Commons Chamber

Wednesday 21st January 2026

(began 2 weeks, 3 days ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
11:33
11:34
11:34
11:35
11:35
11:36
11:36
11:37
11:37
11:38
11:38
11:39
11:39
11:40
11:41
11:41
11:41
11:42
11:42
11:43
11:43
11:43
11:44
11:44
11:45
11:45
11:46
11:46
11:47
11:48
11:48
11:49
11:49
11:49
11:50
11:50
11:50
11:51
11:51
11:52
11:52
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:54
11:54
11:54
11:55
11:55
11:56
11:57
11:57
11:58
11:59
11:59
12:00
12:00
12:00
12:00
12:01
12:02
12:02
12:03
12:04
12:04
12:06
12:07
12:08
12:08
12:09
12:11
12:12
12:13
12:14
12:14
12:15
12:16
12:17
12:18
12:18
12:19
12:20
12:20
12:21
12:21
12:22
12:23
12:23
12:24
12:24
12:25
12:26
12:26
12:26
12:27
12:28
12:28
12:29
12:30
12:31
12:32
12:32
12:33
12:33
12:33
12:34
12:35
12:35
12:36
12:37
12:37
12:38
12:38
12:39
12:39
12:39
12:40
12:40
12:41
12:41
Ed Miliband Portrait Rt Hon Ed Miliband MP, The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Doncaster North, Labour)
-
-
about the Warm Homes Plan, which we published today. Mr. speaker, this is a plan focussed on the number is a plan focussed on the number one issue facing our country, the cost of living crisis and on the scourge of fuel poverty, which affects millions of families across Britain. Now at the Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor took an average of £150 of costs off energy bills from April. This winter, we've expanded the warm home discount to a total of 6 home discount to a total of 6 million families, and today we allocate £15 billion in our warm homes plan.

Mr. speaker, a more than doubling of public investment in home upgrades compared to the last parliament. In fact, the biggest public investment in home upgrades in British history to cut bills and tackle fuel poverty. And in making this investment, we turn the page on a lost decade of the last government's failure home insulation levels falling by more than 90% between 2010 and 2024. The promise of minimum energy efficiency standards for renters broken the cancellation of the Zero Carbon Homes standard and the repeated failures of schemes like the Green Deal, the Green Homes Grant and the Eco scheme.

And worst of all, Mr. Speaker, our dependence on fossil fuels leaving us exposed to the worst energy bills crisis in generations. Mr. speaker, the last government failed time after time. This government is doing the work to put it right here. The starting point for this plan is that clean energy is not only the right choice for energy security and reducing emissions, but for cutting people's bills. And, Madam Deputy Speaker, the public agrees they are showing record demand for technologies like solar batteries and heat pumps that can save families hundreds of pounds a year.

Heat pump sales in Britain have grown by around 50% annually, one of the fastest growing markets in Europe, last year saw a record number of rooftop solar installations, and the driving purpose of this plan is to ensure those benefits are available not just to the wealthiest, but to families throughout our country. At every level of income. The driving purpose of this Labour government to stand up for working people and tackle the affordability crisis. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, let me set out the measures we are announcing in our plan today.

First, today we announced £5 billion of public investment to directly deliver home upgrades for low income families. This will help families living in social housing and low income owner occupiers to have warmer homes and lower bills. In setting out this plan, we're abolishing the failed eco scheme and making the principal decision that we should fund support through public investment, not levies on bills and our plan Madam Deputy Speaker pays heed to all the evidence that says this funding is best delivered with local authorities and mayors in the driving seat.

People, those representing local people, delivering for local people. And at the same time, we recognise the challenges facing suppliers who used to deliver eco. So we will ensure that this extra money is used to help support them. And my right hon. Friend, the Minister for Energy Consumers will convene a working group of contractors, social housing providers and local authorities to oversee this work. Overall, this allocation to tackle fuel poverty is the biggest public investment in tackling fuel poverty in our nation's history.

Second, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a scandal that 1.6 million children live in private accommodation, suffering from cold, damp or mould, according to Citizens Advice. We on this side believe in a simple principle if you rent a home, private or social, your landlord has a responsibility to ensure it is safe, warm and affordable to heat. The last government, Madam Deputy Speaker, promised higher standards and then they ripped up that promise. Today we deliver. By 2030, private landlords will have to upgrade their properties to meet minimum standards of energy efficiency.

And we have consulted on similar rules in the social rented sector, tackling the scourge of poor quality rented homes and cutting bills for renters. And I can tell the House that these measures alone will lift over half

**** Possible New Speaker ****

poverty. Hear, hear.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Third, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is right we target help at those most in need. But we know the affordability crisis stretches well affordability crisis stretches well beyond those on low incomes. We want to make it easier for all households to cut their bills by choosing a heat pump, solar or batteries. So building on the steps we took at the Budget to make electricity cheaper, we're electricity cheaper, we're expanding the boiler upgrade scheme, increasing investment every year out to 2030, with, for the first time, a universal offer of 2500 pounds for a heat battery or air to air heat pump, as well as 7500 pounds to install a conventional heat pump.

But I want to go further. Currently, just 1 in 20 homes in Britain have solar panels installed on their rooftops. We are determined to unleash a rooftop revolution, helping many more families generate their own energy to cut their bills. So I can announce that the government is, for the first time ever, setting aside up to £2 billion to subsidise zero and low interest loans for solar panels, batteries and other technologies. Learning from the successful experience of other countries and meeting the demand of people for this technology.

And Madam Deputy Speaker, this is just the first step. With a further 3 billion available for loans and investments over the coming years through our Warm Homes Fund. Fourth, as we upgrade existing homes, we will ensure that new homes are built cheaper to run with solar and clean heating as standard. And Madam Deputy Speaker, this is just common sense. People cannot understand why we are building new homes with higher bills. The reason is because they refused to act. We are putting an end to this absurd situation.

We will publish the future Home Standard shortly and for the first time, solar panels will be fitted as standard in new homes. And alongside the other measures I have set out, this is designed to help treble the number of homes with solar by the end of the decade. Fifth, to make these changes happen, we cannot go on with the old system of accountability and delivery that has frankly, failed a situation where people have to navigate a fragmented and confusing system of home upgrades delivered through a bewildering number of organisations and schemes.

And we need to face up to the fact that, after repeated failures of the last government to deliver schemes effectively, we need a specialist body with the technical expertise and focus required. So consolidating functions from Ofgem and other organisations and abolishing ceilings. And with no increase in arms length bodies, we will establish a new Warm Homes agency. It will deliver impartial advice and guidance, work with local

**** Possible New Speaker ****

authorities and businesses, oversee government schemes backed by a reformed system of consumer protection. Hear, hear.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hear, hear. Mr. speaker. Madam Speaker, we will put an end to the scandalous failure of accountability and regulation and the waste of the public's money we saw under the last government. Finally, we are last government. Finally, we are determined to ensure this rollout delivers not just for consumers, but workers too. With the largest but workers too. With the largest producers of gas boilers in Europe. And there's a huge opportunity to harness this expertise to produce heat pumps as well.

