Commons Chamber

Tuesday 18th November 2025

(began 2 weeks, 6 days ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
11:35
11:35
None Portrait Oral questions: Energy Security and Net Zero
-

Good morning, Mr. Speaker. Question one.
11:35
None Portrait Q1. What steps Great British Energy is taking to help public services use more renewable energy. (906390)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. Good morning, Mr. Speaker. Thanks to the success of the
11:35
11:35
11:36
11:36
11:37
11:37
11:38
11:38
11:39
11:40
11:40
11:41
11:41
11:42
11:42
11:43
11:43
11:44
11:44
11:45
11:45
11:46
11:47
11:47
11:47
11:47
11:48
11:49
11:50
11:50
11:50
11:51
11:51
11:52
11:52
11:53
11:53
11:54
11:54
11:55
None Portrait Q5. What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on support for businesses facing increased energy costs. (906394)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speaker. Question five. Mr. Minister. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With your with your permission, Mr.
11:55
11:56
11:56
11:56
11:57
11:58
11:58
11:58
11:59
11:59
12:00
12:01
12:01
12:02
12:02
12:03
12:04
12:04
12:04
12:05
12:06
12:06
12:07
12:08
12:08
12:09
12:09
12:09
12:10
12:10
12:11
12:12
12:12
None Portrait Q12. What steps he is taking to provide funding for renewable energy sources. (906403)
-

Question 12.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. Speaker. Great British Energy and Great British Energy nuclear will invest over £8.3 billion this Parliament in home
12:12
12:13
12:14
12:14
12:15
12:15
12:15
12:16
12:16
None Portrait Q14. What steps his Department is taking to ensure approved suppliers providing home improvements under the ECO4 scheme continue to meet Trustmark standards. (906405)
-

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
12:16
12:17
12:17
12:18
None Portrait Topical questions: Energy Security and Net Zero
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Rachel Taylor on topicals. Question number one, please, Mr. Speaker. Minister. Thank you. Mr. Speaker. My right hon.
12:18
12:19
12:19
12:20
12:20
12:21
12:21
12:22
12:22
12:22
12:23
12:23
12:23
12:23
12:24
12:25
12:25
12:26
12:26
12:26
12:27
12:27
12:28
12:28
12:28
12:29
12:29
12:29
12:30
12:30
12:30
12:31
12:31
12:32
12:33
12:34
12:34
12:35
12:35
12:36
12:36
12:37
12:37
12:37
12:37
12:38
12:38
12:39
12:39
12:40
12:40
12:40
12:40
12:41
None Portrait Ministerial statement: China Espionage and Government Security Response
-

bench changeover. We now come to the statement Security Minister Dan Jarvis.
12:41
Dan Jarvis Portrait Dan Jarvis MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Barnsley North, Labour)
-
-
With your. make a statement on Chinese espionage targeting UK democratic institutions and government action to counter the breadth of threats posed by China and by wider state actors. But before I begin, let me first pay tribute to the crew member of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary tide surge, who is missing off the coast of the Republic of Ireland. I know the whole House will join me in sending our very best wishes to the ship's company and to their families back at home.

This tragic incident is a reminder of the sacrifice members of our armed forces make in the service of our country. Mr. speaker, earlier today, MI5 issued an espionage alert to members of this House. Members of the Other Place and parliamentary staff to warn them about ongoing targeting of our democratic institutions by Chinese actors. Before I set out the threat and what we're doing to meet it, let me thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your support in issuing the alert and your tireless efforts to safeguard the security of this place and the people who serve within it.

I encourage all parliamentary colleagues to read the alert and to get in touch with the parliamentary security department if they have any immediate concerns. Now, Mr. Speaker, our intelligence agencies have warned that China is attempting to recruit and cultivate individuals with access to sensitive information about Parliament and the UK government. MI5 have stated that this activity is being carried out by a group of Chinese intelligence officers, often masked through the use of cover companies or external head-hunters.

It is not just parliamentarians who should be concerned by this. Parliamentary staff, economists, think tank employees, geopolitical consultants and government officials have all been targeted for their networks and access to politicians. I urge all parliamentarians and their staff to be wary that China has a low threshold for what information is considered to be of value, and will gather individual pieces of information to build a wider picture. Let me speak plainly. This activity involves a covert and calculated attempt by a foreign power to interfere with our sovereign affairs in favour of its own interests, and this government will not tolerate it.

It builds on a pattern of activity that we've seen from China, with cyber operations by China, state affiliated actors targeting parliamentary emails in 2021 and attempted foreign interference activity by Christine Lee in 2022 and other more recent cases. We will take all necessary measures to protect our national interests, our citizens and our democratic way of life, including working with our allies and partners. Mr. speaker, the world has changed a great deal since I first stepped forward to serve our country almost 30 years ago.

And while some things have changed, some things remain the same. And in the various roles I've held since then, I've always believed in the importance of being clear eyed about the nature of the threats that we face, and the need to ensure that the tools we use to respond to those threats are kept up to date. This government's first duty is to protect our national security, and we will not hesitate to hold all state actors to account. On the 6th of November, my right hon.

Friend the Foreign Secretary spoke with her Chinese counterpart, Director Wang Yi. She was clear with the Foreign Minister that any activity, any activity that threatens UK national security, particularly in relation to the UK's parliament and democracy, will not be tolerated. And today I am setting out a comprehensive package of measures we are taking to disrupt and deter the threats by the threats posed by China, as well as by wider state actors, supported by Ministers from across government and coordinated by myself.

We are launching a counter political interference and espionage action plan. Mr. speaker, I will set out in detail to the House what that plan will entail. First, we will strengthen the legislative tools available to government to disrupt the threat. We will introduce the elections Bill, which will include proposed measures to safeguard against covert political funding. This will include tougher risk assessment rules for donor recipients and enhanced enforcement powers for the Electoral Commission. And I can confirm we are also working on new powers to counter foreign interference, including a prescription type tool to disrupt proxy organisations, undermining our security, and an extension to maximum penalties for election interference offences.

Second, we are launching a series of protective security campaigns coordinated through the Defending Democracy Task Force, working with the parliamentary security authorities. These will help all those who work in politics to recognise, resist and report suspicious state threat activity. Building on the guidance that was launched by the National Protective Security Authority in October, this will include tailored security briefings for the devolved governments and for political parties via the parliamentary Parties panel by the end of this year, as well as new security guidance in January for all candidates taking part in devolved and local elections in May.

Third, we are building a campaign that uses all levers at the disposal of this government to degrade the ecosystem of proxy cover. Companies, organisations and individuals that are being used by foreign states to facilitate interference and espionage targeting our democratic institutions, the National Protective Security Authority building on there. Think before you link campaign will be strengthening their engagement with professional networking sites to make them a more hostile operating environment for foreign agents. Now, Mr. Speaker, as the Security Minister, I am privileged to see the diligence of the security services, law enforcement and civil servants who work tirelessly to keep the UK safe day and night.

Noting China's low threshold for information gathering. This government is providing the resources needed to protect our national interest, so I can announce that the government has committed to investing 170 million to renew the sovereign encrypted technology our officials use to do their vital work. This programme of work will help to ensure sensitive diplomatic, economic, trade, security, law enforcement and policy development arrangements are safeguarded from espionage by any state threat actor. I can also announce that this government has completed the removal of surveillance equipment manufactured by companies subject to the National Intelligence Law of the People's Republic of China.

From all sensitive sites we maintain in the UK and around the world. Moreover, we will invest 130 million next year through the Integrated Security Fund to build the UK's resilience against threats posed by states such as China. Among other projects, this investment will build counter-terrorism Policing's ability to enforce the National Security Act and fund the National Cyber Security Centre and National Protective Security Authority's work supporting our most critical businesses to protect their intellectual property. Indeed, the National Protective Security Authority's work is an important reminder that China doesn't just pose threats to our democratic institutions, but also to other sectors.

Let me talk briefly about two other sectors in particular. First, education. Education is one of the UK's most important global assets, and that is in part due to the UK's steadfast commitment to academic freedom and excellence. There is value for the UK in engagement with China on education. However, operating in today's uncertain international context presents many challenges for our great universities. It is because of their excellence that states like China are attempting to influence their independent research and interfere with activity on campus.

Ministers have already raised our concerns about this activity with their counterparts in Beijing, and the office for students has recently issued new guidance to help universities protect the freedoms their staff and students enjoy. But as part of our ongoing commitment to work collectively to address these risks, I can announce that Ministers will host a closed event with vice Chancellors to discuss the risks posed by foreign interference and signpost our plans to further increase the sector's resilience. Second, advanced manufacturing.

The Department for Business and Trade is working to strengthen and scale our new Economic Security Advisory Service to help businesses navigate economic security issues like espionage and intellectual property theft. The service is already engaging businesses in the advanced manufacturing sector, and as it matures, to support other sectors of the economy, it will provide a new digital offer and assist businesses with complex economic security cases. Navigating HMG support. Mr. speaker, in October, I told the House that this government remains steadfast in our commitment to disrupting and holding state actors accountable for widescale cyber espionage operations, and we stand ready to go further to disrupt, degrade and protect against the dangerous and unrestrained offensive cyber ecosystem that China has allowed to take hold.

Earlier this year, the NTSC with international allies called out free technology companies based in China. China, with a global malicious cyber campaign targeting critical networks. And just last week, we introduced the Cybersecurity and Resilience Bill that will help to make critical sectors of the economy and the public sector a harder target from cyber attacks, including malicious cyber activity emanating from China's territory. The government will continue to take further action against China based actors involved in malicious cyber activity against the UK and our allies.

This will form part of a broader campaign that the UK is delivering to disrupt and degrade the dangerous cyber ecosystem that China has allowed to take hold within its territory. Now, Mr. Speaker, let me assure hon. Members that we will not shy away from using all the tools at our disposal, including sanctions, as necessary. Mr. speaker, our country has a long and proud history as a seafaring nation, trading around the world with those countries that share our way of life and with those that do not.

China is the world's second largest economy and together with Hong Kong, is the UK's third largest trading partner. It's in our long term strategic interest to continue to engage with China. We must cooperate on areas where our interests align. Climate, global health, trade, scientific research, illegal migration and serious organised crime to name just a few areas. But we will always, always challenge any country, including China, that attempts to interfere, influence or undermine the integrity of our democratic institutions.

And we will take all, all necessary measures to protect UK national security. That is why we have taken the action today, and I am clear that further steps can and absolutely will be taken. Disrupting and deterring China's espionage activity wherever it takes place. Updating our security powers to keep pace with the threat. Helping those who work in politics to recognise, resist and report the threat, and working with partners across the economy to strengthen their security against the threat.

Mr. speaker, our strategy is not just to cooperate. We will engage China where necessary, but we will always act to defend our interests and challenge where our values are threatened. I commend this statement to the House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just just to say the Minister did take 14. It's a very important subject. So I have no problem. So
12:56
12:56
Alicia Kearns Portrait Alicia Kearns MP (Rutland and Stamford, Conservative)
-
-
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My heart also goes out to the missing crew member, their ship's company, and their loved ones at home. Let us all hope for good news. Thank you to the Minister for advance sight of his statement and for his time last week. But the revelations today are no surprise. They are the latest in an ever growing list of actions by the Chinese Communist Party, interfering in our sovereign affairs and trying to undermine our democracy and our country.

The pernicious nature of this threat should not be underestimated, and I welcome the Minister's plans for a new prescription tool to counter foreign interference. Also, that the government has completed work. We started to strip surveillance equipment manufactured in China from sensitive sites on education. However, plans to discuss foreign interference with vice Chancellors is quite inadequate. I have had those discussions and face nothing but naivety and intransigence, but they are also useless unless the government is willing to use its teeth to defend those institutions under attack.

Earlier this month, Norway and Denmark alerted us to the existence of dual use kill switches in Chinese made electric buses, allowing China to switch off buses and bring chaos to transport systems. So, could the Minister give an update on the investigation into our bus networks, but also the chips that have been placed in Ministry of Defence vehicles that require our members of the armed forces to be silent whilst travelling around our country in defence of our nation. On academic freedom, Sheffield Hallam University was blackmailed by Chinese security services into cancelling research into state sanctioned Uyghur slave labour.

So will update on the police investigation into this and the coercive campaign. Can the Minister share and will he also admit that it was a mistake for his party to cancel our university free speech provisions and use them to convince the government to reintroduce them? Now that the threat is on the front pages of our newspapers, because it is only by drawing a red line and taking action to establish some form of deterrence, that we will see threats abate. Yet, in the face of such hostility, the government appears delegates difficult conversations to officials on the collapse of the case against Christopher Cash and Christopher Bury.

The government saw fit, only to call in a senior official to have a conversation with the Chinese charge d'affaires. Last week, Hong Kong and Chloe Chung said that the government is not keeping her safe. The government's response to a bounty being put on her head to kidnap notes being delivered to her neighbours, asking them to take her to the Chinese embassy was the same rhetorical tap on the knuckles. This is insufficient. If the government seriously wants to deter further attacks on our country. Now we on this side of the House recognise the threat the Chinese Communist Party and we want to work with the government.

So we have a few suggestions. The Minister today stated that the Chinese government is using proxy organisations to interfere in and commit espionage against our democracy. That is literally why we introduced the Foreign Influence Registration scheme. So instead of the communications plan and private closed door meetings announced today, we urge the government to put China in the enhanced tier of the scheme. In opposition, Labour supported us in passing the National Security Act. Yet in government, they refuse to use it as it was designed.

Now that is perverse. Why vote for a defensive tool? To leave it on the shelf when we are under threat? The decision on the new Chinese embassy is also expected shortly. And whilst we would see that embassy refused, if the government will not, will it at least require the Chinese government to pay for sensitive underground cables to be rerouted away from the embassy? We also hear of multiple government visits planned to China before Christmas in the New Year. Will these now be cancelled? Because what message does it send when, despite an attack on this House, our Parliament Ministers are happily jetting off to stride down red carpets with the government responsible.

And finally, we need a comprehensive audit of our vulnerabilities across our society and our economy. The recent export controls and critical minerals demonstrate China's willingness to weaponize its economic heft. We need to know where our vulnerabilities lie and increase our resilience accordingly. But that also means publishing the shelved China audit, because how can an entire civil service base its posture on a document that most will never be allowed to read? It needs to be published and sensitive areas can be redacted.

Any offence taken by the Chinese authorities at its contents are down to their actions, not us. Now we face an acute threat to our democracy and the face of that threat. We have yet to see repercussions. The Chinese Communist Party to defend our nation, the government must have a firm policy of deterrence. Now, justice was denied last month, but the government has the tools and ability to act. So when will the government take action to make clear to the Chinese Communist Party that they will not get away with attacks on our democracy? The government can cancel the jetco trade talks.

It can impose sanctions, it can cancel propaganda visits to China, and it can put the Chinese Communist Party in enhanced cheer when they do any of these. We will be here and ready to help. But until that time, the Chinese Communist Party will think our country, unwilling to deter future acts of hostility and unwilling to defend our democracy or our country. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
13:01
Dan Jarvis Portrait Dan Jarvis MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Barnsley North, Labour)
-
-
Mr. Lady here and in her place, and I'm very grateful for her comments today and for the contact that we've had recently. And I hope she knows that this is a conversation I want to continue to have with her and colleagues on her side, and we take very seriously the points that she's made today and on countless other occasions. And let me try and provide her with some reassurance. But if I'm not able to do that, I'm very happy to to meet with her again in the very near future, because as she will understand, there are sensitivities around some of these matters, and that means it's more difficult to get into the detail of some of them.

But let me see what I can say to try and provide some assurances. So the package that we have announced today, I think by any metric, is a comprehensive package, but I've been clear about the government's willingness to go further when and where that is required. The measures that we have announced today will help us, will help us to tackle economic, academic, cyber and espionage threats that we face from China and from other state actors. The impact of the measures that we've announced today will be immediate, but as I say, we will not hesitate to go further where that is necessary.

Because when we say that national security is the first priority of this government, that is something that we take incredibly seriously. Now, she's right that the threats that we face from China do require action and not words. And I would just gently reiterate some of the announcements that we've confirmed today. So the work that we're taking forward will be coordinated from my by myself, from the Cabinet Office as part of a new counter political interference and espionage plan.

That will be the fulcrum point for coordinating this activity right across government and across law enforcement. She will have heard the words that I've spoken about the new guidance and briefings that will be issued to members of this House and to the devolved assemblies, and to candidates standing for elections in May of next year. We're putting our money where our mouth is as well. I've announced £170 million specifically towards renewing our sovereign encrypted technical capability, and another 130 million on projects such as building counter-terrorism policing capacity, working with the NCIC and the Npsa to protect intellectual property.

I've also referenced and she referenced it as well, the removal of surveillance equipment manufactured by companies subject to the national intelligence law. I absolutely acknowledge that that was work that began under the previous government, and I am pleased. And I've issued a written ministerial statement with further detail to confirm that we've completed that process today. I also think that is an important legislative angle to all of this, which is why we introduced the new Cyber Security and Resilience bill just last week, and why I give an assurance that we will introduce the elections Bill, the the earliest available opportunity.

Now, all of these measures are important in their own right, but they are more important when they are brought together. But in the end, I think the hon. Lady will agree with this. What really matters is our mindset, and our mindset is born out of an absolute desire to work collaboratively across this place to protect our country and all of the people who live here. Now, will that involve making some tough choices? Yes, the truth of the matter is it will involve making some tough choices.

The previous government made some tough choices. This government will have to make tough choices. But like all of our G7 counterparts, we will engage with those choices in a clear eyed way. I don't think any serious member of this House thinks that we shouldn't be engaging with China. The debate is around the nature of the engagement. Now, the hon. Lady made some important points, and if I'm not able to address them adequately, I will come back to her. She specifically raised the importance of education and academic freedoms, and I completely agree with her.

And she specifically referenced Sheffield Hallam University. I know that she will understand that because active inquiries are ongoing into this matter, it wouldn't be appropriate to comment on the specifics of what allegedly happened at Sheffield Hallam. But the points that she makes are well made and give her an absolute assurance that we take them incredibly seriously. She also raised, and it didn't come as a huge surprise to me that she did. The issue of furs. Now she will remember that furs is a product of the National Security Act.

Now, there are some members in this House who said that we wouldn't introduce furs at all. Then when we confirmed that we were going to introduce it, they said that we wouldn't be able to do it by the 1st of July. I gave a categorical assurance that we would introduce it by the 1st of July. And we did. We are looking closely at whether it is necessary to make further additions onto the enhanced tier. But I can say to her that no decision has yet been made specifically with regard to China.

She also asked me about the embassy, and this is a matter that there has been much discussion in this place, and we are moving towards a point of decision. She will understand that that is not a decision for me. It is a decision that will be made by the Secretary of State for housing, Communities and Local Government, and he will do that in a quasi judicial capacity. And as a consequence of that, I am very limited in what I can say.

But I can say, as I have said previously, that national security has been the core priority throughout that particular process. She and she spoke about visits, and I would take a different view to the way that she characterised the visits that she described. I think it is important that members of this government, Ministers, senior Ministers engage with our counterparts in China. It is only by engaging that we are provided with an opportunity to deliver tough and consistent messages.

I can categorically assure her that any Minister or any official that travels from this country to China will deliver a series of strong and coherent messages aligned with the messages that I've delivered to the House today. She also about the audit. She'll know that the the previous Foreign Secretary gave a statement in this House about the China audit. But I'll look carefully the specifics of the points that she makes to conclude in my response to her. I hope she knows how seriously we take these matters, and I categorically assure her that I am very, very happy to work collaboratively with her and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

colleagues on her side to make sure country. John McDonnell. I.
13:08
13:09
13:11
Lisa Smart Portrait Lisa Smart MP (Hazel Grove, Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Democrat spokesperson Lisa Smart, but obviously some extra time as well. Well, okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I'm very grateful to the and I'm very grateful to the Minister, as I always am, for advance sight of his statement. The news that the CCP is waging a campaign to infiltrate our Parliament is deeply offensive to our sovereignty, though perhaps not surprising to those who have been paying attention to the recent collapsed espionage case and uncovering of interference at a UK university.

Their attempts to corrupt our democracy and government must be rooted out. We therefore welcome the counter political interference and espionage action plan as a first step. It is absolutely right that the government implement these measures to challenge Beijing's espionage capabilities in the UK and the transnational repression it exports to our shores. New measures to disrupt proxy organisations. New penalties for election interference and the removal of potentially compromised surveillance equipment have our full backing. However, in the face of persistent flagrant transgressions by the CCP, this plan by itself is not sufficient.

Beijing has tried to bully our government, most recently on permission for the new for the proposed new Chinese embassy in Tonbridge. Warning of consequences. If the government does not approve the plans, they have oppressed and intimidated British nationals. We cannot afford to shy away from this challenge and leave key pressing issues unresolved. I note the minister's earlier comments, Mr. Speaker, about the Chinese Mega embassy, but I wonder if I could put on record my party's repeated call to urge the government to block this plan, to show that attempts to intimidate will be firmly rebuked.

I further note the Minister's comments about Firs, and I wonder if he could update the House on his current thinking about when he may plan to come back with a decision to add China to the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. The Minister said that the forthcoming elections bill will include measures to safeguard against covert political funding and tougher risk assessment rules for donor recipients, and enhanced enforcement powers for the Electoral Commission. This is a good opportunity, Mr. Speaker.

So could the Minister confirm that this will include donations via cryptocurrency and the associated transparency concerns? And can the Minister confirm that there will also be new risk assessment rules and enforcement powers for donations funnelled through third party organisations, such as think tanks? Thank you Minister.
13:13
Dan Jarvis Portrait Dan Jarvis MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Barnsley North, Labour)
-
-
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm very grateful to her for her broad welcoming of the plan. And she's raised a number of points, including several which is consistently raised concerns about in the chamber. And with me outside of the chamber, let me just say to her and to other members with regard to the embassy and with regard to any other area of policy, nobody, nobody will intimidate members of this government to do anything other than what is in our country's national interests.

I do understand why certain hon. Members want to refer to the embassy as a super embassy. Other descriptive terms have been used. This is a judgement that will have to be made by the Secretary of State. But I, along with other ministerial colleagues, have been crystal clear that national security is and will remain a core priority throughout this process. There have been various comments and various points made by people inside and outside of this house that are not correct with regard to the national security implications of this embassy.

It's a quasi judicial matter, and I am limited in terms of what I can say, but I reiterate the assurance that I've offered previously about the importance of the national security elements underpinning any decision. She asked about the elections bill. I think she made some important and valid points. She will understand that that is a piece of legislation that sits with another government department. But they will, I'm sure, have heard the points that she have made, and even if they haven't, I behalf.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Abtisam Mohamed. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Sheffield Hallam University in my
13:15
13:16
13:17
13:18
13:18
Alex Barros-Curtis Portrait Mr Alex Barros-Curtis MP (Cardiff West, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speaker. And I thank the Minister for his statement and also want to put on record my tribute to the missing record my tribute to the missing crew member, those searching for him, to those who all of those who keep us safe. With respect to the package.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of. Measures he's set out today, I welcome them. And it is important, of course, with the news today about the network and sites being used. Whilst of course this has been said, this is not new, it's important to keep the risk elevated important to keep the risk elevated and to remind all those potentially affected of that. He knows, because we've conversed about it regularly, that I take an interest in the that I take an interest in the Defending Democracy Task Force.

And so I wonder if you can say a little bit more about the series of protective security campaigns that protective security campaigns that that will be that will be coordinated through it. And can I suggest that as part of the outreach to all of the different stakeholders, he's mentioned that the task force gives thought to some sort of centralised toolkit that pulls together all of the guidance, the information, and which is evergreen and constantly being updated to ensure that all being updated to ensure that all affected stakeholders in and outside of this place have it at their fingertips, so that we can keep ourselves safe from people who
13:19
Dan Jarvis Portrait Dan Jarvis MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Barnsley North, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

keep ourselves safe from people who who are a threat to us. Minister. Well. I'm very grateful to him for his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful to him for his comments today and also the points that he's made previously about the importance of the Defending Democracy Task Force. It wasn't a Democracy Task Force. It wasn't a given that the government would necessarily continue in the way that the previous government, the previous security Minister, had invested in the Defending Democracy Task Force. But I took the view on good advice from my predecessor that that was the best way, the fulcrum point to coordinate that activity across government.

And I think he was right about that. And that is why we've really invested in it as a process. That is why it is truly wired across government and law enforcement. That is why the Prime Minister recently renewed the mandate of it. And that is why I personally invest a very significant amount of time in it every single day, because I believe in the work that it is doing, and I believe it provides the the right forum in order to lead this work, including the kind of work that the hon.

Member mentioned. The protective security campaigns, I think, are really important because whilst most Right Honourable and hon. Members are sensible and diligent members of this House, we have to ensure that everybody who might be at threat or at risk has the information that they need in order to make informed decisions. And that's why on a number of fronts, we will up our game and make sure all of the necessary information is provided to the people who needed it. His point about the toolkit is a really good one.

I will take that away,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

consider it and come back to him. But I'm very grateful to his for thank. You, Mr. Speaker.
13:21
Tom Tugendhat Portrait Rt Hon Tom Tugendhat MP (Tonbridge, Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

You, Mr. Speaker. If I may begin by saying to the Minister in his place, you're welcome. It's a pleasure to hear his statement today and to hear the areas where he's taking things forward. I particularly welcome the update on the connected devices. I merely mentioned there are a few other areas where connected devices are very real. We've spoken briefly. My hon. Friend spoke from the despatch box about vehicles which are naturally intelligence gathering platforms on wheels when they're made in Beijing and shipped over here.

And there are a whole series of other areas where we're seeing this level of threat continue and deepen. Now, he also spoke about the fact that we do need a relationship with China, and I don't disagree with him on that, but it is somewhat insulting when the Chancellor goes to Beijing and comes back with £600 million of investment over five years, frankly, it's peanuts. Chinese FDI in the UK is less than 0.2%. According to the government's own figures, the trade and investment figures.

And so what we need to be doing is looking at where we can compensate for that dependency, perhaps, for example, by increasing US FDI by 1%, which would be more almost double what the Chinese investment is. 1% on the US is almost double what the Chinese invest. So we need to be looking around the world at alternatives. We need to be clear eyed about the threats. And I reiterate the point that my hon. Friend made from the despatch box. We do need to introduce China on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the enhanced tier refers. Mr. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm
13:23
Dan Jarvis Portrait Dan Jarvis MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Barnsley North, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the points that he has made and the advice that he's offered previously. And I think the offered previously. And I think the points that he makes about connected devices and about vehicles are well made, and I can give him an absolute assurance that we consider them very, very carefully. He made a point about engagement, and he referenced the Chancellor's visit. I can assure him that all Ministers and all officials who visit China will deliver a coherent and strong set of messages about the concerns that we have with regard to our national security.

That's specifically why I referenced in my earlier remarks that the Foreign Secretary spoke specifically about these matters with her Chinese counterpart on the 6th of November. She was absolutely clear with the foreign Minister that any activity that threatens UK national security will not be tolerated. So I give him and the House an absolute assurance that even where there are engagement activities that might, on the face of it, relate to other, other areas of government business, there will be a consistency about the messaging.

He will know, though, from his time in government that in addition to the areas of cooperation and areas where there is a requirement to engage that I listed earlier, both within departmental responsibilities that sit in the Home Office, there is merit often in engaging with China on a range of matters that aren't necessarily particularly well understood. So we do need to have that constructive engagement with the country, but it needs to be underpinned by a desire to enhance and preserve our national security.

And that is the approach that I will always take with.
13:25
13:26
13:27
13:27
13:28
13:28
13:29
13:30
13:31
Jeremy Wright Portrait Rt Hon Sir Jeremy Wright KC MP (Kenilworth and Southam, Conservative)
-
-
Sir Jeremy Wright.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Deal of what the Minister has said in his statement? me. That just as we.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Know, China can be simultaneously. National security. Threat and economic opportunity, China knows that too. Which means that even if it were

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Which means that even if it were not the. Right thing to do in and of itself, as of course it is. Standing up.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Standing up. For our national security because China respects. Strength is unlikely to prejudice any any international trading relationship

**** Possible New Speaker ****

international trading relationship we seek to pursue with it. But can I ask. Him. One specific. Thing in relation to the embassy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thing in relation to the embassy and ask for his help? He knows, and I know he respects the role of the Intelligence and Security Committee. Intelligence and Security Committee. He knows that that committee is relied upon by this House to provide judgement on those matters provide judgement on those matters where intelligence is involved, and the whole House cannot do so. The embassy is clearly one of those. embassy is clearly one of those. And if the government seeks to make a decision on that before Christmas, and he may not be able to say and he may not be able to say whether that is still the case.

But if it is the case, can he ensure that the ISC has before it all the that the ISC has before it all the material we need on which to make a judgement on behalf of the House? Because as of yet, we do not.
13:32
Dan Jarvis Portrait Dan Jarvis MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Barnsley North, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Because as of yet, we do not. Lords Minister. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Well, as I often find myself in violent agreement with the right hon. Gentleman because he makes good points in a very reasonable way, and it isn't necessarily for me to talk about the nature of our diplomatic relationship with China, because obviously, as he will understand, that is a Foreign Office lead. But I think he is right in the way that he characterises our approach. I believe in being straight with this House and straight with the countries that we deal with.

And I think he's right that it doesn't in any way disadvantage us to be straightforward and to be strong. And that's why I very carefully chosen the language that I've used today to indicate the strength of feeling about the nature of the threat that we face. Now, I think he made an entirely reasonable point about the embassy. I won't bore him in the house with kind of further discussion about it being a quasi judicial decision that we made by the Secretary of State for MHCLG, although that clearly is the case.

I think there is an important role for the ISC to look at the the nature of the decision that is being made and at the appropriate moment when we're able to do so, I'll make sure that his committee

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is properly briefed on that issue. Christine Jardine. Thank you very much, Madam
13:34
13:35
13:35
13:36
13:37
13:38
13:39
13:40
13:40
13:41
13:42
13:42
13:43
13:43
13:43
13:44
13:44
13:45
13:45
13:46
13:46
13:47
13:48
13:49
13:50
Yvette Cooper Portrait Rt Hon Yvette Cooper MP, Foreign Secretary, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to update the House on two of the world's gravest conflicts in Gaza and in Sudan, following recent resolutions in the UN and discussions at the G7, and also on the action that the UK government is taking to pursue peace, firstly in Gaza, after two years of the most horrendous suffering, the ceasefire agreement led by President Trump, with the support of Qatar, Egypt and Turkey has been in place for six weeks.

20 hostages are now home with their loved ones, and the remains of 25 more have been returned so their families can grieve. More aid trucks are entering Gaza, but the ceasefire is highly fragile and there is still a long journey ahead to implement the commitments made at Sharm el-Sheikh and to get to a lasting peace. Last night, the UN Security Council passed resolution 2803. The UK voted for this important resolution, which authorises the establishment of an International Stabilisation Force for Gaza.

Transitional arrangements, including the Board of Peace and the Palestinian Committee. It underscores the essential need for humanitarian aid and reconstruction, and points the way to a path to Palestinian self-determination and statehood. Crucially, it is supported by the Palestinian Authority and Arab and Muslim partners in the region and beyond, and this resolution is a critical staging post which sustains the unity around President Trump's 20 point plan. But momentum must now be maintained. It is essential that an International Stabilisation Force and trained Palestinian police can be deployed quickly to support the ceasefire and to avoid a vacuum being left which Hamas can exploit.

We will also need the urgent formation of a Palestinian committee alongside the Board of Peace. And as we were clear at the UN last night, these transitional arrangements must be implemented in accordance with international law and respecting Palestinian sovereignty and self-determination. They should strengthen the unity of Gaza and the West Bank and empower Palestinian institutions to enable a reformed Palestinian Authority to resume governance in Gaza. Because Palestine must be run by Palestinians, the work to implement the first phase of the ceasefire agreement must continue.

That means work so that Hamas releases the bodies of the remaining three hostages taken in the terrorist attack on October 7th, so their families can properly grieve. And we urgently need a major increase in humanitarian aid, because aid into Gaza is still a trickle rather than a flood in Jordan. Two weeks ago, I visited warehouses holding UK aid for Gaza, including one run by the World Food Programme, with enough wheat to feed 700,000 people for a month. Yet it still sits there because the Jordanian route into Gaza is still closed.

They told me there about there being 30 more warehouses nearby with food, shelter kits, tents, medical supplies. Less than 100 miles from Gaza, but still not getting in. Now, I welcome the very recent improvements in aid flows, and that one more border crossing in Sikkim is now partially open, but it is not nearly enough. We need all of the land crossings, including the Rafah border with Egypt, with longer and consistent hours, and urgent work is needed immediately in all parts of Gaza to rebuild basic public services and provide shelter as winter draws in.

Medical staff must be allowed to enter and leave Gaza freely, and international NGOs need certainty that they can continue to operate. And I spoke to the King of Jordan and to doctors in Amman about a maternity and neonatal field hospital unit, which stands ready to be moved into Gaza. But again, they can't yet get it in. So the Israeli government can and must remove these restrictions and uncertainty. Now, as well as working with the US and others, we are drawing on distinct UK strengths to support a lasting peace.

We are providing expertise on weapons decommissioning and ceasefire monitoring based on Northern Ireland experience. We are supporting demining and unexploded ordnance, including with 4 million of new UK funding for the United Nations Mine Action Service and funding to surge in experts, including from British organisations such as the Halo Trust and the Mines Advisory Group. The impressive work I've recently seen first hand and on civil military coordination, we have UK deployments into a dedicated US led hub for Gaza stabilisation efforts.

