawfare. What civil cases and inquests have done is to correct false records, expose wrongdoing and finally give families truthful answers after decades of official denial.
However, we must honest. The remedial order does not go far enough. Section 45 of the legacy Act, which blocks the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland from investigating troubles-related police misconduct, remains unaddressed. The Court of Appeal found that to be incompatible with human rights, yet victims and families are still denied access to a fully independent investigative mechanism. That failure continues.
The Government are, of course, serious about a victim-centred approach to the past, and in pursuit of that further amendments are essential. National security must not be used as a smokescreen for secrecy. Families must have enforceable rights to truth, information and challenge, particularly when the Secretary of State retains wide powers over legacy bodies. That is especially important given the unresolved disagreements surrounding the Public Office (Accountability) Bill.
Lincoln Jopp
I am new in this place, but my sense of the hon. Member is that he a great parliamentarian, so I would like to understand how he has reconciled himself with this being the correct course for the Government to take—bringing in a remedial order that pulls a law out before we put a new one in?
Andy McDonald
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. There is an obligation on the Government under section 4 of the Human Rights Act: where they have been told by a court that legislation is incompatible with a convention right, they are duty-bound to remove that incompatibility. That is exactly what is being done here. [Interruption.] The hon. Member chunters from a sedentary position, but that is the legal position.
The remedial order is a positive correction, but it is only a first step. Justice delayed has already cost families decades. Justice diluted will cost confidence altogether. If we want reconciliation rooted in truth, the law must apply equally to all, and independent investigations must be fully restored.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
I have listened carefully to those who have spoken before me, and while there are clear differences across the House, I hope there is a shared recognition of the gravity of the issues we are debating and the responsibility that rests on Parliament to approach them with care.
I will begin, as I have done previously in debates on this matter, by recognising the deep and enduring scars left by the troubles. For victims, survivors, veterans, families and communities across Northern Ireland and beyond, the issues we are considering reflect lived experience and demand seriousness and humility, not grandstanding. That does not preclude our making clear that the Conservatives’ legacy Act was a failure—in fact, it requires it. It failed victims, it failed survivors and it failed veterans. That is not just the opinion of the Liberal Democrats; it is the view of every major party in Northern Ireland, as well as victims’ organisations, the vast majority of veterans I have met and, ultimately, the courts.
The Northern Ireland Court of Appeal was clear in 2024 that core provisions of the Act were incompatible with the European convention on human rights. Parliament cannot simply shrug its shoulders at that judgment, and there is no more apposite time than now to confirm that we are a country governed by the rule of law, not by wishful thinking or culture war rhetoric.
For that reason, the Liberal Democrats welcome the remedial order, and I remind the House that there is a greater percentage of veterans in my parliamentary party than in any other party in this House. Our gallant cohort would agree to nothing that will let down our veterans and believes that the remedial order is necessary because it removes the most egregious provisions of the Act, including immunity that extended to terrorists and bars on civil actions. Those measures were corrosive to trust and created an abhorrent moral equivalence between those who served the state and those who sought to destroy it. The remedial order must consequently be seen as a prerequisite to any credible legacy process, not as a concession to apologists and terrorists.
That is why it is difficult to understand those who argue that the House should vote against the remedial order. To do so would be to defend legislation that the courts have ruled to be unlawful and to prolong uncertainty for victims and veterans alike. It would leave us knowingly in breach of our international obligations and would further undermine confidence in the institutions tasked with dealing with the past. It is simply wrong, both in principle and in practice. To those who argue that the remedial order should be delayed until the judgment in the Dillon case is handed down, I would simply say that I concur with the Secretary of State. Put simply, notwithstanding paragraph 710 of the Court of Appeal judgment, the declaration of incompatibility will remain whether or not the Government win their appeal on article 2 of the Windsor framework.
Although the Secretary of State will doubtless welcome our support, I do not wish to lull him into a false sense of security. We welcome the remedial order, but that does not mean that we are declaring the job done. Serious deficiencies in the forthcoming Northern Ireland Troubles Bill remain, and they must be addressed if any new framework is to command confidence across communities. That is why my party has tabled constructive amendments and new clauses—not to wreck the legislation, but to save it.
In particular, we remain deeply concerned about protections for veterans. Veterans are not asking for immunity; they tell me repeatedly that they do not want immunity. They are asking for fairness, proportionality and an end to the fear that the process of investigation becomes an instrument of persecution.
Lincoln Jopp
I fear that the Liberal Democrat spokesman may have misspoken earlier in his remarks. I will quote from the Joint Committee on Human Rights report on the first draft:
“A declaration of incompatibility has no legal effect and does not affect the ongoing validity of the incompatible legislation. It is merely a tool by which the courts can draw attention to an incompatibility; it is then for the Government and Parliament to decide what action, if any, to take.”
Mr Kohler
Yes, in other words, it is for our Government to stand up for our international obligations. Hon. Members should look about them; look at what is happening at the moment with Greenland. This is the time when we should stand up for our international obligations. It is a time for us to believe in the rule of law. There is a declaration of incompatibility and our Government should absolutely stand up for our international obligations.
David Davis
The point that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) made relates directly back to the Human Rights Act, which is the law in this country.
Mr Kohler
The Government have a choice to make: whether to stand up for our international obligations. That is the right thing to do. At this time, of all times, surely we should stand up for our international obligations.
Our amendments to the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill seek to put clear statutory definitions in place to strengthen safeguards against disproportionate legal action, to provide a presumption of remote participation, to protect anonymity and to establish independent oversight of how those safeguards operate in practice. Our approach is about recognising service, context and the cumulative impact of decades of investigation, not about shielding wrongdoing.
The Liberal Democrats also recognise that reconciliation cannot be achieved by legal mechanisms alone.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
I have seen a pattern forming. I hope the hon. Member did not misquote when he said that the Liberal Democrats have more veterans in their parliamentary party than anyone else, when they have eight and we have 17. I see that only one of theirs is here today, whereas many of ours are here.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. Please sit down, Mr Kohler. The temperature needs to be lowered to allow the hon. Gentleman to deliver his remarks.
Mr Kohler
If we are serious about moving towards a shared and stable future for Northern Ireland, legacy processes must be connected to a broader reconciliation strategy. That is why we propose a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to publish such a strategy, developed in consultation with victims, institutions and Parliament. Addressing the past and building the future must go hand in hand.
Finally, a word about the European convention on human rights. The remedial order arises precisely because ECHR compliance matters. The Good Friday agreement is built on it and, as such, peace in Northern Ireland depends on it. Those who casually call for withdrawal are playing fast and loose with our history, our rights, our futures and our very Union. We will support this remedial order, oppose those who would block it for self-serving reasons and continue to work constructively with Members from across the House to fashion an appropriate legacy process.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I felt that it was important that I speak today as a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. We had another member of the Committee, the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), in the Chamber until recently. When he came over to speak to me just now, I was slightly worried that he was defecting. However, I was assured that he was just letting me know that, unfortunately, he was not able to stay for the rest of the debate.
I want to start by acknowledging that there were differences of opinion on this important issue. Nevertheless, the Committee carried out its constitutional role to scrutinise this remedial order, as the Standing Orders of both Houses set out we must. As it was mandated to do, the JCHR has produced two reports on this remedial order, and it has been clear and unambiguous in its recommendation that it be approved by the House. I should emphasise that the focus of the reports was on the remedial order in front of us today, not on the Bill. I, similarly, will focus my remarks squarely on the order.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has set out, this remedial order follows rulings by the High Court of Northern Ireland and the Court of Appeal that declared a number of provisions within the previous Government’s legacy Act to be incompatible with our human rights obligations under the European convention on human rights.
The legacy Act prohibited any criminal investigations into troubles-related offences from being initiated or continued. It also prohibited any criminal enforcement action in relation to non-serious troubles-related offences. It ended troubles-related civil claims that began after the legacy Act’s First Reading, and prohibited new ones. It also obliged the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery to give immunity from prosecution where certain conditions were met—and yes, this extended to giving immunity from prosecution to terrorists.
The legacy Act was a deeply flawed piece of legislation, a fact that has been reflected in the courts’ rulings on its incompatibilities with our human rights legislation. This order, alongside the Bill, seeks to remedy those incompatibilities.
Lincoln Jopp
As the hon. Member says, we are considering this order alongside the Bill. I am grateful to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on which he sits, for producing this very good report, but I would like to try to get an answer that I did not get earlier. How is he reconciled with the fact that this remedial order is being used as a guillotine to gut an existing piece of legislation before his Government have put something else in place?
Peter Swallow
I am happy to jump forward in my speech to address the issue that the hon. Member raises, but I would just gently say that, by removing the incompatibilities, which the courts have put in legal limbo, this Government are quite rightly acting to correct those incompatibilities. That is good governance, not bad. Let me address his point more specifically. To say that it is unusual for any Government to introduce a remedial order and a Bill, both addressing incompatibilities, on the same day would be an understatement. Indeed, the Committee’s long-held view is that primary legislation is always preferable to address incompatibilities, where that is available—a view re-emphasised in our second report. But, importantly, we also recognise the unique complexities and sensitivities of this issue, and for that reason our recommendation was that this remedial order should be approved.
I acknowledge that this is an unusual remedial order, in that it is being presented at the same time as the Bill, as I have said. I welcome the Bill before the House as well. Unlike the legacy Act introduced by the previous Government, this Bill does not give immunity to terrorists. It recognises the rights of communities to access the justice that our legal framework affords to all. It also produces important safeguards for veterans, including protection from repeated investigations, the right to seek anonymity, the right not to be forced to travel to give evidence, protection in old age and protection from cold calling or unexpected letters.
Importantly, these safeguards include a right for veterans’ voices to be heard through the inclusion of veterans’ representatives in the statutory victims and survivors advisory group. These measures strike the balance between protecting those who served to keep the peace and protect life, and ensuring that terrorist acts are not granted immunity.
Lincoln Jopp
The hon. Member is describing the Bill, but we are not here to debate the Bill; we are here to debate the remedial order. I asked him why he was comfortable with the fact that the Government are guillotining a piece of law without putting something else in place, and he has not answered that yet. He has answered that they can, but he has not told us why they should.
Peter Swallow
As the report sets out, the Government set forward their reasons for proceeding with the remedial order alongside a Bill, and the Secretary of State has shared those reasons today. It always behoves a Government, where an incompatibility has been identified, to choose the manner in which to address it. There are four options. The first option is to do nothing, which we very well could have done. However, as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), eloquently pointed out, that would see us failing to comply with our international obligations, which I would not be comfortable with. The second option would be to introduce a remedial order that had to be approved urgently. The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) will forgive me if I do not remember the precise language while on my feet, but there is a route for a more rapid remedial order. That is not the route the Government decided to go down, and I welcome that as well, because it is important that we have the time to properly scrutinise anything on this most sensitive issue. The third option is the one that the Government have taken. The fourth option, of course, is to deal with it solely in primary legislation.