Manufacturers are already embracing this opportunity, including Ideal Heating in Hull, Vaillant in Derbyshire, which I visited last year, and Copeland in Northern Ireland. But currently less than 40% of heat pumps sold in Britain are made in Britain. We are setting a new aim of at least 70% of heat pumps installed in the UK being made in the UK, backed by a trebling of public investment in heat pump manufacturing, with £90 million set aside today. Overall, we expect the Warm Homes plan to support up to 180,000 additional jobs in energy efficiency, heat pumps and heat networks by the end of the decade, creating opportunities for builders, electricians, plumbers and installers, as well as new workers entering the industry.

And Madam Deputy Speaker, we will establish a new taskforce with the TUC working with business to ensure these jobs are well paid and highly skilled, with a proper role for trade unions. Because we are a Labour government, we expect the right of working

**** Possible New Speaker ****

people to be at the heart of this industry's future. Hear, hear. Madam Deputy Speaker. Taken together, this is a landmark plan that stands in a great reforming tradition of Labour governments after 1945, delivering on the after 1945, delivering on the promises of homes for the people, modernising the nation's housing stock under Harold Wilson in the stock under Harold Wilson in the 1960s, introducing the Decent Homes standard for social housing. In the 2000, each Labour government meeting the rightful expectations of working people that the next generation can expect higher standards of living than the last.

That is what this government seeks to do in our time. A plan to cut bills for millions, help lift a million families out of fuel

**** Possible New Speaker ****

poverty and create good jobs. And I commend this statement to the House. I call the Shadow Minister Andrew Bowie.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Andrew Bowie. Thank you very much. Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the Secretary of State for advance copy of his statement today. Today's announcement is long overdue and an entire year to be overdue and an entire year to be exact, during the general election. During the general election, Madam
12:50
Andrew Bowie Portrait Andrew Bowie MP (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, Conservative)
-
-
During the general election, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Labour Party claimed that they would cut household bills. This announcement should be part of yet. Yet in that time since the general election and under the Secretary of State's watch, energy bills have not fallen. They have gone in the opposite direction. Energy bills are up by £200 since that election, partly as a result of Secretary of State's own political choices. We believe there is a greater role in our energy system for home batteries.

We support a more technology agnostic approach to air to air heat pumps. And of course, we believe rooftop solar is much better than carpeting the countryside in huge solar farms. But the Secretary of State is ignoring the core problem. We are in an electricity price crisis of this Secretary of State's own making. And even if we are as charitable as possible and accept that they reach 5 million households as they say, they will benefit from this plan, then it does nothing to cut bills for 83% of the country, but those households will all pay much higher taxes because of Labour's Budget, including to fund the sector £15 billion plan.

And those households are struggling with their energy bills now because of the choices of the Secretary of State. So turning to the specific measures in the plan, the his department's own figures show that the public is becoming more sceptical about heat pumps. Between winter 2024 and spring 2025, the share of people saying that they were unlikely to install an air source heat pump increased from 38% to 45%. And if you ask anyone why they don't want heat pump, they will tell you it's the high upfront cost.

Yes. But it's yes, yes. But it's also the high ongoing running costs, which often make them more expensive to run than a gas boiler. There is a serious risk that this government, legally binding targets, are forcing them to push people into buying heat pumps, but those families will all be locked into sky high running costs, because this government has a political target which is pushing up their electricity bills at the same time. Yet this plan does nothing to address those high ongoing running costs.

Instead, last week, the government announced they are locking this country into higher energy prices for decades through the botched wind auction. Just imagine. Madam Deputy Speaker, if there was a plan on the table to cut the cost of running a heat pump by 20% instantly, a cheap power plan that would not involve raising taxes on working people to fund handouts, a plan that would axe the carbon tax and scrap the Secretary of State's rip off wind subsidies to cut bills for every family in this country.

Wouldn't that be a much better approach to make heat pumps much more attractive? Next, what steps will his department take to make sure that low interest loans will provide good value for money? How many homes will benefit from the low and zero interest loan scheme, and how will it be determined who gets a low interest loan or a zero interest loan? On the changes to the minimum energy efficiency standards for rented homes, he will know that the previous government did more than any other to improve energy efficiency standards, with half of all homes having an EPC rating of C or above when we left office, compared to 14% when Secretary of State left office in 2010.

But has his department carried out any impact assessment of what the 2030 deadline will cost landlords, and therefore how much will be passed on to renters in increased rents? His own government's data shows that it will cost over £12,000 to upgrade a home from EPC to C, £12,000 of that will then be passed on to families in increased rents. We cannot ignore all the costs that this government is imposing on the housing sector and the impact that they will have on the cost of living for families in this country.

The government is going to set up a new quango, the Warm Homes Agency, to administer these, administer these schemes. So can the Secretary of State tell us how much this new quango will cost the taxpayer, how it will be held accountable, and why he decided to spend money setting up a new quango, rather than have those functions delivered by his own department that he controls. And finally, and finally, the Secretary of State has already been forced by this House to ban great British energy from spending taxpayers money on solar panels when there is evidence of forced labour in the supply chain.

Of course we welcome that. But can he assure the House that he will apply that same ban on slave labour to solar panel installations funded by the Warm Homes Plan? And when will he publish details of how that mechanism will work so that it can be scrutinised by this House? In conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker, this government is ignoring that affordability crisis the Secretary of State talks about is a crisis of his own making. They are ignoring the fact that they are locking this country into paying higher bills for far longer.

If they truly want to encourage people to adopt green technology like heat pumps or EVs, they need to make electricity cheap. That means they could adopt the Conservatives cheap power plan to cut everyone's electricity bills by 20% and scrap this reckless Clean Power 2030 target, which is locking everyone into paying higher bills for far longer.
12:55
Ed Miliband Portrait Rt Hon Ed Miliband MP, The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Doncaster North, Labour)
-
-
To state. >> Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's always a pleasure to be opposite the hon. Gentleman. Let me just the hon. Gentleman. Let me just make a few points to him, sort of in the gentlest, in the gentlest in the gentlest, in the gentlest way I can. Look, first of all, on the cost of electricity. The Chancellor in her Budget did more in one decision, which was to transfer the 75% of the renewables obligation to public spending to cut electricity costs than they did in 14 years in power.