But beyond Gaza, stability in the West Bank is essential to any sustainable peace, and I am concerned that the PA faces an economic crisis induced by Israeli restrictions that are strangling the Palestinian economy. The Netanyahu government should be extending, not threatening to end the arrangements between Israeli and Palestinian banks, arrangements that are crucial to the everyday economy. For Palestinians, it is crucial for stability, which is in Israel's interest too, and the pace of illegal settlement building continues. We have seen further appalling incidents of settler violence during the olive harvest.

And while I welcome Israeli President Herzog, expression of concern, the response of the Israeli authorities is still completely insufficient, practically and legally. Tackling settlement expansion and settler violence are vital to protecting a two state solution, in line with the UK's historic decision to recognise the State of Palestine. Madam Deputy Speaker, let me turn now to Sudan, where the worst humanitarian crisis in the 21st century is still unfolding right now. The UN humanitarian chief, Tom Fletcher, who has just visited the area, has described it as the epicentre of suffering in the world.

And he is right. Over 30 million people need life saving aid. 12 million have been forced from their homes. Famine is spreading, cholera and preventable disease are rampant and in El Fasher, following the advances by the RSS, horrifying scenes of atrocities with mass executions, starvation and the systematic use of rape as a weapon of war horrors so appalling that they can be seen from space. As UN ocha have put it, El Fasher is a crime scene. There are satellite pictures showing discolouration of sand consistent with pools of blood, multiple clusters of objects consistent with piles of human bodies, and the apparent burning of bodies and operations to dispose of bodies in mass graves.

Further horrors will yet unfold unless greater action is taken. A year ago, Britain tabled a resolution at the UN Security Council demanding humanitarian access and civilian protection, but it was shamefully vetoed at that time by Russia. Six months ago, at our London Sudan conference, the UK brought together international partners and secured £800 million in funding. But the situation continues to deteriorate, including with North Kordofan now under threat and fighting moving to El-obeid. We need a complete step change in efforts to alleviate suffering and bring about peace.

That means more aid to those in need. Where the UK has committed over £125 million this year alone, delivering life saving support to over 60 650,000 people. Treating children with severe malnutrition, providing water and medicine and supporting survivors of rape. But the challenge is still access. The RSF still refuses safe passage to aid organisations around El Fasher. The SAF is bringing in new restrictions which stand to hinder aid. Both sides must allow unhindered passage for humanitarian workers supplies and for trapped civilians.

We are urgently pressing for a three month humanitarian truce to open routes for life saving supplies. But aid will not resolve a conflict wilfully driven by warring parties. So we desperately need a lasting ceasefire, underpinned by serious political process. At the Manama Dialogue conference in Bahrain two weeks ago, I called for the same intense international efforts to address the crisis in Sudan, as we have seen around Gaza and Niagara. Last week, I joined our G7 partners in calling for an immediate and permanent ceasefire the unimpeded access of humanitarian aid and for external actors to contribute to the restoration of peace and security.

We are engaging intensively with the quad countries, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United States who have now together called for an immediate humanitarian truce and an end to external support and arms that are fuelling conflict. And I strongly support Secretary Rubio's latest comments regarding the need to end the weapons and support that the RSF is getting from outside Sudan. And last Friday, the UK called a special session of the United Nations Human Rights Council, in which a UK drafted resolution was passed securing an international consensus for an urgent UN inquiry into alleged crimes in El Fasher.

Because impunity cannot be the outcome of these horrifying events, we need to make sure teams can get in to investigate these atrocities and hold the perpetrators to account. And I've instructed my officials to bring forward potential sanctions relating to human rights violations and abuses in Sudan. Madam Deputy Speaker, the UK will play its full part to ensure it is the Sudanese people, not any warring party, that determines Sudan's future. Wars that rage unresolved do not just cause untold harm to civilians.

They radiate instability. They undermine the security of neighbouring states. They lead migrants to embark on dangerous journeys. So we are striving to meet those urgent humanitarian needs, striving to secure not just the absence of conflict, but the presence of lasting peace. And from Gaza to Sudan, that can only be done through international cooperation and through countries coming together for peace. I commend this statement to the House Shadow Minister Andrew Rosindell.
14:01
Andrew Rosindell Portrait Andrew Rosindell MP (Romford, Conservative)
-
-
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Foreign Secretary for advanced sight of her statement. His Majesty's Opposition welcomed the Majesty's Opposition welcomed the passing of the US drafted resolution at the United Nations resolution at the United Nations Security Council yesterday. The US has shown consistent leadership on the Middle East, and for that we are grateful. Hamas must now release the final three deceased hostages. We keep their loved. Ones hostages. We keep their loved. Ones and their families of all deceased hostages in the forefront of our thoughts.

We cannot even begin to imagine what trauma they have endured. Madam Deputy Speaker, key to yesterday's resolution was a mandate for the International

**** Possible New Speaker ****

mandate for the International Stabilisation Force. But can. The. Foreign Secretary. Set out exactly what Britain's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Set out exactly what Britain's contribution will be to that force? The government speaks about the The government speaks about the need for the force to be deployed quickly, to avoid potential power vacuum being filled by Hamas. So what is Britain's contribution? Are what is Britain's contribution? Are we looking at technical assistance, the sharing of expertise or intelligence funding? Action on the ground or all of the above? It is important that the Foreign Secretary is clear and precise about these details.

Can she also update the House on which countries are expected to participate and what their contributions will be? Of course, the removal of Hamas from power and its full disarmament are vital if we are to turn this ceasefire into a sustainable end to the conflict and the cycles of violence. Following yesterday's vote, what practical contribution is the UK going to make to these efforts? Will she will be aware that there are several points in the US president's plan specifically on this? So where does the UK dock into those initiatives? And has the Foreign Secretary identified which areas the UK will focus on as a contribution to the broader transitional day after plan? Can she at least confirm that a fundamental curriculum and educational overhaul in Gaza, and indeed the West Bank, will be a key focus? We have seen huge strides elsewhere in the Middle East in this domain.

This must now be a moment of reckoning for the curriculums in the opts. It is vital that we are to build a sustainable peace. Regarding the immediate humanitarian crisis in Gaza, what practical actions is the Foreign Secretary undertaking with the Government of Israel to achieve the surge in aid for innocent civilians that we all want to see? Specifically, which crossings does she believe will need attention? What is the quantum of designated British aid that is not getting over the border into Gaza, and have specific proposals and solutions being conveyed by the British side to the Israeli government counterparts on how to address the bottlenecks that we all want to see resolved.

Now, turning to the situation in Sudan, Madam Deputy Speaker, in El Fasher and elsewhere, we continue to witness atrocities, suffering and human misery beyond words. All in plain sight of a watching world. Accountability must be administered in the immediate term. The UK should be trying to spearhead a step change in the level of pressure on the warring parties to agree a comprehensive ceasefire. As my right hon. Friend, the shadow Foreign Secretary has argued, we need heavy new sanctions on key operators and action to deter entities, individuals and businesses who support continue, who support continues to sustain the conflict.

Will this be forthcoming and what discussions is the Foreign Secretary having with counterparts in the US, the EU, the Sudan Quad and others on this? And so can the Foreign Secretary also update the House on the government's response to the United States efforts to bring about a humanitarian ceasefire and what role Britain is playing in that? On the dire humanitarian conditions, it was confirmed at the despatch box earlier this month that the shifting of frontiers in the conflict is affecting aid delivery.

How has the situation evolved in the last two weeks, and what levers can be pulled to try and smash through obstacles to aid delivery? And finally, in relation to day after planning, can the Foreign Secretary update the House on efforts to build up the capacity and capabilities of organic civilian political groups to give Sudan the best chance of moving to stable civilian government after a ceasefire? Madam Deputy Speaker, we have seen what the US has achieved through the UN Security Council on Gaza this week.

I hope similar initiatives will be possible with regard to Sudan as Penholder. The UK government has a special responsibility. So finally, can the Foreign Secretary confirm her next steps on the UNSC? As the conflict moves from bad to worse, we must shift gears.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Home Secretary. Can I thank the opposition
14:07
Yvette Cooper Portrait Rt Hon Yvette Cooper MP, Foreign Secretary, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I thank the opposition frontbench for their response on both the issues around Gaza and both the issues around Gaza and Sudan to take the points that he raised in turn, in terms of the International Stabilisation Force? We do not expect the UK to contribute troops to the International Stabilisation Force, but we are already providing military and civilian deployment into the civil and Military Coordinating Committee that is led by the US and is drawing up practical arrangements for implementing the 20 point plan.

In terms of the the nature of the contribution that we expect to the role we expect to continue to play. We already train provide some training for Palestinian police, for example, and I have met US military forces who are involved in that training, and I've met them in Jordan and other countries are also offering to provide that training for Palestinian police, which is also going to be critical to maintaining security and safety. We have also offered expertise around decommissioning because it is an area where, through the Northern Ireland experience, we also have experience and expertise, and particularly most immediately around demining capabilities, both in terms of funding and in terms of expertise in that area as well.

He also raised the issues around curriculum reform. I completely agree with him. This needs to take place. This is a crucial part of the Palestinian Authority reforms, and I have discussed this directly with President Abbas and the importance of maintaining the commitments that the Palestinian Authority has made to curriculum reform needs to be essential, both in terms of the occupied territories and also in Gaza, and both in terms of the West Bank, sorry, and in terms of Gaza as well, in terms of the practical issues around the opening of crossings, we want to see all of the crossings opened.

We want to see restrictions lifted. The again, the co-ordinating committee, which has the UK presence, is working directly with the Israeli government to seek to improve access and both the monitoring and also improve the arrangements in order to get more aid through. But I do continue to urge swift action to be able to get that desperately needed in place. In terms of the Sudan issue. I welcome his support for sanctions. I have had personal, direct discussions with all the members of the quad, including most recently with the Secretary of State, the US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, last week.

And I know how strongly he also feels about the the terrible, horrendous atrocities that are taking place in Sudan now. And we will continue to offer our support to that process. In terms of aid delivery, based on what the the UN and Tom Fletcher have been saying, it looks as though not only the the routes, some of the routes in are currently completely inadequate. So there is both security that is needed to be provided, but also infrastructure in order to get the desperately needed scale of aid in.

We will need to look at air routes in as well as the truck routes in, and then he is right as well to point to the need for the organic support for Sudanese organisations, civilian organisations. It is crucial, ultimately, that we have a transition to a civilian administration in Sudan, an end to the horrendous fighting that we have seen, the horrendous abuse, the horrendous sexual violence we have seen with reports on all sides of that kind of those sorts of atrocities taking place.

And I would, I think, finally say the the US leadership has been incredibly important in achieving the ceasefire agreement and the peace process so far in Gaza. But it has also depended on the international community coming in alongside the US and working together to deliver the progress. So far. We need that same international commitment for Sudan, and we need the whole international community to pull together, to deliver progress in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the same way. Chair of. The. International Development. Select Committee. Sarah Champion.
14:12
Sarah Champion Portrait Sarah Champion MP (Rotherham, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Select Committee. Sarah Champion. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. This morning, members received a private briefing on Sudan. One of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

private briefing on Sudan. One of the academics stated, El Fasher. Is a slaughterhouse. Our low estimate. Is 60,000

**** Possible New Speaker ****

people have been killed there in the last three weeks. Madam Deputy. Speaker, that would make it the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speaker, that would make it the biggest atrocity crime since the 1990s. These are civilians. They're not soldiers. This is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

They're not soldiers. This is not about conflict. It's about genocide. FCDO have been briefed on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

genocide. FCDO have been briefed on the likelihood of mass casualty events for years. In November. 21.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

21. FCDO were publicly warned of a likely genocide. The recent Icai likely genocide. The recent Icai report concluded that last year, officials took the least ambitious option on civilian protection, Foreign Secretary scrutiny and diplomatic surge can slow down this slaughter. So are we leading the 25 states who joined the joint statement on the 11th of November to work together to. Put pressure on UAE? Why hasn't our atrocity prevention team been surged to Wheeler now needs to be the focus of our protection.

What are the evacuation plans to protect? Up to 650,000 people from genocide? Foreign Secretary. The Sudanese civilians need a champion. And as un penholder, will that be US Secretary?
14:13
14:14
Calum Miller Portrait Calum Miller MP (Bicester and Woodstock, Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

spokesperson Calum Miller. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of her statement, which I welcome. The Foreign which I welcome. The Foreign Secretary is right that the scale of the humanitarian catastrophe in Sudan is horrendous, as are accounts of systematic murder, rape and torture often targeted at civilians from specific ethnic groups and in particular, the widespread use of sexual violence towards women and girls. The UK has a special responsibility as the penholder for Sudan at the UN.

We must be relentless in pursuing true protection for civilians. So will the Foreign Secretary update the House with her assessment of the role of external actors in supporting the warring parties? Will she lead efforts at the UN to secure and implement a country wide arms embargo? And will she set out how the UK will ensure that the UN inquiry that she referred to can gather evidence so that those actors, both inside and outside Sudan, who are responsible for these atrocities, are held to account.

Turning to the Middle East Madam Deputy Speaker, last night's UN Security Council resolution marked an important step forward, and I hope it will reinforce the fragile ceasefire in Gaza. Yet vital details are missing from the resolution. So can the Foreign Secretary set out what the remit and scope of the International Stabilisation Force will be, how Hamas will be disarmed, how those responsible for atrocities in Gaza will be held accountable, and how she envisages a Palestinian committee will ensure Palestinian self-determination is respected.

The resolution focuses on Gaza, but we desperately need a clear roadmap to securing a two state solution. This requires an end to illegal settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and reform of the governance of the Palestinian Authority. So will the Foreign Secretary tell the House how the UK is supporting reforms to the PA, and will she commit today to settlements?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Foreign Secretary. For the. I
14:16
Yvette Cooper Portrait Rt Hon Yvette Cooper MP, Foreign Secretary, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Foreign Secretary. For the. I welcome the frontbench to the frontbench response, and I agree frontbench response, and I agree with him on the importance of an arms embargo around Sudan and actually making sure that this is properly implemented, because it is deeply disturbing that weapons are still being supplied to the CSF despite atrocities, in fact, that there is still weapons flow from all sides as well. And that means there are issues that we need to continue to pursue in terms of the international pressure, but also on around the borders and the access and the routes as well, because I think that is immensely serious.

You raised the point about the investigations, the Human Rights Council resolution that the UK drafted along side other with other partners, does provide for the UN led investigation into these atrocities. But that will come as scant comfort to anyone if we don't also have the urgently needed action to prevent further atrocities. There must be accountability, but there must also be the urgent action to prevent atrocities in the first place. And then in terms of the Gaza situation.

So in the ISF, the work is underway in terms of constituting the ISF. We know that some countries are prepared to come forward and to contribute, and the mandate has now crucially been provided. Last night. It must operate in line with international law and also further details will need to be developed on the way in which the new Palestinian Committee needs to operate, that we want to see constituted as rapidly as possible. We also must see an end to illegal settlements.

It's clear that we need to have the to be able to rebuild the connections between the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem so that we can have a Palestinian state living in peace and security alongside the Israeli state. That is the only way we will get to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

peace for them alike. Anneliese Dodds. Thank you, Madam. Deputy Speaker. I welcome.
14:19
14:19
14:20
14:21
14:23
14:23
14:24
14:25
14:26
14:26
14:27
14:28
14:29
14:30
14:30
14:31
14:32
14:33
14:34
Kit Malthouse Portrait Rt Hon Kit Malthouse MP (North West Hampshire, Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mandatory speaker. Thank you. I'm afraid the Foreign Secretary is neatly illustrated. The problem with the British government's with the British government's position in the conflict between Israel and Palestine. She mentioned the very welcome return of Israeli hostages, but no mention of the Palestinian detainees who've been returned to their families. She mentioned the return of the bodies of Israelis, but no mention of the dozens of bodies of Palestinians that have been returned to their families. And can she not see that until we value both people equally and bring accountability to both peoples, we will make very little progress in this appalling situation.

So specifically, to avoid accusations of illegitimacy, how will the Palestinians be represented on this Board of Peace? Secondly, the UN resolution puts significant conditions on the Palestinians to ensure compliance. What conditions are being put on the Israeli government to ensure their compliance in this project? And thirdly, the situation in the West Bank, as the hon. Lady behind her has said, is not just appalling. As the Foreign Secretary said in her statement, it's the worst it's ever been. Is she going to fall in the same trap as her predecessor of being all talk and doing the bare minimum to keep our own benches from open revolt, which is going to step forward and actually bring accountability for the daily acts of violence and terrorism that are taking place.

Foreign Secretary.
14:35
14:37
14:37
14:38
14:39
14:40
14:41
Yvette Cooper Portrait Rt Hon Yvette Cooper MP, Foreign Secretary, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

that peace? So the first issue on the the need for shelter, and this is need for shelter, and this is particularly becoming acute as we move towards winter. And we know that some of the warehouses, for example, that I saw in Jordan, have in them the winter supplies, including the tents, including shelter. And of course, there's going to be a much bigger reconstruction effort needed to properly restore homes for Palestinians across Gaza. We are continuing to to urge the lifting of restrictions around some of the some of the restrictions that are preventing the tents and equipment going in and will continue to do so.

And this is an issue that the Cmcc the coordinating Committee, is also raising. She is right to raise issues around accountability, but she will also, I'm sure, agree that the most immediate issue is to ensure that the police, the piece is in place and the immediate task of the International Stabilisation Force will be to sustain and monitor peace in Gaza so that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mundell. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I very much welcome the Foreign and I very much welcome the Foreign Secretary's proactive statement, and I hope that will be the pattern of engagement with Parliament going of engagement with Parliament going forward, in addition to the horrendous atrocities that she and others have detailed, the World
14:42
14:43
14:44
14:44
14:44
14:45
14:45
14:46
14:47
14:48
14:49
14:49
14:50
14:51
14:51
14:52
14:53
14:53
14:54
14:54
14:55
14:55
14:56
14:57
14:58
14:58
14:59
15:00
15:01
15:02
15:03
15:04
15:04
15:05
15:05
15:06
15:06
15:07
15:07
15:08
15:08
15:09
None Portrait Ten Minute Rule Motion: Access to Finance for Women in Business
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sonia Kumar. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I beg to move that leave be
15:09
Sonia Kumar Portrait Sonia Kumar MP (Dudley, Labour)
-
-
given to bring a bill to require the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a report on access to finance for women in business, to make provision about the publication of data relating to access to finance for women in business and for connected purposes. The Access to Finance Women's Bill seeks to confront one of the most urgent and entrenched inequalities in our economy.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Honourable. Lady has an important ten. Minute. Rule motion, and there are far too many private conversations too many private conversations which is preventing me from hearing her comments, let alone the rest of the house.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the house. Sonia Kumar. The Access to Finance Women's Bill seeks to confront one of the most urgent and entrenched inequalities in our entrenched inequalities in our economy the persistent barriers that women in business continue to face despite the entrepreneurial face despite the entrepreneurial spirit and innovation demonstrated by women across the United Kingdom, they remain significantly understated among recipients of capital and public financial capital and public financial support. The evidence is stark. In 2024, just 2% of UK equity 2024, just 2% of UK equity investment went to female entrepreneurs and a decline from entrepreneurs and a decline from the previous year.

Over 80% of venture capital funding is allocated to male dominated allocated to male dominated businesses, despite research confirmed that women led businesses deliver, on average, a 35% better return on investment. Madam Deputy Speaker, that's 35%. Yet women typically start businesses All male investment panels. Evidence from early stage equity markets show that male investors less interest in female founders, while female founders investors are more likely to back them. For black female entrepreneurs, the challenge is even greater.

Between 2009 and 2019, a mere 0.02% of venture capital funding went to black women. And this is not just a disparity issue, it's an economic one. The 2019 Rose review estimated that 250 billion could be unlocked to the UK economy if women were supported to start and scale businesses at the same rate as men, adjusted for inflation. That figure now stands at a staggering 300 billion. And that is the scale of opportunity we are failing to unlock, even in challenging economic circumstances.

Women in my constituency of Dudley continue to lead the way against the odds. Iron and velvet, for example, the UK's only manufacturer of eco friendly water soluble cleaning sachets, is headed by a truly inspirational woman. Deborah McDonald, CEO, told me investors frequently undervalue or question the ambition of female leaders. According to the Black Country Chamber of Commerce, just 20% of members companies are led by women, and outside London, such businesses are even rarer. We can't allow this to persist.

Madam Deputy Speaker, that injustice goes beyond numbers. It holds back potential in every community, from the West Midlands to every region of our country. And I welcome the UK government's recent commitment of 400 million to support underrepresented fund managers, and the doubling of investment in female led venture capital funds to 100 million through the Invest in Women's Task Force. Yet, when compared to our international peers, the UK is simply losing ground. The United States of America stands out globally as the leading country for women led businesses in 2025.

Over the past two decades, female owned businesses in the US have grown dramatically, with a 100% increase between 2019 and 2023. These businesses contributed a whopping 1.4 million new jobs and generating $500 billion in revenue. Meanwhile, in Sweden and Poland are surpassing the UK with more targeted strategies to improve women's access to finance in Sweden. Women now receive 4.6% of all venture capital funding allocated to female only founded businesses, outpacing the UK's rate.

Poland ranks first in the EU and the fifth worldwide for for female entrepreneurship, and this progress in these countries is no coincidence. It reflects deliberate and sustained efforts to empower women in business. Madam Deputy Speaker, I have a vision for this country where prosperity has no barriers and every individual has the potential to fulfil their potential. A nation where access to finance is not a privilege, but is a right where women entrepreneurs, small

**** Possible New Speaker ****

business owners and innovators from every background can turn their ideas into action. Hear, hear.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hear, hear. This is about fairness and ambition and unlocking the full promise of our people, so that no one is held back simply because of who they are or where they come who they are or where they come from. So in this bill, I propose three core measures backed by three core measures backed by experts to begin dismantling these barriers. The first pillar, barriers. The first pillar, mandating transparency and accountability within financial institutions. The British Business institutions.

The British Business Bank will lead this transformation to ensure genuine equity in access to ensure genuine equity in access to finance. Banks, venture capital firms and public funding bodies firms and public funding bodies were required to publish gender disaggregated lending data, review their practice on bias and embed anti-discrimination measures across every stage of investment and loan every stage of investment and loan assessment. For too long, a lack of data has hidden the barriers for women entrepreneurship. The women entrepreneurship. The measures bring these inequalities into light by exposing where into light by exposing where decisions fall short of equity.

Institutions will be compelled to act not out of obligation, but because inclusion strengthens our economy. Absolutely ensures capitals allocated on potential and performance are not prejudiced. As Beccy Cooper, a pioneering Women in Business co-founder Alluminio told me, sunshine is the best disinfectant. Second, the bill directs the British Business Bank and related government backed schemes to expand their outreach and set measurable targets. At least 30% of all finance provided should support female led businesses, and the percentage of equity finance for female entrepreneurs must increase to 2% by 10% by 2030.

This reflects a key recommendation from the Women's and Equalities Committee. A groundbreaking report on female entrepreneurship. Thirdly, this bill requires the Secretary of State to publish and prepare a report on access to finance. Madam Deputy Speaker, I've already laid out the inequalities that exist in this area, but mandating the Secretary of State produce this report is essential for transparency, accountability and progress here. Without clear reporting, this bill is calling for the scale of inequality will remain hidden. From this report, we can begin to develop other policies to unlock investment for women and other disadvantaged groups.

Finally, bridging the gap between men and women in finance. Madam Deputy Speaker, this is not just a bill for women. It's a bill for our economy, our communities and our collective future. It is a bill that recognises that fairness and prosperity goes hand in hand. It's a bill that will remove barriers for women, for occupational participation and will benefit from increased innovation, job creation to stronger families and a more resilient society. This is a critical moment, unlocking £310 billion of growth by investing in female led businesses is not just the right thing to do.

It's smart economics. For empowering women and booming businesses is among the most effective investment we can make as a nation. This bill is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

about fixing the system, not fixing women. The question is that the hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the hon. Member have leave to bring in the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say aye. of the contrary. opinion, say aye. of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Who will prepare and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ayes have it. Who will prepare and bring in the bill? Liam Byrne. Sarah Edwards. John Cooper. Dan Aldridge. Gurinder Cooper. Dan Aldridge. Gurinder Josan. John Slinger. James Asser. Rachel Taylor. Matt Western and Polly Billington and myself.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Access to finance for Women in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

business. Second Reading. What day? 28th November 2025.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

28th November 2025.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

28th of November 2025. Point of order, sir. Desmond Swayne. Further to.
15:20
15:20
15:21
None Portrait Legislation: Northern Ireland Troubles Bill: Second reading
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Now. The reasoned amendment in the name of the official Opposition has

**** Possible New Speaker ****

name of the official Opposition has been selected. Minister to move the Second Reading. Yes.
15:21
Hilary Benn Portrait Rt Hon Hilary Benn MP, The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Leeds South, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I beg to move that Deputy Speaker. I beg to move that the bill be. Now read a second time on the 11th of June, 1966, a 28 year old Storeman John Patrick Scullion, was shot dead on the doorstep of his home in west Belfast by the Ulster Volunteer Force. Regarded by many as the first sectarian killing of the Troubles. By the 10th of April 1988 1998 and the signing of the Belfast Good Friday Agreement, the death toll from this horrific period of violence in our country had risen to over 3500, including almost 2000 civilians and over 1000 people who were killed whilst bravely serving the state.

90% of those who lost their lives were killed by paramilitaries. Some of the incidents Warrenpoint, Bloody Sunday, The Kingsmill massacre, the Miami Showband killings, the Birmingham pub bombings are sadly all too well known. Others, many others less so, although for each family their grief privately borne, has been just as strong and just as painful. Fathers and brothers, mothers and daughters, children, people from all walks of life, each one a tragic and needless loss of a loved one.

Needless, because there was always an alternative to violence. An alternative made real. When the Good Friday Agreement was signed. Now, some found that agreement, which included early release of prisoners convicted of Troubles related offences, very hard to accept. But over 70% of voters in Northern Ireland backed it in a referendum because they knew that this was the moment to lay a foundation for peace which could give hope to citizens right across these islands for a future free of violence.

Of course I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am very grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker to the Secretary of State. I think it's appropriate that he opened as he did, but he should opened as he did, but he should recognise that when he gave a date from which the Troubles started and from which the Troubles started and concluded, he finished on the 10th of April 1998, and he knows well of April 1998, and he knows well that that means he did not include the largest atrocity of the Troubles, which occurred four Troubles, which occurred four months later in the town of Omagh.

And he knows that nothing within this bill will make provisions this bill will make provisions available for those families. And whilst an inquiry is ongoing into the Omagh atrocity, that does not answer the questions relating to the Irish Republic, will he consider extending the dates to include the largest atrocity from the Troubles? Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Troubles? Yes. Well, I'm grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that point, which we have discussed in the House before, as he has acknowledged, there is currently a public inquiry set up by the last public inquiry set up by the last government into the terrible events that occurred at Omagh. And I think the right and proper thing to do is the right and proper thing to do is to let that inquiry proceed with its work and hopefully provide the its work and hopefully provide the answers that families are looking for.

Now. Madam Deputy Speaker, Northern Ireland is now a largely peaceful place, but for many people, including who I've had the privilege of meeting, they have shared with me their grief, their pain, their anger and their loss. And they still live with the effects of those decades of violence. Far too many have still, all these years later, been unable to find an answer to the simplest of questions. What happened? How did my loved one die? Of course,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'll give way to the hon. Member. And further to the point of my hon. Member for East Belfast referred to the Republic of Ireland referred to the Republic of Ireland government and An Garda Siochana have a have to pay, have to respond have a have to pay, have to respond to the things that they fell short of. For instance, whenever my cousin was killed and others were killed, they crossed the border and killed, they crossed the border and to sanctuary and safety.

And also when it comes to to collusion when it comes to to collusion between An Garda Siochana and those people who were murdered, those are some things we need to have within some things we need to have within this process today. Can the state assure me and assure all of us, on behalf of our constituents, that behalf of our constituents, that the justice that we all seek will happen through this here? Because I'm not quite sure. I see at this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm not quite sure. I see at this moment I can't. Well, I say to the hon. Member for whom I have enormous respect, for whom I have enormous respect, that I hope very much that that is the case, because one of the consequences of the agreement reached between the British and the reached between the British and the Irish governments, which was published on the 19th of September, is that the Irish government will is that the Irish government will move once our legislation has been put in place from their current put in place from their current position, where they will not cooperate with institutions which we know have failed.

I shall come we know have failed. I shall come on to that point in a moment to the fullest possible cooperation with the Commission, and by doing that opens up the possibility of information which people have not seen for too long. And the architects of the Good Friday Agreement knew that this issue, the suffering of victims and survivors, needed to be addressed, but they were not able to do so. And if we are honest with ourselves, we know that this unfinished business falls to us, all of us, because time is running out.

And, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to say this directly to all the families. Some are here in the gallery today, others watching our proceedings that we've heard your call, and I hope the whole House has heard their call for us to do more, to help you get the answers that you seek. So what is this Bill aiming to do and why is it needed? It seeks to put in place a means of dealing with legacy that can actually command broad public support in Northern Ireland, in particular for those families who've been trying to find answers for so long.

And it is needed because the previous government's legislation, the Northern Ireland Troubles Legacy and Reconciliation Act 2023, whatever its intentions, fundamentally failed. It failed because it has been found in many respects to be incompatible with our international obligations. So creating a legal quagmire of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

uncertainty. Of course, I will give way. How confident is the Secretary of State that his provisions for preventing compensation for interim preventing compensation for interim custody orders will withstand challenge in the courts? And would the government's case be undermined the government's case be undermined in any way by its decision not to challenge the original ruling in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the High Court? If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I shall come very directly with me, I shall come very directly to the question that he has raised. A bit later on in my speech, and it A bit later on in my speech, and it also failed. Crucially, and this is something the House has to something the House has to recognise, because it did not command any support in Northern command any support in Northern Ireland amongst victims and survivors, or the political parties.

survivors, or the political parties. That was no basis for progress or reconciliation, and that point has reconciliation, and that point has got to be acknowledged. And we know that one of the principal reasons that one of the principal reasons for that lack of support was the Act's attempt to offer immunity Act's attempt to offer immunity from prosecution, immunity from prosecution, including to terrorists who had committed the most appalling murders. I say to the hon. Gentleman who is intervening from a sedentary position, he needs to go back and read the piece of legislation which his government passed.

I have it here. Immunity was a false promise. It appeared to offer soldiers something that was completely undeliverable. It was never implemented, and it was struck down by our courts and families who had endured unimaginable suffering at the hands of paramilitary violence were simply not prepared to see those responsible, given immunity.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I give way to my Lord. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I have spoken to for giving way. I have spoken to many veterans in my Bournemouth constituency who are understandably concerned about the repeal of this concerned about the repeal of this law and the vacuum that it leaves, but can you set out how this law supports our veterans?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

supports our veterans? Well, I shall do that again. If my hon. Friend will will bear with me. I shall come very directly to me. I shall come very directly to that shortly. I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman, I am very grateful to the Secretary of State.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

grateful to the Secretary of State. And on a what I hope is a non-contentious point. Will he take non-contentious point. Will he take this opportunity to explain to all parts of the House something that parts of the House something that not everybody realises, which is that the 1998 Sentences Act means that no matter how heinous the that no matter how heinous the crime, no matter whether it was committed by a member of the armed forces. Unlikely but possible, or by a republican terrorist or loyalist terrorist, no one will loyalist terrorist, no one will serve more than two years actually in jail.

And that is something that in jail. And that is something that people need to realise. Compromises have had to be made and they have to be made equally on both sides. If international law is not to strike them down.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, the right hon. Gentleman is indeed correct on what he says, is indeed correct on what he says, and that was in part, the basis on which the Good Friday Agreement was which the Good Friday Agreement was reached, and 71.7% of the people of Northern Ireland gave their support Northern Ireland gave their support to it. And compromise, of course, is essential in the interests of peace. There was also anger. Madam peace. There was also anger. Madam Deputy Speaker, on the part of many of those who served in Northern Ireland who saw immunity as an affront to the rule of law, that they were seeking to protect, and they were seeking to protect, and as implying some sort of moral equivalence between those who equivalence between those who served in our armed forces and terrorists.

There is no moral equivalence whatsoever between those members of our armed forces who acted lawfully in carrying out their duties, and paramilitaries who were responsible for barbaric who were responsible for barbaric acts of terrorism. We owe our Operation Banner veterans an enormous debt of gratitude. And I enormous debt of gratitude. And I say to those watching those in the gallery today, your service and your sacrifice will never be your sacrifice will never be forgotten. And we have a duty to care for all those who served.

And that is precisely why we are putting in place in this legislation new measures that are designed specifically to protect veterans. And it's why the Ministry of Defence always provides legal and welfare support to any veteran asked to participate. And these safeguards have been designed specifically for veterans. Following close consultation with veterans. Some will necessarily apply to others, including former police officers, while others will only apply to veterans. Veterans will be protected against repeat investigations.

Part three places a duty on the Commission not to do anything that duplicates any aspect of previous investigations or proceedings, unless it is essential. That is a very high threshold. If a veteran is asked to give evidence publicly as part of an inquest or the Commission's inquisitorial proceedings, they will not be forced to travel to Northern Ireland. They will be able to do so remotely. I will give way. Can you just clarify?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Essential for what? Hilary Benn. Well. That the commission is an independent body established. Well, he says, are established by the last government's legislation. They last government's legislation. They argued very strongly it had to be independent. Essential is a very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

high bar. It is for the Commission to make that judgement. I give way to the. I'm very I'm very grateful to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very I'm very grateful to the Secretary of State for clarifying a number of issues already, but nevertheless, from the veterans that I've spoken to, I veterans that I've spoken to, I think they will be looking for for clarity that they cannot and will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

clarity that they cannot and will not be placed on trial simply for carrying out orders. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Decisions about prosecutions, and I shall come on to the point, are made independently by. Enabled are made independently by. Enabled by this bill. Prosecutors independently. But this is the absolute foundation of our absolute foundation of our independent legal system. Decisions by prosecutors based on the by prosecutors based on the evidence. And if one looks at the evidence. And if one looks at the facts in the last 27.5 years since the Good Friday Agreement, one one the Good Friday Agreement, one one veteran has been convicted for a Troubles related offence and going back to the right hon.