As the Secretary of State set out—he was very forthcoming in appearing before the Committee and providing additional correspondence to us—the decision he took was that the appropriate route was to address this with a remedial order. He did that because it was important to build trust in communities across Northern Ireland by more swiftly addressing the incompatibilities that have been identified. I hope that my fulsome response has addressed the hon. Gentleman’s concerns and that I can continue with my speech. [Interruption.] Fantastic. Thank you.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been clear that he recognises that this is a sensitive Bill which seeks to address not only the lasting legacy of a highly emotive and contested period of our history, but the enduring lived reality of what that legacy means for communities across Northern Ireland and the whole of the UK. For that reason, the Government have set out their grounds for seeking to use a remedial order. I referred to that in great detail.
I also emphasise that, given the nature of the Bill before the House, the legislation will take some time to progress as it is scrutinised by both Houses and, indeed, our Committee. [Interruption.] As you indicate, Madam Deputy Speaker, that is more than enough from me in setting out the reasons why the Joint Committee on Human Rights recommended that this remedial order be approved. I end by emphasising that, as a member of the JCHR, I stand by our reports, and our considered recommendation to approve is clear.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. Members will have seen the interest in the debate shown by the number of Members on their feet and will be aware of the short time available. I do not want to bring in a time limit at this moment, but I ask Members to keep their comments as brief as possible in order to help each other out.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
I suppose I should declare an interest: I was the only person, other than Tom Watson, to have had an Act of Parliament struck down in the courts—not using a declaration of incompatibility, but actually using article rights and so on—so I am quite familiar with that process, and this is not it. I commend the hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) for taking part in the JCHR—it is an incredibly important Committee. I will say to him that, throughout its history, the Committee has mostly had unanimous judgments. Certainly under Harriet Harman, for example, who was a brilliant chairman, the judgments were almost entirely unanimous; they were never on a party basis.
To make the Opposition side of the House happy, I will start by talking about the Human Rights Act 1998. The Act requires “compelling reasons” to bring forward a remedial order, with the Joint Committee on Human Rights later clarifying that there is a “general constitutional principle” that
“it is desirable for amendments to primary legislation to be made by way of a Bill”,
not by a remedial order.
Although the JCHR allowed the progress of the remedial order, it was after significant amendment and by majority vote—not the usual unanimity—and with it stating:
“It is…highly unusual that the Government has laid a Bill and a remedial order concerning the same subject matter on the very same day. Usually…we would consider the Government’s approach constitutionally improper.”
I agree, and I encourage colleagues to read this report, as my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) did earlier, because we can almost see the Committee’s discomfort.
What happened is that the Secretary of State made an appeal on the basis of the urgency of the matter, in his mind. The hon. Member for Bracknell just referred to it as “unique” in its complexity. That is precisely a reason to use primary legislation, not a parliamentary technique that allows no amendment whatsoever. My arguments about this are arguments of detail that go to the interests of the people of Northern Ireland individually, not some sweeping order that takes away rights.
Peter Swallow
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for referring to our report to advance his argument. Would he be so kind as to read the next sentence?
David Davis
I encourage everybody to read it. I am not saying that people should take my word for it; I am saying that they should read this report, because we can see the tension in the Committee.
Of course, as the Secretary of State said, there are a number of real innocent victims who are seeking some sort of succour or recourse, which he is aiming to help. But he started by talking about the huge number of people who were killed by paramilitaries in Northern Ireland. I warrant that when this order goes through, there will be a massive differential between those who were killed by paramilitaries and those who are asking for information.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The figures given by the Secretary of State bear out the right hon. Gentleman’s argument. Of the 200 additional civil cases, 120 are directed towards the Ministry of Defence. Does that not bear out his point that this will be a one-sided outcome and a one-sided operation?
David Davis
The right hon. Gentleman has a long and honourable service in this area. He is exactly right, and he understands, as everybody on this side of the House does—well, most people on this side of the House—that asymmetries are built into the system that handicap, and indeed sometimes terrify, the people on one side of the argument while favouring those on the other.
I want to talk to that because, obviously, as we have heard, the remedial order will allow new civil cases to be brought and, we are told, bring justice to victims. Government policy, as we have heard time and again, does not differentiate between real victims and terrorists. It will allow IRA sympathisers to continue their campaign of vexatious lawfare, hauling our brave veterans into court.
I remind the House that in 2006 the Blair Government passed a law that said that anyone hurt in the troubles is classed as a victim. That means a proven murderer—a proven serial murderer—killed in the process of carrying out another murder, is classed as a victim. Imagine that happening in the rest of the UK. Imagine a bank robber, already a murderer, who is shot while trying to rob another bank. Do we think he is a victim? That is outwith the politics of Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland, however, he is classed as a victim.
When the Secretary of State talks about victims’ families, he is, in many cases, referring to the families of IRA terrorists. Frankly, if the Government’s legislation matched their rhetoric, the word “victim” would always be preceded by the word “innocent”. If we were talking about innocent victims, many of our differences would evaporate.
But that is not the truth. Indeed, the other side of this argument—Sinn Féin and IRA sympathisers—know this. The DUP proved it last September when it moved a motion in Stormont to put “innocent” in front of the word “victim”. The motion was voted down by Sinn Féin and its allies because they know that they depend on this massive confusion, in the rest of the world, over what a victim really is.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that a classic example of what he is saying was the Shankill bomb? The perpetrator of that bomb was an IRA terrorist. He was killed along with the innocent people whom he murdered, yet Sinn Féin and republicans insist on trying to portray him as a victim, as opposed to those who he genuinely caused to be victims.
David Davis
That is part of what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) was describing earlier about trying to rewrite history. This goes right to the core of what the Secretary of State has already done. We know that he has promised Mairead Kelly that there will be a coroner’s inquest for Loughgall. Why? Because her brother, Patrick Kelly, was killed at Loughgall. He was a victim, except he had killed at least five other people previously, including two UDR officers. He and his gang of eight were attempting to blow up—well, they were not attempting; they did blow up the police station, with soldiers and policemen inside. It was a 400 lb bomb, and they had heavy weapons, G36s—my hon. and gallant Friend will recognise them—to shoot through the walls and kill policemen. If we want to see the rewriting of history, Kelly’s family have already attempted to rewrite history, claiming that at Loughgall he
“went out to blow up, not to kill”,
despite his long and bloody track record proving otherwise. He obviously designed a bomb that only hits bricks, not people.
I do not aim to make light of this, because it is incredibly serious. As with the 120 cases already mentioned, Kelly’s family have already brought legal action against the Ministry of Defence. They are not the only ones, so let us look at other IRA terrorist “victims” who have brought civil cases. In 2011, Aidan McKeever, the getaway driver at the Clonoe incident in 1992, in which four IRA terrorists were killed, was awarded £75,000 for injuries sustained when fleeing the scene. He is not a victim; he is a terrorist, and he got £75,000. The IRA tried to pretend that it was a killing operation, but the SAS, or the soldiers on the scene—whoever they were—actually gave him first aid to save his life because he had been shot and injured, yet he gets £75,000 from the state. In 2023, the family of Stan Carberry tried to sue the Ministry of Defence for his death in 1972. Carberry, an IRA volunteer, was killed after a soldier returned fire at the vehicle that he was shooting from.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Member give way?
David Davis
Forgive me but I will not, as I want to get to the end of this. As we know, Gerry Adams is already preparing legal action, challenging the decision to prevent him and others from being compensated for being interned during the troubles.
The surviving IRA terrorists and their families will benefit from what we are doing today. There will be some civil claims brought against IRA killers—the Secretary of State mentioned some of them—but they will be rather special circumstances. Omagh is one of those; I could explain why, but we do not have the time. There will be a few of those, but very few compared with thousands of deaths, tortures and murders. That is largely because Tony Blair and Jonathan Powell accepted, as part of the Good Friday agreement, not to allow decommissioned weapons to be studied for forensic purposes. They also precluded recovered bodies from being examined for forensic purposes. The families of people who have been murdered, where the body has been recovered, are not even allowed to use the bullets in them to see who killed them. That is how this justice works. And, of course, there will be no witnesses to the IRA crimes. The IRA themselves will not give witness, and I am afraid that anybody else will be taking their life in their hands.
I will finish by saying this: today’s remedial order will allow the IRA to further its campaign of rewriting the history of the troubles, portraying our brave soldiers as state-sponsored killers, and falsely representing themselves as victims and heroes, neither of which is true.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
I am happy to speak in support of the motion as set out on the Order Paper.
The wider context is straightforward: the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 passed by the Conservatives attempted to replace long-standing legal routes with a new commission, ICRIR, and a conditional immunity scheme. However, that approach did not command support in Northern Ireland and it did not withstand legal scrutiny. Both the High Court and the Belfast Court of Appeal found key provisions in the Act were incompatible with UK human rights law, in particular where they undermined the state’s duties to investigate serious harm and where the Act shut victims, including the victims of terrorist attacks, out of court. This was entirely foreseeable. The Joint Committee on Human Rights warned in 2022, when there was a majority of Conservative politicians on that Committee, that the Government’s approach risked
“widespread breaches of human rights law”
and would fail
“to meet the minimum standards required to ensure effective investigations.”
Victims of the troubles and their families, including British servicemen killed by terrorists, would have had their routes to justice shut down by the Conservative’s unlawful legacy Act. Nevertheless, they pressed ahead regardless, passing an Act that they knew would never be compatible with UK law, and therefore would never commence. False promises were made to our veterans and negligence was dressed up as decisiveness. So it is right that the Labour Government have committed to repeal and replace the previous Government’s failed Act through primary legislation, but today is about a necessary interim step: the remedial order before the House.
The remedial order will fix human rights breaches quickly, when the courts have found that Parliament’s work has cut across basic protections. What does it do? First, it removes the Act’s conditional immunity provisions—the quite outrageous provisions that allowed terrorists to secure immunity from prosecution by offering an account
“to the best of their knowledge and belief”.
Those provisions were never enacted as they were struck down by the courts, but their presence on the statute book has done real damage. It has fuelled mistrust, created uncertainty and offered a false promise of protection to veterans that could never be delivered.
Secondly, the remedial order removes the statutory bar on troubles-related civil claims. The 2023 Act sought to block citizens of the United Kingdom from pursuing justice for crimes that they faced during the troubles. I believe that was wrong in principle, and indeed it was found to be incompatible with article 6 of the convention.
Thirdly, it removes the exclusion of protected material gathered by ICRIR from being used in civil proceedings and certain other processes. In plain English, that stops victims who would have had their hands tied by the law from using evidence they would need to seek justice.
Much of the Opposition’s rhetoric has been directed at veterans, so as a veteran myself, let me address that head on. There never has been and never will be any moral equivalence between our armed forces, who served to uphold law and order, and terrorist organisations that targeted civilians.
Lincoln Jopp
I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for giving way. He has glossed over another thing that he will potentially be voting for today: allowing Gerry Adams to claim compensation on the basis that his internment was illegal because the Minister of State signed the order not the Secretary of State. Would he like to tell his veteran friends and the people of Halesowen why he is happy to walk through the Lobby to vote to give Gerry Adams that right?
Alex Ballinger
I am grateful to have the opportunity to gently correct the hon. and gallant Gentleman. When asked that question a few weeks ago, the Prime Minister said categorically that we would not allow Gerry Adams to claim compensation. There are several civil cases that would be blocked, supporting the victims of IRA terrorism, including a case involving Gerry Adams, and this remedial order will help going forward. It is important that we think about the victims of those appalling terrorist paramilitary crimes.