The second point is he he's shouting about bills. Let me tell him the the the average bill in 2025 was lower in real terms in 2024. And so was the price cap, as he will know from the figures. And I am incredibly proud that this government, unlike the last government, is taking £150 of costs off bills thanks to the Chancellor's decision, funded, funded by taxes on the wealthy. And they oppose all of those taxes and they oppose all of those tax measures.

He talks. He talks about the renters issue. I mean, I think basically what I heard, which maybe shouldn't surprise me, is that he is actually against the higher standards for renters. He would leave renters, private renters languishing in cold, damp homes, which is what they did in 14 years in power. We are proud of the decision we are making. I mean, actually, thanks to the brilliant work of my hon. Friend, we've actually got a supportive quote from the landlords. I mean, even the landlords want more action than the Conservative Party when it comes when it comes to the I mean, if you just sort of to amuse the house briefly, you know, I'll even read it out.

Ben Beadle, chief executive of the NRL. A clear roadmap for the reform of PRS is welcome. So even the landlords are more on the side of renters than the Conservative Party. He asks. He asks why are we setting up the Warm Homes Agency? I'll tell them. I'll tell him why, he says, you know, wouldn't it be better to do it within government? Because they presided over a scandalous and shocking disaster in the eco scheme, a mess we are having to clear up.

And actually, we are going to reform the system so that we have a proper agency with proper technical expertise to make sure nothing like what they visited on thousands of families across the country ever happens again. It. In conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker, I like the hon. Gentleman and I feel a bit of sympathy for him because he has nothing to say about this issue. Let's just be honest about this. They failed over 14 years and we're delivering.
12:58
13:00
Ed Miliband Portrait Rt Hon Ed Miliband MP, The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Doncaster North, Labour)
-
-
Let me address the questions that my hon. Friend asked, and he that my hon. Friend asked, and he speaks with great knowledge on these issues. Look, first of all, on the eco scheme, I think he was on the eco scheme, I think he was making reference partly to the installers and it is important to emphasise the point I made in my statement, which is we want the statement, which is we want the extra money, which is 1.5 billion allocated to the Budget, to help those installers because they are going to face a difficult transition.

I think he raises an important issue on the cost of electricity. As I said in reply to the opposition spokesperson. The the measures that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor took in the Budget are important for cutting the cost of electricity, and all of the evidence I've seen says you can get a with the right tariff. Running a heat pump is cheaper than running a boiler. Obviously, we continue to look at whether there are other ways we can bring the cost of electricity down.

And my hon. Friend is right about that. And just on his point about insulation, I think my maxim here, Madam Deputy Speaker, is that the measures that will cut bills the most are what matters to me. I'm not sort of ideological about this, whether it's insulation or heat pumps or batteries or solar, whatever it is that can give us most bang for our buck in bringing down bills.
13:01
Pippa Heylings Portrait Pippa Heylings MP (South Cambridgeshire, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Liberal Democrat spokesperson Pippa Heylings for 2.5 minutes. Deputy Speaker. And we've been asking for the Warm Homes plan for Christmas for the past two years. So it's very better late than never. So it's very better late than never. Unwrapping it got some mixed feelings. You know, the Liberal Democrats have long called for an emergency home energy upgrade scheme with free insulation and heat pumps, and recently also proposals for low interest loan schemes like these. So we really, really welcome this significant investment by the government in low carbon heating.

And it's folly for anyone to think that we can rely on Putin's Russia or Trump's America for the gas to heat our homes. So it's right for the government to help households make this shift. Every solar panel, heat pump and battery install will protect families from volatile costs of fossil fuels and make homes cheaper to both warm and cool, which is a key point, too. However, I have to say I do share the concerns of the energy efficiency sector about the balance that is being struck between insulation and electrification.

We've seen, as the Secretary of State has said, fuel poverty rise and rates of insulation fall over the last five years, and the UK has some of the least energy efficient housing in Europe, leading to serious health problems with cold, damp, Dickensian home conditions. Despite our warnings, there's still no clarity in this plan about what will replace the eco programme, leaving supply chains in limbo and skilled installers going bankrupt. And this delay I call this out could leave us without an operational national fuel poverty strategy over this coming winter.

We hope not and will therefore hold the government to account on this and other things that have been mentioned that are, you know, we need to hold you to account on this, that being delayed, the gas and electricity price reform postponed again. Efficiency standards have been weakened for landlords. And whilst we encourage, thank you so much for taking on board the rooftop revolution on the back of Max Wilkinson solar bill. But the future home standard is still missing in action. We can't afford more values.

We welcome this significant investment. There is no

**** Possible New Speaker ****

time to waste. Thank you. I welcome the thanks, but obviously it's not down to me but to the Minister. We must stop using

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to the Minister. We must stop using the word you, Secretary of State. Well, look, I was glad to deliver the Liberal Democrats a deliver the Liberal Democrats a late Christmas present. Madam Deputy Speaker, I agreed with some Deputy Speaker, I agreed with some of the hon. Lady's point, particularly about our dependence on fossil fuels and why clean
13:03
13:04
13:05
13:05
13:06
13:06
13:08
13:08
13:09
13:09
13:10
13:11
13:12
13:12
13:13
13:14
13:15
13:16
13:17
13:17
13:18
13:18
13:19
13:20
13:21
13:22
13:22
13:23
13:23
13:24
13:25
13:26
13:27
13:27
13:27
13:28
13:29
13:29
13:29
13:30
13:31
13:31
13:32
13:32
13:32
13:33
13:33
13:33
13:34
13:34
13:35
13:35
13:36
13:36
13:36
13:37
13:37
13:38
13:38
13:39
13:39
13:40
13:40
13:40
13:41
13:41
13:42
13:42
13:43
13:43
13:44
13:44
13:45
13:45
13:45
13:46
13:46
13:46
13:47
Ed Miliband Portrait Rt Hon Ed Miliband MP, The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Doncaster North, Labour)
-
-
>> Deputy Speaker. >> And I'd like to thank the Secretary of State on behalf of the over 5000 households in Shipley over 5000 households in Shipley constituency who experience fuel poverty. Constituents have also benefited from Saltaire Retrofit Reimagined, a community initiative focussed on improving energy efficiency within the Saltaire World Heritage Site. Would the Secretary of State assure residents

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of listed properties, like those in Saltaire, that they can, to benefit from these upgrades? Interstate?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Interstate? Yeah, absolutely. And I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend on this issue. We want these Friend on this issue. We want these benefits to be spread as widely as possible. My hon. Friend says he's possible. My hon. Friend says he's going to be visiting with my hon. Friend to see this. Just this is a final question, Madam Deputy Speaker. I just want to say one Speaker. I just want to say one other thing, which is I just want to thank the civil service team that has worked on this plan because over many, many months they have worked tirelessly on this plan.