Gentleman's point he received a suspended sentence if asked to give evidence to an inquisitor. If you bear with me, if asked to give evidence to an inquisitorial proceeding, any veteran will be entitled to seek anonymity, as is already the case for public inquiries and inquests. The Commission and coroners will have to consider the health and wellbeing of elderly witnesses, including whether it be appropriate for them to give evidence at all, and a new statutory advisory group will provide an opportunity for victims and survivors of the Troubles, including from a service background, to be heard in the Commission's work.

This group will, of course, not include anyone who has previously been involved in paramilitary activity. These I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Minister says that it won't include any former paramilitaries, but where in clause eight or but where in clause eight or elsewhere, is there a prohibition on such participation because the on such participation because the provision is about victims and survivors, which are undefined, and the victim, under our iniquitous the victim, under our iniquitous current definition of victim, could be somebody who made themselves a victim by blowing themselves up by victim by blowing themselves up by their own bomb.

Such a person could serve on the advisory panel according to clause eight.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

according to clause eight. Well, I say to the hon. Gentleman, if he could just reflect Gentleman, if he could just reflect on what I just told the House. I've told the House that anyone who was previously involved in paramilitary previously involved in paramilitary activity will not be appointed, activity will not be appointed, will not be appointed to the Victims and Survivors group. I'm Victims and Survivors group. I'm giving the House that assurance as the Secretary of State. Now, these measures will be complemented by measures will be complemented by other commitments to ensure, for example, that no veteran is cold called and I and the Defence Secretary will continue to work with veterans.

The Royal British survivors whereabouts in the current bill, does it say and if it doesn't say that, will he amend the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bill to make sure that it does? I've given the House an assurance I would just point. I just point out to the hon. Gentleman, this is the last government's piece of legislation. government's piece of legislation. Now, nowhere, nowhere in this legislation did it contain such prohibition. Indeed, nowhere in this legislation did the word this legislation did the word veterans appear. I've given the House a very clear assurance in relation to the point I have given the House a clear assurance in relation to that point.

Now, there relation to that point. Now, there are those I'm going to make progress who have claimed, wrongly, that this legislation will somehow lead to a huge increase in prosecutions of veterans, or that it is only veterans who've been prosecuted in recent years, or that prosecuted in recent years, or that on the run, letters have given IRA members amnesty, an issue we have discussed across the chamber. Not discussed across the chamber. Not one of these things is the case, as I've just said to the hon.

Member, I've just said to the hon. Member, just one soldier's been convicted since the Good Friday Agreement. since the Good Friday Agreement. The majority of those who have been convicted, or indeed those currently facing live prosecutions, currently facing live prosecutions, are paramilitaries, including Republicans. And as for the on the run letters, Prime Minister David Cameron could not have been clearer when he said in 2014 there was never any amnesty or guarantee of immunity for anyone, and there isn't now.

What is more, the Legacy Act also shut down over a thousand police investigations into unsolved Troubles related killings, including the deaths of 264 members of our armed forces who were murdered by terrorists. A great many families have spoken of the distress this caused them. Mary Morland, who was widowed when her husband John, a UDR reservist, was killed by the IRA nine days before Christmas in 1988, says as a veteran and war widow, I strongly believe in accountability and the rule of law for all and take pride in the fact that the British armed forces are the finest in the world.

Like many others, I have always been opposed to the Legacy Act. It was legislation that was fundamentally flawed. I tentatively welcome the process of repealing and replacing the Legacy Act. The new legislation must be balanced, fair, rights based and capable of delivering meaningful outcomes for victims and survivors. I agree, or Paul Crawford, whose father was murdered in 1974 by the UVF, he says. I understand that British Army veterans are an important constituent constituency, but so are we.

Victims and survivors of the conflict. Our voices matter too. Our experience of loss, pain and trauma are very real. Many of us have been waiting for more than 50 years for truth and justice, and none of us are getting any younger. The legacy of the conflict needs to be addressed, and this legislation needs to be passed. I agree, or Paul Gallagher, whose response was shared with wave, who do such important work to support victims, survivors and families. In January 1994, Paul was 21 years old.

He was a civil servant. There was a knock on the front door of his family home, and paramilitaries took him and his family hostage. He was shot six times as they left, and has spent the rest of his life using a wheelchair. He is a campaigner who I've had the privilege of meeting several times and waive rights, and I quote what the party opposite proposed in 2023 enraged Paul. He's not naive. He knows that securing a prosecution against the people who did this would be difficult.

But offering an amnesty to these people so they could walk forever free. That, to Paul, is a moral outrage. How can someone like Paul, who has been betrayed by the system, believe once again in the rule of law? Now, this Troubles Bill seeks to right the wrongs of the Legacy Act, so that together with the remedial order which we've laid under the Human Rights Act, we return to the broad principles of the 2014 Stormont House agreement, negotiated by the last conservative government, and seek to achieve greater confidence amongst communities across Northern Ireland.

And for those families who have already approached the Commission for help, their cases will transition seamlessly into the new arrangements. When the Troubles bill hopefully becomes law. And under the joint framework we announced in September, the Irish government has made important contributions, including to cooperate fully with the Reform Commission by sharing information information which for far too long, far too many families have not been able to see. But let me be clear, it is simply untrue for anyone to suggest that the Irish government has been given any control or veto over the work of the Legacy Commission.

Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm going to turn now to the contents of the bill. The first part of the bill provides for the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, to be renamed the Legacy Commission. It also repeals part two of the Legacy Act in its entirety, and confirms the meaning of the Troubles and other terms. Part two outlines the structure of the Legacy Commission, its principal functions, and how appointments will be made. It will establish an oversight board, led by an independent non-executive chair, to hold the Commission to account, and the Secretary of State will consult when making appointments.

There will be two co-directors, directors for investigations of equal standing, one with experience of conducting criminal investigations in Northern Ireland and one with such investigation elsewhere. I will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

give way and then I'm going to get to the rest. Of. The can I raise the issue of the Birmingham pub bombings with the Birmingham pub bombings with the Secretary of State? He is saying that the Reform Legacy Commission will have greater fact finding powers. But can he set out why the families, including those of the justice, were 21? Campaigners should have confidence in the reformed commission to get to the truth of the Birmingham pub bombings.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bombings. My hon. Friend raises an extremely important point, for the simple reason that the Commission simple reason that the Commission has the power to see all of the information, all of the evidence, everything, and is already investigating the Guildford pub bombings, the M62 coach bombings, bombings, the M62 coach bombings, the Kingsmill massacre, and I hope that others and Warrenpoint indeed they are already investigating they are already investigating those terrible incidents and I would encourage anyone who is would encourage anyone who is looking for answers to approach the commission and to see the changes that we will be making.

Now I'm that we will be making. Now I'm going to need to finish my description of what's in the bill and then bring my remarks to a and then bring my remarks to a close. All public appointments made by the Secretary of State must follow consultation with relevant persons, a list of whom will be persons, a list of whom will be published before the beginning of the appointments process. Part two will fulfil our commitment to create a fairer disclosure regime, ensuring that the Commission has access to any and all information it requires, and is able to publish as much of that as possible, subject to proportionate safeguards which are necessary because even historic information can pose a direct risk to life and safety today or threaten our national security.

However, the bill ensures that any decision to prevent public disclosure is subject to a balancing exercise with reasons given where possible, akin to the Inquiries Act, and can be legally challenged. Part two also includes provisions regarding reviews into the performance of the Commission's functions, and for the winding up of the Commission. Part three of the bill deals with the conduct of both criminal and fact finding investigations, and expands the referral process to enable family members, surviving victims and certain public authorities to request investigations.

In all cases. Following a case review, the director for investigations will decide whether or not the investigation is to be carried out as a criminal investigation or a fact finding investigation. The commission will be able to refer any relevant conduct to prosecutors, as is already the case with the Legacy Act, so there's no change in that respect in the conduct of its investigations. The Commission must comply with the statutory conflicts of interest duties set out. Each investigation will conclude with a report produced by a judicial panel member under part four of the bill, inquisitorial proceedings will be established to handle cases that would otherwise have been inquests, but are transferred to the Commission.

These proceedings will draw on the Inquiries Act 2005. They will be chaired by a Judicial Panel member. Be able to consider evidence in public. Crucially, unlike inquests, these proceedings can also consider sensitive information in closed hearings. With that in mind, the bill provides the Secretary of State with the power to direct inquisitorial proceedings in respect of the small number of cases that were halted prior to the 1st of May 2024, due to the exclusion of relevant sensitive

**** Possible New Speaker ****

information. On that point, I will give way one last time. Very briefly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very briefly. If the bill is as good as the Secretary of State would have the Secretary of State would have the House believe, why then have nine very senior four star officers, very senior four star officers, eight generals and one Air Chief marshal written to the times and marshal written to the times and described it as, in their words, a direct threat to national security?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I would say I would say to the hon. Gentleman, I don't agree the hon. Gentleman, I don't agree with that. I don't agree with that assessment. There is nothing. There assessment. There is nothing. There is nothing in this bill that can be described as a direct threat to described as a direct threat to national security. And I also I also note, and it would be good if the hon. Gentleman would acknowledge that point, that they those generals who wrote said they those generals who wrote said they do not call for immunity.

And maybe the opposition frontbench would

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the opposition frontbench would like, would like to reflect upon that. Okay. Now I'm I'm going to have to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Now I'm I'm going to have to bring because there's many people who want to speak. A part five makes provision for the inclusion of personal statements, allowing families to describe what the death meant to them. The commission will have the power to refer Troubles related criminality to police officers, by police officers, to the Ombudsman for Northern Ireland. Part six puts in place the necessary provisions to set up, on a pilot basis, the Independent Commission on Information Retrieval, as originally proposed in Stormont House.

This will be an international body established jointly with the Irish Government to give families an additional means of retrieving information. Any information disclosed by individuals to the ICRIR will be inadmissible in criminal and civil proceedings, and part six also includes provisions to ensure that the work of ICIR does not impede on criminal investigations. Madam Deputy Speaker, the government has long committed to restore those Troubles. Related inquests that were halted by the Legacy Act, which is why, under part seven of the Bill, the inquest that were in progress prior to the 1st of May 2024 but subsequently halted, will resume inquest cases that had been directed by the Attorney General but were not in progress, or will be subject to an independent assessment by the Solicitor General as to whether they are most effectively progressed in the Legacy Commission or the coronial system, and the Solicitor General will have to have regard to three statutory criteria.

I now turn to part eight of the bill and the point raised earlier to do with the question of Interim Custody Orders. In short, these provisions seek to address the interpretation made by the UK Supreme Court in Adams regarding the application of the Carltona principle with which the government, and indeed the previous government, disagreed. That principle is a is vital for government, and it is right that it should be protected, including by dealing with what are considered to be incorrect inroads into it.

Clauses 89 and 90 put it beyond doubt that the Carltona principle, applied in the context of Interim Custody Orders by stating that any order made by a Minister of state or undersecretary of State is to be treated as an order of the Secretary of State, I refer the House to a written ministerial statement that I have today laid in Parliament, which sets out in greater detail the government's position on this matter. Madam Deputy Speaker, the Troubles Bill will leave in place part four of the 2023 Legacy Act, which means that the important provisions relating to oral history, academic research and the Memorialisation of Troubles remains intact.

Those measures stem from the Stormont House agreement, have been widely supported in principle, and part eight of the Bill will also require the Commission to produce and publish a historical record separately. Part eight also allows any conduct which does not meet the definition of serious or connected Troubles. Related offences in the Bill to be investigated by the relevant police forces. As a result, potentially serious offences, including sexual offences, will always have a route to investigation should evidence come to light.

Part nine deals with general matters. I will now bring my remarks to a close. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am acutely conscious that for many families in Northern Ireland, time is running out. With every year that passes, memories fade, witnesses are lost and crucial evidence grows weaker. And that is why the government has to fix the mess that we inherited. But what is this really about? It is about those who continue to live with the pain of what happened to them, or to someone they love.

Now we know the overwhelming majority of those who were killed died at the hands of paramilitaries. And as the hon. Member for Lagan Valley who so powerfully reminded us just over a month ago, the people who died were not in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was the terrorists who were in the wrong place doing the wrong thing. We must be clear that terrorism is always wrong. And just as we have to recognise that while the vast majority of those who served in Northern Ireland did so with distinction and bravery, in the words of the apology offered in this House by the former Northern Ireland Secretary Brandon Lewis following the Ballymurphy inquest, he said it is clear that in some cases, security forces and the army made terrible errors to.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I believe this legislation represents our best and possibly our final chance to fulfil the unrealised ambition of the Good Friday Agreement. I accept that nobody will like everything contained in the bill, and that's inevitable given the differing views held by many. If fixing legacy was easy, we wouldn't be discussing it 27.5 years later. But let me read from a letter the Northern Ireland Victims Commissioner has sent me about our approach, which he says has been received open quotes with cautious optimism by victims and survivors.

And he goes on to say that we should and he's talking about all of us get a move on rather than waste more precious time, and encourages all of us as parliamentarians to continue to show courage and determination to deliver for victims and survivors. Now it's no wonder, no wonder he refers to caution because victims and survivors have been let down so many times before, and that's why it's our responsibility now to take this forward. And I will continue to talk to victims, survivors, veterans, others, colleagues in all parts of the House during the passage of the bill to consider where amendments might further improve it.

But equally, I hope that all who seek a fair and effective way forward will recognise that the Bill represents a fundamental reform of current arrangements and that it should be given a chance to succeed. And I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

commend this bill to the House here. The question is that the bill be read a second time, and I call the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

read a second time, and I call the shadow Minister Alex Burghart. And I ask the frontbench to keep their opening statements short,
15:55
Alex Burghart Portrait Alex Burghart MP (Brentwood and Ongar, Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

because it eats into the contributions that backbench members can make. Alex Burghart. Thank you very much, Madam.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much, Madam. Deputy Speaker, I'd like to start by paying tribute to those brave souls who served in Operation brave souls who served in Operation Banner the longest, and surely one of the most difficult operations that our military forces ever undertook. And I know that some of them are in the gallery today. I know that some of them are sitting behind me, and I would like to thank them with my whole heart for the service they gave, and extend that same thanks to the brave men and women of the RUC.

The generations that have come after cannot fully understand what you went through, what you saw, and what you did for peace. Thank you. The last government chose to draw a line under the litigation of the Troubles, and today that line is being erased. Our Legacy Act was a response to the emerging legal reality, no less true than it was three years ago, that the legal system was ceasing to provide meaningful answers to victims whilst dragging victims veterans through the courts.

In clearly vexatious cases. The process itself had become a means of punishment, and time is reducing the chances of convictions. We created a new means of providing victims and their families with information, one which offered the opportunity to claim conditional immunity in return for information retrieval. That process is now up and running, and thanks to the excellent work of Sir Declan Morgan, to whom I'd like to pay tribute, I understand the ICRIR is currently considering about 250 cases and is taking on more every month.

Confidence is growing. It is working. But the bill before us today strips out the conditional immunity introduced by the Legacy Act, and it reopens the door to vexatious litigation against veterans, whilst leaving it very unlikely that terrorists will be prosecuted. The Secretary of State himself has confirmed that there have been only five terrorist convictions in the past 13 years and as time passes, the chance of successful prosecutions will reduce further and further. In the past year alone, we have debated the manifest failings of the system as it is in this House.

The terrible decision and the inquest, the 1991 incident in court in Belfast last month, where a special forces soldier was acquitted by a judge who said the case was ludicrous, but not before the man in question had been investigated for four years. And of course, the case of soldier F, where no conviction was possible. Despite one of the longest inquiries in British political history, the legislation before us today will perpetuate disappointment for victims and despair for veterans. But the government is claiming that it has no choice but to legislate and is making that claim for three reasons.

The first is that objects to conditional immunity. The second is it in a moment. The second is its belief that the Legacy Act is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. And the third is the fact that the Legacy Act lacked cross-party support. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

give way. The hon. Member for giving way. Does he recognise that that immunity that was promised never came into action because the British courts rejected it? And does he accept that we are not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

does he accept that we are not taking away immunity because it was never possible in the first place? It was never given a chance because his government dropped its because his government dropped its appeal. Something I will return to appeal. Something I will return to you shortly. No, the to start with conditional immunity. The the Legacy Act provided immunity to Legacy Act provided immunity to individuals in return for, if they intend in return for them providing an account to the Commission that an account to the Commission that was true to the best of their knowledge and belief.

This is the immunity to which the government is immunity to which the government is now opposed. But I'm afraid, Madam Deputy Speaker, this objection is born of acute political amnesia. born of acute political amnesia. This House will know that the Blair government accepted that the price of ending the conflict was a of ending the conflict was a departure from the norms of criminal justice in Northern Ireland. They gave us early release Ireland. They gave us early release 483 prisoners, 143 of whom were serving life sentences, including, it must be said, the man who in it must be said, the man who in 1984 tried to kill the entire British Cabinet.

The Sentencing Act 1998, referred to by my right hon. Friend from New Forest East, which limits prison terms to two years. The decommissioning weapons legislation which allowed for the destruction of forensic evidence which would have led to convictions and an effective amnesty for all those who provided information to the Independent Commission for Location of Victims, remains. In short, immunity in return for information. We also had the controversial letters of comfort 156 of them. One was received by John Downey, thought to have been the Hyde Park bomber.

The case against him collapsed on the production of his letter because it had apparently been issued in error. Nevertheless, that letter effectively granted him immunity from prosecution, and even if, as Labour now claims, the on the runs were not intended to grant immunity, the use of the Royal prerogative of mercy on at least 13 occasions certainly was, and even if that was not enough, it was very much the intention of the last Labour government to create a scheme for immunity. We know because in November 2005, Peter, now Lord Hain, Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, brought isolation to this House in the form of the Northern Ireland Offences Bill.

This was intended explicitly to create immunity from prosecution for terrorists. It was on the face of the bill and the Secretary of State, the now Secretary of State, was in the Cabinet at the time. He would have been supportive of that legislation, legislation that he now refers to as moral outrage. The government eventually dropped this legislation not because of opposition in this House, but because the opposition of Sinn Fein, who withdrew their support once they discovered that the scope was going to be X, I will give away in a moment.

Once they discovered that the scope was being extended to cover the security forces and the police as well, I give way to the hon. Gentleman to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Take this opportunity to refresh the opposition spokespersons memory. the opposition spokespersons memory. Sinn Fein actually supported that piece of legislation. Gerry Adams was on record as supporting that piece of legislation. I wonder why? piece of legislation. I wonder why? Because they also supported, at one point amnesty for everybody because it suited them. Why was that piece of legislation overturned? Because of legislation overturned? Because the Bloody Sunday families pressurised Sinn Fein, who in turn pressurised the government to drop

**** Possible New Speaker ****

pressurised the government to drop it. That's what happened. Well, I hate to disagree with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I hate to disagree with the hon. Gentleman, but if he goes back and looks at the news stories from the time, he will discover from the time, he will discover very clearly that Sinn Fein, Sinn Fein withdrew their support for the Bill once the Labour government decided they would extend the scope decided they would extend the scope of the bill to cover security forces and police officers. The forces and police officers. The Republicans never wanted equity. They wanted a one sided agreement which would privilege only the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

which would privilege only the terrorists and not the army. Yeah. I say all this, Madam Deputy Speaker, to highlight the absurdity Speaker, to highlight the absurdity of Labour's opposition to our legislation and to remind the House that the proposals which are that the proposals which are presented to us today are the opposite of what Labour believed was necessary, in the words of was necessary, in the words of Peter Hain, to complete the peace process 20 years ago. No doubt the government will say, as the Secretary of State has already said, that they have no choice but to change our legislation because it was found to be incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

But that is only partially true. Whilst it is the case that the High Court in Belfast found that conditional immunity was incompatible with ECHR, I'm sure that the Secretary of State knows that the High Court in Belfast, despite its considerable strengths, is not the summit of the UK legal system and that the last conservative government was appealing its finding. And when the Labour Party came into power in July 2024, they dropped that appeal and they have never explained why. They've never explained why they had every opportunity to take it to the highest court in the land, and they declined to do so in legal circles, in legal circles, madam Deputy Speaker, that finding is considered highly disputable.

Why? Because the law strongly suggests that if the same logic was applied to the peace process legislation that I've already mentioned, the Sentencing Act 1998, the Decommissioning Weapons Act, the Location of Victims Remains Act, then all of that legislation would be deemed incompatible with the European Convention and would have to be struck down.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My friend, allow me. I would happily give way to my right hon. Even had the Supreme Court

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Even had the Supreme Court opined on the matter and judged it to be incompatible, that would not have changed the law. This House is have changed the law. This House is not required to respond in any way not required to respond in any way to a declaration of incompatibility by a court. This House remains supreme.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

supreme. My right hon. Friend is, as ever, entirely correct. The courts have no power to strike down statute. no power to strike down statute. They can advise this House to remove remove legislation. And this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

remove remove legislation. And this is obvious. I'll happily give way to my right hon. Friend. I'm grateful to my right hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to my right hon. Friend. When he says that it's highly likely that an appeal would highly likely that an appeal would have succeeded in support of that, I cite the fact that the Defence Committee took evidence in great Committee took evidence in great detail from four professors of law in 2017. They were not talking in 2017. They were not talking about that specific act, but they all agreed that it was possible and all agreed that it was possible and legal to combine a statute of legal to combine a statute of limitation, providing that there was a truth recovery process, and that was a range of people from Professor Richard Ekins, shall we say, on the right of centre to Professor Philippe Sands on the left of centre.

It was possible it was legal. And even if that law was

**** Possible New Speaker ****

struck down, something similar could have been put in its place. That's true. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. No, I look, I thank my right hon. Friend for his his intervention. Friend for his his intervention. And I remember similar intervention he made in in 2017 and again in 2023 on just this point, based on 2023 on just this point, based on the work that his his committee had done. You know, the Secretary of done. You know, the Secretary of State has now introduced a draft remedial order to eliminate the parts of the bill that are deemed to be incompatible.

But as the Secretary of State knows, because I've written to him on this subject twice, this side of the House does not believe that that remedial not believe that that remedial order is is appropriate, certainly not yet appropriate. And that's because earlier this year, the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement was granted permission to intervene was granted permission to intervene in the case of Dylan before the Supreme Court, specifically on the Supreme Court, specifically on the issue of compatibility. On the 15th of October, that intervention was heard.

And if those arguments are accepted, the Supreme Court has the accepted, the Supreme Court has the power to quash the declarations of incompatibility. This means that the Secretary of State has yet has no legal basis at this time for that remedial order he has acted. Or rather, if he pushes it to a Or rather, if he pushes it to a vote, he will be acting ultra violence. Because under section ten of the Human Rights Act, the of the Human Rights Act, the government can only issue such an order unless and until all appeals in relation to the declarations of incompatibility have been determined or abandoned.

In this case, they have not, and the government must not move a vote of the order on the order unless and until they have, and I hope the Minister at the end will offer some clarity on the next steps. My party has been clear. The European Convention on Human Rights should no longer be considered an obstacle to doing the right thing. It is not a holy text, and its jurisprudence is forcing governments to do unholy things. And since legal advice of the highest order has now twice shown that the United Kingdom can leave the convention without

**** Possible New Speaker ****

breaking the 1998 agreement, this is what the next conservative government will do. Yeah. The government has previous.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The government has previous. This government has previously said that it has to legislate because the Legacy Act did not have the Legacy Act did not have cross-community consent. But where is that cross-community consent today? It doesn't exist. If there had been a cross-community solution had been a cross-community solution on legacy, Madam Deputy Speaker, Stormont would have found it. But I suspect that no solution is to be suspect that no solution is to be found, and this means it is the responsibility of this House to protect those now abused by the protect those now abused by the system.

This bill will fail to do that. It will not help victims find that. It will not help victims find out the truth. It will not give comfort to our veterans. It will reopen old wounds and allow

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reopen old wounds and allow infection to come in. I'll give way to the former Minister. The the spokesperson has

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The the spokesperson has outlined. Doing the right thing isn't doing the right thing. Getting justice for over 1000 families, including 200 veteran families, including 200 veteran families who've waited for too long for answers about their loved ones. for answers about their loved ones. The victim putting victims at the heart of this process would mean doing the right thing, which is getting on with this legislation, getting on with this legislation, which will deliver the justice which is needed instead of delays and dithering, of which is what the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and dithering, of which is what the opposition's legacy bill provided. I certainly, with all due respect to the hon. Lady who I enjoyed working opposite the last government, did offer delay and dithering. It offered firm legislation and and what what what she has outlined, I'm afraid, is just an unrealistic view of the future. What we've seen is that we have many cases come forward and very few convictions, and the people who suffer in that process are veterans, veterans, like the gentleman I referred to a moment ago from a case in 1991, four years of investigation with a ludicrous case at the end of it.

You know what we are offered, what is happening today is that victims are being promised something that will never be delivered on, and veterans are being told that they don't matter in. I'm going to make some progress in committee. Mr. Madam Deputy Speaker, we'll have plenty of time to discuss our particular concerns with this legislation, but I will raise a small number here today. First, the bill deliberately shifts the focus towards criminal prosecutions. Section 36 says investigations are to be carried out as criminal investigations, unless there is no realistic prospect of information obtained being provided to a prosecutor, I suspect veterans will be those most likely to be prosecuted.

Second, the bill creates a five year time limit for family members and victims to request an investigation. But there is no such time limit for public authorities. Can the Minister tell us why not? This could rumble on forever. Third, the bill pays lip service to not repeating previous investigations as the. The Right Honourable Secretary of State said by saying that the Legacy Commission will only do so when repetition is necessary, that sections 30, 31, 36, 51, 84, or when duplication is essential.

Section 36. Now I imagine, I fear that some lawyers will have a great deal of fun with those words. How long before every attempted reinvestigation becomes necessary? How long before every attempted investigation becomes essential? I believe. I fear this is no protection at all. Fourth, the protections for our veterans are a mirage, not just because they are largely available already, but because they clearly apply to terrorists as well as veterans. Fifth, I have received in the past few days a lot of communications from veterans about the role that Ireland will play in the new commission, and I'm sure they will be reassured by the remarks that the Secretary of State made in his opening remarks that Ireland will have no formal process within the Legacy Commission.

But but what is clear is that the Bill makes provision for the involvement of international figures. Will those international figures be given access to national security information now? Can the Minister be clear on that in his closing remarks, please? Sixth, I will I will give way first to my hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friend and then to my hon. Friend. I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for setting out so giving way and for setting out so clearly the wrongs of this bill. A number of veterans called my office yesterday in great distress, and one of their concerns was what this bill means for future recruitment to the armed forces, which so far has not really been covered in this has not really been covered in this debate, because they believe that if you sign up, willing to give the ultimate sacrifice for your country ultimate sacrifice for your country should stand behind you.

So can my hon. Friend please set out why this bill risks so heavily future recruitment to the armed forces, and therefore, why it's just another reason this bill is absolutely wrong.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

absolutely wrong. Alex Burghart I thank my hon. Friend and I concur greatly with her remarks, to which I shall

**** Possible New Speaker ****

her remarks, to which I shall return in a few moments. Give way to my hon. Friend. The Secretary. He.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Secretary. He. The Secretary, has pointed out that the. Secretary of State. Has assured. Us that. No input from.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No input from. The Irish government will. Be in. This Bill. Yet, first.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This Bill. Yet, first. Of all, the Irish government will only once consulted. Secondly, there will be appointments made.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

there will be appointments made. And can he? Does he see the possibility that a government which has acceded to the demands of the Irish government in this bill could also accede to suggestions for people to be nominated to the advisory Committee, and therefore they can have Irish proxies on this bill, despite the assurances given by the Secretary of State.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The hon. Gentleman raises raises interesting and important points. And I think, you know, one of the things that we are concerned about is within the Legacy Commission's framework, who will have access to sensitive national, national security information. Be very good to have clarity on that from the to have clarity on that from the Minister later. Seventh, there was some confusion on the Labour front bench recently about whether former bench recently about whether former IRA personnel would be able to serve as a legacy commission officer or to sit as a member of officer or to sit as a member of the victims, survivors, Victims and Survivors Advisory Group.

And perhaps the Minister could could perhaps the Minister could could clear that up and provide legal guarantees in when we get to committee that that won't be the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

committee that that won't be the case. I'll give way one more time to the hon. Gentleman. Grateful to the shadow Minister for giving way. Would you just remind the House who's actually in government in Northern Ireland, and if there are any former paramilitaries involved at all?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

paramilitaries involved at all? The the Labour Party is in power in Northern Ireland. It's the government of the United Kingdom. government of the United Kingdom. government of the United Kingdom. He. Legal. Legal, as my hon. Friend from Huntingdon, said it would be good to get legal guarantees on good to get legal guarantees on this point. Last, veterans have been asking publicly for the inclusion of the word veteran in the bill. They do not consider themselves victims or survivors. They consider themselves veterans, and they are hoping that the government will recognise them as such in legislation.

I'll give way

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to the hon. Lady. Many in this House believe in the rule of law and the equality of the rule of law and the equality of every person in front of the law, and between 30 and 40,000 people were properly convicted of paramilitary offences. 300,000 soldiers served under Operation

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Banner. Can the member outline how many of those have been in court? Alex Burghart.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Alex Burghart. So the Honourable the hon. Lady, I think I think the hon. Lady is is mis misunderstanding the point that I'm making the point that I'm I'm making the point that I'm making is that when it is clear that vexatious complaints and vexatious investigations can be vexatious investigations can be begun, then everyone who served feels under threat. Everyone feels. Yes, the hon. Lady asked from a Yes, the hon. Lady asked from a sedentary position. So for the purposes of Hansard, I'll, she says, are they vexatious? It is very, very clear from the case that was very clear from the case that was heard in Belfast last month that that was a vexatious complaint.

The judge, the judge said it was judge, the judge said it was ludicrous. The judge said it should never have come anywhere near the court. But for four years, a member of the Special Forces was pursued for four years and all of his comrades and colleagues thought that they might be brought, that that they might be brought, that they might have the same legal action brought against them in future. If such a thing could

**** Possible New Speaker ****

happen, I will happily give way to my right hon. Friend. I just want to return to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I just want to return to the last intervention. The very way the intervention is made suggests that this was a numbers game based on the numbers that were out there. the numbers that were out there. The fact is that no, with respect, I actually served out there. I can tell you something about this. The reality is that the British Army was sent to hold the peace against was sent to hold the peace against terrorists, setting to kill people deliberately for their own political ends.

Isn't it wrong to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

political ends. Isn't it wrong to equate the two as though this was a ridiculous number. Before Alex Burghart.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Respond, my Right Honourable. Friend Alex Burghart response it's important that we keep the debate well tempered, and the term

**** Possible New Speaker ****

debate well tempered, and the term you from a senior backbencher should not be used. Alex Burghart. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. My right hon. Friend, as ever, is a bastion of good sense and reminds us that there is there is no moral equivalence between the people who were sent to try and keep the people and services of Northern people and services of Northern Ireland safe, and the people who were terrorists. Finally, we note, were terrorists. Finally, we note, under the terms of the agreement, that the Republic of Ireland has committed to legislate to enable the fullest possible cooperation of the relevant Irish authorities with the Legacy Commission.

And we sincerely hope that this is true. There are many secrets of the Troubles yet to be disclosed from sources south of the border, from the huge number of extradition requests, Dublin refused between 1973 and 1999 to the long, long list of cases of collusion between the Garda and the provisional IRA, which have not been properly dealt with. It is clear that the South has never taken full responsibility for the blind eyes turned and the bad acts abetted. A test of this government's approach will be whether Dublin delivers, or whether this, as one representative of victims, has said to me in the past few days, turns out to be another case of tea and sympathy, with no action to follow.

For the record, it is my party's strong view that if this Bill receives Royal Assent, the Secretary of State should not commence the legislation until this House has at least seen the Irish legislation. Yes. In conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker, there are no meaningful provisions protections in this bill. There is no cross-party support. There are no legal barriers to continuing what the last government began. We find ourselves in a situation where retired generals, SAS veterans and the like are all telling this House not to proceed.

They are telling us that there will be consequences, consequences for recruitment, for attention, for national security. This morning in a statement, soldiers said the damage being done to the morale and fibre of UK special forces and armed forces must be understood by the public because it is very well understood by the SAS when such people speak. Madam Deputy Speaker, this House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

has an obligation to listen. Yes. The original, the original

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The original, the original question was that the bill be now read a second time, since when an amendment has been proposed as on amendment has been proposed as on the Order Paper. The question is that the amendment be made. All backbench contributions will be limited to six minutes. And I come

**** Possible New Speaker ****

limited to six minutes. And I come to Paul Foster. Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. The peace process in Northern Ireland was process in Northern Ireland was hard won and tough compromises had to be accepted by all parties. The Good Friday Agreement was never Good Friday Agreement was never going to have the wholesale support of all, but it brought about an end to the horrendous violence. However, to the horrendous violence. However, the Good Friday Agreement did not include a mechanism for dealing with unresolved killings during the
16:19
Paul Foster Portrait Mr Paul Foster MP (South Ribble, Labour)
-
-
with unresolved killings during the Troubles, either by terrorists or the security forces. Nor did it provide amnesty for crimes which had not yet been prosecuted. Let us also not forget that, according to Commons Library data, around 3520 people lost their lives during the Troubles, of which 1441 were British service personnel, 722 of which died at the hands of paramilitaries. 300 RUC officers were killed and 301 individual. Deaths were the responsibility of the British military, of which 121 were Republican terrorists, 101 loyalist terrorists, with the remainder all civilians.