Dr Murrison
I have been listening very carefully to what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said. He is right to assert that there is no moral equivalence and there should be no legal equivalence between the perpetrators of terror and those sent out to do the state’s business in Northern Ireland. But can he understand the views of the great majority of veterans, many of whom I have the privilege to represent, who feel that what this Government are doing is undermining and holing below the water line legislation that, however imperfect and subject to appeal, was going some way towards giving them some comfort?
Alex Ballinger
I am a veteran, and I speak to many veterans, and I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that there are range of views on the issue. Those of us who served, in whichever service, did so to uphold the rule of law. It is beholden on us and those who served that if they are upholding the rule of law, they are accountable to that rule of law. Brigadier John Donnelly, who served in Northern Ireland and is chair of the Centre for Military Justice, said:
“You cannot have a system of law that applies to some groups and not to others. It is vital that soldiers operating in support of the civil powers are held fully accountable to the laws they are required to enforce. That is the difference between the soldier and the terrorist.”
This is not happening in Afghanistan or Iraq, but in Northern Ireland, where UK citizens are affected, so rule of law is vital.
Peter Swallow
Let me briefly recognise the point that my hon. Friend has just made. We cannot have immunity for one group and not another. The previous Government recognised that position—it was recognised in their Act—which is why their Act gave immunity to terrorists. Is that not the case?
Alex Ballinger
My hon. Friend is right. It is important for everyone involved, including the many veterans concerned about the situation in Northern Ireland, that we end this legal wild west. The defective Act that led to more litigation, uncertainty and distress for victims and those who served on Op Banner should end.
Alex Ballinger
I will give way one more time, but then I must make progress.
Sammy Wilson
It is not about the rule of law. This is about the terrorist organisations seeking to rewrite the history of the troubles on an industrial scale, using the fact that the Army and the forces of law and order in Northern Ireland have all the records, and they have none. This is therefore a one-sided operation.
Alex Ballinger
I do not have the statistics in front of me, but the right hon. Gentleman will know that the overwhelming number of prosecutions that have happened in Northern Ireland have been of paramilitaries and terrorist groups. Only one serviceperson has been convicted since 2010, and that was on a suspended sentence. I am afraid that the threat is exaggerated for political effect by our opponents, which is not helpful in a very serious business that people are very concerned about.
It is important that we deal in facts, not scare stories. Claims that 800 civil cases will be reactivated and that this measure will drag veterans through the courts again are simply untrue. The reality is that almost 800 civil cases continued unaffected by the Conservatives’ 2023 legacy Act, as it was aimed at new claims. However, as the Act was rejected by the courts, it never provided any protection to veterans. We will go on to protections for veterans as part of Labour’s new Bill—I will not cover that now, because we will have another opportunity to do so.
This remedial order is a necessary correction. It removes discredited provisions, restores basic legal rights and helps to rebuild confidence in a process that must command legitimacy across Northern Ireland, and I will support it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. Members may wish to know that I will shortly bring in a three-minute time limit. Without a time limit, I call Gavin Robinson.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
On a point of agreement and positivity, may I thank the Leader of the House and the usual channels for agreeing that this motion should have three hours of debate? Had it arrested at 90 minutes, no Northern Ireland voice would have been heard in this debate at all, which would be shameful.
Thank you for the indication that you will bring in a time limit, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not intend to take advantage of my opportunity to speak without a time limit, because I will not be discourteous to Northern Ireland colleagues or any others who wish to participate.
The Secretary of State knows my position on this matter. I believe that he is bringing in this remedial order wrongly, and he is attaching a level of undue haste to these issues. I said to him on 17 December in this Chamber that, given that he knows that issues are still before the Supreme Court, he should at least wait. Although he has abandoned the appeal, the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement has not. This Government have tried to indicate their support for and understanding of the concerns of veterans—the previous speaker made a valiant effort—yet we have veterans waiting on the challenge that they lodged in the Supreme Court, and the Government cannot wait until these issues have been determined.
I say again to the Secretary of State that remedial orders are there to deal with an incompatibility with human rights law, not his policy objectives, yet that is exactly what I believe he is doing in this regard. If I am wrong, surely it is incumbent on him to use this mechanism to deal with all the incompatibilities that were highlighted by the courts. The High Court in Belfast highlighted a number, yet he left one out. The Court of Appeal added three more, yet he only added one to this remedial order. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has indicated that the remedial order should be approved, but has offered absolutely no view whatsoever on the issues that have been left out of the order. But I am going to raise them.
Civil cases were mentioned earlier. The Secretary of State has not explained why the High Court in Belfast and the Court of Appeal were in two fundamentally different places on civil cases, nor did he take the opportunity to pursue that differential and get a determined outcome in the Supreme Court. He has not indicated why he believes the High Court in Belfast thought that retrospective application was wrong and yet the Court of Appeal allowed civil cases to be lodged indefinitely and in perpetuity. When I intervened on him, he posed a question to me about the principle of bringing civil cases. I agree with that principle, but it is not uncommon for the law to understand limitations, including through our limitations legislation. We need to understand that it is part of the sovereignty of this Parliament to be able to say, “Enough is enough. Time has moved on. You have exhausted your opportunity for a claim.” We know, as do veterans, the security services and the PSNI, about the unlimited quest through legal aid and lawfare to rewrite the past—to rewrite the history of Northern Ireland and to turn that which was bad into good—and we will always speak out against that.
The Secretary of State has chosen to leave the interim custody order issue out of his remedial order and attempt to deal with that issue in the troubles Bill, but clauses 89 and 90 of that Bill will not deal with Gerry Adams. Lord Kerr’s judgment—probably his final judgment before he retired from the Supreme Court and before his sad demise—indicates that that which the Secretary of State intends to introduce through clause 89 does not stand legally. Clause 90 deals with convictions that were quashed and remain quashed, but for which there can be no compensation. It is silent on whether Gerry Adams would be able to obtain compensation, not for the quashed conviction, but from the fact that he was detained without trial under an interim custody order in the first place. The Secretary of State has been deficient in what he has provided this House with. He has not chosen to deal with the incompatibility through this remedial order, nor do I believe he has dealt with it sufficiently through the path he has taken on primary legislation.
Returning to the issue of civil cases, the Secretary of State lectures Northern Ireland continually about living within our budget—within our means—but he is expanding the scope of legacy investigations and the legacy commission exponentially through this remedial order and the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. Has he suggested for one moment that he is going to increase the budget available to the legacy commission? No. It has been given £250 million over five years. Almost £100 million has already been spent. Is he going to pick up the tab for this raft of work that is going to befall us in Northern Ireland? No.
The decisions being made in this Chamber now, and those that will be made in future regarding the troubles Bill, have a material impact on our ability to move on to the future rather than deal with the past, yet I hear no concern for that. I see that 800-odd civil claims will now be accompanied by an additional 200 claims. Who is to pick up the bill, Secretary of State? If it is the people of Northern Ireland—the people who were troubled for 30 years by terrorists—and the fledgling Executive, who are struggling to make public services deliver for their people because of these issues, then that is something I have a responsibility to raise, and it is something the Secretary of State needs to wrestle with and deal with.
Most fundamentally of all, it has been suggested that this process was to provide a quick resolution to an issue raised by the courts. We are now some 18 months on from a manifesto commitment to repeal and replace the legacy Act, yet what do we hear? We hear that this Government are locked in a logjam between the Northern Ireland Office and the Ministry of Defence about the substance of amendments that may or may not be tabled.
Two weeks ago, the Government were maintaining the position that the safeguards in the Bill, which they call protections, were sufficient. Only two weeks ago, the Prime Minister accepted with me that those were insufficient and that he was going to have to bring forward amendments. That was shut down by a representative of the Irish Government some two hours later, who said that the Secretary of State has no power to bring forward any amendments unless he attains their agreement. Shame, I say. [Interruption.] It is a matter of fact that that was said by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in Parliament Buildings, Belfast, and the Secretary of State well knows it. We will attest, and we will see the amendments that he brings forward.
I seriously and personally regret that we are in a position that we cannot offer our support to this remedial order. I asked the Secretary of State on 17 December to wait, as the hearings concluded in October and the Supreme Court will issue a determination. He would be in a much stronger space to build credibility and confidence on these issues, if he at least allowed the judicial process to conclude, but he chose not to—and with that, he loses our support.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South and Mid Down) (SDLP)
The Social Democratic and Labour party welcomes this remedial order, which goes some way to restoring the rule of law to legacy processes and in turn to the present day. The introduction by the previous Government of an amnesty and the closure of processes was the very definition of the phrase, “Justice delayed is justice denied”.
This order is specifically about the troubles legacy Bill, but across these islands—in every jurisdiction, every day—we can see evidence of cases where wrongs were not properly addressed at the time. We now see the hurt and the damage compounded by delay, whether it is Hillsborough, infected blood, the Post Office scandal or the Magdalene laundries. There will not be a Member of this House who cannot speak to an experience in their own constituency. My ask is simply that Members think about my constituents and people across Northern Ireland in the same way.
It is not about who won. I have to bite my tongue quite a lot in this House, and particularly today. The people who are waiting to access some of these processes—none of them have won. All of them have lost members of their family. It is not about people being able to draw a line under the past because MPs in London have told them to. MPs have called them IRA sympathisers.
The previous legislation, which this order undoes, was not about reconciliation or truth. The word “reconciliation” appeared in the title of the Bill and nowhere else. The Bill was about closing down truth and ensuring that republican and loyalist paramilitaries would again have their crimes retrospectively legalised. It was not just a free pass for paramilitaries, and I am not here to write a reference for any of them. Tens of thousands of them did at least go through the justice system, but these provisions and amnesties extended to the darkest corners—yes, of the security services, but also to those who directed the terrorism and who played God with people’s lives, and who should of course be held to the law.
The Conservatives justified their approach with the fiction that nothing is working, but inquests have worked. They were belated, yes, because there was a failure to address the crimes at the time or to fund the system. Those inquests have been complex and expensive, but that is because of the layers of veto and information suppression that have been applied by those with the most to hide. Those inquiries have also exposed truth and corrected false narratives. I think of the Ballymurphy families; the Parachute Regiment, just five months before they went on to kill in Bloody Sunday, opened fire on innocent civilians, falsely labelling them as armed threats. The 2021 inquest freed those families—freed people who had grown up with a lifetime of being told that their mother, their father or their parish priest was a gunman, when it was entirely obvious that that was not true. They finally got accountability from a regiment that operated without it.
False narratives have been used by the security forces, by the IRA and by republican and loyalist terrorists to impugn and to add grievous insult to injury for so many victims. I also think of the Kingsmill massacre; an inquest less than two years ago rightly concluded that that was a sectarian attack, where 10 Protestant workmen were murdered in an act of ethnic cleansing by the IRA. That was carried out by people who claimed the legacy of James Connolly while shooting dead the very people who he would have stood alongside. When people say that it is IRA sympathisers who benefit from these inquests, it is such an insult to decent and non-sectarian people like Alan Black.