And I really want to put on record my thanks to them and indeed for members. And we look forward to engaging with people across the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

House on the implementation of this plan. And that is the end of the Statement on Warm Homes plan. I'll give the front benches a moment or two to shuffle over. The next one. two to shuffle over. The next one. If the Minister is ready, we come to the second statement on water white paper. Minister. With permission. Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the publication of the government's
13:49
None Portrait Ministerial statement: Water White Paper
-

Water White paper, A New Vision for water. The paper sets out a once in water. The paper sets out a once in a generation reform, putting consumers and the environment first and building a water system fit for and building a water system fit for the future. For too long, the last conservative government turned a blind eye. Perhaps that's why there blind eye. Perhaps that's why there isn't a single backbencher from the Conservative Party in the chamber to discuss this issue. They to discuss this issue.

They neglected the needs of people and the environment. The result, Madam Deputy Speaker, a whole system failure. Companies profiting at customer's expense. Vital infrastructure left to crumble. Record levels of pollution in our waterways and public trust destroyed. No wonder none of them have turned up to sit in the back benches. Or we may have 1 or 2, Madam Deputy Speaker. This government inherited this terrible failure and we are not shying away from it. Every family in this country deserves clean water from their taps, seas safe for their children to swim in, and bills that are fair and affordable.

This government is turning the page on that Tory failure. Our goal is simple a water system that delivers safe and secure water supplies, better water quality and a fair deal for customers and indeed for investors. Within weeks of coming into office, this government asked Sir John Cunliffe to lead an independent water commission. Sir John met over 150 stakeholders, including environmental groups, investors, members of both houses and local communities. His call for evidence received more than 50,000 responses, much more interest from people out there than there is from the Conservative Party.

I would like to thank Sir John and all those who contributed, including Honourable and right hon. Members. The White Paper sets out our response to his recommendations. Madam Deputy Speaker. The Cunliffe review was vital, but we did not wait for its conclusions to act. In our first year in office, we laid the foundations for the transformation this white paper sets out. We passed the Water Special Measures Act to give the regulator the power to ban bonuses for polluting water bosses and issue automatic fines for pollution.

We ring fence the money from consumers bills so it can only be spent on fixing and upgrading infrastructure and improving water quality, not diverted to pay bonuses or dividends. We secured a historic investment of £104 billion of private sector investment to rebuild the water network, and we established the brand new Water Delivery Task force to get spades in the ground, fast track delivery of new infrastructure projects and drive economic growth. Madam Deputy Speaker, this white paper builds on these strong foundations and sets a new vision for water in this country.

Our reform delivers three fundamental shifts first, from fragmentation to coordination. Today, responsibility for water is scattered across four different regulators. The result is confusion, duplication and regulatory gaps. We will change that. We will abolish Ofwat. We will create a new, more powerful regulator integrating economic and environmental regulation, and we will hold water companies to account. Moving away from a system of self monitoring, where water companies have been marking their own homework to a more proactive and preventative approach, there will be nowhere to hide for poorly performing water companies.

We will introduce an MOT approach for water company infrastructure requiring maintenance checks on pipes, pumps and water treatment works. A chief engineer and engineering capability in the new regulator so that decisions are grounded in practical understanding. A new supervisory approach holding companies to account in detail and recognising the different challenges they face. And a new performance improvement regime, which will give the regulator the power to step in faster and put things right earlier. This is prevention first regulation.

However, regulation alone will not clean up our rivers, lakes and seas. We need everyone with a stake in our waterways pulling in the same direction. New reforms for regional planning will bring councils, water companies, farmers and developers together to tackle local pollution, manage water resources and support housing growth. This will strengthen community voices in the water system and drive greater use of nature based solutions. Second, a shift from corporate interest to public interest. We must never lose sight of who this reform is for customers and the environment.

We will introduce an independent water ombudsman to resolve consumer disputes fairly. We will keep bills affordable with the wider rollout of smart metres to help those who need it most. And a new water efficiency label on every appliance. So when customers buy a washing machine or a shower, they will know exactly what it will cost. Not just to buy that, but but to run it to help bring their bills down. We are also cracking down on pollution at its source. We will tighten agricultural standards, including on sludge spreading.

We will double funding for catchment partnerships, harnessing the power of nature to protect our rivers. Third, and finally, Madam Deputy Speaker a shift from short term thinking to long term planning. For too long, the water sector has lurched from one five year price review to the next, with no clear picture of where we are headed. We will publish a transition plan to provide a clear roadmap for water companies, investors and the regulators. The plan will set out how the next price review delivers on these reforms, how we drive better coordination between existing regulators during the transition, and how we will make leadership appointments at the earliest opportunity to the new regulator's board, including a chair designate.

Madam Deputy Speaker. For too long, the previous conservative government turned a blind eye to water system failure. Infrastructure was neglected, pollution went unchecked and public trust was betrayed. The white Paper draws a line under that era. The paper lays the groundwork for our upcoming water bill and puts us on a new path, a path where water companies act responsibly, where customers get the service they deserve, where investors can invest with confidence, and where there are clean rivers, lakes and seas that we can all enjoy.

Madam Deputy Speaker, the British public voted for change and we are delivering that change, building a system fit for the future. I commend this statement to the House.
13:56
Victoria Atkins Portrait Rt Hon Victoria Atkins MP (Louth and Horncastle, Conservative)
-
-
I call the shadow Secretary of State, Victoria Atkins. >> Thank you. >> Madam Deputy Speaker, and may I thank the Secretary of State for advance copy of her statement? advance copy of her statement? Indeed. May I welcome the Secretary of State to the chamber? It's not often that she puts an appearance in from the publication of the Minette Batters Report to the Animal Welfare Strategy, published the two days before Christmas Eve, to the family farm tax fiasco. The Secretary of State has been noticeable by her absence.

Indeed, she only intervened on the southeast water crisis seven days ago, months after Tunbridge Wells, East Grinstead and other areas have been suffering from that crisis. And she talks about this statement. Why does she have so little pride in her own water white paper? She announced this to the press on Monday. We were waiting for the statement. We were ready for it. No statement. They were, however, able to cancel the government's business on the public accountability legislation. That is ironic.

We were waiting for a statement yesterday. No statement. And today she has finally given a statement on this white paper because there was an urgent question. And so when it comes to scrutiny and accountability, I think the Secretary of State should be a little bit careful before she criticises others for their chamber presence. Now, that being said, Madam Deputy Speaker, we do welcome cautiously elements of these proposals. Indeed, many of the measures the government have taken on water match our plans from before the 2024 election.

When we entered government in 2010, only 7% of storm overflows were monitored by the previous Labour government. Now that stands at 100% the Water Special Measures Act last year repackaged conservative regulatory proposals such as banning unfair bonuses for water bosses. And we welcome that and the so-called private investment that the Secretary of State keeps referring to is in fact paid for by bill payers. So let's not pretend otherwise. This investment, although it's needed, it's being paid for all of our by all of our constituents through their bills.