We have a duty to ensure that all legacy issues arising from the Troubles are therefore dealt with compassionately, diligently and legally. The previous Government's Legacy Act has been found to be unlawful by both the High Court in Belfast and the Court of Appeal. The High Court found that several provisions of the act to be incompatible with the European Convention of Human Rights, and it was therefore deemed unlawful. They also found that it was incompatible with article two of the Windsor Framework, and should therefore be disapplied.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, and also found that additional aspects of the Legacy Act to be incompatible with the as well. Now there are many separate elements to the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, but I'm going to keep my contribution to two specific areas that of immunity from prosecution for historic crimes and the concerns of my fellow veterans moving forward under the new act. As a veteran, I have never sought nor agreed that as a British serviceman, I should ever be permitted immunity from prosecution for my actions during service.

We work within the law of armed conflict, the Geneva Convention, the laws of the United Kingdom when serving here, to name but three. We are trained to undertake operations within strict legal protocols. Whatever the provocation we are experiencing or the hostile environment we are in. There has been much opposition to the immunity offered within the Legacy Act. The three veterans commissioners in July said this is not a call for immunity from law, but for fairness under it. Ben Wallace, the former defence secretary, said The British army is not above the law but for fairness under it.

Brigadier John Donnelly, who served in Northern Ireland, now chair of the centre for Military Justice, said only last week 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. What we must also understand is not just British service personnel who were granted that were granted immunity from prosecution under the previous legislation.

It was also terrorists who murdered civilians and British servicemen and servicewomen. There are currently more than 200 investigations into deaths of Operation Banner soldiers that were shut down upon the enactment of the Legacy Act, against the wishes of those soldiers families. Immunity from prosecution is dangerous because it invalidates the justice system, sacrifices victims rights, weakens deterrence, violates international law, and undermines long term peace and trust in our institutions. I will never agree that immunity is the appropriate solution.

It sets an awful precedent. And just think if it were to be implemented by foreign governments currently in military

**** Possible New Speaker ****

conflict, we would be rightly appalled. Moving up. I wonder whether the hon. Member

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I wonder whether the hon. Member has any views on the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission that did exactly that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that did exactly that. I have plenty of views on that, but it doesn't change my view on immunity. I believe immunity is immunity. I believe immunity is wrong, particularly for soldiers. Moving on to my fellow veterans, I Moving on to my fellow veterans, I understand your concerns that any investigations into historic deaths have previously disproportionately have previously disproportionately focussed on the actions of the armed forces and the former police officers, rather than the paramilitaries. The government has recognised this and has introduced a number of key protections for a number of key protections for anyone asked to provide information.

These include protection from repeated investigations, a right to repeated investigations, a right to stay at home, a right to anonymity, protection from cold call and protection in old age, and the protection in old age, and the right to be heard. But here's another important issue we must and will protect our normal system. We will protect our normal system. We must protect our protect our veterans from vexatious and unwarranted investigations and the unwarranted investigations and the creation of a reformed Legacy Commission must not only provide for accountability, but also the protection of the innocent.

Legacy cases have dominated the inquest system in Northern Ireland, with criminal legislation dating back to 1959 that desperately requires modernisation. The 1959 legislation was never created to deal with the numerous and complex types of legal issues they are now faced with. However, coronial law in Northern Ireland is a devolved matter, but a modernised inquest system could dictate new rules of procedure change, eventual standards, affect disclosure processes and reshape

**** Possible New Speaker ****

how our tool is applied, thus providing multiple additional order, order. I call the Liberal Democrat

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson Paul Kohler. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Though I've not held the Though I've not held the spokesperson role for long, I've met veterans, victims and survivors, academics and members from across
16:25
Paul Kohler Portrait Mr Paul Kohler MP (Wimbledon, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
academics and members from across this house and the other place. Those conversations have been humbling and instructive, reminding me of the horror Northern Ireland endured and the courage of those who lived through and served during the Troubles. I want to begin by recognising the Secretary of State's work in bringing forward this bill. Dealing with the legacy of the past requires legislation, practical action the public can trust. I want to make it clear the Liberal Democrats welcome the intent to repeal and replace part two.

Certain aspects of part three. The Conservatives failed Legacy Act. That legislation was a profound misjudgement to commanded. No confidence in Northern Ireland was opposed by every major party, and placed the UK in breach of its human rights obligations. Not only did the Tories provide conditional immunity for serious Troubles related crimes, they also offended victims. And and the shadow Minister seems to forget this alienated veterans by appearing to equate them with terrorists. This bill rightly removes those provisions, ends immunity, and restores the principle that no one is beyond the law.

Clause one confirms the Independent Commission for Reconciliation Information Recovery will continue under a new name, the Legacy Commission, with Reformed Governance and functions. This recognises the need to rebuild a process, the process that rebuild a process the people of Northern Ireland can trust. We support the government's intent to reform the Commission, but expectations are high and confidence is fragile. Any effective legacy process must also ensure the narratives of the Troubles remain accurate, that victims of terrorism are neither forgotten nor morally equated with perpetrators, but at the same time they were victims of lawful and occasionally unlawful acts by the state, whose right to truth is equally important.

Only a system founded on transparency, independence and fairness could command confidence across all communities with previous actions, such as the letters of comfort issued to paramilitaries in the past, there's so much to undermine. Clause three sets out the Legacy Commission structures and functions, including investigating deaths and serious harm, holding inquisitorial proceedings, producing a full record of deaths and securing public confidence a requirement I strongly welcome. It also establishes an oversight board, provides strategic direction and scrutiny.

But with the board drawn from within the organisation, the real test of its effectiveness will lie in the independence and integrity of those appointed to lead the Commission in the first place. Clauses 4 to 6 give the Secretary of State power to appoint commissioners. Directors of investigation. Judicial panel members. Even with the consultation requirements under clause nine nine, this concentration of powers risks undermining trust appointments to the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission or a similar independent mechanism mechanism would surely strengthen public confidence.

My concern is heightened to Secretary of State also appoints the Victims and Survivors Advisory Group under clause eight, when one person controls both the commission's leadership and its advisory body, independence is difficult to discern. Turning to the fundamental issue of veterans protections under the bill, these amounts to the following. Unsolicited contact would be limited to official channels, which is clearly important. There'll be an end to repeat investigations, but the undefined caveat, unless it's essential to do so, leaves the scope unclear.

Veterans will have the ability to seek anonymity, although a provision to that effect already exists. Under the Criminal Evidence Act, veterans will have the right to give evidence remotely, but they will not be a default presumption to do so. Veterans welfare will have to be considered, which is at best vague, and veterans will be represented on the Ministerial Advisory Group, which, whilst welcome, does not in itself offer protection. Veterans are surely right in arguing this is not enough.

This has implications not just for them, but our current service personnel and potential future recruits. As the nine Four-star generals who wrote to The Times last week made clear, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

provisions of the bill have profound implications for both service morale and future recruitment. May I intervene? Of course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Very much. Allow me to intervene. My family have. Served in the Army for many

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Served in the Army for many generations. Including myself and the Troubles in Northern. Ireland, and. Indeed my son. Now we have seen

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Indeed my son. Now we have seen and deeply admired the Army's core values of courage, discipline, values of courage, discipline, respect, integrity, loyalty and selfless commitment. Would my hon. Friend accept that the retired Friend accept that the retired generals and the many serving friends of my son make an extremely friends of my son make an extremely pertinent point when they say that Northern Ireland Troubles Bill will negatively impact retention and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

negatively impact retention and recruitment in the British Army at a time when we are desperate to bolster our armed forces. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Before Mr. Kohler resumes his position, we must keep intervention short. We have many people wishing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to contribute. Paul Kohler. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and yes, I absolutely intervention and yes, I absolutely agree this will have profound implications for both service morale and future recruitment, particularly in respect to our particularly in respect to our special forces, which is why the Bill must go further. With over 10% of the Lib Dem benches made up of former members of the armed services, my parliamentary party is acutely aware of the risks veterans took, the sacrifices they and their fallen comrades made.

Our concern is fairness, not shielding and wrongdoing. Many veterans under this bill will remain exposed to uncertainty, possible retrospective judgement and scrutiny over sensitive personal data and service records. This concern is heightened by the stark disparity in record keeping. Veterans actions were documented in detail, whereas the activities of those engaged in terrorism were not. This results in an imbalance in documentary evidence that must be acknowledged and addressed. It is also noteworthy that whilst the state has protected itself through the Secretary of State's discretion over the handling of sensitive information, this bill gives veterans no such safeguards.

Veterans deserve assurances their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

service rights and data are treated fairly, securely and proportionately well. I thank the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the. hon. Gentleman for giving way. The IRA. Campaign of terror against the British people. Was one of the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Was one of the. Darkest chapters in our history. The shields of. Airey Neave, Ian.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Gow, Robert Bradford and Anthony Bury demonstrate that. Does he agree with. Me that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Me that. The armed servicemen represented here today, they defended us. And it's this.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And it's this. Job, the job of this Parliament, defended. I thank the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the. Chris Philp for his intervention, I absolutely agree. We must never equate our armed forces with the equate our armed forces with the paramilitaries and terrorists on both the nationalist and Unionist side. Veterans. Veterans deserve assurance. There are services, rights and data are treated fairly, rights and data are treated fairly, securely and proportionately. That's why we are calling the government to come forward with government to come forward with binding statutory safeguards, including a clear presumption against repeated investigations without objectively certified new without objectively certified new and significant evidence.

An expanded duty to consider operational context, strengthened operational context, strengthened welfare protections and a presumption of remote participation. It is, of course, important that the voices not just veterans but all victims and survivors are heard. And clause eight does this by establishing a group to advise both the Legacy Commission and the Secretary of State. However, its members will be appointed by the Secretary of State, with its numbers limited to as little as three and no more than seven, which risks its voice being limited and its independence being compromised.

But by concentrating sweeping powers in the hands of the Secretary of State, the bill risks creating an opaque system that offers little genuine parliamentary oversight or scrutiny. As hon. Members are aware, there's already a commission for victims and survivors. It has for almost two decades ensured those most affected by the Troubles are heard. There is a real danger that the proposed Victims and Survivors Ministerial Advisory Group, despite its separate function, might trespass into the existing forum's domain, which, with its wide range of perspectives, including veterans from both unionist and nationalist backgrounds and those who have served in the Crown forces, has that all important cross-community legitimacy.

Trust is so important. Capturing that breadth and establishing that trust. The newly proposed, much smaller advisory group will be difficult. I therefore ask the government to clarify how the new advisory group will interact with the existing forum. Will the Commissioner for Victims and Survivors have a formal role in advisory group? How otherwise will the voices of veterans and former security personnel who are both victims and key stakeholders, be heard? I will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful to my friend for giving way. Would he agree that with veterans who are sometimes with veterans who are sometimes serving in Northern Ireland and pursued by the IRA to Germany and attacked there, what they deserve attacked there, what they deserve is more reassurance than the words that duplication will not occur unless it's essential.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

unless it's essential. I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, I absolutely agree. We must go further. Must do more We must go further. Must do more for veterans. This bill does not go far enough at this stage. My party has always opposed the Legacy Act, has always opposed the Legacy Act, but we are clear that its replacement must address the legitimate concerns of veterans. legitimate concerns of veterans. However, as one can see from the joint statement issued last night by the Veterans Commissioners of by the Veterans Commissioners of the devolved nations, that is not currently the case.

They have expressed concerns shared on these expressed concerns shared on these benches. The bill, as currently drafted, does not provide sufficient safeguards for veterans, nor against lawfare. Historical narrative revision and disparities between how security personnel and between how security personnel and others will be treated. That's why my party submitted a reasoned amendment and will be supporting amendment and will be supporting the conservative one to deny the bill. A Second Reading until the fundamental issue of sufficient protection for veterans is addressed, along with enhanced parliamentary oversight, safeguarding the independence of appointments, clarifying the role of Victims and Survivors Advisory Group, and ensuring no government can use ministerial discretion to shut down the search for the truth.

I realise that will disappoint the Secretary of State, but I reiterate what I said at the beginning of my speech. My party commends him for all his hard work, seeking to move forward from the Tories failed Legacy Act. Its successor, however, must command genuine confidence across all communities whilst ensuring our veterans peace of mind. I pledge on behalf of my party to all we can to help them achieve

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that goal. Tonia Antoniazzi. Thank you. Speaker and as.
16:36
Tonia Antoniazzi Portrait Tonia Antoniazzi MP (Gower, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speaker and as. Chair, the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee, we launched an inquiry into the government's emerging plans in December last year. Since then, we have received almost 80 pieces of written evidence, held eight evidence sessions with representatives of victims and survivors, veterans, retired police officers, human rights groups, groups and heard twice from the Secretary of State. So I thank him for that. Importantly, too, we visited Northern Ireland to hear firsthand from the people directly affected by the Troubles, meeting victims and survivors from all communities and then hearing their concerns, their requests and, most movingly, their stories.

Because of the timing of the announcement of the first of first the joint framework and then the bill, we have been working at pace to gather new evidence on the government's plans, but I hope we can do when we have yet to consider and agree a report into our inquiry. But I hope we can do this shortly before the bill returns to the floor of the House for its Committee stage. So the points I shall make in my speech are based on the evidence of my committee, but any conclusions or recommendations I may make about the government's proposals are my own.

One question, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we have consistently asked. Those we spoke to was, have the government consulted you on their plans, their proposals? But the answer from many that we have listened to, they have said that they have felt listened to but not heard. I know the Secretary of State's response to this has always been gently, that they want to know if we've listened to them until they see our proposals. But previous consultations on Stormont House, for example, were much more comprehensive than this one.

Now, it seems from many of the provisions in the framework and the bill that Ministers have been listening. And I would like to thank him for that. But the point remains that if these proposals are to gain confidence from as many communities as possible, that includes veterans. The government is going to need to listen more, bring them along and enable them to take ownership of what is coming forward, and confidence will be key. The Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery has been unable to garner the kind of trust and authority across the communities to carry out its work effectively, and we have seen evidence of that, and that is no fault of the Chief Commissioner, Sir Declan Morgan, nor any other senior commissioner or commission officer.

We took evidence from Hegra in May, and we met them privately, and we became very aware of the professionalism, integrity and decency with which the Commission has approached its work. Unfortunately, Madam Deputy Speaker, its roots in the Legacy Act hampered it from the beginning. Some people thought its investigations were too light touch, others that it wasn't doing, or able to do enough to address potential conflicts of interest between investigators and their investigations. We heard that its investigations were rigorous and could lead to prosecutions, and that it was introduced in its own robust conflict of interest policy.

But we know how when trust is lacking, reform, root and branch seems inevitable. I would personally urge the Secretary of State, however, because many of the committee and myself have been so personally moved by listening to the families that we have met, I would personally urge him to ensure that the decision of the sensitivities and prejudice of documents held is actually going to be the decision of the Legacy Commission, and not of the agencies currently holding that information and who need to pass it on with regard to case referrals.

Stakeholders have submitted supplementary evidence to us on many of the government's proposals. For example, the government's plan to widen the range of people and organisations who can refer a case to the New Legacy Commission seem sensible. But there are still potential changes that could make that could be made to the definition of close family members, which would make that more inclusive and reflective of the reality of modern family life and the time it has taken for some families to gain an investigation.

Because trauma and the search for truth. Madam Deputy Speaker, as we know, can be passed down to generations. I have to skip a large part of my speech, but one of the things I must address before I turn to some other provisions is, is down to resourcing itself has pointed out the increase in demand on its services, something with which we will only continue under the new Commission, with greater responsibilities, including taking on coronial cases through its enhanced inquisitorial mechanism.

Funding is going to need review and be under continuous review, and it is to be noted that the resourcing of such organisations, such as the PSNI and other others with new demands on their records, will also need to be considered. I'm going to draw my comments to a close here, but Madam Deputy Speaker, there is much that is to be commended in this bill, but there is also much that still needs to be worked on and I look forward to bringing our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

inquiry to a close as part of the Committee. Yeah. Right, sir. David Davis Deputy.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

David Davis Deputy. Speaker, this is a. Terrible bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Its central failing. Is that it will. Lead to the persecution of patriotic, innocent British patriotic, innocent British soldiers whose only sin is. Defending our democracy with heroism and skill. What it will do heroism and skill. What it will do is recreate a circumstance in which soldiers are treated unfairly by the law. My right hon. Friend, the Member for Brentwood and Ongar, referred to the case of soldier B
16:42
David Davis Portrait Rt Hon David Davis MP (Goole and Pocklington, Conservative)
-
-
referred to the case of soldier B and the judge's dismissal of it as a ludicrous challenge funded by legal aid. I've known soldier B for 30 years. I count him a friend. He's tough and he's clever. And yet, even for him, being dragged through the courts for four years or more on what is effectively a preparation for a murder charge would have been unbelievably stressful. The process and the point. He made the point my right hon. Friend made the process is the punishment for years of stress and wear and tear.

Now, in Operation Banner, our soldiers assiduously obeyed the yellow card rules. But in Northern Ireland, the courts have sometimes interpreted these rules as requiring our soldiers to take almost suicidal risks. We are dragging men in their 70s and 80s through coroners courts in Belfast, and judging them by a standard that makes no sense in a military context. And to illustrate this, let me share with the House a single case highlighting what can happen to soldiers under these circumstances.

On the 16th of March, 1978, in the middle of the night, two SAS soldiers were manning a covert observation post. They saw two men in combat clothing moving towards them. One of our soldiers, David Jones, stood up and challenged the men. The IRA gunman immediately shot him down in a burst of gunfire. That story would have been at the back of the minds of every soldier who subsequently served in Northern Ireland. Yes, they made their decisions in the face of the risk of immediate death.

It's a measure of their professionalism that hundreds of terrorists were arrested alive under the circumstances, when the soldiers themselves could have been killed. The debate today is actually about morality. It's about whether this House chooses justice over political convenience, truth over revisionism, and loyalty over the cynical rewriting of history. The government claims that today's problems arise from legislation passed by the previous government, which allegedly created an amnesty for terrorists. Really? What are the facts? Labour under Blair gave effective de facto, maybe in law, its challengeable but de facto amnesty to at least 650 terrorists men who carried out more than 3000 killings.

Early release schemes. The on the run letters and the Royal Prerogative of Mercy collectively created a vast secret system of de facto immunity. Secret because they knew people wouldn't accept it. No, I'm sorry, I haven't got time. People knew it wouldn't be accepted. And that, by the way, is why Gerry Adams asked for, and I quote, an invisible system for dealing with the. On the runs. On the runs. Why are they on the run? They're on the run because they're criminals.

And this was a secret system to deal with it. In contrast, our three our 300,000 of our soldiers defended democracy in Northern Ireland. They defended law and order, they defended democracy, and they defended the innocent citizens of Northern Ireland, which we often forget in this. They acted as a direct opposite of the IRA, the gangster organisation that terrorised the communities in Northern Ireland. And by the way, all communities remember the IRA killed a very large number of Catholics in order to terrorise that community.

Yet today, those who uphold the law face relentless legal pursuit, while those who broke the law receive leniency letters and legal shelter. And let's not forget, the IRA are also protected by the fact that Witney, or would be witnesses against them, know they risk murder if they actually turn up. I was in Omagh, as it turns out, a few weeks ago, and I met a policeman who was shot by the real IRA or the IRA or whatever label it's got today only a couple of years ago, shot, I think six times.

So instead of attacking those who served, we should honour them, their service and their patriotism and not treat them as worse than the killers they defeated. The House must say enough. Enough moral inversion, enough rewarding terror whilst hounding those who defended the public. And we are told that this new bill is necessary because Northern Ireland will not support alternatives. Well, let me say this when leaders must choose between consensus and justice, real leaders choose justice. This bill must not rest on appeasement.

The world watches while Britain chooses today its allies with concern and its enemies with enthusiasm as they plan future decades of lawfare against our best soldiers. If we do not speak up to protect both our current service personnel and our veterans in the future, the innocent will suffer and we will find ourselves unable to defend our nation.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Claire Hanna Madam Deputy Speaker time is short, but I hope Speaker time is short, but I hope today that we can consider the why as well as the how pain can be addressed in Northern Ireland for the SDLP. We approach legacy on the basis of the rule of law, equality before the law and the impact of
16:47
Claire Hanna Portrait Claire Hanna MP (Belfast South and Mid Down, Social Democratic & Labour Party)
-
-
before the law and the impact of reconciliation, and we recognise that this is not a sterile debate, it just takes place in this room or in committee rooms. It's not a knockabout, it's not a headline, it's not for a tweet. It's a daily reality for many thousands of families. And while legacy remains unresolved, it is like a fog around us in Northern Ireland shaping the tone of our politics, affecting how communities interact with one another, our policing and the ability of government to deliver this bill is imperfect.

Legislation rarely is, but we can't miss the opportunity to deal with legacy. It is not about an obsession with the past. Getting this right is about an obsession with a non-violent, unreconciled future. It's positive that we are discussing today a bilateral agreement between the Irish government and the government in London, a much needed departure from unilateralism pursued by the last government. Despite clear warnings, they pressed ahead with a deeply flawed legacy bill that was not only struck down by the courts but rejected by every single party, north or south of Ireland, and by more or less every single victim or survivor who spoke on the record.

They exploited the fiction that we had to draw a line under the past because nothing else was working. While fighting and stalling the processes, which were the Conservative Party's approach to legacy diminished the rule of law, disregarded bilateral communities, and worse, it wasted the time and the years and the energy of so many blameless victims and survivors. The joint framework allows both governments to begin meeting their responsibilities on dealing with the past. We acknowledge the journey and the effort of the Secretary of State of his officials, and that we will seek, by amendment, to make the final legislation robust enough to withstand less well intentioned political oversight.

I understand the close work is happening across the Irish Sea, and the Dublin's legislation will be published swiftly when this bill has made its way through the House so that its architecture can be compatible with the arrangements we have at the end of the legislative process here. It is right that it is delivered in parallel. It is right that it is a partnership. So I can understand only a cynicism. Those who make lurid claims about what the Irish government have or haven't done, but cry foul at any attempt to address it.

The SDLP don't pick and choose which victims we support. We don't pick and choose those from whom we demand accountability. Every death was a tragedy. Every murder was wrong and publicly and privately we will push Dublin like. We will push everyone else on their obligations and omissions on this framework and on the Omagh inquiry. But we will not tolerate or dignify the distortions and the revisionism, including for many across this House, who attempt to draw equivalence between the government of the Irish Republic and the murder machine of paramilitaries, or the systematic involvement with paramilitaries from London.

From the early days of conflict, victims have borne the most and asked the least lacklustre investigations by the release of prisoners, which we accept was a hard pill to swallow. But far out with the Good Friday Agreement they've had that compounded by uneven transition for paramilitaries by on the run letters, by decades of cynical memorialisation and by the immunity scheme by the last government. Unlike others, the SDLP do not accept that violence was either inevitable or justified. Regardless of the context for military commanders or for IRA commanders.

Violence was a choice. Planting bombs in busy town centres was a choice. Arming paramilitaries was a choice. Opening fire on innocent civil rights marchers was a choice, and brushing all of those crimes under the carpet, as the last government attempted to do, was also a choice for too many innocent people. Their deaths were treated as collateral. Decisions were made that some lives were worth more for less, for expanding a goal that could never have been achieved that way, that has never been properly acknowledged.

The IRA have never needed a legal process to admit that truth, and that they made that futile and brutal choice many times. Loyalist paramilitaries have never acknowledged that their war was with innocent Catholics, that their victims were selected purely on the basis of the family or faith they were born into. They don't need legacy legislation to acknowledge that point, and likewise, the running of state agents by security forces was not a necessary evil. It was reckless. It was morally corrosive, and it should shame those who conducted it and those trying to pretend it didn't happen.

So uncomfortable as it may be for many, including in this House, we must address disclosure. We must address it to understand how non-state actors also operated with impunity. And for many, directing terrorism had very little to do with political ideals and more to do with power, control and dominance over the communities they claim to defend. Legacy processes need to shore up confidence in the rule of law. How this House legislates on legacy will have an effect on the confidence in policing.

There's no perfect way to address our troubled past. We have to be honest that there isn't a pathway to justice or even truth for every family. But we do have to deliver on promises made to so many over the years from those who suffered loss. I hear daily their dignity and their fortitude and their wisdom that can emerge from pain. We should hear and we should heed those voices. We should proceed with this bill, and we should finish with the words not of mine, but of the fine Ulster poet John Hewitt, who said, bear in mind these dead.

I find no plainer words. And he asked us not to differentiate, depending on how that person died, and to offer truth and justice for all of them.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Gavin Robinson very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, it's a pleasure to follow the hon. Lady, and we do work on these issues, though we don't always agree. Madam Deputy Speaker, I think it is fair to say Speaker, I think it is fair to say that our history is sorrowful, it is pitiful and it's painful, but it's founded upon a grounded, upon
16:54
Gavin Robinson Portrait Rt Hon Gavin Robinson MP (Belfast East, Democratic Unionist Party)
-
-
it's founded upon a grounded, upon a corruption of justice. And whilst we listen to the politics between Labour and Conservative and the back and forth in this chamber, you have to go back to 1998 to find that corruption of justice, the release of prisoners, the litany of failure and the lamentable approach to those who terrorised our society across communities in Northern Ireland, on the run scheme was not the same as letters of comfort, but royal prerogative of mercy and a de facto amnesty to paramilitaries.

Only two weeks ago we had the Minister from the other place from the Northern Ireland Office meet the 25 victims, one of whom, a member of our party shot in 1981, in Noah Law by a member of the provisional IRA, a champion within the Sinn Féin movement until he fell out with them. He sought sanctuary in Switzerland. He sought sanctuary in Sweden. Only when he became an opponent of the peace process was he ever amenable to justice. He stood as a dissident representative in the 2007 election, and he was arrested at the count and convicted for 20 years for attempted murder of one of my colleagues.

That was a de facto amnesty for as long as he was bought in to the political process. We have heard victims have heard those innocent victims of Northern Ireland have heard this government promise to repeal and replace. And yet that's not what they are saying. They have heard a promise to protect veterans. And yet that Madam Deputy Speaker is a mirage. There is no specific protection for veterans within this piece of legislation. None. And when we heard the veterans Minister on the radio last week, asked four times, could she rule out a member of the IRA being on the victims advisory forum? She could not that the Secretary of State did not take the opportunity to say he would accept an amendment to ban paramilitaries.

From that advisory board, I think is a shame. But Madam Deputy Speaker, shame runs throughout the legacy of our past and government's approach to it. Innocent victims, does it work for them? I have to tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, innocent victims are sick, sore and tired of people on either side of this bench and maybe even these ones pretending to speak for them. Yes, it is true. Some innocent victims want truth. Some innocent victims want to know what happened, but others want justice.

They want justice and they have not received it for veterans. Are there protections for veterans? No. Does veteran the word veteran feature in this legislation at all? No, it does not. Victims and veterans are sick of gaslighting, of the psychological torture, of having their own beliefs, their understanding, and their memory challenged and questioned to the point where they think they've got something wrong. For paramilitaries with paramilitaries were invited to Lambeth Palace to create the amnesty scheme that the Conservatives brought through, and will be satisfied enough that their concerns have been listened to by this Labour government.

I have raised with the Secretary of State time and again the lamentable failure on his part to support the Director of investigations solely because he has a history in the RUC. And what's the answer to that? The answer is to create an equal position to sit alongside him. We have a human rights commissioner in Northern Ireland who, even though the Supreme Court has attested the independence of the Director of investigations and the ICRIR, we have a Secretary of State who has decided, at the behest of the Irish, to create a coequal position for fear of contamination that is out.

It is not legally sustainable, it is not legally required. And it cuts to the heart of the professionalism and the integrity not only of that individual, but of all those who served in the Royal Ulster Constabulary in 302 of which were murdered by paramilitaries in Northern Ireland. So when we talk about protections for veterans, what about those who served in the PSNI or the RUC before them? What about those who served alongside and were deployed alongside members of the armed forces? Where is there support? Secretary of State? It's not in this legislation.

Whenever the Northern Ireland Retired Police Officers Association had to go to court themselves, who paid their bills, they did. They had to raise tens of thousands of pounds to challenge the Police Ombudsman, who was rewriting the past, who challenge a police ombudsman who asserted collusive behaviours, illegal phraseology which does not exist. They've had to defend their honour by themselves because they have had no government of any hue that has stood by their side and defended them. They defended us, and so too we, Secretary of State, should defend them, and that the Secretary of State has sullied himself in this Parliament by the engagement with the Irish Republic, sullied himself.

I have it on good authority that the Irish Republic have cautioned against amendments. The Irish government construed a memorandum of understanding on the Omagh inquiry to ensure they would only assist in answering what the UK authorities could have done, what the UK authorities could have done to prevent that atrocity, not what they could have done. Yet for decades they harboured terrorists in there. They refused extradition. They supported and financed terrorism in Northern Ireland, and the Secretary of State put them under any pressure. Madam Deputy Speaker, no, he has not.

What legal obligation have they to see whether this legislation passed as to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

whether they adhere to the European Convention of Human Rights? None. Colum Eastwood.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Colum Eastwood. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. 50 years ago this month, Columba McVeigh was taken away by the IRA.
16:59
Colum Eastwood Portrait Colum Eastwood MP (Foyle, Social Democratic & Labour Party)
-
-
McVeigh was taken away by the IRA. He was murdered and his body was disappeared. His family are still searching for Columba's remains. Two years later, Captain Robert Nairac the same. Before that, we know about Jean McConville, a widowed mother of ten disappeared by the IRA. Eventually, many years later, their family was reunited with her remains. The people who carried out those tragic murders, those despicable war crimes, would be if the party opposite had their way free from any concern, free from prosecution.

Yeah. Majella O'Hare was 12 years old when she was shot by a British soldier on her way to chapel in Armagh. Same goes for Majella. Patsy Gillespie was tied to a van chained to a van with an IRA unit made to drive a van with a bomb in to an army base in Buncrana and Derry. Patsy was killed along with five other soldiers, the people who murdered Patsy, and the five soldiers free from prosecution. If it was up to the members opposite.

I have to say, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I sat with the families of Bloody Sunday in a court last month and looked at their devastated faces after 53 years of them searching for justice, I expected better from some of our leaders and some of our politicians. I didn't expect tweets with the Parachute Regiment insignia on it being put out by senior members of this House. I didn't expect fulsome support for soldier F from other senior members of this House. Let me just put on the record.

But it's important because it seems to me that lots of people who talk about Bloody Sunday never actually bothered to read the Saville Inquiry. Saville inquiry. That, of course, was set up by a British government led by a British judge, supported by by by subsequent British prime Ministers. Soldier F, by his own admission, killed five people. On Bloody Sunday he killed Michael Rea. He killed William McKinney, he shot James Rea in the back. And while James Rea was lying face down on the floor in Glenfada Park, soldier G come over and finish them off.

Standing on top of him, shooting him in the back. He then shot Paddy Doherty, and Paddy Doherty was crying out that he didn't want to die alone, so Bernard McGuigan crawled to him, waving a white handkerchief. What a soldier f b to Bernard McGuigan. What a soldier! I'm going to finish this. What did soldier after Bernard McGuigan? He shot him in the head, killing him instantly. He then tried to kill an Italian journalist who was looking through a window in the Glenfada Park flats or the flats.

He shot six bullets into that window and by a miracle, Fulvio Grimaldi survived. He then went on to pervert the course of justice by lying through his teeth, claiming that four of the people that he shot who were innocent civilians, they were proven innocent civilians subsequently, that they were engaged in riotous behaviour. Then he went to Fort George Army Base, where the people who were arrested in that day were being held. He assaulted several civilians, including a Catholic priest, Terence O'Keefe.

He then stood a 16 year old boy, Denis McLaughlin, up against a gas blow heater until he fainted and collapsed. What did he do then? He kicked him to his feet and he asked the young fella that he want a drink. When the young man answered, he did. He spat in his mouth. A few months later he went to the Shankill Road. Something you don't hear, by the way, from unionist politicians. He went to Shankill Road on the 7th of September 1972 and admitted shooting a Protestant man called Robert Johnson.

He lied again, saying that Robert was a gun man, he wasn't a gun man. And the coroner's court made that absolutely clear. Robert Johnson was totally innocent as well. I have never once heard a Unionist politician or anybody in this House stand up for Robert Johnson and the other man that was killed on that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

day. Well. The hon. Member saying to this House that the person he has just described, soldier t that his evidence, he has described him as a evidence, he has described him as a liar and a perjurer, should have been used to convict soldier. F been used to convict soldier. F does the hon. Member not accept the verdict of our court? Appeals for verdict of our court? Appeals for justice. Our courts have given a verdict and so does he accept.

It doesn't accept.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

doesn't accept. And the bloody Sunday families accept the verdict because they made the point that was absolutely made the point that was absolutely clear. Between 1970 and 1974, the British government, the British Army, the Royal Military Police and Army, the Royal Military Police and the RUC were engaged in a cover up of mass proportions where any single member of the British Army single member of the British Army who was arrested was questioned without legal, without legal representation and not under caution.

That meant that any of those cases were doomed before we those cases were doomed before we even got started. What I am laying out in this House today and the member might not like it. Whether member might not like it. Whether or not there was a conviction in the court, I am laying out the truth not as I say it, but as soldier F admitted it, and as what was found by an international an international inquiry of truth that was set up by this government and accepted, of course, by this government, accepted by the the Prime Minister Cameron.

When Prime Minister Cameron said what happened on that day was unjustified and unjustifiable. But then what we see is the British government, the Mod, paying at least £4.3 million to defend somebody whose actions they knew, whose actions they knew were unjustified and unjustifiable. That is the truth. That is the fact he got far more legal representation than anybody would under legal aid. And if anybody wants to check those, check those figures out, they're available for all to see. What has happened in this debate is that people aren't don't seem to be able to come to the simple fact of the matter that every single murder was wrong, whether it was committed by the IRA, it was committed by the British government, and not one single person should be free from prosecution.