I particularly welcome the ending of the immunity scheme. We have had the Good Friday agreement and the bitter pills to swallow in that, and Eames-Bradley and Haass-O’Sullivan and the on-the-run letters, and all the other processes that have put the needs of victim makers ahead of victims. This legislation turns that around. However, it is just the beginning: we have to get the processes right if we are to escape the shackles of the past and create a space that is for truth, accountability and remembrance. This has to be rooted in the future as much as it is in the past, but also in human rights compliance, truth and justice. Today I again urge the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, where concerns exist about disclosure, ECHR compatibility and judicial independence, to ensure that we face down those vested interests, in or out of uniform, and show Britain as a democracy that upholds laws and rights.
Dealing with legacy will not be confined to the remedial order, the troubles Bill or the joint framework. As Members on both sides of the House know, it shapes our politics, our policing, how communities relate to each other, and how we can best deliver a shared future. We cannot afford another missed opportunity. The answers will not all be found in this order, or in the legislation that is to come. We have never needed a complex legal process for people to acknowledge what they did: for the IRA to acknowledge that they used human lives, nearly 2,000 of them, as collateral damage; for loyalists to acknowledge that their war was with innocent Catholics; and for the UK security forces to acknowledge that their soldiers did not always uphold the law.
I can stand here and acknowledge that so many did serve decently—did try to serve decently. I can stand here and acknowledge the pride that many Members feel in the service given by them and by their loved ones. However, I hope that others can acknowledge that that was not the experience that everyone in Northern Ireland had. Three hundred thousand soldiers served in Operation Banner, and fewer than two dozen of them have ever faced judicial proceedings. We have wasted a lot of the time of victims’ families, and we have wasted money as well. It is time to move forward. The Bill is the start of that, and I ask Members to approach it in that framework and with respect for the dignity of all the people who lost their lives in Northern Ireland.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. If Members limit their interventions, we can start with a four-minute time limit.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
In the limited time available, I shall try to address a few of the basic issues, including those on which I intervened earlier.
It became fairly obvious towards the end of the Secretary of State’s remarks, as a result of questioning from my colleagues on the Opposition Benches, that although there was much in his speech suggesting that he had to do what he is doing today, he is really doing it because he wants to do it. It was in the Government’s manifesto that they were going to repeal the legislation, and he is seizing the chance to strike it down at the first possible opportunity.
Sometimes one gets into a position of almost wondering about the futility of entering into a debate. Forty years ago, I used to debate against the same people again and again over the question of whether Britain should one-sidedly give up its nuclear weapons. I would often put forward an argument that countered something that they had said, they would have no answer to it, and then I would go into the next debate and they would say exactly the same thing over and over again, and I would have to put forward the same argument, and no one was getting anywhere. I feel like that over this point about the supposed equating of service personnel with IRA and other paramilitary terrorists. A few moments ago, the hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) said, “There is no moral equivalence between these people.” Nobody in this debate is saying that there is any moral equivalence between these people. What we are saying is that everybody is equal before the law.
Let me remind the House what I said in Westminster Hall on 14 July last year—six months ago to the day last week—during a debate covering all these subjects. I pointed out that in April 2017 the Defence Committee had published a report, on a consensus and cross-party basis, entitled “Investigations into fatalities in Northern Ireland involving British military personnel”—(HC1064).
In the inquiries that led up to the publication of that report, we took evidence on 7 March 2017 from four professors of law: Philippe Sands of University College London, Peter Rowe of Lancaster University, Kieran McEvoy of Queen’s University Belfast and Richard Ekins of Oxford University. All of those professors agreed that it was possible and legal—regardless of whether they wanted to do it or not—to have a statute of limitation, provided that it was accompanied by a truth recovery mechanism. That is what the legacy Act, which is now being struck down, brought into effect.
The legacy Act has a very good chance of surviving further legal scrutiny. It is no argument to say that it has been discredited just because the Government and their supporters do not like it. The truth of the matter is that we have to give immunity to everyone or to no one. If the price of giving immunity to our servicemen is that we give it to terrorists too, then it is a price worth paying.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Today I am going to try to speak as freely as I can about something in which I believe passionately. I will explain why I believe in the principles that underpin the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, which is why I consider it necessary that we keep working on the specifics during its next phase in Parliament. I will try to explain some of the complexity and emotion, and why I find it despicable that some Members, on both sides of the Chamber, seek to gain political advantage from it. It is for this reason that I will be circumspect about accepting interventions.
I love this country. I am proudly British, and I am prepared to fight and die for the protection of the principles and fundamentals that define this country, the most important of which is the rule of law and the principle that the law is applied evenly to all citizens. These principles and fundamentals have been hard won, most recently during our deconstruction of our post-imperial self from 1945 to the late 1970s and early ’80s. I suggest that some people should reflect on that, because it was a time when our behaviour overseas, and the way that we behaved in places where we had sovereignty and where our legal situation was distinct from the law as exercised at home in the UK, was different.
That is important, because when the UK faced an internal crisis that was similar to the crises that it sought to manage elsewhere, it used military support to the civil authority to address it. In my opinion, it should have declared a state of emergency. Under such a state, the Government can enact powers that they are unable to enact during peacetime, the most important and pertinent of which is the ability to deploy their own military on their own streets in the protection of their own civilians. The issuance of such orders brings with it clear and defined parameters, under which those acting in the supplementary capacity of the police have the right and authority to use legal force on behalf of the state in an attempt to save lives.
That never happened. Instead, it was done through emergency legislation and security powers. What never happened was the creation of a coherent, unified legal framework that was equivalent to that of civilian policing. It is for this reason that those asked to act on behalf of the state have been left in turmoil, because the state inadequately defined the parameters under which its servants would act, and the protections and responsibilities that the state would provide for those actors if they acted in line with the law and the derivations provided to support them in the troubles.
Immunity from prosecution is not something that we are being asked to provide for our police officers. At no point have I heard those arguing for the maintenance of the failed legacy Act say that the police officers of the Royal Ulster Constabulary should be given similar immunity, because the context in which they were asked to act was known and the parameters for doing so were clearly defined. For our soldiers acting as police officers, the parameters were not clearly defined.
I was going to share some of my experiences as a military person and some of the things that have shaped my view of the world, but what I would say—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman has reached the time limit.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I congratulate Members who have spoken, particularly the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson). He set out eloquently, in precise and excellent detail, exactly what is wrong with what is happening today and what will be wrong when the Government next bring forward their Bill. I still do not understand the reason for the rush to get the order through today. We have legislation coming before us, and surely it would have been reasonable to allow the courts to get on with their business and for us to legislate on the basis of what they bring forward. I simply say to the Government that it is badly done that we are rushing this order through and that the House is being forced to vote on it today.
The points I want to make are not about the legalities of this, because those have been raked over endlessly. As I said, the right hon. Member for Belfast East gave a brilliant exposition of them, and there is nothing I can add. I want to talk simply about what the previous Government were trying to do when they brought in the previous legislation. Back in about 1993 or 1994, I went out to South Africa with a delegation to look at how people there were trying to bring the country together again and clear themselves of the baggage of what had happened over those desperate years. During that time, many more men and women were killed in South Africa then we are dealing with in Northern Ireland, tragic though that was. It was the truth and reconciliation process in South Africa that persuaded me that something along those lines was vital for Northern Ireland.
I say that as somebody who served in Northern Ireland. I also say it as one of those who lost a good friend, whose name I have mentioned before—Captain Robert Nairac. The main point I am making is that I no longer wish to pursue the people involved. His parents have died, and the rest of the family do not want to pursue those people for justice; they want to find out what happened to Bob Nairac. Nobody knows, and no one will come forward with the possibility of prosecution hanging over their head. What happened was terrible, but we want to know what it was. That is the bit I feel strongly about: the knowing is important to end this and draw a line under it. I am afraid that the Bill will continue the pursuit of individuals, particularly those who are Northern Ireland veterans, as I am.
There is no help here in respect of Ireland and its pursuit. What are we going to do? There is nothing to say that Ireland will now agree to drop what it is doing and open its records. So much of what happened is in its records, because people fled there from their brutal crimes.
This is not about equivalence, which was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis). As have I said before, equivalence came about when a limitation was put on incarceration periods back in 1998. That brought equivalence to terrorism and to terrorists. The hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), who is not in his place, made the point that the vast majority of prosecutions have been of terrorists, but over 3,000 of the deaths were down to terrorists and only about 300 had anything to do with the armed forces. So of course there have so far been more prosecutions of terrorists, but there will never be enough while we cannot get the records—they do not exist—of those who committed these foul acts. I again make the point to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East that it is a one-way street.
Time is limited, so I will finish simply by saying that I remember a conversation with Norman Tebbit, who died quite recently, during which I asked what was the worst thing that had happened to him. He said that it was not lying under the rubble or even believing that his wife had died as she lay next to him after the bombing. He said that the worst thing was when he had to swallow hard and watch the person who had set the bomb and blown his wife into a different future walk free. He said that that was the worst thing, but he understood why it was necessary. He swallowed it and determined against a prosecution. I was hoping that with the previous legislation, we could get to the truth of things, rather than have this ridiculous pursuit, which will never end, of those gallant veterans who, like me, served in Northern Ireland.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
This remedial order is just another step by this Government towards repealing and overriding the previous Government’s legacy Act. This Government, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the Prime Minister and the Attorney General, Lord Hermer—who has, in the past, represented Gerry Adams—claim that the 2023 legacy Act is contrary to the European convention on human rights. There again, we have the ECHR wrongly being allowed to interfere in our justice system.
The legacy Act put a stop to lawfare. Although not perfect, it was a step in the right direction as it outlawed lawfare against veterans. However, it also prevented legal action against and the prosecution of terrorists. The Government want to reopen inquiries, leading to the return of years of misery and stress for, and the persecution of, our brave veterans in their retirement years, after they served this country so loyally during the troubles. In the meantime, on-the-run letters of comfort remain in place for IRA terrorists—letters sent by Tony Blair and Jonathan Powell, the current National Security Adviser. The return of civil suits will lead to the return of slow justice and a cost of millions more to the taxpayer
This legislation will serve no purpose other than to pursue our brave veterans. This legislation is unfair and against their human rights. I will not vote in favour of the remedial order today.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
I rise as a proud Unionist from Northern Ireland, and as somebody who stands four-square with our veterans, innocent victims and their families. I have deep concerns about the remedial order and how this is going to operate. From the perspective of our veterans who served in Northern Ireland, the entire legacy framework is nothing short of deeply worrying. These are men and women, many of whom are now in their 70s and 80s, who put on the uniform of this country and operated under orders, rules, the law and unimaginable pressure to hold the line between democracy and terrorism.
What is the message that we are sending today? “Welcome to Labour’s Northern Ireland, where republicans run around with letters of comfort in their pockets while innocent soldiers like soldier F are hounded through the courts.” We are told that this order is about remedying and fixing deficiencies in the 2023 Act. It does nothing of the kind. The central obscenity remains: the effective closing down of routes to meaningful justice for hundreds of innocent families, while leaving entirely intact the pattern by which the vast majority of new investigatory energy is directed at former members of the security forces.