Now, talking about delay in June and July last year, Sir John Cunliffe and his team published their review of the water sector. That report contained 88 recommendations. How many of the 88 recommendations are accepted by the government and included in the Water White Paper? Given that the Secretary of State for energy has just announced £15 billion worth of taxpayers money is to be spent on heat pumps and solar bills, which, to put it in context, is equivalent to most of the police funding for England and Wales.

Can she tell us how much taxpayer and bill payer money has been allocated to this white paper, and whether and how, over what time frame these taxes and these bills will be used to pay for the work in this white Paper. Can she confirm whether the government will extend environmental permit regimes to cattle farmers, and if so, how does she intend to ensure that the beef sector, which has already been hit by higher taxes under this government, the abrupt halt of farm funding, which has not been replaced, and the family farm tax fiasco, can she tell us how she is to ensure that the beef sector is not sunk by thousands of pounds worth of extra costs each year? How will the Secretary of State make sure that infrastructure is upgraded to ensure that catastrophic failures, such as those seen under South East Water in the last two months do not happen again? And a glaring gap in the government's rhetoric on water is conserving and ensuring water security.

That means improving supply. How and when will the government improve water security? Now, given the minister's habits of missing their own deadlines, can she give an ironclad commitment that the transition plan will be published in parliamentary time this year? How long will the transition take? People expect change in the water sector and are beginning to tire of the sloth like way in which this government conducts itself. The opposition fully support efforts by the government to hold water companies to account, building on the work of the last conservative government to improve water quality and to deliver meaningful reform of the sector.

We just need the government to get on with it.
14:00
Emma Reynolds Portrait Rt Hon Emma Reynolds MP, The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Wycombe, Labour)
-
-
Oh my gosh. >> Oh my gosh. >> Well, I can say to the right hon. Lady, I will not take any lectures Lady, I will not take any lectures from the Conservative Party. Not only do they can't be bothered to turn up for this statement, which turn up for this statement, which shows an absolute disregard for the for the concerns of the public who are very concerned about the levels of pollution in our waterways. I will answer her questions. We have done more in 18 months than they did in 14 years, so I will not take any lectures from her.

I am proud of our water white paper. I am proud that my predecessor commissioned somebody of the stature of Sir John Cunliffe, and appointed the Independent Water Commission to do the most fundamental review of our water system since privatisation. Privatisation that happened on her on under the Thatcher government. She asked how many recommendations we are taking forward, the vast majority of recommendations we are taking forward and more because we are looking at agricultural pollution, which we didn't ask Sir John to look at.

But the Water White paper does talk about tackling agricultural pollution and I'm not going to shy away from that. We are working in partnership with farmers, the NFU and others because it is a an important source of water pollution. I will not again take lectures from her about the Elms programme. When they underspent the farming Budget, they couldn't be bothered to get the money out the door. She asked about infrastructure being upgraded. The white paper introduces a system that moves away from water companies, marking their own homework to a regulator with teeth that absolutely gets a grip on the delivery of that £104 billion investment in infrastructure.

And under their government, the pipes and the pumps, they were left in a shocking state of disrepair because there was not the regulation and the strong regulator that we need. That's what this water white paper and the upcoming water bill will deliver. She talks about improving water supply. It's absolutely correct. Maybe we can agree on something that we have seen very poor performance from South East Water in recent weeks, and I was there last week to meet with constituents of the hon.

Member for Tunbridge Wells. She said should I have gone earlier? Did she bother to go? Well, listen, this is a privatised industry because of decisions made in 1989. I called on the regulator, Ofwat, to examine the licence conditions and whether they had been breached by South East Water. I don't remember her saying any such thing. I have also said that the I've called in the chair of the. I've called in the chair of South East Water to ask for an urgent investigation of what happened last week and the week before, but also for two weeks before Christmas.

So, Madam Deputy Speaker, this water white paper is the most ambitious reform in a generation to our water system, severely needed because of the blind eye that they that they took when they were in government and the record levels of pollution in our waterways.
14:04
14:04
14:05
14:06
Emma Reynolds Portrait Rt Hon Emma Reynolds MP, The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Wycombe, Labour)
-
-
I thank her for, I think, some support for the the white paper and what she has said. I think we both what she has said. I think we both share real concerns about the status quo. What I would say to her status quo. What I would say to her on mutual ownership is that I don't really hear a plan from the Liberal Democrats as to how to get to that point. Hear me out. If it involves wholesale nationalisation, given that these are private companies, then that would cost around £100 billion and would be legally complex and take years of wrangling through the courts.

My focus is on improving the status quo, on ensuring that we are tackling levels of pollution, which she rightly says are still happening. We've already got now from January last year, 100% of storm overflows are being monitored, monitored. So we are shining a light on some of this pollution. We've still got a way to go, but we are bearing down on the pollution that she rightly talks about. But my solution to this crisis and this issue is to make sure that we have a complete overhaul of regulation of the regulators and the way that consumers are not at the moment, put at the centre of things.

So we protect the consumer in a much more meaningful way by introducing a water ombudsman with statutory powers. So we are making some progress, and I know that her and I agree on some things. We may disagree on some of the details, but we're absolutely determined to deliver a system that delivers better outcomes for consumers and the environment.
14:08
14:09
14:10
14:11
14:12
14:12
14:13
14:14
14:14
14:15
14:15
14:16
14:16
14:17
14:17
14:18
14:18
14:19
14:20
14:20
14:21
14:21
14:22
Lisa Smart Portrait Lisa Smart MP (Hazel Grove, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I'm lucky. Speaker. I'm lucky. >> Enough to represent the constituency of Hazel Grove, and we've got the junction of the Macclesfield and Peak Forest canals. Macclesfield and Peak Forest canals. My constituents really value our canals because they're green veins throughout our area, but also they throughout our area, but also they are a link to our industrial heritage. They're really concerned, though, about the sustainability of funding for our canal network, given what's happened recently with the breach at Whitchurch and a few years ago at the Toddbrook Reservoir, the Secretary of State will know the role of the CRT when it comes to water management.