They shouldn't be allowed impunity. And those people who stand in this House and talk about how great the British Army was and how much they care about the British Army, why then, if that is your position, why then are you accepting and supporting people who

**** Possible New Speaker ****

committed mass murder? You? Your. How many times do I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You? Your. How many times do I have to remind colleagues there isn't much time left? Why are those members supporting

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Why are those members supporting people who, by their own admission, innocent civilians, civilians who should be seen by anybody in this should be seen by anybody in this house as citizens of the United Kingdom? Your the hypocrisy that has been on display in this place has been on display in this place many times. Everybody can see it. And I know many people in this House served in Northern Ireland. Well. There's lots of people at Well. There's lots of people at home watching this who live in Northern Ireland and are sick, sore and tired of this.

If this legislation has any chance of legislation has any chance of giving people some trust, some truth and some justice, it should be allowed to proceed. We of course have issues with this. We have have issues with this. We have issues around the national security parts of this and the issues around sensitive information, and we put sensitive information, and we put proposals and amendments to that regard in the process as we go on. But we have to give this a chance.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But we have to give this a chance. We have to give our victims a chance. And all this. Tom Tugendhat thank you, Madam

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Tom Tugendhat thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I welcome the speech of the hon. Member just gave. speech of the hon. Member just gave. And the reason I welcome it is because he recognised correctly, fully and truthfully that all of fully and truthfully that all of those who were victims, or almost all of those who were victims in those terrible years of the
17:07
Tom Tugendhat Portrait Rt Hon Tom Tugendhat MP (Tonbridge, Conservative)
-
-
Troubles, were UK citizens. They deserve the recognition, the respect and the same protection as any other citizen of the United any other citizen of the United Kingdom. It is indeed one of the foundational reasons of why I'm a unionist, because I believe that we unionist, because I believe that we are all equal on these islands, or rather, on that part of these rather, on that part of these islands. But we can look and understand why we are, but we can look back a lot at history.

We can look back a lot at history. We can look back a lot at what has got us to the position we are in. But if I to the position we are in. But if I may, I want to drag the government's eyes forward because the reality is what we are doing the reality is what we are doing here in reopening and ending our own version of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Committee, Truth and Reconciliation Committee, with its problems, with its failures, with its lacunas, with failures, with its lacunas, with all of the gaps that that necessarily has is we're ending the necessarily has is we're ending the opportunity to move on with all of the pain that that brings, and we're reopening wounds that, sadly, we're reopening wounds that, sadly, we all know will never close.

Now I can look at the agreements that can look at the agreements that were made in the 1990s. I can speak about the deals that Tony Blair did. And like everybody here, I can be And like everybody here, I can be deeply critical about the injustices that he allowed, but I can't then welcome the peace that he brought. I can't welcome the peace if I'm critical of the process that he needed and others needed to make it happen. So I am very, very cautious about those who would go back and criticise and call out.

And I understand the pain of so many, but if we want peace, we have to move forward. And that's where this bill is really difficult because it doesn't just affect the peace of these islands, as important as that is, it actually affects the peace of Europe and the wider world because what it is doing, it is telling people across these islands that actually your service when you sign up won't be for five years or ten or whatever it says on the recruitment contract, but it will be as long as for as long as our enemies and those who seek to do us harm, wish to bring prosecutions against us.

Now, I wrote about this for Policy Exchange in 2013 and again in 2015, in two papers, The Fog of Law and Clearing the Fog of Law. And the point that is so fundamental is we think this is about us. We in this chamber have got the idea that somehow or other the law, the justice system, what we shape, what we decide here, it's all about us. Well, I'm afraid it's not. And you don't need to take my word for it. Read the Mitrokhin archive.

Read what the KGB was doing using Instrumentalizing. Many honourable people in CND, but also some people who were willing to cooperate with the KGB, read what the KGB and its successor organisations have been trying to do around the world, using the law as a way of continuing actions against British forces in a way of actually disarming our forces before they get into conflict. And the tragedy is the tragedy is that for all the well-meaning aspirations of this government, and I understand, I have a lot of respect for the Minister in his place.

We've always got on very well, and I admire his dedication. The tragedy is that while, of course, he has a responsibility to the past, and so to the judges and so to the inquiries, the system that was set up had inquiries, had an ability to find justice, had an ability to find the truth. Yes. It made a compromise that many of us didn't like. Yes, it made conditional immunity that many of us found frankly, pretty abhorrent. But the truth is, it also gave the possibility of moving forward.

And it sent a message to our enemies that we simply would not tolerate our soldiers, our troops, being dragged through the courts at infinitum, because all that that does is demonstrate weakness. Now, let's just look at the numbers. In this country, we have a population of, what, 65 million people roughly. And we have security forces of maybe 300, 350,000, something like that. The equations are pretty clear. The challenges are pretty clear. We also have enemies mustering on our gate.

As we know very well. We have our friends in countries like Denmark and Sweden reintroducing conscription because they realise the threat from the east. We have countries like Poland spending much more on defence than we are, because they know that Russia is a real threat. Well, we will simply not be in position to stand with them, to defend ourselves or to defend our values if we are not willing to stand behind those who risked everything to serve our country.

And let me tell you, as somebody who has fought on the front line, who knows what the heat, the dust, the confusion, the fear can be like the difference between that and having to explain yourself in a courtroom 20 years later, when all you have is gossip and rumour because nobody else was there. Nobody else was telling the truth. Nobody else was witnessing the reality of the difficult decisions you were taking. The idea of holding lance corporals, corporals and commanders all the way through.

All we're doing is we're abdicating responsibility

**** Possible New Speaker ****

from ourselves who chose to send them here? Michael Wheeler. Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm going

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm going to keep my remarks relatively brief because I think there are many valued voices yet to be heard in this debate. I welcome that we have this bill before us today. Northern
17:13
Michael Wheeler Portrait Michael Wheeler MP (Worsley and Eccles, Labour)
-
-
this bill before us today. Northern Ireland has a special place in my heart. It gave me my mum, treasured memories of time with family and it is a place that will always feel part of me. But it also left that younger version of me with many questions about why Kerbstones in some places were painted red, white and blue, and about why the police had guns in their cars looked like tanks. As I said in the Secretary of State's statement last December, nothing can be allowed to jeopardise the progress that has been made in Northern Ireland.

I have seen that progress first hand. The streets of Belfast are a fundamentally different place, not just compared with the stories my mum tells of her youth, but also with what I remember from mine. But this progress is not finished and peace should never be taken for granted. We must make sure that we get this bill right. So I welcome the measures in this bill to build a clear, robust and fair system with which justice and closure can be sought.

The creation of a reformed Legacy Commission with strengthened governance, ensuring that the Legacy Commission has the powers that it needs, so that answers can be provided to families, including those of servicemen and women, and a new approach to inquests and coronial cases will all help to provide the answers that are sought and needed by families still grieving. But we must also ensure that the system itself isn't used as a weapon when taken as a package. I genuinely believe that the six measures included in the bill to protect veterans should provide us all with significant reassurance, and should provide those who served with significant reassurance.

There can be no equivalence drawn in this or any other process between those who served in our armed and security forces to protect life and promote security and stability and terrorists, whether loyalist or Republican. The thing that was too often forgotten during the Troubles were the ordinary people, those who found themselves caught in the middle and on too many occasions lost their lives because of it. And we must not forget them now. I thank those who served to protect people, our veterans who found themselves in communities not too dissimilar from the ones they grew up in, having to do an immensely difficult job.

And I also thank those who saw that peace was the way forward. As we debate this bill, it is incumbent on all of us to remember where we have been and just how fragile this process can be. So please let us all get this right. Provide justice for grieving families and protections for those who serve.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So Julian Smith. I want to thank all military. on.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on. Operation Banner. And it was not just the military, the RUC. On

**** Possible New Speaker ****

just the military, the RUC. On every visit to a police station in Northern Ireland. The lists. Are long. The lists. Are wide, and I pay tribute to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Are wide, and I pay tribute to members and family members of the RUC and also to our security RUC and also to our security services and agency staff. I also pay tribute to parliamentary colleagues, past and parliamentary
17:16
Julian Smith Portrait Rt Hon Sir Julian Smith MP (Skipton and Ripon, Conservative)
-
-
colleagues, past and parliamentary colleagues present who served in Operation Banner. I condemn utterly the actions of mindless and needless violence of the IRA. Who were, in the words of my right hon. Friend for Rayleigh and Wickford,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

one of the most ruthless. And vicious terrorist organisations the world has ever organisations the world has ever seen. I also want to pay tribute to innocent victims of the Troubles. innocent victims of the Troubles. The list of atrocities is long, and the IRA principally is responsible for the vast majority of them, for the vast majority of them, along with loyalist paramilitary parliamentary groups, neighbours, sons, daughters, husbands. sons, daughters, husbands. Thousands of families impacted in this smallest part of the United Kingdom.

Madam Deputy Speaker, given the broader legislation on legacy, legacy has been so long awaited, it is important to emphasise some regulations I brought in as Secretary of State on behalf of the last conservative behalf of the last conservative government on victims payments, and victims payments were the first stage of the legacy process. Many stage of the legacy process. Many people have applied successfully for these payments, but I would urge the Secretary of State to urge the Secretary of State to promote these payments to particularly military and other victims and veterans, because I victims and veterans, because I understand there are many more people that could apply for them.

I would also urge him to look at considering the bereaved and what could be put in place for the bereaved, using some of the principles that we adopted on the committee to exclude anybody that was injured by their own hand. Madam Deputy Speaker, there are a number of observations I would like to make today. I would like to pay tribute to my frontbench for representing and standing up for our soldiers, for articulating the clear dangers of lawfare and the rewriting of history.

But perhaps we, as a party, and we as a house, should have listened earlier to my right hon. Friend for New Forest East inquiry around statutes of limitations, but that would have, in my view, had to be done as a much bigger reconciliation process. I also just think we need to be so careful on debating the issues of amnesties, but also in parallel recognising these were British citizens often that were killed by the very limited number of armed forces that behaved badly.

It was an amazing achievement for David Cameron to have his speech in the Museum of Bloody Sunday in Derry, and he acknowledged through his tone the wrongs that were committed. They were limited, but they were committed and we have to admit that that happened. Can I urge the Secretary of State to look at further options during the course of the passage of this bill for strengthening the protection of veterans? One is an idea from the noble Lord Caine that could be made to Northern Ireland.

1967 Criminal Law Act in order to deal with cases where a soldier thought they were acting in legitimate self-defence. Second, there are significantly larger volumes of legal aid paid out in Northern Ireland. Can that be looked at? And also, the hon. Member for North Antrim raised the roving mandate of many inquests. And can anything be looked at there to focus those inquests for the ones that are coming back under this Bill? On the commitments from Ireland I work very closely and positively with the Irish Government to restore Stormont in 2020 and helping in 2024, but I remain sceptical as to how far Ireland is going to, or be able to go in the provision of information for families.

Are they really going to be able to open everything up on Omagh? We have to be frank that given the political headwinds that they face, there is limited incentive for them to do this. So it would be useful to understand the legislation and the commitments that have been made. We also need to be honest about our security services. There are going to be limits to what our security services can release, and I think we have to be honest with our families and with families about this.

And then on funding. There are various statutory commitments to the in the bill, but there are no statutory commitments on funding. And Omagh is about 15 million for Newark and 20 million. There is a risk that day to day policing in Northern Ireland loses out. In the absence of this funding. Madam Deputy Speaker on Memorialisation and reconciliation, the clauses in the previous bill remain. Again, who will pay for this and how will the impossible task of getting consent on these matters be achieved? Having raised these questions Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that many families in Northern Ireland and beyond still want answers and will hope that they can get them through this legislation.

The lack of closure for so many leads to the next generation taking on the baton of grief and grievance. The issue for them is that time has not healed matters, nor has it lessened their pain. I hope that they can be front of mind as this bill is debated here and in the other place in the weeks and months ahead. I think of the many individuals and families, some of whom are here today, and I hope in what is probably going to be the last piece of legacy legislation, we can all bear those families and individuals in mind.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speaker limits have dropped to five minutes because there are too many members trying to contribute.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

many members trying to contribute. So I'm doing my best to get everybody in five minutes. Liam Conlon speaker. Can I start by thanking the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I start by thanking the Member for Skipton and Ripon for his contribution today? Very thoughtful. Ever since the Northern Ireland Legacy Bill was introduced by the previous government in 2019, thousands of innocent victims families have waited to see this families have waited to see this day. Of the many reckless things the Conservatives did to our relationship with Northern Ireland in their 14 years, I struggled to think of a more egregious example than the Northern Ireland Legacy Bill. It was a direct attack on the
17:22
Liam Conlon Portrait Liam Conlon MP (Beckenham and Penge, Labour)
-
-
Bill. It was a direct attack on the Good Friday Agreement. It undermined accountability in the rule of law, and it has caused significant pain to thousands of victims families. And indeed, in the bringing forward of the legacy Bill, there was no consultation with any victims groups or families. And the Member for Tonbridge referenced the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission. But a key difference there is that victims families and victims voices at its centre for People Across Northern Ireland, the legacy of the Troubles is not a chapter in history, but something carried in every family and community to the present day.

And I know this from my own family. I'm a relative of Father Hugh Mullan, one of the 11 innocent victims of the Ballymurphy Massacre, which took place in 1971, one of the worst atrocities of the Troubles. Hugh was a Catholic priest and was trying to help another victim and offer the last rites when he was shot and killed unlawfully by a member of the Parachute Regiment. He was shot first in the abdomen and then again in the back as he lay on the ground.

What is often missed in discussions about Troubles related cases is that what followed often compounded families grief. Hugh was labelled as a gun runner, and there were attempts to smear him, which couldn't have been further from the truth. But it would take 50 years, for The Wire's entirely innocent to appear on public record. In a ruling by Mrs. Justice Keegan. I've had the pleasure of working with victims groups right across Northern Ireland on a cross-community basis, and I want to remark today on the words of Sandra Peake, the CEO of the Wave Trauma Centre, a fantastic cross-community charity.

Sandra said whatever the previous government's intention, the result would have been that terrorists who carried out the most egregious crimes imaginable would have been able to walk free if they told their story to the best of their knowledge and belief. They could say that they stabbed John Molloy, an 18 year old, in a frenzied attack, leaving him to bleed to death yards from his home because he was a Catholic. And the state would say, thank you and we'll say no more about it.

A witness saw them laughing and dancing down the road after they murdered John. Thanks to the Legacy Act, they will still be laughing and dancing when John's parents, Lyndon and Pat, were told by the previous government that they should grieve in private, while evil perpetrators could celebrate in public. And this is not in the name of reconciliation. Sorry, Madam Speaker, I have met many victims families and I can tell you that they are anything. They are some of the best people I've met in the face of unimaginable trauma.

They have led campaigns for justice with immense courage and dignity. They have not motivated by revenge or retribution, but by their love for their relatives and determination to secure truth and justice. The Legacy Act introduced by the last government denied them all those things and did so without consulting them. And so I'd like to finish with the words of Michael O'Hare, brother to 12 year old sister Majella, shot by a soldier in South Armagh on her way to church one morning in 1976.

And I'm pleased to see Michael in the gallery today. Michael said about today's bill this is an important day for families like ours who thought we'd seen the door closed forever on these cases. Majella was just an innocent little girl who didn't deserve to be gunned down when walking along the road with her friends. We deserve truth and accountability. It's a huge relief that this is now a possibility again, even if we've had to wait for it for half a century, it's never too late to do the right thing.

Today is about doing the right thing. It's a step forward, and I'd like to thank the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for all of his work on this, and to every victims group who have been part of bringing this bill forward.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Robin Swann. Thank you very much, Madam
17:26
Robin Swann Portrait Robin Swann MP (South Antrim, Ulster Unionist Party)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your tomorrow. We gave our today would have been a We gave our today would have been a phrase that many in this House stood in honour, sombre at the last Remembrance Sunday, as we stood across this country, remembering those who served and those who sacrificed. When I stood at those memorials in South Antrim, Ballyclare, North Antrim and Crumlin, and saw wreaths laid for the members of the UDR, the RUC and the Home Battalions, it brings home where and why.

The veterans that we talk about in this place must also reflect and respect those veterans from Northern Ireland who didn't return to Home Army barracks here in England, Scotland and Wales, but every night returned to their own homes, having defended their neighbours, their loved ones and their families and workmates. Or in regards to the victims that have been mentioned. I noticed the grave state listed a number of atrocities he didn't mention Teebane. 14 construction workers returning home from Omagh blown up because the IRA considered them targets because they were working on a military base, and therefore they described them as collaborating with forces of occupation.

Madam Deputy Speaker, our veterans and innocent victims are still waiting for their tomorrow while they actually suffer and reflect and carry the scars and pains of what was a 30 year terrorism campaign delivered on the doors, on the workplaces of their neighbours. So what is challenging in regards to this, and I think the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in regards to that, is how the trust and the involvement of the Irish government in this process is particularly challenging and galling to us.

In regards to this, the Belfast Agreement has been mentioned a number of times in regards to this, and I do look on honour and respect and what my party delivered and bringing forward that peace process. But it was delivered in three strands a Northern Ireland only basis, a north south basis and an east west basis. And I've asked the Secretary of State this before, where now does legacy sit within those three strands? Because it seems now that he is abdicating on, working in parallel with the Irish government in bringing forward what is happening.

When he stood in the 19th of September beside the land to Simon Harris, who told the media afterwards that they would be no specific protections for veterans. And as we've seen, there are no specific protections for veterans in this legislation. The example that has been used once again is that veterans won't have to go to Northern Ireland to give evidence. Tell that to Northern Ireland veterans. What protection, what special coverage is this government actually giving those men and women who served over there? Yesterday, the Irish government and the brick organisation and conference that they held actually said following that, the Irish government has insisted that the legislation must remain true to the framework that had been agreed.

So where are the amendments that will come from this place, from the elected representations of the United Kingdom in regards to what will be brought forward? So when we do look for those amendments that are necessary in this bill, and I do look for support across the House, when we look for the definition of what an innocent victim actually is as they are brought forward and have that opportunity to clarify that those responsible for the planning or implementation of an unlawful conflict of a related incident are not included, or crimes that trigger an investigation must actually include sexual crimes as well, as it should not be underestimated.

The use and deployment of sexual crime by terrorists and terrorist organisations actually to influence and control the population of Northern Ireland, and has been raised by the hon. Member for East Belfast. In regards to the second Director of Investigations, why, why and what power will they have? Powers that will be in the gift and the patronage of this Secretary of State powers? Actually to be able to appoint a constable? So if that Director of investigations is from outside the United Kingdom, not only will they have access to all the information and detailed records that are our military and police and services hold, they will be able to appoint someone with the power of a constable as well.

And when we look to the Victims and Survivors Advisory Group, there is no special reference for a veteran on it. So where is the place for the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner or the Commissioner for Victims and Survivors in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

regards to what will be appointed Andy McDonald. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise. To welcome the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To welcome the. Bill and particularly. Its reversal. Of aspects of. The Legacy Act and its effort to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Legacy Act and its effort to restore. Human rights, compliance. And public confidence. It resolves court. Identified incompatibilities and.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Identified incompatibilities and. Makes changes to legacy cases alongside the remedial order. It

**** Possible New Speaker ****

alongside the remedial order. It removes immunity from prosecution, restores civil. Actions for. Troubles related.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Troubles related. inquests. Other matters will. Be. Handled through. inquisitorial.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

inquisitorial. Proceedings and enabling. Family participation. And appropriate handling.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And appropriate handling. Of. Sensitive information. These approaches. Caused deep.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Caused deep. Harm and were. In many respects. Unlawful. But as.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

With the Public. Office Accountability Bill and the government's engagement with the. Hillsborough families, it's vital Hillsborough families, it's vital that this legislation gains the confidence of those affected in the north of Ireland. Amnesty
17:32
Andy McDonald Portrait Andy McDonald MP (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East, Labour)
-
-
north of Ireland. Amnesty international notes progress, but 45.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of the. Legacy Act limiting. Police Ombudsman. Investigations is. Only partly addressed.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is. Only partly addressed. Can the Minister say how. Incompatibilities with the ECHR, Incompatibilities with the ECHR, highlighted by the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal will be resolved? The Bill also retains the national The Bill also retains the national security veto, giving the Secretary of State sole authority over. of State sole authority over. Sensitive disclosures. This risks undermining compliance and public

**** Possible New Speaker ****

trust, especially where state wrongdoing may be implicated. The family of Sean. Brown, abducted.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Brown, abducted. And murdered in 1997, has long sought an independent public inquiry, and the Taoiseach has inquiry, and the Taoiseach has called for such an inquiry this year. The PSNI has apologised for failings in the original investigation. So can the Secretary of State confirm whether the government will commit to a fully government will commit to a fully independent inquiry into Mr. Brown's death, and that the proposed veto powers will not proposed veto powers will not prevent it? Given the legacy of mistrust, why do disclosure decisions remain solely with the decisions remain solely with the Secretary of State's authority? Will the government consider an Will the government consider an independent mechanism to balance national security with public confidence in Legacy Commission investigations? And while the bill narrows the definition of sensitive information and introduces a public interest test, only the Commission can appeal disclosure refusals and only judicial review principles, not merits review, apply.

Families rights to truth under articles two and three of the therefore remain vulnerable. Outstanding cases such as that of Sean Brown, highlight the need for full, independent investigations. Courts have confirmed that article two inquiry is required, yet none has been convened. Concerns also remain about universal protections. The veterans appear singled out, potentially undermining fairness. Can the Secretary of State clarify how the bill will ensure that protections apply equally, and that no group is seen as prioritised. Over victims and families? Additionally, the bill states that human rights are to be respected rather than imposing a binding obligation.

Clearer language would strengthen accountability and reassure the public that all bodies must comply fully with the act. Will the government make this explicit? Finally, independence in appointments, particularly of judicial panels, is. Panel members is essential. The Secretary of State's broad appointment and resignation powers risk perceptions of political influence. Strong safeguards are needed to maintain trust. So in conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker, while the bill and the remedial order marked progress, significant issues remain around disclosure, independence inquiries and universal protections.

I urge the Minister to clarify how the bill will rebuild trust and ensure fairness, transparency and full human rights compliance for victims and for families. Thank you, John Lamont.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. We rely on British soldiers to keep our country safe. They put their our country safe. They put their lives on the line to defend our country, and they put themselves in country, and they put themselves in harm's way to do so. But there is a shadow that hangs over our armed
17:36
John Lamont Portrait John Lamont MP (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk, Conservative)
-
-
shadow that hangs over our armed forces today. And it's this bill. As a member of the Petitions Committee back in July, I had the privilege of proposing the debate on the petition to protect Northern Ireland veterans from prosecution. It was inspirational to see so many veterans come to Parliament for that debate. And again, here today in Parliament Square and in the gallery. We see veterans gathered in opposition to this dreadful piece of legislation. By the time that petition closed, it had over 200,000 signatures.

I had the honour of meeting the petition creator, Ian Lyle, who spent 36 years in the army, including 13 in Northern Ireland. It was his palpable anger against this bill that caused him to start the petition. The decision by this Labour government to repeal the Legacy Act is one which will shame our country for generations to come, no matter what the Minister has said. This bill means one thing veterans face being dragged through the courts in politically motivated witch hunts.

In fact, the Prime Minister's own Northern Ireland veterans tsar has said it is immoral, two tier justice and will lead to vexatious lawfare against former soldiers. I was struck by the comments of Lieutenant General Nicholas Pope, who was forced to correct the Secretary of State for claiming he supported this bill. This bill sets a dangerous historical precedent. Stroud. Are we really saying that if the government today sent our troops to Ukraine, or any other country for that matter, they could be held to account in years to come for simply following the instructions given to them by the government of the day.

If that is the case, why would anyone choose to serve for our country again? Decades on, people sit and judge events in retrospect with little new evidence, and come to conclusions entirely at odds with the legal investigations carried out at the time. We should

**** Possible New Speaker ****

happily give way. I thank my honourable. Friend for giving way. Bognor Regis and Littlehampton

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bognor Regis and Littlehampton is a coastal constituency with a strong. Forces condition tradition.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

strong. Forces condition tradition. Many served in Northern Ireland and they are now terrified of. Being pulled into a process

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Being pulled into a process which continues with no end. So, would my hon. Friend agree that we would my hon. Friend agree that we owe these veterans as a process

**** Possible New Speaker ****

owe these veterans as a process which is fair, proportionate, and final? My honourable. Friend makes an excellent point. Of course it is the fear. It is the prospect of being dragged through that process which is causing so much anxiety, and I suspect, is why much anxiety, and I suspect, is why so many of the veterans are so strongly opposed to this bill. Madam Deputy Speaker, we should Madam Deputy Speaker, we should also be clear about the difference between the actions of soldiers and those of terrorists.

When terrorists get up in the morning, terrorists get up in the morning, they go out with murderous intent to use violence to attack our to use violence to attack our democracy and our nation. Soldiers do not. They put themselves in harm's way to keep people safe and harm's way to keep people safe and to protect our nation. The difference is the intent. Soldiers serving our country, whether in serving our country, whether in Northern Ireland or in any other conflict, are forced to make instant life or death decisions.

They are not. Lawyers sat behind a desk, able to gather a team and spend days to decide whether to act or not. The Legacy Act was by no means perfect, but it is better than a disgraceful spectacle of veterans being dragged through the courts. Madam Deputy Speaker, there are nearly 2 million veterans across our country. The sad truth is that many feel that their service is no longer respected. Veterans are only demanding protection for following orders from high command and from vexatious, politically charged lawsuits.

Our armed forces are extraordinary men and women who keep us safe, who go on difficult missions in dangerous and challenging places. We must defend those who defended us. And that is why I oppose this bill so strongly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Katrina Murray. Thank you. Speaker. Kilsyth War

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Speaker. Kilsyth War Memorial bears the names of the men of the town who lost their lives in foreign war. Men whose service we recognise and remember every year on VE day, V-J Day and Remembrance Sunday. But on one face of that Sunday. But on one face of that memorial sits a single, solitary name, a name set apart. And the difference between this name and difference between this name and the others is stark. The son of Kilsyth also lost his name.

His
17:40
Katrina Murray Portrait Katrina Murray MP (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch, Labour)
-
-
Kilsyth also lost his name. His life in the service of his country. In his case, he was killed by the provisional IRA in the town where his family still live, where his school friends are currently marking their significant birthdays. His name on that memorial is a reminder that his life, and the ultimate sacrifice he made will not be forgotten. Just two miles down the road lives another family. They too lost a loved one, a cousin killed in an ambush by loyalist paramilitaries in the 90s.

I found out I've known about the military death for a long time. It was one of the first things I found out about as I became a candidate. I discovered about the other one when we went, when we met families as a part of a select committee, visits to Belfast, and one of the families that we met went, I know your area. I spent summers there. My cousin lives in Kirkintilloch. And it reminded me of exactly how how strong the links between my part of the world and Ireland are.

I mean, you'd think with a name like mine you'd actually recognise that there is a there is a very strong connection, but we are completely intertwined, which means that we know those families who lost loved ones during the Troubles. We know the lack of answers that they have had, the grief, that grief that still endures and is still raw. But the select committee inquiry told us it didn't matter who we actually spoke to amongst victims and survivors and families.

The message was the same. They told us about the loved ones. They told us what they knew about the brutal ways in which their lives had been taken. And they told us again and again and again that they wanted legislation that respected them, that treated them with dignity, that took them seriously. They wanted answers. And the current previous government's Legacy Act did not deliver that. It rode roughshod over the wishes of families and victims and survivors. It made promises to the armed forces it could never deliver, and the mechanism that it created, despite the intentions of all of the people working within it, inspired little confidence that families would be treated with the dignity, the seriousness that they deserved.

Which is why I welcome this bill, because it does put families at its heart. It recognises that victims and survivors and the people that this legislation must serve, it recognises that members of the security forces have also victims and survivors. It builds the need to reflect into the process, to stay engaged with those families, to keep it right, and those with those experiences across the board have not necessarily been good in the past, where they have had inquests, they have been nothing more than tick box exercises.

They spoke to us. We heard of anger, frustration and despair. They told us those stories for the first time of us hearing it, but not the first time they told it, because they've been saying it for decades upon decades in the hope for change. I thank every single one of them for sharing it with us. I think the other part of this legislation which commends it is the fact that it recommends that if Scotland is a village, Northern Ireland is an even smaller one and everybody is interrelated.

It builds on the best, the best aspects of Operation Kenova and one of those big strengths to make this work. Like any piece of legislation. The bill is not perfect, but it's a step in the right direction, a necessary step along a long overdue step, and one for the sake of those victims, those survivors and those families. We cannot afford to get wrong.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Iain Duncan Smith. Here. Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise to support my frontbench in their concerns about the present concerns about the present legislation. Three facts stand out that the bill does not protect veterans from criminal cases, even repeated ones, because this means, essentially through this bill, that they are likely to be dragged they are likely to be dragged through the criminal process multiple times if accused of wrongdoing, or even to give
17:45
Iain Duncan Smith Portrait Rt Hon Sir Iain Duncan Smith MP (Chingford and Woodford Green, Conservative)
-
-
wrongdoing, or even to give evidence. Secondly, Labour's protections for veterans can barely be called protections, and the government have denied that they exist at all. In a sense. In fact, these protections veterans remain unclear as to how they will actually work in practice to protect veterans. While the Irish Deputy Prime Minister, Simon Harris, has said no additional protections will be given to veterans. So there's a conflict there between the two parties to these agreements. And it also remains unclear if the protections for veterans in the New Legacy deal will protect paramilitaries and terrorists alike.

And interestingly, my right hon. Friend in the Dispatch Box did ask the question of the Secretary of State, and he never answered it, and I'd be grateful if at some point he'd like to answer this or the Minister gets up. Do these protections extend to both sides of this issue? But the main point I really want to make today is having served in Northern Ireland, was also the how people quickly forget just what a peculiar and terrible event it was so peculiar because to have British troops on the ground in the United Kingdom, in the United Kingdom, with British citizens all around them having to keep the peace in a part of this United Kingdom, it seemed almost outrageous.

But that is what we were called to do. We had strict rules of engagement, and these were very tough at times to follow because of the nature of the threat and what could happen around the corner. You never knew whether if you went to a house that there would be somebody sniping at you or shooting at you, and that played on the senses and alertness of those soldiers. Sure, mistakes will have been made, but that was the very nature of the background as to why that would happen.

And I say this simply on the basis I will give one.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For giving away. He makes a very important distinction in the manner in which we deployed our soldiers, in which we deployed our soldiers, what he is described as a policing action, and there is very different requirements and scrutiny about delivering a scrutiny. And does he not find it incredulous that other members of his party are conflating members of his party are conflating that with the concerns that we would be placing upon our future veterans who would be fighting a conflict where we hope that those force that those soldiers act forwards in a way that is entirely different to that which is described.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

described. Well, I'm not going to if he doesn't mind, follow him down that road, because I simply want to road, because I simply want to reflect on what happened here. The reality is, lots of many people, as veterans, believe that that will be veterans, believe that that will be a problem for future recruits, but I'm not going to follow them down that road if he wants, because I that road if he wants, because I have a limited amount of time and I just want to reflect on something here.

I was, in actual fact, not in favour of the previous legislation favour of the previous legislation by the previous government at the time, because I felt that equating this by giving rights to both sides to avoid any prosecutions would not necessarily work. I was, however, persuaded finally, in the final analysis by one particular case and the hon. Gentleman that spoke earlier mentioned Robert Nairac. Robert Nairac was a very good friend of mine, and I came to the conclusion that there was no way on earth that we were ever going to find out what actually happened to this brave soldier who served in Northern Ireland.

We've had bits and pieces to relay the fact that he was almost certainly tortured, that he was executed. But then we don't ever get to know how his parents died never knowing, and his family still wonder what happened to him. Was he ever buried? Was it true that he was cut up and that somehow spread? And nobody wants to own up to it? And it strikes me that as long as there was a likelihood that somebody would be prosecuted for that, we will never know or get closure on this at all.

And I was persuaded on the grounds of that, that really it was a time to shift from the way we were behaving, where we were dragging soldiers through inquiries and into the courts. And as soldier F even now tells us that it is unlikely that we will achieve. What everyone here keeps talking about is justice. What we'll achieve is a permanent state of anxiety and nobody getting justice in the course of this. And it struck me that was the one. The only thing we could do was to get to the root of the problems, get those cases to be explained, get those who were involved in them to tell the families what happened, why it happened, and therefore at some point they would at least have a clearance in terms of their knowledge and understanding of why these things took place.

I wish we knew where he lay. If he lies at all, anywhere, I wish his family knew. And there are many other soldiers in those circumstances, as well as civilians to terrorism. And the brutality of the IRA was something appalling. And yet we are still arguing about it even today. I also take us back about a month to Norman Tebbit's funeral. Norman Tebbit. I remember when he watched the person that set the bomb and blew up the ground and brighten up.

He watched as he walked free and I remember him saying to me afterwards. He said it was the worst moment in my life. I went through all of this. I had injuries, he said, because this man went free because we had to get peace in Northern Ireland. But my wife will never be free because she is immobilised for the rest of her life. And I have to live with that with her. We are both trapped in what happened in those seconds at the bombing.

I think for his sake and for everything else, he recognised finally, horrible as it was, that there was a necessary compromise to be made and all I simply say the attacks on the previous legislation forget that this was about trying to get truth and reconciliation and learning from other countries like South Africa. Difficult and problematic as it is, I simply say to the government, there are major faults in this legislation and I hope that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

he will. The Secretary of State will respect the fact that amendments will be made and he will accept many of them. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. David Smith. Speaker. Just over 20 years ago, in my red Vauxhall Corsa.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

red Vauxhall Corsa. I rounded the bend at the bottom of the Woodstock Road, Belfast, and drove straight into the pregnant drove straight into the pregnant pause in the middle of a riot. To my left, a baying mob of East Belfast young east Belfast men, and Belfast young east Belfast men, and to my right, a baying mob of young men from the Short Strand. They were being kept apart by a British were being kept apart by a British Army unit gathered around a group of armoured Land Rovers.