Let us be absolutely clear: our veterans did not start the troubles. They did not choose the battleground. They were sent by this Parliament to defend the rule of law, to protect both communities and to uphold the very democracy that allows some in this Chamber to denounce them today. To watch, in 2026, as the state bends over backwards to accommodate the sensitivities of those who waged war against it, while putting elderly veterans back in the dock for split-second decisions made in the fog of conflict half a century ago, is to witness a profound moral failure.
For the victims of terrorism, whether Protestant, Catholic or neither, this framework still closes doors. It still moves them from a justice-based system to a process-based system, and from the possibility of accountability to the inevitability of managed disappointment. They are told to accept truth recovery with no guarantee of truth, reconciliation with no guarantee of remorse, and closure with no guarantee of justice.
For veterans, it is even worse. They see those who tried to murder them, or who murdered their comrades, sitting in government or appearing on TV, their pasts laundered and legitimised. At the same time, they see files reopened against them, headlines splashed against them, and their last years overshadowed by legal and political warfare. That is not equal treatment, or a “balanced” approach to the past; it is a calculated political accommodation with republicanism, paid for with the peace of mind of those who served this country.
I say this directly to Ministers: if they will not stand with the men and women who defended this kingdom, do not be surprised when they conclude that this kingdom is no longer standing with them.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
I welcome this move today by the Government, and I welcome the removal of the word “reconciliation”.
There is a lot that I would like to say about this matter, but we are short of time so I will just get to the point. I have heard some remarks today that are incredibly disturbing and distressing. I do not want to pick on anybody, but the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) said—he will forgive me if I misrepresent him—“If the price of giving veterans an amnesty is that terrorists get the same, well then that is a price I am willing to pay.” Well, that is a price that I and the people of Lagan Valley, and the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland, are simply not willing to pay.
We have had a conversation today about, “Oh, we all agree there is no moral equivalence.” Fair enough, but I do not know what on earth moral equivalence is unless it is a situation where terrorists and people who wore uniform are both given a carve-out from the rule of law. And by the way, none of us gets to speak for veterans en masse. I have veterans in my own house. I am proud of them. And do you know what? They never asked for immunity.
I agree with my colleagues from Northern Ireland whenever they say that there is a wholesale rewriting of history—absolutely, there is; it is already in progress—but I would simply ask them to stop, pause and think. There is a rewriting of history already going on, and there are those who are not present in this House today who will say, “See, told you so: they all needed a get-out-jail-free card, because we can’t guarantee that every single person who served in Northern Ireland did so honourably and lawfully.” Think what that will give them. I do not want that to happen—I do not want that to happen. And where there was wrongdoing, where there is a list of cases, some of the people who I know who served in the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the UDR and the regular Army will be the first to say, “Where there is wrongdoing, let us put it right, because we do not want that to besmirch our reputation.”
Lastly, we are, arguably, already in a hybrid war and we are potentially considering future deployments. I do not want anybody representing the UK overseas to have this hanging over them. I am proud to be Northern Irish. I am proud to be British. I am also proud to be Irish. But most of all, I am proud to say that we should be able to stand by the rule of law, wherever we are deployed. We should not lower our standards because we worry about the standards of terrorists and the evidence available to them. We should maintain our rule of law. I will be supporting this order today.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Veterans will have heard the honeyed words of the Secretary of State at the start of his speech today, when he talked about the debt of gratitude we owe to those who served in Northern Ireland in very difficult circumstances. Yet this order is all about removing protections that would have been available to those very veterans against what is a continued terrorist campaign conducted not through guns, not through bombs and not through killings, but through the courts.
I have heard many people on the Government Benches say, “Oh, we’ve got to uphold the rule of law.” That is totally naive. This is not about the rule of law in Northern Ireland; this is about the abuse of the law by those who cannot accept that they lost in their terrorist campaign, who want to rewrite the history of that terrorist campaign, and who want to put the blame on the forces of law and order who stood between the citizens and the murderers and the criminals.
Sir Julian Lewis
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the people on this side of the argument who oppose what is happening today, do so not because we do not wish people who did wrong to face justice, but because we know that these cases will almost certainly fail, just as the case against Soldier F failed? As my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) said, the punishment is the process. People will be put through unnecessary hell before they are acquitted. That has nothing to do with justice.
Sammy Wilson
No, it has nothing to do with justice.
Although the Secretary of State and others today have argued that this is all about helping victims, innocent victims will not get any justice through this system, because it comes down to who holds the records. When cases go to the courts, there will be no documentation to bring from IRA campaigns and activities. Members should read the book written by Austin Stack, whose father was a prison officer in Portlaoise and who sought for 20 years to get justice. One line of the book that stands out is when Gerry Adams eventually took him to meet some of the IRA commanders, and in the car on the way there he said, “Don’t expect too much, because we don’t keep records.” That is the problem. The state kept records, but the IRA and the terrorists did not keep records, so the cases are going to be one-sided.
The Secretary of State told us today that, as a result of this measure, 200 new civil cases will be opened, 120 of them against the MOD. The statistics have shown quite clearly that most of the murders were carried out by paramilitaries, yet most of the civil cases will be taken against the MOD. That is because there is a deliberate campaign to rewrite history. The vast majority of people who take forward these cases want to ensure that they get a case into court, drag out all the information that is available—held by the state—and get a result that paints the picture that the IRA and the terrorists were the wronged parties.
If anything, this does not give comfort to victims but only rubs salt in their wounds. That is why this remedial order is wrong. It will present the chance to rewrite history, and it will lead to huge costs in compensation claims. As has been said, it will also be a warning to people who we call to serve this country in future that this tactic might be used against them. That is why this is bad.
The Secretary of State knows that he did not need to bring this measure forward. My right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), in his excellent speech, laid out the reasons why that is the case, so I will not go through them. Why is the Secretary of State going through with this? He knows the results, so why does he pursue it? I can only assume that he puts the adherence to the ECHR above the interests of veterans and victims, and that is a disgrace.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
We have been unwavering in our opposition to the notion of immunity. There has never been a justification for arbitrarily closing down legal routes for innocent victims—not in 1998, not during the darkest days of the troubles, and certainly not today. While the Secretary of State and his party are perhaps late to this party, we do welcome his desire to remove the prospect of amnesty and, with it, the perverse equivalence drawn between those brave soldiers and police officers who acted within the law and the terrorists who were intent only on murder and destruction. That moral equivalence has poisoned legacy discourse for far too long.
When it comes to this debate, and the fact that the Government are pressing ahead prematurely with this remedial action, it is not just that we dispute the policy; the fact is that it is rubbing salt in the wounds of victims and will open the floodgates. It will not help one innocent victim, but it will open the floodgates against our brave soldiers—those who stood as human shields between good and evil. What is disputed is the reckless manner in which this Government are attempting to achieve this —and all to placate the Government in Dublin, whose approach has always been obstruction and concealment.
The fact that the Secretary of State is willing to pre-empt the outcome of an appeal to the highest court in the land sets a dangerous precedent. More importantly, it sends a message to the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement—men and women who have already given more than enough—that its views and its stake in this process are dispensable.
It will come as no shock to the Secretary of State to hear that there are aspects of the draft remedial order that we have grave concerns about. It is clear that any benefit from reinstating civil cases will be accrued by a subset of victims whose claims are directed towards the security forces. Once again, the full weight of the state is being aimed not at terrorists but at those who stood against them. Where exactly does the right hon. Member suggest those who were bereaved at the hands of terrorists can seek compensation from the provisional IRA? It is an organisation that still refuses to disband, disarm fully and even acknowledge the scale and brutality of its crimes and murders.
Innocent victims and our brave ex-service personnel are crying out for fairness, not arrangements that aid and abet the rewriting of history—a history in which terrorists are daily being recast as victims, and soldiers as villains. The Secretary of State seems content to acquiesce to those who would use the courts to distort the truth of the past. This House should be under no illusion: this is not about justice; it is about narrative. We only have to think of Loughgall. Let us be absolutely clear about what Loughgall was: it was not a tragic accident or a miscarriage of justice, but the right and proper action on the part of brave soldiers to halt and take out an armed terrorist unit on the verge of carnage. Yet, decades later, the full machinery of the state is being turned against those who prevented a massacre, when the Secretary of State backs this latest inquest. Meanwhile, families devastated by IRA bombs and bullets continue to wait, many without answers, many without justice and many without even acknowledgment.
This is not about truth; it is about blurring the distinction between those who served the law and those who sought to destroy it. It is time for this Government to show the resolve needed to defend those who defended us. They must not do so with warm words or platitudes but with action. The remedial order fails in that aim; it weakens protections, emboldens lawfare and abandons veterans to endless legal jeopardy, and we cannot and will not support it.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
On the first Sunday of this year, I stood with the families of the innocent victims of the Kingsmill massacre as they marked 50 years since that horrendous event. It would have been fitting if the Secretary of State had been there —he was not. Last Sunday there was another commemoration, to mark the equally horrendous sectarian murder of more Protestant workmen at Teebane.
The common denominator of victims and families such as those is that they not just feel but know that they are the forgotten ones. They know that they are not the priority of this Government, and they know that it is the country that gives shelter to the murderers of their loved ones that is the priority of this Government. Dress it up as he will, the Secretary of State’s remedial order is motivated by one thing and one thing only: appeasing the Government of the Irish Republic, who want to drag this United Kingdom before the Bar of the European Court of Human Rights. That is what this remedial order is about.
This remedial order is not about ceasing to implement laws with which the Government disagree, because those aspects of the legacy Act have already been removed from effectiveness. Just look at paragraph 6.7 of the explanatory memorandum to the remedial order:
“Although the provisions declared incompatible with the ECHR by the High Court in Northern Ireland have also been disapplied”—
they are gone!—
“the Government considers it important to remove all these provisions from the statute book swiftly.”
Why? The answer is the one that I have given: to appease the Dublin Government.
Indeed, the Secretary of State came pretty close to confirming that when he said in this House this afternoon that if and when the remedial order goes through, it is his view that there would be no basis upon which to continue the Republic of Ireland’s action. That is the problem. We have a Secretary of State who is genuflecting to the Dublin Government. That is the feeling of innocent victims in our country. They are forgotten, but worse than that, they are way down the queue when it comes to a Government that are interested primarily in facilitating those who give shelter to their killers.
There is no legal justification for this. It is quite clear under section 10 of the Human Rights Act that there is a live issue before a live case in the Supreme Court. It is the issue of whether article 2 of the Windsor framework, which, as I demonstrated in my interventions, was used by the court to require the provisions to be disapplied, was a valid basis for disapplication. That is a live issue, therefore there is no legal justification—quite the reverse—for this remedial order, which drives us to the conclusion that it is for the reason that I have said.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Myself and my party, the DUP, stand squarely—[Interruption.]
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I am grateful. I am sure that what the hon. Gentleman is about to tell us will be very important. I wonder if he would just take a deep breath and give us his counsel.
Jim Shannon
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention.
The door to justice must remain open. No equivalence can or should be drawn between the innocent victim and the perpetrator. Every family deserves a full and fair investigation into the death of their loved one, and there should be appropriate safeguards against vexatious troubles investigations.