They look after 74 reservoirs nationally. She will also know that the ownership model means they can't pass on the uplifting costs to customers in the way that water companies do. Could the Secretary of State meet with me to talk about the funding given to CRT to make sure that our canal network is sustainable for the future, and we treat it as the asset that it is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and not a liability to be managed. Thank you for your question. I know Whitchurch quite well, know Whitchurch quite well, actually from I grew up not not not too far away. I'm happily, happily the water Minister. I would happily

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the water Minister. I would happily meet her to discuss that. Thank you. Speaker. Welcome the government's action
14:23
14:23
14:24
14:24
14:25
14:25
14:26
14:26
14:26
14:27
14:27
14:28
14:29
14:30
14:31
14:31
14:31
14:32
14:33
14:33
14:34
14:34
14:35
14:36
14:36
14:37
14:37
14:38
14:38
14:39
14:39
14:40
14:40
14:41
14:42
14:42
14:42
14:43
14:43
14:44
14:45
14:45
14:46
14:47
14:47
14:48
14:48
Olly Glover Portrait Olly Glover MP (Didcot and Wantage, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
to the provision of passenger rail services, to make provision for penalties, for failures to comply with the charter and for connected purposes. Our railway network is relied upon by millions of people, both as passengers and beneficiaries of rail freight, every day. The Railways Bill, currently making its way through Parliament will make the biggest Parliament will make the biggest change in over 30 years. It is therefore right that we seize this opportunity to bring our experience opportunity to bring our experience of using the railway into line with 21st century expectations and challenges.

Passenger charters are not new. I have further burnished my credentials as a dull dinner party guest by reading a few of them in recent days. Every train operating company has them, but this bill would introduce greater consistency, cutting the gap between good intentions and reality, and critically, creating a charter with the teeth needed to truly put passenger experience and value for money first. All of this is not to deny that aspects of our railway have improved. The route I frequently travel to this place between Didcot and London Paddington has a far more generous off peak train service than 30 years ago, with four fast trains per hour compared to one back then.

Trains are more frequent on most routes across the country than they were, and online and digital ticketing brings convenience to many. But problems remain. With the exception of tickets with seat reservations, standard class tickets do not come with any guarantee of a seat. Many trains lack the necessary space for storage of luggage and similar bulky items, and usability of Wi-Fi and mobile phone signal reception is highly variable. Perhaps the gravest issue is that of overcrowding on board trains and the unpredictability of that.

Some of this is understandable and perhaps even forgivable. Extreme unforeseen disruption. For example, major sporting events where efforts to increase service provision have not quite matched demand, and short commuter commuter hops at peak times. But so much overcrowding in recent years seems to have been a conscious decision, one made not by frequently demonised private train operating companies, but by a central government tightly managing post-pandemic contracts with those train operators. There are, alas, examples from Oxfordshire, home of my constituency of Didcot and Wantage.

My wonderful parliamentary assistant Hayley is now on maternity leave, but for many months she commuted whilst pregnant and such was the frequency of five car intercity trains operated by including on very long distance routes, for example Swansea and Cardiff to London. Even at peak times that she frequently opted to delay her journey to work for 90 minutes until a more suitable nine car train was shown running on websites. The issue she faced on those five car trains was not other passengers willingness to give up their seat for her, but the fact she couldn't even get beyond the vestibule area next to the doors into the main saloon of the train, because she found it so often full of people having to stand.

The commonness of five car trains on the GWR network is partly as a result of retiring older trains in the West Country without immediate replacements, leading to their fleet needing to be more thinly spread, something that is now gradually being rectified. Another example is CrossCountry, which still runs a timetable well below pre-pandemic levels. Half a decade on from those very difficult times. Whilst they are acquiring more trains that reduce crowding problems, for many years it has been common for trains of just 4 or 5 carriages to run only once per hour between reading, Oxford, Birmingham and beyond, including at peak times.

My own experience of trying to board the 1740 from Oxford to Manchester resembled the railway version of The Hunger Games. Now punctuality in getting a seat are, of course, core expectations, but rail passengers rightly expect more, particularly for longer distance journeys. Intercity trains introduced this decade on the East Coast Main Line between London and Edinburgh lack the dedicated vehicles of their Intercity 225 predecessors for surge luggage capacity so badly needed during the summer and the Edinburgh Festival. Elsewhere, provision for pushchairs and bicycles is often patchy and sometimes in competition.

Now space for such items is not necessarily at the cost of seats. As is often stated, I have been on trains where carriage of additional bicycles was refused due to lack of flexible storage space, despite half the seats on the train being available. Much of the network, of course, remains in accessible to people using wheelchairs, and they find booked assistance services inconsistent and less reliable than they should be. Toilet reliability can also cause frustration, discomfort and real distress to passengers, and there are train journeys of over three hours in duration, for example between London and Exeter, which lack provision of any on board refreshments.

Now that might sound like a trivial issue. And of course, stations do have much in the way of a retail offer. But if for one reason or another, we're held up on the way to our station, whether that's traffic or last minute delay on the tube, and we run out of time to get something to eat or drink. Well, in the case of someone on that route, you're stuffed and on board Wi-Fi or the ability to receive decent mobile phone signal suitable for modern working methods is often lacking.

As my colleague Ruth experiences on her journeys between Northumberland and London, Madam Deputy Speaker to some these may sound like minor inconveniences, mere whinging trifles, and indeed, despite the valiant efforts of many of those who work on the railway, it can seem that railway passengers are almost viewed as hostages with no viable alternative, which reduces the focus on tackling these problems. But we live in changing times. Not only does public transport continue to compete with the cars convenient, connection free journey from A to B, the economics and operation of cars are changing rapidly.

So I ask, to what degree is the public transport of the 2020s ready for a possible future of widespread driverless and electric cars? An example of the changing economics of long distance travel is that of my friends Mark and Kev, who live in Newton le Willows, halfway between Manchester and Liverpool. Their electric car now makes the journey to London significantly cheaper than it would be by train, and some of their suboptimal experiences of Avanti West Coast train service further pushed them in the car direction.

Now, critics of public transport may ask, well, if the car is becoming greener and cheaper, does it matter if the passenger railway gets left behind? Madam Deputy Speaker, it is my strong contention that it does indeed matter, as it is far from certain that the electric and driverless car revolution will benefit everyone. Nothing can match the train for its ability to convey large numbers of people efficiently, particularly in urban areas, or offer an on board environment conducive to work, sleep, resting, eating or listening to music.

Although in the case of the latter, I would ask that everybody do it with earphones, high quality and reliable public transport is essential for social and economic inclusion. So how can a 21st century refresh of the railway passengers charter contribute to a better future? Well, firstly, we must protect charter arrangements already in place. These principally take the form of delay repay, perhaps because the UK's delay compensation arrangements are more generous than elsewhere in Europe. I keep hearing murmurs about ideas to water it down.

That would be the wrong approach. The best way to reduce delay repay costs is, of course, to prevent and reduce delays in the first place. Secondly, a refreshed passenger charter should be used to learn from past mistakes regarding design and specification of trains. It was an error and on the part of government and the public sector, not the private sector. Not to specify fold down tables, comfortable seats, device charging sockets or WiFi for the class 700 Thameslink fleet ordered in the early 20 tens, and given trains have a lifespan of 30 to 40 years, it is so important that we get them right from the beginning.