As I was my window down, I heard a crunch as my tyres passed over the bricks and debris, and the worry must have been written across my face. You
17:52
David Smith Portrait David Smith MP (North Northumberland, Labour)
-
-
been written across my face. You see, Madam Deputy Speaker, the pause in that moment was pregnant in more ways than one. Above all, because my heavily pregnant wife, sitting next to me in the passenger seat, managing her contractions with breathing exercises as I told the nearest soldier of her need to get to the hospital on the other side of town, and crucially, on the other side of the road. In what that brief moment of relative calm, the soldier made a split second decision and waved us through.

I did not need further invitation and before long we were safe. In the maternity wing of the Belfast Royal Hospital. Later that day, our first child, our daughter, was born and we called our Belle of Belfast City. Ever since Madam Deputy Speaker, I will always be thankful for that soldier's decision, but even more so that he and his colleagues were there that day to keep us safe in the first place. I'd moved to Belfast four years earlier to begin my first proper job running the Presbyterian Church in Ireland's first ever youth Peace and Reconciliation programme.

It was in this new job, in a new city, in what seemed like a new Northern Ireland, just three years after the Good Friday Agreement, and it was a hopeful time. There was an appetite from the vast majority of the population to enter a new and peaceful era for that country. There was also a realisation that the horrors of the Troubles had to be processed and dealt with yes, by the individuals directly impacted, but also Northern Irish society as a whole. And yet here we are, 20 years on from that moment, still talking about making a serious start on dealing with the legacy of the Troubles.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I can say with confidence that the Legacy Act did not do that. It did not help with that legacy. It meant that 200 military families, for example, were left in limbo, unable to pursue the truth of what happened to their loved ones. Families like that. Mo Norton, whose brother Terence Griffin was killed in the M62 bus bombing in 1974, and who said, and I quote that morning everything changed. 12 lives were lost, including children. Our family was shattered.

There was no warning, no chance to say goodbye, just silence. And then years of unanswered questions. I need to know that Terence's death has been fully investigated. I do not think it has been properly investigated in the past. Madam Deputy Speaker honourable soldiers follow the law and are glad to do so. And that is what made my grandpa a good soldier. And what makes the British Armed forces its outstanding reputation. As strange as it may sound, though, I am pleased that we are debating the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill here today.

Today represents the possibility of a huge step forward. I believe, in the bonds of these islands that we share. That is why I am a Unionist. But I think our relationship with the Republic of Ireland matters deeply, and the joint framework of the Irish and UK government states that the governments recognise that legacy must be addressed across these islands as a whole. I welcome that. Our challenge, Madam Deputy Speaker, is that we need to hold on to reconciliation. Reconciliation is only mentioned once in this bill, and we must hold on to the principle.

We see it's it's hard, obviously, reconciliation. No one in Northern Ireland came out of the Troubles completely untouched, and the pain can twist down the generations. Truth alone isn't enough for a community to reconcile. There must be trust, a resetting of our relationship. And that doesn't happen without acknowledgement, without memorialisation, and even in some cases, without repentance. We need community spaces, moments and symbols which do that. We know that no one can make anyone reconcile, and the government certainly can't. But at the same time, governments have the resources, the convening power, the cross-cutting responsibilities to empower and enable those moments, spaces and symbols that can foster social reconciliation.

We saw that in the late Queen's visit to Dublin Castle. So I welcome that commitment. But we need more detail and we need it more quickly. To be quite honest. And to be clear, we need commitments from the other parties to this conflict that we have not talked about enough today, specifically the provisional IRA, the UVF, the UDA and all other militant terrorist groups. They need to make a commitment and acknowledge what they did. So I thank my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, for this very welcome legislation which seeks truth.

I simply urge him to think creatively and ambitiously about how the government can now help turn truth into genuine reconciliation and hope for Northern Ireland's future.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

With an. Immediate four. Minute time limit. Cameron Thomas.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thomas. Good evening, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have the. Honour that in 107. Years of the Royal Air Force.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Years of the Royal Air Force. Police, I'm. The first. Of. Its. Veterans elected to. This House. Our armed forces.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Our armed forces. Are revered worldwide. Because they train. And execute. One thing to a higher standard than anybody else. The moral component, discipline and the will to fight. Without these the will to fight. Without these two principles, an effective fighting force descends into what we see from the Russian military in we see from the Russian military in Ukraine the extrajudicial killing of civilians, soldiers motivated of civilians, soldiers motivated not by an objective but by fear of their own colleagues and commanders, and the routine humiliation, torture and murder of their own colleagues.

We must hold our armed forces to a higher standard than forces to a higher standard than our adversaries, because they are better than those adversaries. They better than those adversaries. They must be expected to act within the law when they act outside the law. But in good faith they must be But in good faith they must be defended, recognising the unique pressures under which they operate. Because if there are no consequences for breaking the law whilst in uniform, then no longer would we pledge to protect our own troops from the retribution of their own commanders, from illegal orders or poor leadership, whether in Northern Ireland or Afghanistan.

No longer would we stand by our statement before the world in Nuremberg 80 years ago that just following orders does not excuse war crimes. Private Brian Soden, from Tewkesbury, was only 20 years
17:58
Cameron Thomas Portrait Cameron Thomas MP (Tewkesbury, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
old when he lost his life on his third deployment to Northern Ireland. Like so many others, he was murdered in an ambush by cowardly paramilitaries and those cowardly paramilitaries and those who bravely served in Northern Ireland did so under the constant threat of an enemy often disguised threat of an enemy often disguised as a civilian, lurking and awaiting an opportunity to kill them. Our an opportunity to kill them. Our Northern Ireland veterans should be in no doubt that this country will in no doubt that this country will continue to distinguish their noble service from the deceitful and inhumane paramilitary terrorism inhumane paramilitary terrorism they stood and fought against here.

To do that, the IRA cannot be the To do that, the IRA cannot be the barometer. We cannot resolve to hold our troops to the same standard that they hold their terrorists. To do so would not only legitimise terrorism, it would sell legitimise terrorism, it would sell out. Those who conducted themselves with honour, those conservative with honour, those conservative members who last week a debate around remembrance to score political points around this bill, political points around this bill, neglected to recognise that we are only here because their Northern Ireland Troubles Bill was a hash and satisfied none of the parties to whom it applied.

Some of those who spoke in that debate referenced a letter printed in the Times the day before Armistice Day, written by eight retired generals and one retired air chief marshal, under whom I taught the Law of Armed Conflict to RAF recruits. The signatories asserted that the Northern Ireland Bill tears up our contract with our personnel, that today every member of the British Armed Forces must consider not only the enemy in front, but the lawyer behind it paints an emotive image, but it's misleading.

I served for 23 years and from the very beginning, and every year thereafter, I was reminded that I had to act within the law and that if I acted outside the law but in good faith, I would be protected by the law. I'd be delighted to, and very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. For the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Past few months, when I was the Northern Ireland spokesperson for my party, I engaged with lots of different veterans groups who tell me that they are very keen in this legislation to see or to recognise legislation to see or to recognise that as service personnel, they went to Northern Ireland to restore the rule of law. They recognised they should be subject to the possibility of prosecution, but that prosecution should never turn into persecution. Given the argument the gentleman is making,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

argument the gentleman is making, how does he see those two points? Reconciling with with his own issues that he recognises? I thank him for raising that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him for raising that point and he's absolutely right. We we went there to secure peace against terrorists, and the law should always recognise the difference between the actions of difference between the actions of our soldiers and those of the terrorists they stood against. So I terrorists they stood against. So I always knew that I had to act within the law, but that if I broke the law in good faith, I would be the law in good faith, I would be protected by that law.

Now, if to the minds of those who signed that letter, this bill undermines that letter, this bill undermines that contract, then not only have they declined to clearly identify where, but I cannot find it myself. If but I cannot find it myself. If this wider debate is about supporting our veterans and our armed forces, then members will armed forces, then members will find an ally in me. But if what they really seek is to absolve personnel of responsibility for alleged war crimes, including those against United Kingdom citizens, then let them say it aloud.

The worst I can say about this bill is that while I recognise the shortcomings of its preceding legislation, the government does not have the support of the Veterans Commissioners. Can the Minister clarify which, if any, veterans groups have approved the bill in its current format? Furthermore, by opting with convention rather than bringing this bill to a full public bill committee, the government has declined the opportunity for a full line by line parliamentary

**** Possible New Speaker ****

oversight and cross-party collaboration. Fiat Justitia. Alex Ballinger.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Alex Ballinger. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I come to this debate today as many members on both sides of the House members on both sides of the House do. As someone who was proud to serve my country and someone who has the utmost respect for those has the utmost respect for those members who served in Northern Ireland on Op Banner. For me, this debate is complex, but at its heart are two simple questions how do we respond to trauma and how do we uphold accountability? Because the wounds of the Troubles are still raw.

And I saw this earlier this year when I visited Northern Ireland and went to the Wave Trauma Ireland and went to the Wave Trauma Centre and met many people who were still experiencing that trauma. I met victims of the Troubles whose met victims of the Troubles whose only crime was being in the wrong place at the wrong time. People who lost parents, people who lost limbs, lost parents, people who lost limbs, and people whose lives were irreversibly changed by the violence they had no part in. I met violence they had no part in.

I met Alex Bunting, a taxi driver who was going about his day when a sudden explosion tore his vehicle apart explosion tore his vehicle apart and severed his left leg in 1991, an attack that was never solved but
18:03
Alex Ballinger Portrait Alex Ballinger MP (Halesowen, Labour)
-
-
an attack that was never solved but assumed to be an IRA operation that struck the wrong target. Or Kathleen Gillespie, who was held hostage by the IRA with her children while her husband Patsy was changed to a cab and forced to drive a lorry at an army checkpoint that killed him and five young soldiers. Patsy was used by the IRA as a human bomb, and Kathleen was angry with the last government because she felt his barbaric death had been treated like it had never happened.

Under the last government's Legacy Act. Alex deserves answers, Kathleen deserves answers, and both deserve accountability, and so do many others, not only in Belfast but here in Britain too. Families in the West Midlands who are still seeking answers after the Birmingham pub bombings of 1974 that took 21 young, innocent lives half a century on, their trauma remains and those families still wait for justice. And this is why accountability matters. Accountability for the terrorists, including the IRA, who carried out the overwhelming majority of killings, but also accountability for our own armed forces when standards were not upheld.

But the Conservatives Legacy Act of 2003 2023 undermined every route for accountability. Most gravely, it created a system of conditional immunity for members of the IRA, effectively a blanket amnesty for anyone who was willing to cooperate with the commission. This is not justice. It places terrorists and those who served our country on the same moral footing. Families were appalled, and rightly so. Audrey, whose brother, Private Winston Donnell, was murdered by the IRA in 1971, said we always had a very slim hope of getting justice, but this amnesty has let us and other families down.

Our government has led us down badly. Victims of IRA terrorism and victims of state wrongdoing deserve that opportunity for accountability. And it is absolutely right that no veteran should be dragged through repeated processes over the same matters again and again, which is why the new protections set out in this bill are so important, and why they make a genuine improvement. Putting veterans welfare first. They are important, sensible and overdue protections for the veterans that overwhelmingly served with honour and distinction.

Madam Deputy Speaker, the legislation we debate today seeks to fix the grave failings of the Conservative's 2023 Discredited Legacy Act. It helps victims pursue justice. It restores the chance of accountability for terrorist crimes and provide stronger protections for veterans than anything in the previous government's approach.
18:05
18:05
18:06
Carla Lockhart Portrait Carla Lockhart MP (Upper Bann, Democratic Unionist Party)
-
-
ruthless and bloody terrorist campaign. Their pain has not diminished and neither will our determination to defend truth, determination to defend truth, justice and moral clarity. Yet, Madam Deputy Speaker, we continue to hear attempts to justify or sanitise and romanticise terrorism. We hear repeatedly from Sinn Fein's We hear repeatedly from Sinn Fein's leadership, from the so-called self-proclaimed First Minister for all and for Mary Lou McDonald. Like all and for Mary Lou McDonald. Like that, there somehow was no alternative to the IRA's barbaric campaign of violence and that it campaign of violence and that it was justified.

Justified. That is an affront to every innocent family whose loved one was murdered. There whose loved one was murdered. There was always an alternative to murder. There was always an alternative to placing bombs under cars, and there placing bombs under cars, and there was always an alternative to shooting innocent men, women and children. I want to take this house children. I want to take this house back to 1987. Two significant events the IRA bombing of the Service of Remembrance at the Service of Remembrance at the Cenotaph in Enniskillen, killing 12 people and injuring at least 60 people and injuring at least 60 more, and the SAS engagement of heavy, heavily armed terrorists in Loughgall in my constituency.

Which Loughgall in my constituency. Which one of these incidents do you think was granted a public inquiry? Not the murder of innocents and the murder of innocents and injuring of many more, or the heavily armed terror gang rightly engaged by the security forces and eliminating saving countless lives in the process. Such is the subversion of the legacy process in Northern Ireland, that the murder of innocents at Enniskillen has never had a public inquiry. In recent times, the Secretary of State visited Loughgall and heard directly from innocent victims of the IRA's East Tyrone Brigade, one of the most brutal, ruthless killing wings of the IRA.

He spoke with two men whose families endured unimaginable suffering at the hands of some of the IRA's most notorious killers. Their testimonies were powerful and deeply moving. The East Tyrone Brigade were not freedom fighters. They were heavily armed terror unit having already killed hundreds of innocent people, they mounted a killing operation at local, intending to obliterate any RUC officer in that station. They never paused. In their murderous intent, they did not stop to give any officer an opportunity to walk away.

Madam Deputy Speaker, terrorism must never be sanitised or justified. Those who defended the innocent must never be sacrificed to appease those who glorify violence.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And we. Expect the Secretary of State's promises to the House today State's promises to the House today that this legislation would enable some of those people and their some of those people and their supporters to be included in the advice the Victims Advisory group. And indeed, if he consulted the And indeed, if he consulted the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland, the leader of the Alliance Party, she would say, yes, they should, because they're innocent

**** Possible New Speaker ****

should, because they're innocent victims as much as the people who killed. Absolutely point well made. This

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Absolutely point well made. This bill speaks of inquest and we firmly believe every family deserves a full and fair investigation. But really local. investigation. But really local. Not only has it been to the ECHR and the UK found to be justified, but it's actually getting a second inquest. How does that make innocent victims feel? There must innocent victims feel? There must be no more vexatious pursuit of the security forces, and this bill security forces, and this bill doesn't protect them.

Only 10% of trouble related deaths were caused by the security forces, and almost all of those occurred in engagements with terrorists. Yet the narrative we hear today is the narrative we hear today is deliberately inverted. There is no comparison, none between terrorists and those who stood as a human and those who stood as a human shield in their path. The SAS soldiers who served in Loughgall deserve this government's full support. Madam Deputy Speaker, the government have also allowed the Irish government an entirely disproportionate role in shaping legacy.

While innocent victims here in Northern Ireland are feel sidelined, they. And let us be very clear, the Irish state has its own legacy a dark, uncomfortable legacy which has yet to confront with honesty or transparency. This is the same state whose own tribunal, the Smithwick Tribunal, found collusion between members of the Garda Siochana and the IRA and the murders of Chief Superintendent Barry Harry Breen and Superintendent Bob Buchanan. Two senior RUC officers were ambushed and executed after information was passed by the Irish police to terrorists.

The same with Ian Sproule, 23 year old, from Castlederg. These are not isolated incidents. A cross border areas families have credible concerns about the Irish state failures, failures to arrest, failures to extradite, failures to share intelligence, failures that allowed terrorists to flee across the border and live openly. Madam Deputy Speaker, we will stand with every innocent family whose loved ones was murdered. We will stand with the RUC. We will stand with the UDR, we will stand with our veterans and we will stand with the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sass. Terrorism was wrong. It was never justified and it cannot be sanitised. Graeme Downie.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Graeme Downie. Thank you, Madam Deputy. Speaker. I want to take you. Back. To a Saturday. In March.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In March. In 1993, I was getting. Ready to. Leave the house on a little blue sprinter bus that would stop

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sprinter bus that would stop outside the house. And take me into town. I was. Meeting some. Friends there.
18:11
18:11
18:11
Graeme Downie Portrait Graeme Downie MP (Dunfermline and Dollar, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

computer. I would. Normally be playing. Football on Sunday as well, but city. So I'd stopped.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Playing just as I was about to leave the house. Madam Deputy Speaker, my mum. Told me. I wasn't going. I was. 11 years old and. Utterly indignant. The rage was ready to go, but an emergency news bulletin. Was on the TV instead.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Was on the TV instead. Rare then, but almost unheard of now, the newsreader said a bomb had. Exploded in.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Exploded in. anywhere. Later, news bulletin. Said the IRA had carried. Out a. Bombing, just.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bombing, just. As they had when they. Detonated the bomb. An industrial site. In the town a few weeks before. There was no social.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There was no social. Media and. Not really. Much more information. Or even rumours. News that night indicated.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

News that night indicated. Deaths and multiple casualties. The town centre was closed off. not.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Overly so. I'd grown up in an RAF base. I was very. Used to threats. From the IRA bombings. I was

**** Possible New Speaker ****

From the IRA bombings. I was used to checking my car and I was. Also aware of these kind of this kind of language being used in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

news. The next day. Madam Deputy Speaker, I went out to walk Jem at the park as I planned a huge. A huge part with.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A huge part with. Football fields, and I saw someone, I think it was Gary who I used to play football with and asked him.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

asked him. Why the team wasn't playing. That day. He said the game was cancelled because one of the boys in our team had.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in our team had. Been critically. Injured in the bomb attack. And was in hospital. Madam Deputy Speaker, this was

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker, this was the first time I'd. Heard that the unnamed boy was in fact my friend Tim Parry, and that. He was in intensive. Care, having suffered life

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Care, having suffered life threatening injuries. On Saturday, the 20th of March, the day before Mother's Day, I grabbed the lead on Jem and ran home.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Jem and ran home. Flushed, not. Crying, not even sad. An 11 year old boy who just didn't know how to respond and was.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

respond and was. Totally. Overwhelmed, not knowing what to think. I crashed through the front door while I was out. My mum had

**** Possible New Speaker ****

door while I was out. My mum had had a phone call from a friend. Telling her what had happened. I didn't feel anything, I was

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I didn't feel anything, I was numb, I don't. Remember anything of my reaction or anyone else's. With the hindsight of 32 years, the news

**** Possible New Speaker ****

five days. Later. On 25th March that I now realise was inevitable. Tim had died after his life support machine was turned off. Another young boy, three year old Johnathan Ball, had died at the scene of the bombing. I missed Tim's funeral. I was back with my family in Scotland, something I regret to this day. Madam Deputy Speaker I do not know what happened in Warrington in 1993, other than someone I was friends with and played football with every week.

Had been killed since that day in Warrington. I have tried to understand. At university I studied the politics of violence. I completed my dissertation on the politics of paramilitaries. I worked in Northern Ireland and as part of that had to meet and shake the hand of some of the people from the IRA, ultimately responsible for the deaths of both Tim Parry and. Jonathan Ball. Madam Deputy Speaker. Prior to giving this speech, I messaged Colin Parry, Tim's dad, whom I remember as being one of many parents shouting support from the sidelines during football matches.

I wanted him to know that I still think about that day and I still want answers. I do not seek revenge and I do not think the Parry family ever expect to get justice. But I do want answers, and so do hundreds of others who have lost family, friends or loved ones arising from horrific violence in Northern Ireland. Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope that this legislation will be able to deliver that information in truth, that those people deserve those innocent victims who, like Colin and Wendy Parry, still live with the pain and injustice of what they have endured for so many decades.

And Madam Deputy Speaker, if this legislation is an attempt at even helping one person, then I believe that everything should be tried and this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

should be considered more than a worthwhile effort. It Sarah Pochin. Thank you,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It Sarah Pochin. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to acknowledge all the brave veterans here today and thank them veterans here today and thank them for their service to this country. I grew up in the height of the I grew up in the height of the Troubles in Northern Ireland, in a deeply patriotic household with a father who served in the British father who served in the British Army. I remember watching the news when the IRA blew up Lord Mountbatten in 1979, and the effect Mountbatten in 1979, and the effect it had on my father when the IRA blew up Airey Neave again in 1979 blew up Airey Neave again in 1979 at the gates of Westminster.

I remember watching the horrific
18:15
Sarah Pochin Portrait Sarah Pochin MP (Runcorn and Helsby, Reform UK)
-
-
remember watching the horrific footage of 11 soldiers and seven horses blown up in Hyde Park in 1982. I remember watching the news when the IRA tried to blow up mrs. Thatcher in 1984 at the Grand Hotel in Brighton, killing five innocent people watching the news when they bombed the Baltic Exchange in the City of London in 1992, killing three, injuring 91, with Semtex the biggest bomb to be detonated on mainland Britain since World War two. Watching the news when they bombed central Manchester in 1996, wreaking havoc and injuring 200 innocent civilians.

And there were many more. But I was only watching the news on the television. What I like so many of us voting on this bill today, have no experience of, is the horrors on the ground that our brave veterans faced in this war against terrorism. Like so many of our veterans, my father did not speak of his tours in Northern Ireland. He did not speak of what he did or what he saw. He did not speak of the risks he took.

It was simply his job and his duty. My father is no longer with us, but I know he is watching me make this speech, watching me speak on behalf of our brave veterans, many of whom are watching these proceedings today, watching me speak out as to the injustice of them facing prosecution for simply following orders. These brave men served their Queen, their country and their regiments. Without question. They risked their lives to protect us. And yet now, in their retirement years, they are facing prosecution from this Labour government and their shameful Northern Ireland Troubles Bill.

The Good Friday Agreement was undoubtedly a historic achievement, but I remember watching the television with my parents when the Queen shook hands with Martin McGuinness and finding it so hard to watch, watching the prosecutions of our veterans when IRA terrorists were given comfort letters and immunity from prosecution has been equally hard to stomach, and the existence of the Public Coroner's Court in this legislation to appease Republicans is nothing short of enabling show trials to demonise our veterans.

All applications should be heard by the Legacy Commission and the Legacy Commission alone. This legislation is wrong, it's unfair, and moreover, it will dissuade young men and women from considering a career in the armed forces at a time when we are already struggling to recruit, we have benefited from years of relative peace in this country. But now, more than ever, the government needs to be prepared for hostilities, needs to be prepared to defend this country and its citizens. In a recent joint letter to the Prime Minister, nine four star general said that with this legislation, British soldiers need not worry only about the enemy in front.

But the lawyers behind how powerful are those Calvin Bailey?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is an important and necessary
18:19
Calvin Bailey Portrait Mr Calvin Bailey MP (Leyton and Wanstead, Labour)
-
-
bill. It is needed to repair the legally and morally flawed Legacy Act passed by the previous government. That act created confusion and by and and an already complex and sensitive area of law, history and military doctrine. And it made impossible promises offering a route for immunity for terrorists who killed British citizens on British soil. What is worse is that those who created that mess now seek to mislead the veterans by portraying this bill as some form of injustice.

It is despicable. As a veteran, I thank all of those who served during Operation Banner, and I understand the genuine concern in the veteran community that these issues have reopened, and I hope we hear some humility from those opposite who caused this situation. This government has had no option but to clean up the consequences of the previous bill, and it is difficult and sensitive work, but necessary if we are to address veterans concerns properly and to restore credibility.

That view is shared by the Veterans Commissioner for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, who have recognised the constructive engagement that they have had with the Ministers. And I welcome that spirit of honesty and collaboration. In that same vein, I am proud to represent the position of the Royal British Legion as the chair of the Armed Forces Parliamentary Group for the Armed Forces community. The RBL has said that the government's commitment to introducing safeguards for veterans is necessary. The legislation must protect veterans from repeated investigations while ensuring bereaved armed forces families can continue to pursue answers to their long standing, longstanding question.

If you had been here during the debate, yes, I would, but no, you can sit down and listen. Those two principles.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Or the hon. Gentleman knows

**** Possible New Speaker ****

better than to use the word you in those circumstances. Calvin Bailey Madam Deputy. Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speaker. Those two principles protected from repeated investigation by giving family families proper giving family families proper answers, must sit at the heart of this bill. And we know the previous government's act shut down government's act shut down investigations into the deaths of our armed forces personnel and our armed forces personnel and denied answers to hundreds of families. Its conditional immunity scheme was ruled unlawful by the Northern Ireland High Court, Northern Ireland High Court, leaving us with the need for a new and credible approach.

In that and credible approach. In that spirit, the Royal British Legion has proposed several improvements. First, the provision of giving First, the provision of giving evidence remotely, anonymously and with welfare protections could be strengthened with clear guidance on strengthened with clear guidance on how decisions will be made. Second, it should not be left to veterans to explain the context of the events that took place in their Troubles. A senior member of the Troubles. A senior member of the Ministry of Defence should be a representative to provide factual context and describe the dangerous context and describe the dangerous situation in which our veterans found themselves.

Third, the bill rightly recognises the impact of repeated investigation and the Legacy Commission. It is important to set out clear criteria so that duplication happens rarely and only when justified. And finally, the Victims and Survivors Advisory Group rightly includes references to armed forces victims. But the bill should state explicitly that veterans or their families, of those we lost will have guaranteed representation. I thank the Ministers for their engagement so far, but I ask the Secretary of State to confirm that he will continue to actively engage with the Royal British Legion ahead of the Committee stage.

This is not just about history. It is about truth, justice and reconciliation across these islands. And it is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

about ensuring that our armed. Order Alex Easton. Thank you, Madam.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam. Deputy Chair. I rise to oppose this bill in the strongest possible terms. This bill, which has been terms. This bill, which has been weighed in the balance of justice and found gravely wanting. It, fails the test of fairness, it fails the test of fairness, it fails the test of common sense, and it fails the test of our duty to protect innocent victims and our
18:23
Alex Easton Portrait Alex Easton MP (North Down, Independent)
-
-
protect innocent victims and our veterans. Yeah. No one should underestimate the pain, the grief, and the enduring trauma that the evil of terrorism has left in our wake. Some 3500 murdered, countless others maimed, physically and psychologically condemned to lifelong suffering. It is the duty of everyone in this House to address this. Not casually, not evasively, but seriously, honestly,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and above all, with moral clarity. Oh, don't. Give way. Yes, I'll give way. Thank you for giving way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you for giving way. And in relation to accountability, that's what we all want. Justice for those victims who have never had justice. I think of have never had justice. I think of the four UDR men of Ballydugan, for instance. No justice for them. Nobody ever made accountable. My Nobody ever made accountable. My cousin Kenneth Smith, murdered by the IRA and they fled across the border. And no one ever made accountable. Does he feel that accountable. Does he feel that justice that my family wants and all the other families wants cannot be delivered through this bill?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be delivered through this bill? Alex Easton thank the Member for his comments and he's perfectly right. This bill will not give justice to innocent victims, and this moral clarity that is grievously lacking in this bill. grievously lacking in this bill. Far from delivering justice, the legislation seeks, in effect, to rewrite history. We're shamelessly, shamelessly witnessing those who stood between the innocent and the most evil terrorism in Western most evil terrorism in Western Europe has ever known, being hounded to their graves.

There are no letters of comfort for them. no letters of comfort for them. There's no opaque, invisible process quietly smoothing their path instead. Rather than naming path instead. Rather than naming and confronting terrorism, this bill constructs a grotesque false equivalence between those who wore equivalence between those who wore the uniform of the Crown and those who sought to bomb and murder them into submission. Those who upheld the rule of law are being treated as morally indistinguishable from those who waged war against it.

This is an affront to justice and affront to truth, and affront to the memory of the victims, those who stood between us and terror deserve better than to be hounded in the autumn of their lives by legislation that blurs right and wrong, truth and falsehood. This bill, this bill fails that moral test. It fails our veterans, it fails the innocent, and it fails to cause the cause of genuine reconciliation. Justice demands that history never forgets. Those who chose the path of murderous terrorism, and those who stood in their path and defeated them.

This House has a duty not to pass legislation simply to make us feel better about the past, or for reasons of political expediency, but to pass legislation that is fair, honest and just. I'm also deeply concerned about the legacy procedures and operations outside the framework. Even if the ICRIR, such as public inquiries into national nationalist and republican cases such as Pat Finnigan, when victims of the IRA get no such inquiries, Operation Denton, which operates without any statutory framework or safeguards at all, and which has been reportedly been travelling to Dublin and disclosing UK intelligence material to campaign groups, as reported in the media last month.

Just specifically on the bill, I have serious concerns in regard to clause five. The requirement to have policing experience Northern Ireland could mean experience of being part of an external investigation team such as Canova, rather than having served in the RUC or the PSNI. It's a back door way of ushering out former members of the RUC and PSNI officers again to implicate those who would rewrite history. The Bill also provides for the chief executives to be part of the Oversight Board.

How can somebody charged with discharging operational functions simultaneously have oversight of the discharge of those functions? Finally, the purpose to have an advisory group to which the Secretary of State shall be required to have a due regard in this, is in this truth, simply a way of again loading up such an advisory group with nationalist legacy activists activist groups. Can the Secretary of State give an undertaking that, for example, such advisory groups will not be required to give an undertaking and commit to the definition of an innocent victim? Or are we going to be left in this situation with a panel whereby some participants believe that, for example, the Shankill bomber is as much a victim as those that were murdered? That's just not right.

Can the Secretary of State assure this House that new tariffs will sit in the legacy board, because it's not in the bill? And you need to clarify that. I want it in the bill. Will the Irish government give up their secrets? I very much doubt it. Let us draw a clear moral line between those who upheld the law and those who violated it. Let us protect veterans from endless vexatious complaints. Let us be honest with real victims about what can generally be achieved.

Let us pressure the historical record so that further generations know the truth about what happened. This is not just about another piece of legislation. In our desire to make progress, we must not betray the very people who carried.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. John McDonnell. The thing that seems to bind us all together is the search for the all together is the search for the truth. I just hope through this process, we might be able to agree about how we can achieve that. And about how we can achieve that. And one of my first early, one of my earliest adjournment debates was way back in 1999. It was on the way back in 1999. It was on the murder of Patrick Finucane. Only weeks before that, I'd been on a platform with Rosemary Nelson as platform with Rosemary Nelson as part of the Human Rights Campaign.

She left and weeks after was murdered by a loyalist bomb under
18:29
John McDonnell Portrait Rt Hon John McDonnell MP (Hayes and Harlington, Labour)
-
-
murdered by a loyalist bomb under her car. So we're all desperate to find the truth, because hopefully that might bring some closure. I desperately want this work, this bill, to work, so I just want to ask a number of questions about how the I believe some issues that will need to be addressed should be addressed. The first is about ECHR compliance. Clause 26 says that it deals with this, and it's basically says there will be a statement made that will be published or with regard to guidance of investigations, and the investigations will have to have regard to that statement about standards of the way in which the certain elements of the investigation will have to comply to certain rules with regard to the behaviour that narrows it towards the ECHR.

But there's no express provision. I just don't understand why there's no express provision requiring the Legacy Commission inquiries to meet standards. Clause 11 is the same. It says that human rights are to be respected rather than complied with. Why is there a change in wording from the joint framework, which was specifically about compliance, not respect, with regard to the national security veto? The Secretary of State, let's be clear, has the ability, therefore, to redact reports to families on grounds of security.

And there is a fear about potential concealment as a result. And it refers to the relevant Secretary of State. That's the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for defence, as well as the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. So some of these will be responsible for MI5 and the military intelligence who might be subject to the investigation. There's a clear conflict of interest there. I just ask the question, why not assign the decision with regard to security decisions to a judicial panel member, rather than in the hands of a Secretary of State? With regard to the appointment of staff, there's immense powers in the hands of the Secretary of State to appoint the chair of the commissioners, the director of investigation, the chief executive officer, the judicial panel.

And it says the Secretary of State has a duty to take advice from a relevant panel of persons names to be subsequently published. It's not clear who these advisers will be, what their status will be, what their experience will be. Even in addition to that, under the Stormont House bill, the Minister for justice making appointments makes it on the basis of a binding recommendation from an appointments panel of statutory office holders. Why? Why have we departed from this approach in this particular piece of legislation? Finally, as well, because there's been reference to the internment clauses of 89 and 90 in the bill.

Can I just remind the House, of course, a number of the members of the provisional IRA were interned, but it wasn't just suspected Provisionals who were imprisoned at that time. There were more general political opponents of unionism. There were members of civil rights organisations and trade unionists. And I believe they deserve justice just as much as anybody else. I'm hoping this bill, as we go into the next procedure now, there will be now some cross-party element of how we can improve this so that we can secure the confidence of all as we go forward.

If not, it will remain a matter of rancour for the future,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and I don't believe we'll be serving our constituents or anybody properly in that respect. Lincoln Jopp thank.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lincoln Jopp thank. You, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Defence. Select Committee. Visited Canberra in Australia recently and Canberra in Australia recently and for those of you who don't know, those members who don't know the geography of the place, the old
18:33
Lincoln Jopp Portrait Lincoln Jopp MP (Spelthorne, Conservative)
-
-
geography of the place, the old Parliament building looks down a row of trees across a lake to the National War Memorial, and when they built the new Parliament building in the 1980s, they pushed it back so that it had exactly the same view. And obviously, the implication being that the decisions that were made in their Parliament ended up down at the war memorial, and it was a sense of focus, and I hope that we can have that focus today. The curator of the National War Memorial said that it's quite the thing with no cameras, with no fuss on a Monday to find the Prime Minister and other members of the Cabinet on their hands and knees scrubbing the tomb to the unknown Australian soldier.