I am here today to speak on behalf of all those families who seek justice. My family seeks justice, and the right hon. Gentleman seeks justice for his friend and comrade. It is for them that I underline the major flaws in this remedial order. It does not provide protection for service personnel. There is the recent history of members of the security forces being maligned and dragged through the courts as a result of vexatious allegations. Let us never forget that those stem from an attempt to whitewash the history of the troubles, which was overwhelmingly about paramilitaries murdering and maiming at their unjustifiable will. Let me be clear: I talk about those with clean hands.
The announcement of the Irish Government’s role in the process, considering their perceived inaction on legacy issues within their own jurisdiction, which includes a parallel inquiry into the Omagh bombing, is yet more salt in the wound of those who watch murderers skip over the border with impunity. The reason that we do not trust the Irish Government on legacy issues is clear and warranted: it was a murder haven for years.
Without information, there can be no Irish influence. Anything less is the gravest insult to the memory of those murdered and to the families who grieve them. The fact of the matter is that we can never equate the death of a terrorist killed when carrying out murder—[Interruption.]
David Smith
The hon. Gentleman will know the respect with which he is held in this Chamber for raising attention to the matters of terrorist atrocities over many years. On both sides of the House, we are keen to hear his stories, so we would just like him to take a moment and we look forward to hearing them.
Jim Shannon
I thank my hon. Friend for that. My cousin Kenneth Smyth and his good friend Daniel McCormick were murdered in an ambush on the way to work on 10 December 1971—54 years ago. There is no justice for my family and no justice for young Daniel McCormick. Their only crime was to wear the uniform of this nation, because they were in the Ulster Defence Regiment. They dared to cross the religious divide—Daniel was a Roman Catholic; my cousin Kenneth was a Protestant—and protect their communities from evil men. On 10 December they were slaughtered, leaving their wives and three young children behind. Those men escaped across the border to that murder haven in the Republic of Ireland.
Stuart Montgomery, 18 years old, was murdered by the IRA at Pomeroy. There was never any accountability for his family. Winston Donnell was murdered by the IRA on 9 August 1971 while manning a checkpoint outside my aunt Isobel’s farm down at Clady. They shot him with a Thompson submachine gun, they drove across the road, they cleared the bridge and where did they go? To the Republic of Ireland. I do not know whether Raymond McCord is watching this. I am sure he is, back home. His son was murdered by the UVF because he stood up to them. He seeks justice as well. I seek justice for him, and I put that on record.
The Bill does nothing for those mourning families. It does nothing for the families of the Ballydugan Four. On 9 April 1990, near Ballydugan, Downpatrick, a Provisional IRA bomb blew up four men, three of whom I knew. I worked with Private Michael Adams in a butcher’s shop and I served with him in the Territorial Army. He joined the UDR. I remember the day Private John Birch was born. He died as well. I did not know Lance Corporal John Bradley from Dundalk, unfortunately, but he deserves justice. Then there was Private Steven Smart from Newtownards. I knew his dad and the family really well. The four men were killed. The explosion was massive, killing the four men in the second vehicle instantly and creating a crater some 50 feet long.
The point I want to make is that the Bill does not protect the RUC officer who shot the man who pushed the button and who blew up those four men. I will put it on record in this House that Colum Marks was the murdering scum of an IRA commander in Downpatrick who killed those four UDR men. Was he ever held accountable? No, he was not, but he did get held to account at one time. In Downpatrick, when he tried to set up a horizontal mortar bomb, he was shot by an RUC officer who was then taken and charged. The investigation found that he was not guilty, but the point I want to make is that we need protection. We need to make sure of that.
I am going to finish with this. I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise for my tears. I find it very hard to express these things that have happened to people that I served with and knew. I am asking the Members of this House to ask themselves this: will this legislation do what the troubles legislation was intended for and provide justice? No, it will not. Will it help my cousin Shelley, my family and all the other families, including the family of Private Steven Smart, a lovely young boy, whose family I speak to down the street in Newtownards? No, it will not. Will this legislation enable the continued persecution of RUC, UDR and British Army veterans, many of whom have had their honourable service doubted and disputed, and who deserve better from this House? Will this Bill help to bring healing and comfort? The answer is no, it will not, and therefore I believe that tonight it must not pass.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
Can I ask the House to pay tribute to and acknowledge the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)? [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] That emotion, that story and that heartfelt contribution to today’s debate are replicated across many houses across Northern Ireland, and indeed across this United Kingdom, in regard to those who have lost loved ones, both at the hands of terrorism and in other circumstances in Northern Ireland. That emotion is also felt by our veterans.
It is only when I came into this place that I realised, as a Northern Ireland politician, that when we speak of a Northern Ireland veteran, we speak of the RUC, the UDR, the home regiments and those who served, as well as the family and relatives of my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford and all those who contributed, including all those who went home at night not knowing if their colleague walking beside them was actually the individual who was passing information to the person who was planning their murder. But when I came here, I realised that the conversation is also about the Northern Ireland veterans from England, Scotland and Wales who came to Northern Ireland to serve and to defend and protect what we believed was a democratic system in regard to our rights and our beliefs.
Let us remember that context in regard to that emotion and that service, and then look at what is being brought forward to this House and what is being asked of Members of this House and of members of the Government.
I have respect for many of them, but throughout this three-hour debate—no harm to the Government—their Benches were empty. When the bells ring, Government Members will come and do what they have been bid to do. That is in complete contrast with Monday evening. The question has been raised: why are we rushing this remedial order while there is no troubles Bill to replace it? Why the rush? On Monday evening, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), said on the Public Office (Accountability) Bill that
“we must think about all the possible scenarios and unintended consequences”.—[Official Report, 19 January 2026; Vol. 779, c. 103.]
It is right to acknowledge that that is not a simple issue. The Government remain resolutely committed to finding a way forward, which is why they took the decision to delay. If it was right for the Government to do that on Monday evening, it is right for this Secretary of State to delay this remedial order until the judge and the courts have had their opportunity to complete their processes in regard to what is right and just, and then this House can have that legal, informed debate on why we should be moving forward.
I want to refer to two contributions from Government Members. The hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), who I have a lot of respect for from when she served in the Northern Ireland Office, referred to how rare it is to use a remedial order, so why use it in haste? Why not take the time to actually reflect on what it is? In regard to those parts of the legislation that are being removed, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) said that they have actually never taken effect, so why the rush to bring this remedial order?
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I want to make a couple of points, one about democracy and one about service and justice. I am deeply uneasy about this remedial order being brought in today. I will make no criticism of those who are here, but for major parts of this debate over the past three hours, the Government Back Benches were empty and yet 20-plus veterans have stayed in the Public Gallery to watch our proceedings and see justice being done. I find it worrying. It is 6.57 pm on a Wednesday. There will be Members in the Tea Room and the bars, and Members working hard in their offices. The bells will ring, as the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) said, and they will come down and ask each other, “What are we voting on?” and they will say, “Oh, it’s a Northern Ireland thing.” What they will not realise is that this remedial order removes a law from existence before another one is put in place.
Lincoln Jopp
I haven’t got time. I do not think that we are doing the House, or indeed Parliament, justice by proceeding in this way.
I was a soldier for 25 years and spent three and a half years in Northern Ireland. I once made the mistake of saying that to Ronnie Flanagan—he was the chief constable at the time—and he told me that I am only on my first tour. Soldiers put up with a lot. I was not given any more powers by this House than those of a private citizen—not really. They just slung a rifle round my neck and sent me off to do the Queen’s bidding. I happily did it and so did others. In my first of four Northern Ireland tours, two guardsmen—Guardsmen Fisher and Wright—were in a judgmental shooting situation, and they were convicted of murder by one man in a Diplock court and sentenced to life imprisonment, so soldiers put up with stuff.
But one of the things I find it very difficult to put up with is that when all the Government Members troop through the Lobby tonight, they will remove the prohibition on giving Gerry Adams compensation. I find that incredibly difficult because it is on an admin error: his internment order was signed by a Minister of State and not the Secretary of State. It is on that technicality that he will be able to get compensation for being interned and for trying to escape unsuccessfully—twice. He will get a triple whammy of compensation.
Lincoln Jopp
I will not.
I challenged the hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) earlier, asking him to speak to veterans and the people of Halesowen to justify why that triple whammy is okay, and why he is prepared to go through the Lobby to vote for it tonight. And he said, “The Prime Minister has told me that that’s okay, and that he is not going to allow it. I heard him here at PMQs.” Perhaps the hon. Gentleman, who I am delighted to see back in his place, is not aware that, immediately afterwards, the Prime Minister’s official spokesman said that he could not guarantee that compensation payments to Mr Adams and other former troubles internees would be prevented. The hon. Gentleman is completely free to wander through the Lobby in blissful ignorance of the fact that what the Prime Minister said does not amount to a hill of beans. If he can summon up the courage, he should at least abstain.
Hilary Benn
We have had a very full and wide-ranging debate in which many different contributions have been made, demonstrating once again just how difficult it is to deal with legacy—I think that is a truth around which we can all rally. If it were easy, it would have been dealt with a very long time ago, but its difficulty does not mean that we should not attempt to deal with it.
The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) made his case. I gently say that I was slightly disappointed when he suggested at the end that the Government are doing this for reasons that are, in some way, hidden or unknown, or that may only be discovered in the years to come. I hope he would accept that the Government’s reasons are very clear.
First, the order will deal with the failure of the previous Government’s legacy Act, for the reasons that I tried to set out in my opening remarks: failure legally and failure because it gained no consent from people in Northern Ireland.
Stuart Anderson
The Secretary of State said there is no consensus in Northern Ireland. Having listened to tonight’s speeches, does he believe his approach has achieved that?
Hilary Benn
I have listened very carefully to every single contribution, and I think it is fair to say that the majority of people speaking in this debate do not agree with immunity. They might not all vote for the remedial order tonight, but they do not agree with immunity, and that is the Government’s position. I respect those who take a different view, but I think it is a failed policy—it does not exist. We are charged with taking away something that does not exist, was never enacted and was found incompatible by the courts.
Alex Burghart
The right hon. Gentleman is generous in giving way. Does he accept that conditional immunity, which is all that was in the legacy Act, is the very foundation of all the legislation passed after 1998? For the Labour party now to pretend that it is in some way morally abhorrent is utterly inconsistent.
Hilary Benn
What I am saying is that the Government do not agree with the conditional immunity contained in the legacy Act. The word “conditional” is always used as if it does not necessarily guarantee that immunity will be granted, but I urge Members who think that to go and read the legislation passed by the last Government.
If someone comes forward, whoever they are, and gives a full and truthful account that persuades the commission that it is a full and truthful account of what they did which would have been a criminal offence, the legislation does not say, “Well, you can make your mind up and decide whether to grant it or not.” The legislation passed by the last Government said that the commission must grant immunity. In those circumstances, it does not sound very conditional to me.
Several hon. Members rose—
Hilary Benn
I am going to make some progress because I am trying to respond to the many points raised in the debate.
The second reason we are doing this is that we want those who are still seeking answers to be able to seek them in a system that they have confidence in, and there has not been confidence under the previous Government’s legacy Act, for the reasons we have heard, including from Northern Ireland Members.