So let us now get this right with a clear set of minimum and consistent standards for commuter, rural and regional and express passenger trains. Once train fleets consistently have the amenities the modern passenger expects, charters should be expanded to include the principle that what is offered on a given train fleet, whether that is seats, toilets or Wi-Fi, should be working. The existing delay repay partial refund concept should be expanded to cover such amenities, with appropriate exclusions such as the entitlement to a seat, wait for journeys of under 30 minutes or during major disruption or special events.

The advancement of the charter concept brings with it the hope of a truly 21st century railway, and to attract the patronage needed for the railway's financial sustainability. A train service that even commuters may look forward to using instead of a daily grind. A chance for a relaxed transition between home and workplace, and a long distance train service that is less of a distress purchase and more a comfortable, relaxing or productive alternative to a car, whether self-driven or otherwise. Madam Deputy Speaker, our railway recently celebrated its 250th anniversary.

What better time to reset our ambition and ensure that we will feel even more proud of our railway's achievements at the 300th

**** Possible New Speaker ****

anniversary in 2074? The question is. That the hon. Member. Have leave

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That the hon. Member. Have leave to bring in the bill. As many as of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Who will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

prepare and bring in the bill? Edward Morello. Will Forster.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Edward Morello. Will Forster. Helen Morgan. Steff Aquarone. Helen Maguire. Zoe Franklin. Daisy Cooper Ian Roome Martin Wrigley Charlotte Cane Liz Jarvis. And myself, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Olly Glover.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Time to shine.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Tremendous stuff.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

North Cotswolds.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Rail Passengers' Charter Bill Second Reading. What day?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Second Reading. What day? Friday the 27th February.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friday the 27th February. Friday the 27th of February. The clerk will now proceed to read the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

orders of the day. National insurance contributions, employer pensions contributions employer pensions contributions Order! National insurance contributions. Employer pensions contributions bill. I remind members that in committee members should not address the Chair as Deputy Speaker, but please use our names or Madam Chair. Chair. And Madam Chairman, we begin with amendment five to clause one, with which it will be convenient to consider all amendments. Clauses stand apart and new clauses as on the selection and grouping paper.

I call Mark Garnier to move amendment five.
15:00
15:00
Mark Garnier Portrait Mark Garnier MP (Wyre Forest, Conservative)
-
-
terms of in terms of enhancing pension savings. But what I may do, if I may, is go through each, each if I may, is go through each, each of our amendments in kind of, if you like, reverse order of importance. So starting with new importance. So starting with new clause four, reviewing the impact of the act, this amendment will ask the government basically to assess the impact of the Bill should it the impact of the Bill should it receive royal assent before and after its implementation in 2029.

We think it is important that the government does its homework before implementing policies, and we asked for something similar in the pension schemes bill, but the pensions Minister described it as unnecessary. In this case, it doesn't seem the government has listened to industry or to the experts or indeed to savers. So our amendment would ask the government to do this so that we can understand the impact better. So specifically how this affects pensions adequacy and that this will be after the pensions review has concluded.

So we do need to know. And secondly, how many people use salary sacrifice or optional arrangements arrangements. And then thirdly, the investment capability of UK pensions. There has been a certain amount of commentary on this. The Abi have said that we have consistently raised concerns about the potential impact of a cap on pension, salary, sacrifice on both people's savings and employer's resources. So there are some issues that are that are of great concern to many people on this. So we obviously want to ask if the government has fully considered the knock on effect that this will have on investment from UK pension funds, and also, would the government update the terms of reference for Pensions Commissioner being led by Baroness Drake, to ensure that this is considered? So? I won't go on about that, but what I would say is that the we are unlikely to move this, this new clause, but the Liberal Democrats new clause five I believe has has a similar effect.

And should the Liberal Democrats want to move their new clause five, we would support that. Moving on to amendments seven and eight, which is looking at indexation of the of the Cap, these amendments will will look to make the £2,000 cap naturally rise in line with the consumer price index. We brought this forward as if the cap remains static, then it will become increasingly meaningless. And we've seen today where we've had an above expectation inflation rise of 3.4%. Clearly this is something which which will obviously devalue the value of the cap even by the time it's implemented in 2029.

So our amendment seeks to address that. So salary sacrifice arrangements don't become redundant without parliamentary intervention. And and obviously we use CPI because that's kind of the basics for inflation. Again the Abi have made a similar argument as Cap doesn't allow for inflationary changes. Moving on to however, having said that, we don't propose to move that that amendment moving on to amendments five and six. These are the amendments that we feel particularly strongly about. They are mirror arrangements for each other.

But importantly, what we're trying to do with amendments five and six is to make what we feel is a very poor bill into something which is less poor. These amendments will make basic rate taxpayers exempt from the £2,000 cap so they will support the group in the UK that typically under save or are the least prepared for retirement. According to the Society of Pension Professionals, a quarter of the people who enjoy salary sacrifice that will be hit by the changes this bill brings in are basic rate taxpayers, and there are around 850,000 people who are basic rate taxpayers who will be affected by this, by this cap.

But more fundamental to that, though, is that this group of people will be hit disproportionately hard. Lower paid workers will be hit disproportionately hard. Salary sacrifice allows an employee to give up a certain amount of their salary to be contributed to their pension directly by the employer that we all understand. But this not only takes advantage of the income tax allowance as with all pension contributions, but allows National Insurance contributions to be included and transferred into the pension in the case of an employee.

National insurance and for employer National Insurance to be used at the discretion of the employer and this employee element that that that National Insurance that as an employee we all pay is the important part of this for higher rate taxpayers, whilst they will continue to enjoy 40% tax relief at their higher rate, the National Insurance is just two percentage points around 1/20 of the income tax break on on income tax. But for a basic rate taxpayer, whilst they enjoy just 20% income tax breaks, the their National insurance contribution is 8%.

So the effect on lower paid workers is four times that of higher paid workers. This is not a good thing and indeed 8% is is is 2/5 of the value of the of the other contribution which they which they get the benefit from their income tax savings. So in absolute terms, at the marginal rate, as I say, it's four times as expensive for lower rate taxpayers than it is for higher rate taxpayers. But there's an even bigger problem with this. It is a harder attack on other types of savers than we've really anticipated.

There are other groups of people that are also being affected, and this is people who are paying back student loans. Graduates pay back their student loans once they pass a threshold of £28,745, and they do so at a rate of 9%. So this salary sacrifice cap means that graduates who would otherwise enjoy that 9% of for student loans being paid into a pension is now not going to be paid into the pension because of that cap. So the effective loss for a graduate paying back student loans is 9%.