I did four tours of Northern Ireland. My first was in 1992 and I was. I spent three and a half years there trying to bring peace to that place, and on my first tour in my first week, I was manning a checkpoint just by the Divis flats, and my road man called me over. We'd had a van, a Hilux van, drive in, and he called me over and said, say to the platoon commander what you've just said to me. And I looked into the driver's eyes and he said, I've got a bomb in the back of this van.

And I knew immediately that he was lying. And the reason I knew immediately he was lying was because I had no experience there. But I had been trained, and as my grandmother used to say, an ounce of experience is worth a ton of enthusiasm. And so I know that there is no one in the Cabinet with any experience in government. I know that there's no one in the Cabinet with any experience in the military. So if only we had some people with experience who could send a message to the Cabinet that what they're doing is wrong, and maybe it would be the 210,000 who in record time filled in a petition, got a Westminster Hall debate, and the many of the veterans that were there today are they're here.

And I thank them for their presence. And I enjoyed meeting them again over in Parliament Square today. Maybe it's a 2512 veterans I have in my Spelthorne constituency who've written to me to tell me that the government are making a mistake. Or maybe it's the nine four star generals who have written to the government an open letter telling the government that they are making a mistake. And I've tried to get my head around why the government so glibly is ignoring them.

If nine former Chief Chief Superintendent wrote wrong, Chief Constable's wrote to the government and said, you really need to think again. If nine former senior bishops wrote to them and said, you really need to think again, then I find it bewildering that the government thinks it knows better than those nine four star officers who wrote saying that this bill does not offer sufficient proper protection to those who are doing their duty in good faith. And the problem is that and the Secretary of State knows this, that this piece of legislation itself is part of that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

proxy war, which answers the question, who won? Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. And it is it is a shot being fired. And our veterans, I'm afraid, are being used as chess pieces in that disgraceful proxy battle in order to relitigate and answer the order to relitigate and answer the question, who won? When we last spoke about this at Westminster Hall, I begged the Secretary of Hall, I begged the Secretary of State to listen to the veterans Minister and his advice. I can only assume from this bill that he has

**** Possible New Speaker ****

assume from this bill that he has not done so, and I will be voting against it tonight. Yes. We have unfortunately run out of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We have unfortunately run out of time for backbench contributions. I call the frontbench and I call the shadow Minister. Mark Francois.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Thank you ma'am. This has. Been a very lively and at times impassioned debate, and rightly so when we remember what's at stake, some 300,000 British soldiers some 300,000 British soldiers served in Northern Ireland on Operation Banner between 1969 and
18:37
Mark Francois Portrait Rt Hon Mark Francois MP (Rayleigh and Wickford, Conservative)
-
-
Operation Banner between 1969 and 2007. They were sent there by this House to uphold the rule of law to, in a decades long sectarian conflict, often playing piggy in the middle between two warring sets of armed paramilitaries. Thank you for your brave service. One week on from Armistice Day, we should also remember that over 700 of those soldiers were murdered by both Republican and so-called loyalist terrorists, and thousands more suffered life changing injuries at the hands of the same terrorists, who were also responsible for some 90% of all fatalities during the Troubles, most of them against innocent civilians, whether Catholic or Protestant.

Many of those who deployed on Op Banner were recruited at a young age from tough northern towns in what we would today call Red wall constituencies, from Bury to Bolton and Blackburn to Burnley, and which are currently mostly represented by Labour MPs. Ministers reassure them that their commitment to our veterans is unshakeable and then, as the veterans have highlighted in this 107 page bill, with its 98 clauses and six schedules, the veteran doesn't appear once. Moreover, the so-called six protections for veterans, which General Sir Peter Wall, a former head of the British Army, called a meaningless insult to them, also apply in the most part to paramilitaries as well a fact which Ministers are now simply too embarrassed to admit.

For context, for years, Sinn Fein and their old Comrades association, the IRA, have sought to use lawfare via a conveyor belt of coronial inquests and civil prosecutions to pursue our veterans through the courts. This is not just an attempt to punish those soldiers who bravely oppose them, much of it ironically taxpayer funded. But more broadly, it is part of a politically inspired campaign to rewrite history in the terrorists favour. It was this process that our 2023 Legacy Act effectively ended, hence why Republicans are so absolutely desperate to repeal it.

The veterans can clearly see this and are and they are genuinely mystified and indeed extremely frustrated that Ministers cannot. Moreover, the veterans are rightfully furious that Ministers are seeking to persuade their backbenchers to support this benighted legislation by telling them they are doing it at the behest of service widows to go after the IRA. I do not know a single Op Banner veteran who actually believes that assertion. And indeed the Northern Ireland Veterans movement has condemned it in their words, not mine, as completely untrue.

Very briefly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The truth is, the Secretary of State has said there's no equivalence between those who fought us and those who defended us. fought us and those who defended us. But his bill says the very opposite. Every investigation has a view to criminal prosecution. Everyone pursued will feel hounded because

**** Possible New Speaker ****

pursued will feel hounded because they will be hounded. I Rebecca Paul. Again very carefully on Sunday,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Again very carefully on Sunday, parts three, four and five are that conveyor belt I was speaking about conveyor belt I was speaking about in very clear terms. However, those who still believe Minister's claims who still believe Minister's claims here are why they are simply untenable. Firstly, because unlike our veterans who were never given our veterans who were never given letters of comfort by the Blair government, hundreds of paramilitaries were. And before paramilitaries were. And before anyone says are, those letters have no legal validity, tell that to the families of the four soldiers families of the four soldiers killed in 1982 and seven horses by the alleged Hyde Park bomber, John Downey, whose subsequent murder trial at the Old Bailey in 2014 collapsed when he produced his collapsed when he produced his letter in court and the judge promptly abandoned the proceedings.

promptly abandoned the proceedings. Indeed, that is how the existence of these hitherto secret letters, at the insistence of Gerry Adams, even came to light. Secondly, because, unlike the British state, there is no IRA records office to conveniently trawl through in order to seek files and dossiers to help bring multiple cases to court. Such notes as the IRA ever kept were burnt or shredded long ago for obvious reasons. Thirdly, after the recent acquittal of soldier F, when Judge Lynch KC, in a two hour judgement, said the evidence from 53 years ago was his phrase, well short of the standard required for a successful prosecution.

The Northern Ireland Secretary himself admitted in the House on the 3rd of November that it is vanishingly difficult to obtain convictions all these years on, so even he knows it's not credible either. Yet for the veterans, it's the process itself. The sword of Damocles hanging over their heads, often for years, often without remorse, which is the punishment as much as the eventual outcome itself. Fourthly, and crucially, because under the hood, under the Good Friday Agreement, the under the Good Friday Agreement, Northern Ireland Sentencing Act 1998, which this act does nothing to repeal, even if an alleged IRA paramilitary could be arrested, charged and successfully prosecuted many years on, and even if their likely letter of comfort was discarded, and even if they were somehow eventually convicted, the most they could serve, even for the murder of one of those soldiers would be two years.

And that's before they're given early release. And lastly, and most powerfully of all, the wives themselves have decried it. Helen Kelly, the wife of two para soldier Ned Kelly, brutally injured by a bomb on Op Banner in 1994, four years before the Good Friday Agreement, said this yesterday about the government's plans. These are her words. If Labour think I will be given closure, that's a load of rubbish. This is opening up old wounds and setting anxiety off in families for whom this has never ended.

Labour can't hide behind US military wives saying we'll get closure because we won't. It needs to remain in the past, stopping the tit for tat. We're the forgotten ones still living out that nightmare. And what about the operational effects on recruitment and retention in today's army? Our armed forces already have more people leaving than joining, and this revival of lawfare will make that worse. Bluntly, fewer people will sign up and more will leave, especially among our special forces, which is a gift to our enemies and a worry to our friends.

Indeed, general Lord Dannatt, another former CGS, said recently if potential recruits to our armed forces do not believe that their government will stand by them when performing their duties in a lawful manner, then why are us joining at all? And just last week, in an unprecedented move in my 24 years in this House, nine very senior officers, including three previous heads of the British Army, Generals Carleton-smith, Saunders and Wall, wrote an open letter to the times heavily criticising the government's proposals in this associated Bill, which they powerfully described as a direct threat to national security.

If time permitted, I could read out literally dozens of quotes, from generals to commanding officers and a former regimental sergeant major of the SAS down to junior NCOs, all of them criticising Labour's proposals in their adverse effect on our armed forces, whether past, present or future. And yet still the Northern Ireland Secretary knows better than all of them, and he ploughs on regardless. And then when our elderly veterans, some of them now in their 80s, some of them in failing health, some of them even literally Chelsea pensioners, for goodness sake, end up in court again, perhaps as early as next year.

Who do they think the public are then going to believe? That's why even prominent Labour figures are now breaking ranks to tell the government to change course. Lord West, the former Labour security Minister, has publicly cautioned Ministers over Labour's proposals and Lord Glassman, founder and chairman of Blue Labour, recently said of Labour's legacy plan we must reverse it as soon as possible. The Royal British Legion's expressed their concerns about this bill and its effect on veterans has have helped for heroes and the three veterans commissioners as well.

This is a virtually friendless bill. So, in conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker, there is no other country on earth that would treat its own brave veterans in this way. None. This is a truly wretched bill, supported by Sinn Fein, but opposed not just by these benches, but also by thousands of veterans and their highly experienced former commanders, who really do know better. I say to all of those veterans tonight that if we get the chance, we will do whatever it takes to rescind Labour's bill and to stand by them, just as we sought to do with our original Legacy Act of 2023.

Even the public opposed Labour's pernicious plans to a parliamentary petition just referred to entitled Protect Northern Ireland veterans from prosecution, has amassed over a fifth of a million signatures, which led to a heated debate in Westminster Hall. The Sketchwriter Quentin Letts said he had never seen Westminster Hall so packed before, and neither had I. The division lists last forever, and certainly until the next general election, so I would genuinely caution Labour backbenchers not to be seduced by the blandishments of the whips.

I should know I used to be one into following their Ministers blithely, who I believe are acting akin to Lenin's wise fools and helping to revive Sinn Fein's vile campaign of lawfare against the British Army. So when all is said and done, it's a very straightforward choice this evening, a matter not of micro-detail, but of principle. So it's the no lobby to stand with our veterans, with Private Tommy Atkins, without whose brave service there would never have been any Good Friday peace agreement in the first place.

Or it's the I lobby for two tier justice for lawfare for years, and largely at taxpayers expense, against our own troops who had the courage to deploy to Northern Ireland and oppose the terrorists in the first place. Or put another way, when the bells ring in a few minutes. And for the avoidance of doubt, we stand foursquare with our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

veterans who now will stand with us. Yes. I told the Minister, Minister Matthew Patrick.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Matthew Patrick. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, it's a real pleasure to close this Second Reading debate. For the government, and.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'd like. To thank all honourable and right hon. Members who have contributed. Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to declare an interest. I would like to declare an interest. Members should be aware of my declaration on the list of Ministers interests. Why? I have flagged that two of my family flagged that two of my family members work for the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery. Madam Deputy Speaker, today's debate has been powerful to listen to. Many honourable and right hon.

Members have raised important points and asked important questions in the time available to me. I will try to address as many of those points as I can for any specific points I am not able to address. In time, I will write to members. Madam Deputy will write to members. Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to start my remarks with enormous thanks to the veterans who served us in Operation veterans who served us in Operation Banner. As other members have powerfully described, serving in intolerable conditions, standing in intolerable conditions, standing in harm's way to protect life.

Quite simply, our armed forces are the simply, our armed forces are the best of us, and I would like to thank those who served in the police a job of enormous difficulty police a job of enormous difficulty that brave men and women set out to do with distinction. We owe a particular duty of care to those who served our nation, and there will never be equivalence between our armed forces and police service and the terrorists who set out to cause death and destruction. Madam Deputy Speaker, as the Secretary of State has set out, this bill is about helping people to get answers.

I cannot begin to understand the pain of not knowing what happened to your loved one, killed or disappeared. I can only imagine that the need for an answer to know what really happened never fades. I won't take interventions. I'm very short on time. The right hon. Member for Tonbridge said this legislation legislation will reopen wounds. I believe they never closed. I've sat with families who simply want to know what happened to their loved one. More than the 3500 people were killed during the Troubles.

Madam Deputy Speaker, the Good Friday Agreement recognised it was essential to address and acknowledge the suffering of victims and survivors. It is our collective duty to deliver on this remaining Good Friday Agreement commitment and if through this process, those relatives can be supported to get answers, then we will have met that duty. There are many things the last Labour government achieved that I am proud of. And as the Member for Runcorn and Helsby noted, the Good Friday Agreement rightly sits amongst its very finest achievements.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I had a conversation with a veteran in my constituency recently who told me how important it was that we're dealing here in facts, so let some let's let some of those out. It is a long standing principle in this country that decisions to prosecute are independent. Judicial independence has served our country very well for over 300 years. That is why when people read about recent cases such as the trial of soldier F, it is not relevant that the decision to prosecute was taken while the conservative government was in power because the decision was independent.

Equally, it is not relevant that soldier F was acquitted under a Labour government because that decision too is independent. Since 2012, there have been 25 prosecutions relating to the Troubles. Of those, the majority were for Republican terrorists. Madam Deputy Speaker, there are nine live prosecutions live today relating to the Troubles. One ongoing prosecution relates to the conduct of the British Army. Again, the decision to prosecute was taken under the conservative government under not by because they are rightly independent decisions.

Turning to the reasoned amendment, I urge the House to reject it. The amendment, among other things, suggests that removing conditional immunity will lead to veterans being dragged before the courts. It is not true. Their failed immunity scheme, which would also have applied to IRA terrorists, was never commenced. All it did was offer a false promise which could never be delivered. Because this amendment is based on such fundamental misunderstanding about the bill and the way our prosecution system works, I urge the House to reject it today.

Turning to veterans, which was raised by a number of hon. Members, the government's commitment to honour Operation Banner veterans is unshakeable. We must not forget that over 1000 armed forces families lost loved ones during the Troubles, and that over 200 investigations into the deaths of armed forces personnel and veterans were shut down for the last government's failed Legacy Act in the search for answers. They, as much as any family, deserve a fair, proportionate and transparent system and they would not want for the terrorists who took the lives of brave soldiers to have any form of immunity.

Members talked about our protections, and I want to reiterate that our bill puts in place strong and important protections that were not included in the failed Tory Legacy Act. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the Minister for the Armed Forces, himself a veteran of Northern Ireland, for his close work and attention to put in place these important protections. Madam Deputy Speaker, we have published our fact sheet which details where the protections sit throughout the bill, so I will not rehearse them all here, given the time I have available to me.

The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar asked how we can continue with the remedial order. The government abandoned its appeal and therefore has the ability to continue with the order. For those, including the right hon. Member for Tonbridge who talked about morale. I am proud of the protections in this bill. I am also proud, more broadly that this government has given an important pay rise to our armed forces, and I believe morale was harmed by the actions of the last government.

The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar. I apologise, I've got a short amount of time to finish raise this idea of immunity. As I've said in response to a recent amendment, we should remember no veteran ever received immunity. It was undeliverable, a false promise. The conditional immunity championed by the party opposite would have meant that someone who murdered a UK citizen on UK soil would have walked away scot free. And this is what they are calling for us to return to.

The right hon. Member for Tonbridge was right when he said that offer of immunity was pretty abhorrent, and as the hon. Member for Beckenham, Penge set out so powerfully, the immunity offer was an insult to the families of those killed. And I believe, as the Member for South Ribble indicated, an insult to veterans too. On that point, on the issue of on the run letters, they did not grant immunity. The case of John Downey was cited as proof. He is currently subject to live criminal proceedings for the murder of two soldiers in 1972, clear proof those letters grant no immunity.

I am grateful to the hon. Members who drew our attention to the voices of victims and survivors. It is important that these families are at the heart of this legislation, and they are in order to ensure that we increase the confidence in the new Legacy Commission and enable more families to come forward. That is why we are significantly reforming it through this legislation. The hon. Member for Gower, the chair of the Select Committee, asked about the definition of family members. We believe we have the definition right and proportionate set out in clause 93.

Clause eight sets up a Victim and Survivors Advisory Group, which is designed to ensure that the voices of victims and survivors are heard on the issue of who will be appointed to that group, which was raised by many colleagues, including members for Belfast East and Wimbledon. It is absolutely vital that this group can command confidence and this government will therefore not appoint anyone who has previously been involved in paramilitary activity to this group. That is a clear commitment made by my right hon.

Friend. From this Dispatch Box, a number of hon. Members across the House have raised issues with prosecutions. Let me be really clear on this important point. As I set out in my opening remarks, decisions to prosecute are independent. Our judiciary is independent. I disagree with those members who claim prosecutions are vexatious or political. On that point, Madam Deputy Speaker. Turning to the issue of inquest, I do not have time. Turning to the issue of inquest, which has been raised by hon.

Members, as the government has long committed to clause 84, makes
18:57
Matthew Patrick Portrait Matthew Patrick MP (Wirral West, Labour)
-
-
it clear that a small number of inquests that have been halted by the Legacy Act will be able to proceed. Inquests that have been commenced, not commenced, hearings. Inquests that had not commenced Inquests that had not commenced hearings before the Legacy Act will be subject to an assessment by the Solicitor General, based on statutory criteria, to determine whether they will be most effectively progressed in the Legacy Commission or the coronial system. This position reflects the system. This position reflects the significant role that a reformed Legacy Commission can play in achieving outcomes for families, particularly given its far greater capacity to handle sensitive information when compared to an inquest.

I've stated I have a very inquest. I've stated I have a very short amount of time, and I want to address as many of the points as I'm able. A number of hon. Members, I'm able. A number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar and the Member for Belfast East, raised the commitments by the Irish Government commitments by the Irish Government and the role that they will play. The clear commitment of the Irish Government to provide the fullest possible cooperation with the possible cooperation with the Legacy Commission will help provide many more families with an opportunity to obtain information opportunity to obtain information they have long sought.

This partnership represents two governments coming together, each governments coming together, each making sovereign commitments and promising to carry them out in their own jurisdictions. I believe their own jurisdictions. I believe that the Irish government will honour the promises they have made. The agreement has been signed in good faith and we are committed to do what we promised to do independently in our parliaments. Madam Deputy Speaker, in the interest of time, I'd like to conclude my remarks. I am grateful to all honourable and right hon.

Members who have contributed to this debate. I know we will continue this debate as the Bill progresses and as we do, I know we will hold in the forefront of our minds who this is all for, for victims and their families right across the United Kingdom, for all those who bravely served us in intolerable conditions for Northern Ireland and its future. Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend this bill to the House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. Order! Order! The original order. Be seated. Order! The original question was that the bill be. Now read a second time. bill be. Now read a second time. Since when? An amendment has been proposed as on the Order Paper. The question is that the amendment be
18:59
None Portrait Division
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

question is that the amendment be aye. I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I. Colleagues Colleagues should Colleagues should notice Colleagues should notice that Colleagues should notice that I'm on my feet and they should be seated quickly. Seated. The question is, as on the order papers, may I say a continue? No. Tellers for the ayes and Nick Timothy and David Simmonds. Tellers for the noes. Imogen Walker and Jade Botterill. Order. Order!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right 165. The noes to the left 327.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noes to the left 327. The ayes to the right 165. The noes to the left. 327. For The noes noes to the left. 327. For The noes have it. The noes have it. En bloc. have it. The noes have it. En bloc. The question is that the bill be. Now read a second time, as may that Now read a second time, as may that opinion, say aye. ii the contrary. Colleagues Colleagues paying Colleagues paying attention.

Colleagues paying attention. Well, Colleagues paying attention. Well, I've noticed that I'm on my feet and they should be seated. They and they should be seated. They should be seated. The question is, as on the Order Paper may an opinion, say aye. No, no. Tell us what the eyes are. Imogen Walker and Jade Botterill. Tellers for the noes. Nick Timothy and David Of Of the Of the order Of the order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right. 320. The noes to the left. 105.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noes to the left. 105. The ayes to the right 320. The noes to the left 105. So the ayes noes to the left 105. So the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Unlock.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have it. The ayes have it. Unlock. formally. I beg to move. The question is as on the Order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is as on the Order Paper as made that opinion, say aye. I Of the contrary, no the ayes

**** Possible New Speaker ****

aye. I Of the contrary, no the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Money resolution to remove formally. I beg to move. The question is as on the order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is as on the order papers. May that opinion, say aye. I Of the contrary, no the ayes have I Of the contrary, no the ayes have it. The ayes have it. I'll give the front benches a few moments to shuffle over. Point of order is it absolutely relevant for right now, sir? Julian Lewis point of order.
19:25
19:26
Chris McDonald Portrait Chris McDonald MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Stockton North, Labour)
-
-
make a statement on the closure of ExxonMobil Fife ethylene plant at Mossmorran in Scotland. And I would like to thank particularly, Madam Deputy Speaker, Mr. Speaker, for accommodating this statement today. Like many members of this House, I am saddened to learn of Exxon's planned plans to close their Fife Ethylene plant. This decision is, of course, extremely worrying news for those employed by Exxon, as well as contractors who work at the plant, those employed by the companies who supply the site with gas, and those at the adjacent adjacent natural gas liquids plant, which is operated by shell.

Whilst this is no solace to those impacted at Exxon, shell have confirmed that they do not see their workforce or operations affected by this closure. The government and ExxonMobil have been discussing the operating environment around the plant since April, with my officials endeavouring to meet Exxon every week since August. Government Ministers also met with Exxon regularly this year, underlining our commitment to exploring every possible opportunity to retain the site's operations. This afternoon, I spoke with Paul Greenwood, the chair of ExxonMobil.

He assured me that Exxon are not suggesting that this closure was due to a lack of action or will, on behalf of the government. It was a commercial decision made when the numbers simply did not add up. He reiterated to me that the site is 40 years old, inefficient and in dire need of modernisation to be commercially viable for the future. The company estimates that it would have cost close to $1 billion of capital investment to bring the site to a point where it would be profitable.

When combined with a challenging petrochemicals market, including a sharp decline in ethane supply in the North Sea, the investment was likely to outweigh the return. ExxonMobil has already caused similar assets in Europe and is divesting from activities where there is no short term path to profitability, despite exploring alternative use cases for the site, none offered a viable route to sustainable operations as the site has been significantly loss making for the last five years, and with the investment potentially taking a further five years before it would reach its potential, Exxon decided against continuing operations.

And in those circumstances, the support from government that Exxon needed to change those calculations was beyond acceptable levels. Exxon were aware of this, and they have acknowledged that even with support, the commercial circumstances were simply too stark and the costs would have been too great. So despite tireless, inventive and determined work from both government officials and Exxon, the challenges facing the site were ultimately insurmountable. The decision for government not to provide financial or bespoke policy support was communicated to Exxon by my right hon.

Friend, the Business and Trade Secretary, but we have, of course, retained an open dialogue with the company throughout. This is not a decision that either the company or the government have taken lightly, because, as hon. Members know, this government has shown that it is prepared to step in and support industry when it is feasible to do so. We have stepped in to support business in the steel, shipbuilding and chemicals industries, protecting jobs and vital capability across the UK, including in Scotland.

But in all cases, there was a fundamentally sound business proposition underpinning our investment. And sadly here this was not the case. I also want to stress, Madam Deputy Speaker, that as disappointing and concerning as the closure of the Tom Morrison site is, it is not symptomatic of a UK industry as a whole. Our commitment to support UK industry is clear in the many steps that we have taken since coming to government last year. Our modern Industrial Strategy lays out a raft of policy interventions to ensure that British industry remains a world leader that is hugely innovative and investable, a strategy to cut red tape, lower energy bills and get spades in the ground.

And the fact that we've seen £250 billion of investment committed and over 45,000 jobs supported since July, is testament to that strategy's success so far. The closure of the Fife plant is a commercial decision made by ExxonMobil, but of course it has a very human cost. There are 179 direct employees and 250 contractors employed with more in the supply chain, and I know members across the House will be primarily worried about these individuals and the communities impacted. Let me assure the House that the government stands ready to provide support through the Department for Work and Pensions Rapid Response Service and their involvement in Pace.

The Secretary of State is meeting with Unite Tomorrow as part of a wider visit, where he will discuss options for more support for the affected employees. I also met with unite earlier today and I will meet with GMB colleagues tomorrow. I have been assured by the company directly that Exxon, as a responsible employer, will ensure they properly support their staff finding alternative work, including at their fully sited Southampton, and support to support those employees in their relocation. Our focus now is on helping the workforce through this troubling period and ensure responsible next steps are taken for the decommissioning and remediation of the site.

Long term, we are ensuring that UK manufacturing at large benefits from this government's growth mission. We want to create the right conditions for British manufacturers to properly compete and win in the global economy. And over the coming days, my department will update the House on the progress we are making in support of that effort, not least on energy costs. Before I conclude, Madam Deputy Speaker, Exxon Chair Paul Greenwood asked me to reiterate a message that he has given to all of the employees at Mossmorran.

It's a message I'm sure all members of the House will agree with. The closure of this site is no reflection on them, their efforts or their work. They should be proud of what they have accomplished in the last 40 years. And I would like as industry Minister, to personally thank the employees at Mossmorran and the Fife community for their contribution to the UK industrial economy and through decades of ethylene exports, our balance of trade for over 40 years. This is not the end of Fife's industrial story, and as Exxon gradually decommissions and remediates the site, we as a government are committed to working with the local authority and the Scottish Government to promote the benefits of this location for future industrial investment.

This government is committed to supporting the workforce in the community over the coming weeks and months, during what I know will be a difficult and painful transition.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

House. Shadow Minister Andrew Bowie. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.
19:33
Andrew Bowie Portrait Andrew Bowie MP (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, Conservative)
-
-
very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. Madam Deputy Speaker and I thank the government for advance sight of their statement. Since this government came to power in July 2024, over 15,000 manufacturing and industry jobs have been lost. Only this Labour government would recognise that as a success. The Minister says he is saddened. Madam Deputy Speaker, that is cold comfort to the workers losing their jobs today. Energy intensive industries are in decline across the United Kingdom. Oil refineries and petrochemical plants are facing the economic and fiscal realities of choices made by this Labour government.

Ineos in Grangemouth, Lindsey in Lincolnshire and now in Mossmorran in Fife, where Exxon have told us that there is no competitive future due to the current economic and policy environment. The Minister tells us that this was a commercial decision and the numbers did not add up yet due to Labour's decisions. Honestly, he mentions the decline in the ethane supply in the North Sea. The Minister almost gets it. This government's destructive tax and ban policy in the North Sea has led to disinvestment and has undermined the petrochemicals industry and ability to secure low cost ethane, damaging our energy security, detrimental to our petrochemicals industry, and utterly devastating for a Scottish oil and gas workers.

The Labour Party simply does not get it. And the carbon tax, the carbon tax Madam Deputy Speaker £20 million per annum for the Fife ethylene plant alone was crippling Madam Deputy Speaker. We are suffocating industry in this country and these are political choices. Industrial emissions are mobile. If we are decreasing our domestic carbon emissions by crushing British industry, we are simply exporting our climate obligations and increasing reliance on imports for plastics, fuel, ceramics, glass, bricks, concrete and more.

We must find a way to decarbonise without decimating our domestic industrial base. Simply forcing industry abroad does nothing to reduce global emissions. In fact, it does the opposite the high cost of energy and this government's war on the North Sea is killing industry in this country. We simply cannot afford this Labour government, though it is in Fife where the closure will be felt most acutely. The repercussions will reverberate across this country for the first time since the UK invented polyethylene, we will not be manufacturing the primary component in this country.

That is shameful. Industry has already warned that closures like Grangemouth, Prax, Lindsay Hoyle and now Mossmorran risk forcing downstream operators to import resources at higher cost, undermining their competitiveness. It is not just 400 jobs at Mossmorran. This impact will cascade across the supply chain. This domino effect is taking place already. Altrad, Bilfinger, Kaefer all announced redundancies at Mossmorran when Grangemouth closed earlier this year. Allowing another major industrial plant to close sends a signal to investors that under this government, UK plc is closed for business.

We are losing domestic industrial capacity at a terrifying rate, the Minister claims. This is not symptomatic of British industry as a whole, but the drumbeat of job losses and plant closures tells a very different story. He talks of support for jobs, but unemployment has risen every single month since this Labour Party took office. The closure will be felt by workers in Fife. But make no mistake the crisis facing industry is stamped Made in Whitehall. The government has said in the House that they are ready to provide assistance to workers at Mossmorran.

And yet we still lack clarity on the support for the future of Grangemouth and the status of the national wealth Fund monies promised by the Prime Minister, with the Minister update us on the £200 million fund for the future of Grangemouth, because they have not seen one penny spent so far. The Prime Minister's promise looks like empty words yet again. What proposals have been brought forward, and can the Minister confirm when workers will have certainty on the future of the site? This government is taxing jobs, increasing the cost of energy and driving British industry off a cliff edge.

Britain cannot afford this Labour government. Frankly, Scotland cannot afford this Labour government and I feel very sorry for the Scottish Labour MPs who have been whipped in to defend this government's position tonight. Madam Deputy Speaker, this is not a just transition. It is anything but a just transition. This is the wilful de-industrialisation of the United Kingdom. They are offshoring carbon emissions and driving up reliance on imports, and British workers are paying the price. So can I ask the Minister to outline the support his department intends to provide workers at Mossmorran, and to provide an update on the National Wealth Fund monies for Grangemouth.

Can I also ask the Minister whether he agrees that British industry is at a competitive disadvantage due to the crippling energy, industrial costs, the job tax and the carbon tax? And will this government finally see,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sense and see what everybody else sees and change their policies on the North Sea? Yes, Minister.
19:38
Chris McDonald Portrait Chris McDonald MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Stockton North, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes, Minister. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I'll be very happy to take the opportunity to educate the shadow opportunity to educate the shadow Secretary about some of the issues. No, no. It's real. And he will soon, soon be able to to realise that. I was particularly upset, actually. I was genuinely upset when he described my words as cold words. They weren't cold. They were sincere and heartfelt and the the and the reason for that is because I've been in this position myself.

I really wish that he and his colleagues had showed similar vigour when the steel industry in Teesside was collapsing around us, when I and my colleagues were at risk of redundancy and they stood by and left ten days to find a new buyer for the most efficient steel plant in the country to close. And I, I really take his comments with a pinch of salt because he he talks about the uncompetitive business environment in the UK. This plant has been significantly loss making for five years.

I wonder why that is. Could it be because of the high levels of energy prices that we have? As a result of the previous government's decision to tie us to international gas prices, to put us at the mercy of Vladimir Putin, we talk about a transition. We talk about he talks about the transition. I know what a terrible transition is like. I lived through that in the coal field of County Durham. What I am ensuring, what this government is ensuring is that the workforce in the UK, in Scotland and throughout the UK in these industries have the benefit of a proper transition.

That's why we have an industrial strategy. That's why we have intervened in industry, in the areas that I said and now, now we come to the point of education. It's best sometimes not to take your knowledge of industry or industry in Scotland from Twitter, because in fact, because, because in fact, because in fact, we do still have ethylene production in the UK. It's at Grangemouth. I would have thought he would have realised that. So the UK isn't without ethylene production. And actually maybe he didn't realise none of the ethylene produced at Mossmorran was used in the UK anyway.

It was, it was exported 100% of it's the EU. That was why I made the point. Thanking the workers locally about their contribution to the balance of trade in the that we've had in the UK over so many decades. It was all exported. And finally, his point about carbon taxes and, you know, you can debate the nuances of carbon taxes if you want to. But this plant exports all of its all of its products to the EU. So to export it to the EU, it needs to ensure that it aligns with its market, with the market in which it is, which is obviously has the EU emissions trading system.

If it received relief in the UK, it would have to pay that tax to the EU. Does he prefer that that money comes to the UK government, or does he prefer it goes to the EU? Really, what is Commons demonstrated is that he not only does not understand this plant, he doesn't understand the chemicals industry. And I really wonder whether he cares for the workers at Tom Morrison at all.
19:41
19:42
19:43
Susan Murray Portrait Susan Murray MP (Mid Dunbartonshire, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Liberal Democrat spokesperson Susan Murray.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. As is already, I would like to agree that this announcement is devastating for Mossmorran and for devastating for Mossmorran and for the communities around Fife. Hundreds of highly skilled workers now face an uncertain future, and now face an uncertain future, and it is clear that the closure of this cornerstone facility reflects a deeper failure to provide the a deeper failure to provide the stable, long term industrial environment that businesses need if they are to invest and grow in they are to invest and grow in Scotland.

For many years, the Liberal Democrats have warned that the absence of a coherent industrial strategy, first abandoned by the previous conservative government and then left to further drift by this left to further drift by this Labour government, has created damaging uncertainty for our manufacturing and energy sectors. manufacturing and energy sectors. Will the Minister assure this House that the energy sector is at the heart of the government's heart of the government's industrial strategy? Exxon's statement made clear that the current economic and policy current economic and policy environment has has made continued operations uncompetitive.

So what operations uncompetitive. So what steps will the government take to ensure that the UK remains a viable place for energy production and to place for energy production and to prevent further closures of major industrial sites? We also cannot industrial sites? We also cannot ignore the human impact. Many of these workers are among the most experienced and specialised in the sector, yet only 50 roles are being offered elsewhere. And that nearly 500 miles away. Can the Minister tell the House how many have actually been offered and accepted relocation, and what support has been put in place locally for those who simply cannot uproot their lives, families and communities? Further, the Wrexham closure will see many highly qualified and specialised workers laid off at a time of severe cost of living pressures.