The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) made a very powerful contribution in defence of our human rights obligations, and I am grateful for his support and that of his party for the remedial order. We heard important contributions on both sides of the argument—I recognise that, and I recognise the sincerity and force with which those arguments were made. On the Government Benches we heard contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger), and for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey). If I may say so, the hon. Members for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) and for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) both made extremely strong and well-argued cases.
The right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) says that we should wait. He is perfectly entitled to advance that argument, but he is one of the majority of those who have taken part in the debate who are in favour of getting rid of immunity, which is what the remedial order does. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) said that nobody is interested in those who were affected by the Kingsmill massacre. I disagree with that. As he will know, the Kingsmill massacre is currently the subject of an investigation by the legacy commission, and I hope that, along with all those investigations, it is able to make progress.
Gavin Robinson
I understand why the Secretary of State focuses on amnesty, because it means that he does not have to focus on the things he did not include, which are also incompatible, or on other things that are included. Can he indicate to the House what he will do if the Supreme Court says that he is wrong, and therefore this remedial order was wholly inappropriate?
Hilary Benn
We are all subject to the decisions of the Court. The right hon. Gentleman asks a hypothetical question, and, like answers to all hypotheticals, I would say that we will cross that bridge if and when we come to it.
I am afraid that the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) is wrong on the question of interim custody orders, because he has not caught up with what the Government have done. The one difference between the first version of the remedial order and the one we are debating, is that the Government listened to arguments that were made, which said, “Why are you taking sections 46 and 47 off the legislation?” Those sections were added very late in the day during consideration of the legacy Bill in an attempt to deal with the consequences of the 2020 Supreme Court judgment. That did not uphold the Carltona principle—which, as the House knows, has long held that anything signed by a junior Minister has the force of the signature of the Secretary of State. In that case, the Supreme Court decided that it would not apply that to the signing of interim custody orders. We decided to leave that defence there, even though it has proved flimsy because it did not win out in the Fitzsimons case, and we are bringing forward legislation that we think will do the task of restoring the legality of those interim custody orders that were signed, whether by the Secretary of State at the time or by other Ministers. That is extremely important.
The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) spoke about his friend Robert Nairac, and we are all living in hope that his remains, and the other three sets of remains, will be found. The Independent Commission for the Location of Victims’ Remains said, “If you give information about the location of remains, anything that is found and the information you have given us cannot be used in a prosecution”.
Hilary Benn
I am not going to give way because I want to respond to the other points raised.
What the commission set out is what is known as a protected disclosure—a protected disclosure that the previous Government agreed to when they reached the Stormont House agreement and came up with the idea of the information recovery body. That is part of the troubles Bill that we have published, but there is a world of difference between a protected disclosure and immunity from prosecution.
It has been suggested that this is about relitigating who won, but the answer to that question is already crystal clear: peace won. Peace won in Northern Ireland because of the Good Friday agreement. This is not about placating anyone; it is about seeking to do the right thing. It is not about dredging up the past.
Hilary Benn
No, it is not about dredging up the past. Like many right hon. and hon. Members, I have met far too many people—the families of victims—who live with the past every single day, and have done for the past 20, 30, 40 or 50 years. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) laid bare the pain, the sorrow and the heartache that the loss of loved ones has caused to so many people across Northern Ireland. That pain, sorrow and heartache is as powerful today as it was, I suspect, on the day that they first heard the news of the death of their loved ones.
The Government are seeking to put in place a system in which more people can have confidence—because there was not widespread confidence in the previous Government’s legacy Act on the part of victims, survivors, political parties and others in Northern Ireland—so that, where it is possible, answers can be found. You only have to look at the figures for prosecutions to see that they are diminishing rapidly. There are nine cases that are currently live and, by the way, seven of them relate to paramilitaries and one relates to the Army. When it is said that these measures are only about the armed forces, that is not correct because that is not what the evidence shows currently; there are nine live cases, seven of which relate to paramilitaries.
We will return to the troubles Bill in Committee, and I hope that the House will be able to come together to fashion a system that more people can have confidence in, so that the people we have met and heard from, who are still tortured by the fact that they have not had answers as to what happened to their loved ones, may have the chance to find those answers. It is in that spirit that I ask the House to support this remedial order.
Question put,
Gavin Robinson
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I mentioned this briefly in my opening remarks, but I place on record my appreciation for the agreement that this evening’s motion could be extended for double-time. Having praised the usual channels, the Government and Opposition Chief Whips and the Leader of the House, may I also pay tribute to you, Madam Deputy Speaker? Thank you for trying to ensure that everyone was accommodated. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] It is appreciated. As the Secretary of State knows, I do not appreciate the outcome, but I do appreciate that all Members were included.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
While that is not a point of order, it is very much appreciated and it is on the record.
Business without Debate
Antisocial Behaviour on Canals and Rivers: Bath
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Our waterways in Bath are the envy of the country. Across England and Wales, more than 30,000 boats are licensed to navigate our canals and rivers, and Bath stands out as a particular hotspot. Many boaters choose to make Bath their home, whether moored permanently or passing through as part of a longer journey. The Kennet and Avon canal flows gracefully through our world heritage city, shaping our landscape and connecting our community through nature. We value every one of our boaters in Bath, especially our live-aboard boating communities, many of whom work locally, raise families and care deeply about the waterways.
Riverside businesses contribute so much to our local economy, and they create welcoming spaces enjoyed by people across the city. We have a shared responsibility to keep these places safe, clean and accessible to everyone. Rising rents, a lack of social housing and the increased cost of living mean that living on the water is a more affordable option for many. There are more boats on our canals than during the peak of the industrial revolution, with a quarter of those estimated to be live-aboard residential vessels. A study by Promarine Finance found that three quarters of live-aboard owners have never owned a home, with 90% of them citing the cost of living as a factor.
In Bath, boaters and residents of houses along our waterways have co-existed peacefully for decades as neighbours and friends, but it is not just residents who make use of our canals and waterways. People from all over Bath and beyond come to see the beautiful scenery and nature that the canal provides. The towpath also serves as an important active travel route for walkers and cyclists. These areas must be protected for boaters, local residents and visitors alike.
That brings me to the purpose of this debate. In recent years, residents along the Kennet and Avon canal have experienced persistent and at times dangerous antisocial behaviour on the part of a small minority of individuals. Our canals are residential areas, but all too often families and individuals have been subjected to loud music late into the night, bonfires, and acts of vandalism that make it impossible for them to enjoy their homes in peace.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
The hon. Lady mentions vandalism. I have tabled a private Member’s Bill on water safety, which covers a range of issues, in memory of a young lad who lived in Yorkshire and who passed away from drowning in a reservoir. I promised, in the name of Sam, that I would do something about vandalism by making it a named criminal offence for anyone to vandalise water safety equipment. The risk, in terms of the penalty, would be much higher, and would therefore prevent such vandalism from taking place. Does the hon. Lady agree that that is something we should fight to do, in honour of Sam and for his dad, Simon Haycock?
Wera Hobhouse
Let me first express my condolences to the family of the hon. Gentleman’s constituent who drowned so tragically. Such tragedies demonstrate that antisocial behaviour often constitutes thoughtless vandalism. People do not understand what they are doing. We need to make people think about what they do, and legislation may be necessary to enforce that. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue as a particular concern, and I will of course welcome and support his Bill. Good luck to it.
Constituents have written to me with deeply worrying accounts of drug and alcohol misuse, public urination, and towpaths obstructed by furniture and dumped rubbish. That can also be a massive hazard. As I have just said, people often do not think when they do these things, so unfortunately we sometimes have to use the law to encourage the right behaviour. No resident or visitor to Bath should ever feel unsafe on our canals, and the behaviour that I have described is completely unacceptable. Even more troubling are reports of human waste being emptied directly into the canal, black bags of excrement left beside towpaths, and diesel and oil spills polluting the water. There are also serious concerns about boats remaining in short-stay mooring zones for months— sometimes for over a year—alongside abandoned vessels blocking locks and essential services, and preventing hire boats from being navigated safely. All those problems are caused by people being thoughtless, so it is important for the right measures to be in place to keep people safe.
My constituents—and, I am sure, many others throughout the country—are rightly frustrated by the ongoing failure to enforce rules governing our canals. These problems are well known, but no one seems to be able to fix them. A key reason for that is the fragmented enforcement landscape. The Canal & River Trust is responsible for managing most of the canals in England and Wales. Its remit covers everything from boat licensing and mooring rules to obstruction and navigation, but it is attempting to enforce its statutory responsibilities within a framework that is fundamentally flawed. It was established as a charity in 2012 to take over from British Waterways, the statutory body that had previously managed our canal network. While the trust would still receive a Government grant, the idea was that any shortfalls would be made up by its various commercial ventures, much the same arrangement that applies to the National Trust. However, the Canal & River Trust and the National Trust are very different. The latter has commercial properties, thousands of paying members and huge tourism revenues, while the former has a property portfolio that is costly to maintain, and only a small amount of income from the rents paid by boaters. No other charity has as its primary responsibility the upkeep of so much critical infrastructure. As a result, we now have a charity tasked with enforcement powers but without the legal clarity or the practical capacity to use them effectively.
However, resources alone are not the core issue. I have met representatives of the Canal & River Trust on numerous occasions, including a candid discussion about these issues just a few days ago. They are clear that the principal barrier they face is the outdated legal framework governing our waterways. The British Waterways Act 1995 provides only limited powers; crucially, it fails to give the trust the powers it needs to manage boats effectively and fairly. Take the rule governing boats without a permanent mooring: the law states that such boats must not remain
“continuously in any one place for more than 14 days”,
yet it offers no definition of what “one place” means or of how far a boat must move to comply. It is left to the Canal & River Trust to interpret the legislation, leading to regular disputes that take up valuable time and resources. I urge the Minister to take this issue back to her Department, and to engage with the Canal & River Trust on improving that part of the legislation.
The trust’s powers to deal with unlicensed boats are also severely limited. Even where powers exist, enforcement can take two or three years, or longer if challenged, rendering them largely ineffective. It is currently very difficult to remove abandoned boats. First, the Canal & River Trust must establish whom the boat belongs to. Even then, removal can cost around £8,000 per boat—money that the trust often does not get back. Safeguards must remain in place, particularly for the people who live on these boats—boaters should have the right to contest any decision of this nature—but our waterways are shared public assets. Residents and responsible boaters alike are rightly frustrated at having to wait years for action to be taken against persistent antisocial behaviour or unlicensed vessels.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Before the hon. Lady takes the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, let me say that I am looking forward to hearing his knowledge of the canals and rivers in Bath.
Jim Shannon
I spoke to the hon. Lady before the debate, and I explained why it is so important that I support her. In the middle of Newtownards, my major town, we have a massive canal—it has been there since the year 1—so I understand some of the things that the hon. Lady refers to. I asked her about antisocial behaviour, which is what I want to focus on. In Newtownards, the canal has long been a focus of antisocial behaviour, particularly as the local park is right beside it. Does she agree that although it is wonderful that our local team of street pastors actively address the issue of antisocial behaviour, it is about partnership? The partnership between street pastors, the police and communities helps to address antisocial behaviour. I always try to be helpful in any debate.
Wera Hobhouse
The hon. Gentleman did talk to me before the debate, and I was happy to take his intervention. Bath is an example of the challenges that exist everywhere. We are here to discuss those, but also to point to the partnerships that are essential if we are to resolve the issues, so I thank him for his contribution. Yes, we need to work in partnerships.
The Canal & River Trust stands ready to act, but it needs clearer and stronger legal powers to do so. Perhaps the most baffling thing of all is that the trust has no powers to issue fines or even to refuse a licence. The solution is straightforward: the law should be strengthened to clarify exactly what is required of boaters and to equip the trust with proportionate, enforceable powers, balanced by appropriate safeguards to ensure that those powers are used fairly.
The Canal & River Trust is very keen to engage constructively with all parties on this issue, particularly in hotspots such as Bath, but another major obstacle is the range of stakeholders involved. While the Canal & River Trust manages day-to-day canal operations, the Environment Agency is responsible for pollution and environmental protection, local authorities oversee byelaws relating to littering and antisocial behaviour, and the police retain responsibility for criminal offences. It is easy to see how issues such as dumping, vandalism and the burning of inappropriate fuels fall between those overlapping remits. As the saying goes, when everyone is responsible, no one is responsible, which is why all too often these issues remain unresolved.
Matters are further complicated by restrictive interpretations of the GDPR, which restricts information sharing between agencies. Each body recognises the problem, but none can resolve it alone. I intend to bring together the Canal & River Trust, the police, the Environment Agency and the local authority to improve local co-ordination and enforcement, but let me make it clear that, although better collaboration is essential, this alone is not enough. To genuinely improve enforcement on our waterways—and I echo the calls of the Canal & River Trust in this regard—we must see meaningful reform of the law.
To conclude, Bath is certainly a hotspot for boaters, but this is a nationwide problem. “The Future of Licensing” report, published in October 2025, highlights insufficient powers, chronic under-resourcing and unsustainable enforcement arrangements as just some of the issues facing the Canal & River Trust. My constituents are tired of waiting for action. They want clear accountability for antisocial behaviour on our waterways, proper funding for enforcement services, faster and proportionate powers where behaviour is dangerous or polluting, and better multi-agency co-ordination between the Canal & River Trust, councils, police and the Environment Agency. If we are serious about fixing this, we must give those responsible the clear authority and resources they need—the authority to regulate, enforce and act—so that our canals and rivers are not sources of frustration and conflict, but safe and well-managed spaces that work for residents, boaters and the wider community alike.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this evening, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) on securing the debate and thank her for raising this important issue. I also thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his insightful intervention about the canals in Northern Ireland.
May I, through my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher), send my sympathies to the parents of the little boy who died in Doncaster? His tragic story is a reminder that a senseless act of vandalism, or what looks and feels like fun in the moment, can have absolutely devastating consequences. It is also a reminder of the need for those responsible for reservoirs and towpaths to have in place a regime that makes sure the safety equipment is always there and properly maintained.
I share the concerns of hon. Members and the public about these serious matters. We have heard about significant nuisance to local people and communities that can also involve damage to property, physical threats and even assault. As the hon. Member for Bath said, the cost of living crisis is at the heart of this, because people have been priced out of houses in the gorgeous city of Bath, where there are many second homeowners and Airbnbs. I enjoyed a weekend there with my husband to celebrate our wedding anniversary, and it is lovely—we can feel that it is a very special place—but it may be very hard for people to afford local housing in her city.
The Government are committed to tackling this type of antisocial behaviour. We are proposing a range of measures in the Crime and Policing Bill, which is currently in Committee in the other place. Those new powers include a new respect order to ban adult offenders from engaging in specified activities, and increasing the maximum fixed penalty for breaches of a public spaces protection order or a community protection notice, from £100 to £500.
As the hon. Member said, and as I know from cycling up and down canal towpaths—slowly, and always dinging my bell twice when behind pedestrians—people living on the waterways are a deterrent against the types of antisocial behaviour that the hon. Member for Strangford mentioned. The natural surveillance of the people living on the boats means there is a huge disincentive to engage in criminal behaviour close to them.
As the hon. Member for Bath said, the Canal & River Trust is the responsible authority for the Kennet and Avon canal and the River Avon in Bath. It is aware of the problems and the concerns raised locally. It does not have policing powers, but it is responsible for the safe management both of its land and of waterways. It has policies governing unacceptable behaviour and site management, and those set out the expected conduct and outline when the trust can intervene or escalate issues.
Wera Hobhouse
The Minister has mentioned before that more powers will be given to the police, but often the main problem is that the police say, “We don’t have the resources to police the canal all the time,” while ultimately it is the Canal & River Trust that looks after canals, rivers and towpaths. There must be more that the Canal & River Trust can do about antisocial behaviour.
Mary Creagh
If the hon. Lady were to convene a regular set of meetings—say, quarterly—on this with the police, the local council and the CRT, I have found that the steady drumbeat of local accountability is very effective in bringing these partners together to tackle these issues, alongside the community of users and canal dwellers.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for all that she does and for her answers to the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) in trying to find a way forward. I mentioned the street pastors in Strangford. I am not sure if every town and city has street pastors, but there are many people from the churches who have an interest in young people and issues relating to them. I am a great believer in rehabilitation and working with young people—they are not all bad. It is just a thought, but if somebody can work alongside them, perhaps we can address some of the antisocial behaviour issues.
Mary Creagh
What the hon. Gentleman says is so true. I know from my enjoyment of the Coventry canal running through Foleshill that lots of communities fear canals. They do not think it is a blue space for their recreation. They do not feel ownership of it. The difference between the usership of the canal that runs through Foleshill—through the poorest part of my constituency; the poorest part of the city of Coventry—and the canal that runs through King’s Cross St Pancras, where I have cycled up and down many times, is staggering. Communities can feel ownership or exclusion. Everywhere is safer where everybody feels that they can belong. Unpicking some of those barriers and working with communities that may be typecast, such as young people, is a positive solution, ensuring that people do not want to litter, leave their beer bottles or engage in antisocial behaviour.
Having read about this beforehand, it seems to me that there is an issue with stag parties on boats—there certainly has been in the past—which sounds quite tricky. We must also ensure that people have competence, so that if they hire a boat that is supposed to go only 3 or 4 mph, they actually know what they are doing, because they are quite difficult to steer. One does not want to go too fast, as I discovered when I had to have the tiller taken off me when we were going through a very narrow bridge. I am always grateful to have training in these issues.
Canals, towpaths and river banks are shared spaces, freely accessible to anyone, and that is absolutely right. They are used by walkers, anglers, joggers and cyclists. As a cyclist, I see antisocial behaviour on canal towpaths. I am very conscious of trying to avoid it—of slowing down and, particularly when tackling bridges, of going super slowly so that there is no unexpected surprise for people who may be wearing headphones. The trust has published its towpath code and encourages all users to be respectful and considerate. Pedestrians have priority, cyclists are urged to slow down, dog walkers should keep their dogs under control—because that is quite tricky—and people are encouraged to take their litter home with them. There are, however, a mindless minority who use canals and towpaths inconsiderately. We have seen instances of fires being lit, littering, fly-tipping, drunken behaviour, loud noise at night from moored boats, speeding boats, blockages on the towpath and out-of-control dogs.
The trust works closely with Avon and Somerset police, and Bath and North East Somerset council, to address safety and community concerns. It is engaging to develop the antisocial behaviour action plan that manages the competing demands of waterway users and local residents fairly. We saw an example of that recently in London, where the trust worked with the police to remove an illegal encampment from the River Lea Navigation that had caused significant disruption to the local community and to other boaters nearby. The Government fully support the trust and law enforcement agencies in dealing with antisocial behaviour, and we intend to strengthen the powers available to them to do so.
One issue raised this evening is the statutory powers available to the trust to enforce its rules. I have heard the hon. Lady’s concerns that the powers are inadequate and fragmented, and can lead to lengthy and costly enforcement. The trust recognises this challenge. In December 2024 it established an independent boat licensing commission to review its licensing regime. The commission published its report in November 2025, with 36 recommendations to make licensing fairer, simpler, more enforceable and better aligned with the trust’s charitable objectives. It recommended that the trust should: clearly define the navigation requirement for continuous cruising boat licences, to replace the current vague legal requirement for “bone fide navigation”; seek powers to introduce differential charging or rationing for moorings in areas of high congestion; seek powers to use force as a last resort, with safeguards, following a court order to remove a boat from a waterway; have the civil powers to levy fines on licence holders in response to breaches of terms and conditions, and on towpath users for antisocial behaviour such as fly-tipping; have the right to fit a tracking device to any vessel that is not complying with movement requirements, particularly in congested areas; and make the case to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for consolidating the legislation by which the trust operates.
The trust is looking at those recommendations, determining which to prioritise, recognising that many will require new or amended legislation that will need wider consultation. Where legislative change may be needed, the Government are ready to support the trust. We are in regular touch with the trust, including through quarterly formal meetings with the CEO and the executive team. We will use our engagement to support them in identifying quick and robust solutions.
As an independent charity, the trust makes its own management and operational decisions. Since taking over its statutory duties from British Waterways in 2012, it has received Government support as it establishes its role and builds greater financial independence. The canal network presents a considerable challenge, but the trust has a significant commercial and charitable portfolio. This is a main source of its income, rather than filling shortfalls. Harnessing the diverse uses of the canal network will be vital to maintaining it for the future.
The trust has proved to be commercially dynamic, doubling the value of its property endowment from Government, from around £500 million in 2012 to £1 billion today. Last year that endowment provided around £50 million of revenue a year, while boat licences provided around £55 million. The Government currently provide the trust with an annual grant of £52.6 million. That amount represented 22% of the trust’s total income in the last financial year. The grant primarily contributes to the trust’s waterways infrastructure maintenance costs, which, as the hon. Lady says, are considerable but which also keep certain heritage skills alive. I remember that Stanley Ferry up near Wakefield was the site of the last lock gate makers in the country, and their incredible craftwork can be seen on locks across the country—Members might want to look out for their badge when they are next at a canal lock. The Government have agreed to provide the trust with a further 10-year grant of £401 million from April 2027. That will continue to support the trust’s canal infrastructure maintenance, helping to keep the waterways safe and navigable.
In closing, I thank all hon. Members for contributing to the debate, and I agree that we must take action to tackle antisocial behaviour, in all its forms, on the canals and towpaths. People deserve to enjoy these blue walkways and amazing places. Who would have believed that it is possible to see a kingfisher on Coventry canal right next to the old Cash’s silkworks, one mile from the heart of Coventry city centre? It was a sight I never thought I would see—my first ever kingfisher.
People deserve to live free from nuisance, intimidation and damage to their property and to feel safe in the place they call home. Dignity and respect are not optional extras but the foundations of strong, decent communities that have pride in where they live. We will keep working until every neighbourhood feels safe, including those on the canals in Bath and across the country. The Canal & River Trust is playing its part by working closely with local authorities, police and other agencies to tackle antisocial behaviour on the waterways. It is also working to strengthen and streamline its licensing powers to ensure fairness for all users. We will continue to support this work through grant funding, assisting with any legislative changes that may be necessary.
Question put and agreed to.