So what immediate and long term measures is the government putting in place to ensure that these individuals can transition into appropriate, well-paid employment? Communities in Fife deserve clarity, certainty and a real plan for the future. I urge the Minister to act quickly, decisively and collaboratively to protect these workers and to ensure that Scotland's industrial base has a sustainable future.
19:45
Chris McDonald Portrait Chris McDonald MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Stockton North, Labour)
-
-
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. So I agree with with the hon. Member that really at the crux of this has been a failure of long term planning around industry. And actually, you can see that if you contrast the two ethylene plants in Scotland. So the, the the plant at Grangemouth imports a lot of its ethylene from, from the US, which is in plentiful supply and and also at a much lower cost. And that required a significant investment in the port infrastructure at that plant.

And ExxonMobil were aware that in order to ensure that Mossmorran was sustainable, they would also need to make a similar investment, and it would have been possible for them to make that investment some years ago. But now, at this stage, an investment of about £1 billion that won't come to fruition within the next five years is simply judged by the company not to be sustainable. And of course, businesses require some certainty in order to invest. I made that point at Energy Questions this morning, and it's the certainty provided by our industrial strategy in particularly this government's commitment to renewable energy technologies that is allowing that investment to come in.

I agree with her. Our focus absolutely needs to be on the employees. I, I understand that no employees have been offered relocation yet, but it is the it is the company's view that that 50 such posts are available, and they are inviting expressions of interest from employees at this stage. And I do understand it's it is a very long way away, actually, and it won't be that relocation won't be suitable for everyone, perhaps people who don't want to uproot their families and so on, or who are embedded in their local communities.

But if it is an opportunity that some workers would want to take up, then I'm pleased that it is there and with the with the the offer of the 50 employees for relocation, 50 employees to be retained, we have about 60% of employees of the permanent employees who at the moment we can see a way forward for. But for the other 40%, clearly that's where I'd expect the task force will provide support. The UK government, working with the Scottish Government and the local authority on that, and we also must not ignore the jobs that are being created every day and every week in Scotland in our new clean energy industries, up to 60,000 jobs by 2030.

And it is it's fundamentally it's about supporting that transition. So it is my expectation that as these new jobs are created, people will transition across. And I've said I've lived through a terrible transition in the past. The mission of this government is to ensure we have a supportive transition, transition for workers and communities in Scotland and around the UK. Thank you Richard Baker. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. This decision by ExxonMobil and the manner in which it has been taken and announced is a very poor way to treat workers who have given so.
19:47
19:48
19:48
19:49
19:50
19:50
19:51
19:53
19:54
19:54
19:55
19:56
Chris McDonald Portrait Chris McDonald MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Stockton North, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I yes, and I thank her for for her question and she points out that this isn't in her constituency, that this isn't in her constituency, but it clearly the effects run far wider than the individual constituency, particularly for a plant of this size. And so we need to think carefully about the impact of the supply chain on this as well. I, I apologise for the fact that the Scottish Government is mentioned towards the end of the speech.

That is in no way intended to imply that the Scottish Government would have not been involved in this, or are not involved in this. I know that there have been meetings at the highest level, and the Scottish Government and in fact the the Scotland Secretary has also been involved in these discussions with ExxonMobil as well as we have as we have tried to find any possible measure in order to avoid this decision. But ultimately it was a decision for the business. And our focus now is on how we can move forward for the workforce and for the future of Fife as well.

As I said, the industrial story of Fife is not over. There is excellent opportunity there for to bring new

**** Possible New Speaker ****

investment to that site in the future. And that sort of industrial regeneration is exactly what I want to see. As chair of.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As chair of. The Scottish Affairs Committee, Patricia Ferguson, thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I
19:57
19:58
Chris McDonald Portrait Chris McDonald MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Stockton North, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank her for raising these two issues on the on the issue of redundancy packages. I raise that redundancy packages. I raise that earlier with the company and they assured me that such packages had been made available. I then raised the same question with Unite the Union, and they've undertaken to go away and confirm that for me. I want to do my own due diligence and make sure that that is true. I'm particularly pleased she's raised the issue of contract workers, because it was reported that they were locked out of the site, but the actual situation is slightly more complex than that.

So contract workers had their permits revoked this morning, which sounds rather dramatic, I realise, but for a site that's a normal procedure in certain circumstances. In fact, the workers themselves believed it was due to weather conditions this morning. It was actually to ensure that all workers on the site either direct employees or contract contract workers through their contract managers, could be briefed at the same time on the issue, and contract workers were then allowed to return home or to resume work, recognising that not all of them would have wanted to stay on the site at that time.

Having received such shocking news. So hopefully that helps to explain that situation. And of course, I will ensure that I continue to ask these questions of the company and engage very closely with both unite and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

GMB on these issues. John Cooper. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On the Business and Trade
19:59
20:00
Chris McDonald Portrait Chris McDonald MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Stockton North, Labour)
-
-
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. So I am committed to looking at the entire business environment for our energy intensive industries, our heavy industry, because I want to improve the competitiveness of that. And perhaps I have an ally across the House who might help to point out areas that we could look at, and I would certainly welcome that in the future. On the two issues that he's raised about energy costs. And see, I can perhaps provide a little bit more detail.

So on energy costs, on electricity costs, rather, which, you know, aren't the major factor here for this site, the government introduced a range of measures to try and support improving the cost competitiveness of the UK versus Europe, and we could talk about those in more detail. Clearly some other point on gas. The UK is competitive with Europe, certainly cheaper than than Germany and the Czech Republic, slightly more expensive than Italy and Spain. But the issue here fundamentally is the gas costs in the USA, which is considerably cheaper.

And we all understand the reason why that is. The cbam issue is a bit more US US pay US pay to US pay to China US pay to China and US pay to China and the US pay to China and the Grangemouth US pay to China and the Grangemouth oil refinery. Now the government stepped in at Scunthorpe but did not at Grangemouth and it looks like it won't. At mossmorran. Why not? Because Scotland is once again the victim of chronic deindustrialisation for the sake of Scottish workers.

Scottish communities. Let us get the £200 million spent. Let's get project going. Let's get new companies in. Let's get the good paying jobs that Let's get the good paying jobs that my community and my town desperately need. And for goodness sake, let's have a bit of common sense and take some form of government ownership in what comes government ownership in what comes next at Grangemouth. Mr. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I. I wholeheartedly reject the implication of some sort of anti-scottish bias in this government.

I mean, I stand here as a macdonald flanked by three Scottish Ministers. We all think very keenly about these issues, about these issues in Scotland. And actually the fundamental point he made, the point about about British DLUHC Scunthorpe. I did mention the steel industry, the shipbuilding industry and other aspects of the chemicals industry in my opening statement. And the fundamental point was about having a sound business proposition. And in this case, there was not a sound business proposition. The the amount of money that was being asked for by the company, and the fundamental lack of profitability of the company, of the business over such a long period of time meant that it wasn't a viable opportunity.

And that's why we need

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to look forward to how the workforce in Fife and elsewhere can transition into our new green economy. Thank you. Dave Doogan.
20:03
20:04
20:04
20:05
20:05
20:06
20:06
Scott Arthur Portrait Dr Scott Arthur MP (Edinburgh South West, Labour)
-
-
Doctor Scott Arthur.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just 4 or 5 miles away from from this plant, and I have to say, it's an area which is still recovering an area which is still recovering from Thatcher's economic vandalism. So I do thank the Minister for his statement this evening and the work statement this evening and the work he has done over many months. And I also have to thank my hon. Friend, the Member for Cowdenbeath and the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy for her work as well. She stands in solidarity with these workers and we should stand in solidarity with her no matter which party we are from.

Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker. On the 1st of Deputy Speaker. On the 1st of September, we learned it had been almost a year since any Minister from the Scottish Government had contacted the management team at contacted the management team at Mossmorran. Almost a year. It had been four years since any Minister from the Scottish Government had from the Scottish Government had contacted Sepa or the Health and Safety Executive about the Safety Executive about the management of the site. On July 25th this year, on July 29th this 25th this year, on July 29th this year, we learned that the Scottish Government was asked when it last proactively contacted the UK proactively contacted the UK government about the operation of the Mossmorran site.

They could not name a date going back to 2020. name a date going back to 2020. There was no evidence of any proactive engagement. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, we have heard Deputy Speaker, we have heard bluster from the SNP this evening. You have the Scottish Government approached the Minister with any kind of coherent plan to support these workers or save the plant.
20:08
20:08
20:09
20:10
20:11
20:12
20:12
20:14
20:15
20:15
20:16
Chris McDonald Portrait Chris McDonald MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Stockton North, Labour)
-
-
Minister McDonnell. Across Europe. keen interest in the carbon prices on industry, and I think it's worth, just for a moment, looking at the particular situation of this plant as it exports all of its products to the EU. So the carbon taxes which this plant pays, it receives about a sort of 50%, I think it's slightly higher than 50% carbon allowance for its emissions. And the reason that it doesn't receive a higher level of allowance for that is a reflection of the inefficiency of the plant.

So fundamentally the the free allowances are set against a benchmark, and a plant that receives 50% is one that is inefficient. Now, the intention for that, and I know he'll appreciate this with with his business background, the intention in that situation is to incentivise the owner of the plant to invest in order to reduce their carbon emissions, and then actually be able to sell the carbon credits on the open market and generate a further profit for the plant. And that's what we've seen has worked so effectively in the advanced manufacturing sector.

For whatever reason, this owner of this plant chose not to invest, and as a result, they've suffered the carbon penalty for that. And the community of Fife have suffered as a result of their decision as well. And we're now in the position where a £1 billion, $1 billion investment can't be sustained. It would be difficult clearly, as as I mentioned earlier, as they're exporting their products and for this company to find any way to exempt itself from carbon policies, because, of course, the EU has a carbon mechanism too, and that's the market into which they sell.

And so fundamentally that carbon cost has to be paid either here in the UK or to the EU. And I'm sure as a good supporter of the UK and of Britain as opposed to the EU, we would certainly prefer that His Majesty's Treasury received any taxation income rather than sending

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that money to the EU. John Slinger. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
20:18
20:18
20:19
20:19
20:21
20:21
20:21
20:22
20:23
20:24
20:25
20:26
20:27
20:28
20:29
20:29
20:30
20:31
20:32
20:33
Ellie Chowns Portrait Dr Ellie Chowns MP (North Herefordshire, Green Party)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

do now adjourn. We have Doctor Ellie Chowns on Warm Homes Plan. Doctor Ellie Chowns. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this crucial issue tonight, and I hope to bring to the house the voices of people in my constituency of North Herefordshire, of campaigners across the whole country and of, frankly, the many families who wake up each morning wondering, you know, how are we going to keep our children warm this winter? How are we going to keep our grandparents warm this winter? A question nobody should be having to ask.

Now, the government has committed £13.2 billion to the Warm Homes Plan and that is indeed very welcome. £13.2 billion. It was very strongly implied of additional funding, but the rumours that the Chancellor is considering scaling back the energy company obligation, Eco and paying for it with the Warm Homes Plan funding would mean, in reality, the government would be reducing the amount of money spent on retrofit. If this is the case, that would be extremely disappointing and that is the understatement of the year.

I have to say, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am really disappointed that the Warm Homes Plan, which was due to have come forward quite some time ago now, has been delayed and delayed, and now we find that there is perhaps a government plan to reattribute some of the funding in a way that would fly entirely in the face of the intended purposes of the Warm Homes Plan and in the face of what we need to do, which is to upgrade our homes so that everybody can live in a warm, affordable, to heat home.

Fuel poverty is an absolute scandal in our country. Madam Deputy Speaker, so we simply cannot let a long term programme be cannibalised to produce a short term headline. The rescue mission that our housing stock needs will not survive being hollowed out further by short term tinkering in the Treasury. We already know the shocking scale of fuel poverty in this country. The government's own figures show that nearly 3 million households in England, 3 million were fuel poor in 2024. If we use the definition

**** Possible New Speaker ****

still used in Scotland, I will give way to my hon. Friend. I thank the hon. Member for giving way. She is making a giving way. She is making a powerful case about fuel poverty in my constituency of Poole. There are my constituency of Poole. There are around 5000 households experiencing fuel poverty, about 1 in 10 homes. fuel poverty, about 1 in 10 homes. Now we know there are three factors affecting this energy efficiency of the property the household's income, the property the household's income, of course, and the cost of keeping warm.

Given that last year alone, warm. Given that last year alone, the energy companies have made a profit of £61 billion in one year. Would she agree with me that it's time we revisited the idea of a nationwide social tariff that would

**** Possible New Speaker ****

nationwide social tariff that would bring down bills for all low income households and those living in fuel poverty? Ellie Chowns.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Ellie Chowns. I thank the hon. Member very much for his intervention, and he is absolutely right to draw is absolutely right to draw attention to the eye watering profits made by energy companies. Indeed, that point was raised in Indeed, that point was raised in the debate that we were having just prior to this one and the irresponsibility of many of the actions of those those energy actions of those those energy companies. It is essential that we make sure that the money that people pay for their bills goes to keep them warm, not to fill the coffers of shareholders.

And it is clear, because of those eye watering profits that there is capacity within the energy market, not least because of the hike in energy prices due to Putins illegal invasion of Ukraine, which is the thing that has driven those prices up through the roof. Not at all to do with the sorts of levies that are around policy costs. We absolutely should be making sure that those eye watering profits are reinvested in supporting those who are most vulnerable to fuel poverty, to actually be able to have a warm

**** Possible New Speaker ****

home to live in. So I thank him very much for his point. I will happily give way. Can I commend the hon. Lady for North Herefordshire for bringing North Herefordshire for bringing this forward? We have a slightly different scheme in Northern Ireland. The Warm Homes scheme is called the Affordable Warmth Scheme called the Affordable Warmth Scheme is run by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. The problem we have with that in Northern Ireland have with that in Northern Ireland is that the there's only such a certain amount of money set aside and then it's first come, first served, which means that those served, which means that those people who have the same levels of poverty don't get the benefit.

And those. The hon. Lady agree with me those. The hon. Lady agree with me that when it comes to having a scheme, whether it be here in England, whether it be in Northern Ireland, Scotland or indeed Wales, Ireland, Scotland or indeed Wales, the scheme must always have the funding that's available for those who meet the criteria.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

who meet the criteria. That the hon. Gentleman very much for his points, and he may have been reading my notes over my have been reading my notes over my shoulder, because I'm going to come on to exactly that point, that we must have the needs of the most vulnerable households at front and centre. And to continue. I was talking about the statistics on fuel poverty, 3 million, according fuel poverty, 3 million, according to the government's own stats. But if we use the definition that is still used in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, campaigners estimate that the number of UK households facing fuel poverty is nearly double that number, actually around 6 million households.

We live in one of the world's wealthiest countries. Nobody, but nobody should be struggling to keep their home warm. In the West Midlands, where my lovely constituency of North Herefordshire is located. We face the highest regional rate of fuel poverty in all of England, with North Herefordshire far worse affected than the national average. And adding to the strain in my constituency is the fact that rural homes are disproportionately affected by fuel poverty. They are more. I'll give way in just a moment.

Rural homes are more likely to be detached or built before 1919. That's certainly the case in North Herefordshire and therefore harder to eat efficiently. And rural households face fuel poverty and high energy costs. And in addition, installers are actually known to avoid complicated homes such as those in particular in my constituency, because they are less profitable, meaning that schemes like eco often fail to reach rural locations. I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to the hon. Member for giving way in my constituency or Stratford-on-Avon. Octopus Energy is a charity providing advice and support to residents of fuel poverty on energy efficiency, and their work is particularly relevant in rural communities where properties are older, harder to properties are older, harder to insulate and in many cases relying on oil and LPG. Does she agree that more has to be done to help off more has to be done to help off grid households to insulate their homes properly?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

homes properly? So I thank my hon. Friend. She's she's absolutely right. Particular problems that we face in rural problems that we face in rural areas. And this relates to the point that the hon. Gentleman made earlier of we have to provide support to those households that support to those households that will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will. I thank the hon. Member. And thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I agree that in rural households like agree that in rural households like mine in Cornwall, then we we desperately need the Warm Homes Plan. Would the hon. Member agree that other sources of energy provision, such as ground source heat pumps and liquid fuels like HVO, could also be included and would be a good addition to the Warm Homes Plan when it arrives, which we hope is quickly. Doctor

**** Possible New Speaker ****

which we hope is quickly. Doctor Ellie Chowns. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am not an engineer, madam Deputy Speaker, and I confess to having some doubts, certainly about HVO. So I would want to engage in a bit more conversation about that particular thing. But ground source heat pumps. Absolutely. Although my understanding is that air source is normally more efficient, although in my constituency we have some water source heat pumps as well. So, you know, all sorts of wonderful technologies are possible.

Back to the point. If we design delivery routes based only on profitability for private contractors. And my hon. Friend there drew attention to the excellent work done by charitable organisations in this sector, but fundamentally, none of it is a substitute for a decent, proper, national, strategic, well funded, long term programme of home insulation to tackle the problem at its root. If we have delivery routes based only on profitability for private contractors, whole swathes of the country will be left behind. And indeed, we know that we have had problems such as those highlighted by the Nao recently, also related to short termism and profiteering by some by some rogue contractors.

Now, we know that retrofitting homes is central to solving fuel poverty, insulation and proper energy efficiency measures. Reduce bills and cut emissions. Upgrading a typical home from EPC to EPC. And I recognise EPCs are not perfect. But leaving that aside, for the moment, upgrading by that level would save households around £210 a year. That's a significant amount of money, real money for families who need it. It's also good economics for the country. Investments in innovation and home energy efficiency.

Payback in lower bills. Reduced pressure on the NHS. Health savings related to better health outcomes, and of course, jobs created up and down the supply chain. And that is what we want to be doing. Investing in these new green industries. Now, it's important to acknowledge that there is a history in this sector. We have been here before. Past retrofit schemes have been structured in ways that prioritised speed and profit over quality and need, allowing cowboy contractors to exploit the system. And that was insignificant part due to the short termism of those those programmes limping from year to year with single year funding allocations, utterly counterproductive.

And I saw that myself, you know, wrestling with these programmes when I was working as a councillor and Cabinet member with responsibility for energy and environment. We need long term policy certainty. The colleges providing the skills training need that the businesses wanting to support apprentices and take them on need, that the companies wanting to increase the supply chain need that long term policy certainty. And that is in the gift of government. Now, the National Audit Office recently reported very serious quality failures in recent ECO4 retrofit installations, leading to significant health risks for thousands of households.

The government absolutely must not allow the same mistakes to be repeated in the Warm Homes Plan. The plan must commit not only to making homes warmer and bringing down bills for the millions struggling across the country, but also to ensure no one ends up in a worse financial situation for utilising a government retrofit scheme. That is why the Warm Homes Plan must not only promise homes that are warmer, it must promise homes that are retrofitted properly by those with appropriate certification with independent checks.

Now the Treasury is tempted by immediate headline reductions in bills, but if the government reduces or eliminates the eco scheme and uses the Warm Homes Plan money to backfill those losses, the result will be fewer homes upgraded, fewer people protected from fuel poverty, and a deeper long term

**** Possible New Speaker ****

cost to the public purse and to our grateful. That the member has. Raised this.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Raised this. Issue because the two are intrinsically linked, and it's absolutely vital that we have that strategic. Plan to bring together strategic. Plan to bring together the issues which are the causation of fuel poverty, and often that is poorly insulated homes. So does she not agree with me that government need to have that strategic plan, which looks at geography as well as which looks at geography as well as obviously the poverty levels which people have in order to ensure their homes are insulated and their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their homes are insulated and their finances insulated as well. I absolutely agree with the hon. Member and she's a fantastic champion for health and for paying attention to the needs of those who attention to the needs of those who are most vulnerable in our society, and ensuring that our policy really addresses the root issues that addresses the root issues that people face. And I really agree, and that's why I am so, so deeply concerned at the prospect that the concerned at the prospect that the government, the government is currently flying, that they are going to start plugging gaps in going to start plugging gaps in policy costs on energy bills and instead using the Warm Homes Plan money for that instead of, for money for that instead of, for example, out of introducing a wealth tax, say, which could be another source of funding for this.

In plain language, taking money out of the Warm Homes Plan to fill a gap that would be created by abolishing eco is robbing Peter to pay Paul. It's completely short sighted. We need to cut energy bills. Absolutely. And we need to have as much investment as possible, as much investment as is needed in the home insulation programmes that will provide the long term solution to the problem of fuel poverty. So it's not an either or choice. We can and must make those more affordable, those bills, more affordable now and at the same time invest in home upgrades to create those future savings.

We don't need to choose between warmth today and efficiency tomorrow. I mentioned a wealth tax, for example, a 1% tax on wealth above 10 million and a 2% tax on wealth above 1 billion would raise at least £14.8 billion. That's way enough to pay for the policy costs that are currently on electricity bills and to scale up, not down, the Warm Homes Plan. Now I want to set out briefly what a responsible Warm Homes Plan must contain. First, it must treat the worst affected first.

As my hon. Friends across the House have already said, prioritising low income and vulnerable households in the coldest and least energy efficient homes and treating warmth

**** Possible New Speaker ****

as a basic human right. Happily. I thank the hon. Member for giving way, and I absolutely agree giving way, and I absolutely agree with her that a well-funded Warm Homes Plan is essential to insulating draughty homes and insulating draughty homes and cutting bills. I wonder if she's aware of situations that face constituents like mine in Letchworth Garden City, where they Letchworth Garden City, where they have a separate scheme of management, where people applying for insulation have to go through for insulation have to go through two layers of regulation, and it's creating a real block to getting insulation for some people who really desperately need it.

So I really desperately need it. So I wonder whether she would join with me in urging the Minister, perhaps, to bring together those MPs who represent areas with schemes of management like that, so we can see how we address that particular hurdle and ensure those most in hurdle and ensure those most in need in all parts of the country get the support they need through the Warm Homes Plan.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Warm Homes Plan. I thank my hon. Friend very much. Likewise a fantastic champion for policies that address social and environmental justice together. And environmental justice together. And he raises a really important point there that far too often with these schemes, there are umpteen hoops schemes, there are umpteen hoops that people have to jump through. And especially if we're talking about supporting the most vulnerable households, the last vulnerable households, the last thing they need to be doing is jumping through multiple administrative hoops, going through administrative hoops, going through all different sorts of levels of schemes, finding then, that the deadline for the programme has run out at the end.

We need to simplify and clarify. We need to provide that long term certainty to everybody working within the sector, and we need to provide the support to all of the households that need to access that warm home support to ensure that they can do it as easily and simply as possible. And I was talking about treating the worst affected first. That's my first point. Secondly, a good Warm Homes Plan must guarantee independent retrofit assessment and performance monitoring. We must not repeat the problems we had with ECO4.

When public money pays for home improvements, the public has to demand high standards. That means an independent public body with statutory powers to coordinate, monitor, evaluate and enforce to make sure that this stuff is done to the correct standard, it must be able to withhold payments until independent sign off is achieved. To deploy a compulsory remedial fund that fixes any poor workmanship that somehow gets through at no cost to households, and to create a publicly accessible register of any firms who fail to meet high standards.

If we are to stop a repeat of the past problems. Thirdly, a Warm Homes Plan a decent Warm Homes Plan must include proper support and tailored delivery, especially for rural homes. North Herefordshire and many constituencies like it can't be dismissed or overlooked because our properties are older and more challenging. We need specialist assessment teams, rural tailored procurement and grant funding that recognises the additional cost of retrofitting hard to treat homes. Fourth, it must protect tenants. Retrofitting must not become an excuse for retro eviction, where landlords evict tenants in order to carry out improvements or unduly raise rents as a result.

So the Warm Homes Plan must include a freeze on evictions and rent rises during any improvement works and for a certain period after they've been completed. To ensure that tenants feel the benefits of these improvements and make sure that costs are not passed on to them. Fifth, the plan must include an urgent programme to inspect and fix the homes affected by poor ECO4 installations, the victims of poor past government schemes deserve apology, compensation and a guarantee that this will never be repeated.

The government has to replace broken accreditation schemes and reform the regulatory responsibilities so that the system provides real accountability, not a paper trail of excuses. Sixth, the plan must be aligned with a clear energy affordability strategy. Real reductions in household energy bills means reducing our dependence on volatile global gas markets. Decoupling the price of gas from the price of electricity, expanding clean power capacity and tackling excessive corporate profits. It's unconscionable that while millions struggle in cold homes, nearly a quarter of the annual average energy bill went to the pre-tax profits of major electricity generators, networks and household suppliers.

Just last year in the UK, a quarter of those bills that scale of profit demands scrutiny and a reconsideration of who bears the cost of our energy transition. Do we accept a system where families are priced out of warmth while companies report massive profits, or do we invest in public goods that protect the vulnerable and create sustainable jobs? The Warm Homes Plan is a chance to change lives, to lower bills, to create good, skilled jobs and to cut emissions. It's also, frankly, a test of our political will and our moral compass, or this government's political will and moral compass.

This House, this Minister, this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government, I will happily give way. I thank the hon. Lady and commend her on bringing this really commend her on bringing this really important subject to the House this evening. Would she acknowledge that the government has indeed invested £13.2 billion, and that this is indeed a long term investment? And would she further acknowledge that would she further acknowledge that this has meant in a constituency like mine, of Rugby £11 million for like mine, of Rugby £11 million for Warm Homes plan that was match funded by the council, and that, the council tell me, is enabling the council tell me, is enabling them to get on and deliver efficiency improvements to about 1000 council homes over the next 1000 council homes over the next three years.

And that sounds pretty long term and very substantial to me.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, and I refer him to the earlier part of my speech where I explained that I absolutely do I explained that I absolutely do welcome the commitment to 13.2 billion. But I am deeply worried that the government now appears to be backsliding from that commitment be backsliding from that commitment to 13.2 million by essentially promising to use parts of it as a sticking plaster for other policy areas, therefore overall reducing significantly reducing potentially the overall package of funding the overall package of funding available for this vitally important work when actually they should be increasing it.

So, you know, if the government does good things, they'll say, well done. If the government threatens to do bad things, they'll be really rather cross and try and put as much pressure as possible on the Minister about it. Now the House, the Minister, the government can choose to protect that full 13.2 billion, in addition to the other schemes for for tackling fuel poverty and make it work for the poorest and most vulnerable. Or we can stand by and watch it be hollowed out for short term convenience, and then measuring the cost of inaction in ill health, avoidable deaths, poor education outcomes and frankly, long term added pressure on our NHS and social services.

So the choice is clear. The government must not let short termism steal warmth and energy bill savings from millions. Please do not let the lessons of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the past be the mistakes of our future. I will briefly give. Way Tom Collins.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Way Tom Collins. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I thank the hon. Member for giving way. She rightly points out the importance of health in this debate. And while we are absolutely facing a crisis of warmth, we are facing a crisis of warmth, we are also facing a crisis of damp in our housing stock and ventilation and housing stock and ventilation and heating, often in the practical application of a building can sit in tension to one another. And yet it's absolutely vital that we think it's absolutely vital that we think about those two together and how people dry in their homes, for example.

So does she agree with me example. So does she agree with me that as we look at fabric, which I'm very pleased she's raised as well as technology for heating, we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

also look and address in a very conscious and positive way, forward. To Ellie Chowns.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To Ellie Chowns. Absolutely, I completely agree. And this is why we need this long term strategic approach that takes into account all of the issues in individual houses to ensure that we do not have the problems that we saw with ECO4, which is exactly saw with ECO4, which is exactly part of the problem he's talking about. So I'm literally on my final sentence here. Let us make the Warm Homes Plan the bold, high quality, fair, accessible and accountable

**** Possible New Speaker ****

fair, accessible and accountable programme that the people of Britain deserve. I look forward to the Minister's response. Thank you, Mr. Martin McCluskey.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam. Deputy Speaker. I want to thank the honourable. Member for North Herefordshire for bringing this debate tonight and also thank her for the constructive way in which she has engaged with everything the engaged with everything the department has been doing since the election last year. In the seven minutes available to me this morning, I'll try and address the points that she has raised, but I'm more than happy to discuss this more than happy to discuss this with her further.

Everything we do in life starts at home in the state of our housing stock, as has been of our housing stock, as has been mentioned by many hon. Members, is a national issue and therefore it is only right that the Warm Homes Plan receives this proper scrutiny Plan receives this proper scrutiny and we invite that scrutiny. We encourage people with a range of views to make their voices heard. And today, I want to reaffirm our commitment to the Warm Homes Plan, restate our ambition, and remind hon.

Members of what we will deliver in the years ahead, because this is one of the most urgent challenges that this government faces to improve the lives of faces to improve the lives of working people. When I was given this role ten weeks ago, the clearest of instructions I was clearest of instructions I was given was to reduce energy bills by making millions more homes warm, safe and fit for the 21st century. safe and fit for the 21st century. And that's the challenge. Our housing stock is amongst the oldest in Europe.

Over a third of it was in Europe. Over a third of it was built before the Second World War, and that has a cost high bills, damp and mould, miserable winters, risk to health, families wasting their hard earned money on heating, leaky poor, insulated homes, persistent debilitating fuel poverty. This is an obstacle we must overcome. Our mission for national renewal not just an economic imperative, but a moral one, a social one. This is how we rebuild people's trust, that governments still have the power to intervene and improve their lives.

And it is why upgrading our homes is at the heart of our clean energy mission and our national mission. We have been working hard to get our warm home up Warm Homes Plan right, and we will publish our full plan soon. It's a priority for me, having taken on this brief two months ago and it will be published soon, but we have been clear from the moment we came into government about the scale of our ambition. We are planning to upgrade up to 5 million homes by the end of this Parliament.

That's entire streets and whole neighbourhoods benefiting from solar panels, heat pumps, home batteries and better insulation. And to make sure we deliver on that, we've matched every penny that we promised for this. In opposition, £13.2 billion funding that will help to improve homes up and down the country, slashing both bills and emissions and importantly, reducing fuel poverty. But to achieve this, people need to have full confidence in the system. And as many hon. Members have mentioned, we are aware of the recent National Audit Office report into non-compliance in two government schemes delivering solid wall insulation.

And let me be clear, we will never let that happen again. And more than that, we are taking this chance to completely overhaul the consumer protection landscape for retrofit measures so that work is done right the first time, guaranteeing customers the level of service that they deserve, and swift redress on the occasions when those levels are not met, the plan will only work. The Warm Homes Plan will only work if we take people with us and deliver change at pace and at scale to the highest standard.

Madam Deputy Speaker, we are not waiting for the Warm Homes Plan to start this work, and with this in mind, we have already kickstarted delivery. We are making it cheaper and easier for families to get heat pump installed, almost doubling the funding for the Boiler Upgrade Scheme to £295 million for this financial year and committing to increase that funding year on year up to 2030, removing the one metre rule for air source heat pumps in England, giving people more flexibility to install them without applying for planning permission.

And today, I was pleased to say that we have published our response to the Boiler Upgrade Scheme consultation, extending where that Boiler Upgrade
20:57
Martin McCluskey Portrait Martin McCluskey MP (Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West, Labour)
-
-
Scheme is eligible for, and we have also published a consultation on alternative heating solutions today, alternative heating solutions today, including. And the hon. Friend, the Member for Truro and Falmouth will be interested in this on renewable be interested in this on renewable liquid heating fuels, which I know is of interest to many members in rural constituencies. And crucially, rural constituencies. And crucially, I am going to make progress just because we are so tight on time. Crucially, it's not just homeowners Crucially, it's not just homeowners who will benefit from our plan.

Back in March, we allocated around £1.8 billion to local authorities £1.8 billion to local authorities and social housing providers to deliver home upgrades through the Warm Homes: Local Grant and Warm Warm Homes: Local Grant and Warm Homes: Social Housing Fund. This will support around 200 projects over the next three years, with work already underway and to work already underway and to achieve our goals. We are also backing improved standards in the private and social rented sector. private and social rented sector. As the hon.

Member mentioned, we know that far too many tenants are faced with the daily reality of living in damp, draughty homes that living in damp, draughty homes that they cannot afford to heat. That is why we have set out proposals to increase minimum energy efficiency standards in the private rented sector in England and Wales to EPC, C or equivalent by 2030, and to C or equivalent by 2030, and to introduce a minimum energy efficiency standard in the social rented sector. Combined, these measures will lift hundreds of thousands of households out of fuel poverty, giving renters the warmer homes and cheaper, cheaper bills that they deserve.

And our plan is not just about retrofitting the older homes, it is also about building the homes of the future. We have also set the target of building 1.5 million new future proofed homes by the end of the decade, and our Future Homes standard will ensure that for the residents of these new homes, heat pumps and heat networks will become the norm, as will solar panels on rooftops, saving the typical household £500 on their bills each year. While we deliver our plan, we are giving families the short term support that they need this winter.

Earlier this year, we expanded the £150 warm home discount to every household where the bill pays on means tested benefits, meaning that this winter around 6 million families, 1 in 5 across Britain will get this crucial benefit. And as for the long term, it's really very simple. Home-grown clean power is the way through. It means that we can control our energy prices mean the end of roller coaster energy bills, price spikes and an uncertain future decided by dictators and upheavals beyond our borders will be ended.

And by upgrading homes with energy efficient technologies, we can ensure people feel the direct benefits of that clean, secure, affordable energy. And that is how we will bring clean power home. Madam Deputy Speaker, the Labour government has a plan, a plan to make millions more homes fit for the 21st century, to finally properly tackle fuel poverty, to protect working people and ensure they will not have to worry about every degree turned up on the thermostat, every light switched on, every penny that is spent.

We welcome constructive views on our approach, but we will not entertain those who would abandon our mission to decarbonise our homes and buildings, or would abandon the wider transformative architecture of clean power and with it, abandon a hopeful, forward thinking vision for the future of this country. The British people want change. And Madam Deputy Speaker, this is what we have set out to deliver with the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Warm Homes Plan. The question is that this House do now adjourn and move that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

do now adjourn and move that. Please say aye. Aye. The ayes have it. The ayes have
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page