So gradual and basic rate tax will see a loss of not just 8% for their national insurance schemes, but a total of 17% loss of the benefit at the marginal level above the two £2,000 cap. And the director of the Chartered Institute of Taxation agrees, and I quote, the change will disproportionately affect basic rate taxpayers because they pay at 8% and I see on contributions over £2,000 caps compared to the 2% charge on higher earners. But it will also disproportionately impact those with student loans who earn above the repayment threshold, as they will have incurred an extra 9% student loan dedication from their pay or deduction from their pay.

So at a time when we are trying to get people to do the right thing to save for the future, the government, it seems, wants to whack them hard. They want to whack the lower paid harder. But because of this wave, it works. As I say, it is a lower paid and they want to whack also a younger generation, even harder than those who enjoyed free university education. And for this younger generation, they can't afford to buy a house. They have to pay for university education.

The government has made it far harder to get a job with their jobs tax, and at the time when we are desperately trying to get people to save for their retirement, they make it harder to save for a pension. So I challenged Labour MPs who are going to be voting on this and who are being whipped to vote against this, to vote against the interests of of lower paid people. Why are they being asked to vote against the interests of graduates and younger people, and to vote for a regressive tax? So yes, go on.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I commend them for. For what? The hon. Gentleman, right hon. Gentleman is saying, it's not just those in lower income, it's those in middle income as well. It's the mums and dads of the students who is where it all falls back in the shoulders of them. And does he agree? As he has said, it is an attack upon the younger people who attack upon the younger people who have aspirations and and hopes for the future. And what should be done should be encouraging young people should be encouraging young people and helping young people.

And very clearly government has fallen down. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I completely agree with my with my, my friend. It's it is a it is a fundamental problem. We're doing completely the wrong thing for people who want to do the right thing. We're disincentivizing people taking responsibility for people taking responsibility for their future at a time when actually the state pension is coming under a lot of pressure, and it's expected that I think it's in 11 or 12 years, there will be less money being paid into the pension money being paid into the pension scheme pot than is being withdrawn by those of us who kind of, in my own case, had to declare an interest, are approaching retirement.

So it is. Years ago. I can't a year or two ago. Thank you very much for your years. OK. Thank you very much. But look, it's I'm. Well, look, I'm actually trying to finish my speech. I thought I had finished my speech, but but look, the this is a very important point. So this is, this is an amendment. We will move to a vote. And as I say, we will challenge Labour MPs to do the wrong, you know, to not do the wrong thing for their for their constituents, for their young, hard working graduates who are, who are desperate to do the right thing.

Thank you. Mr. Next.
15:09
Charlie Maynard Portrait Charlie Maynard MP (Witney, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
The question is that amendment five be made Liberal Democrat spokesperson Charlie Maynard. >> Yeah. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. My chief concern with this bill is that, concern with this bill is that, like a lot of the measures the Chancellor announced in the Budget, this looks like it may be a route to some medium term increased tax revenues, but it gives no thought to longer term consequences that will help her meet her fiscal rules. But I say May because this doesn't kick in this year.

It doesn't kick in next year, it doesn't kick in the year after, it doesn't kick in the year after that, it kicks in rather conveniently in the election year of 2930. That's pretty useful. If you are fighting election, then if you want to meet your fiscal rules. It's not very useful if you're trying to be fiscally prudent. And so that kind of leads to some scepticism about what actually is going on here. So given the pressures on the state pension, the social care system, it seems extremely counterproductive to reduce the incentives for those who can afford to do so and to save more towards their retirement.

So let's look at the impact that small businesses have warned about. Pensions UK and the Federation of Small Businesses have jointly expressed their concern that these changes will increase costs for businesses who rely on salary sacrifice to support staff retention and reward. They state that higher national insurance costs and operational disruption will make it harder to offer competitive benefits, invest in growth or plan effectively. We need to remember the wider context that small businesses are operating in. Even before this, they were battling with sharply rising costs of everything from rents to energy bills to supplies to business rates, the costs of Brexit, etc.

but they also have to adjust the changes of their next bills, the Chancellor announced a year ago, and you can see how it must feel to small business owners. The additional burden heaped on them feels unsustainable. This is a double whammy on the National Insurance hikes last year, while the the NICs burdens having gone up last year due to the rate increase and now this measure raising their next bill for a second time. I would be interested to hear from the Minister what impact assessment they have made of the impact of these changes on businesses and small businesses in particular, which is why the Liberal Democrats have tabled amendments requiring the government to publish full assessments of the impact of the bill on the recruitment and retention and on the tax liabilities of businesses as a result.

Now let's consider the potential damage this choice will do further down the road by disincentivizing saving. Earlier this year, research from Scottish Widows found that 39% of people in the UK aren't on track for a minimum lifestyle in retirement, a 4% increase since 2023, and research showed that people were actually saving more towards their pension in the last year. But projected retirement income was still failing to keep pace given

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the rising cost of living. Certainly. I think spokesman for giving

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think spokesman for giving away the shadow spokesperson spoke about challenging Labour MPs to to about challenging Labour MPs to to champion their constituency. I would just say to him one of the biggest concerns I have in my constituency of Harlow and about constituency of Harlow and about pensions is the amount of people that aren't paying any attention at all, particularly those that are self-employed or lower earners. So self-employed or lower earners. So would he agree that actually the real conversation we need to be having about pensions in this place is how we encourage people in my constituency to actually save for their futures, which I think is what you're suggesting.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Absolutely agree and well said. Yes, the government may well say Yes, the government may well say that this will not affect low earners, who are likely to not be saving the £2,000 at all in any given year, as my hon. Gentleman just said, but this is too simplistic way to look at it. The simplistic way to look at it. The HMRC impact assessment found an estimated 7.7 million employees currently use salary sacrifice to currently use salary sacrifice to make pension contributions, or around 25% of all employees.

Of these, 3.3 million sacrificed more than 2000 of salary or bonuses. These. That leaves millions of middle earners who are already feeling a significant squeeze from a myriad of other cost of living pressures, who have had their taxes raised by the previous conservative government and are now facing an even greater hit due to this government's job tax and the extension of frozen income tax thresholds. If this discourage them from putting money away for their safety net in later life, the Treasury will pay the price in the long run.

Before the Budget, the Association of British Insurers had warned that 2 in 5 Brits will save less than their pension if a cap on salary sacrifice schemes is introduced, with social care budgets also stretched to breaking point. We should be doing everything we can to incentivise people who are able to put money aside for a comfortable and supported retirement, as the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England Wales pointed out in their response. At a time when there is a Pensions Commission considering the adequacy of pension saving, this demonstrates a lack of joined up thinking from the government.

So this bill removes a helpful incentive for long term financial planning. It will place a costly additional burden on small businesses at a time when they can least afford it, and I think it is an unwise short term move, with no regard for the longer term consequences which will cost the Treasury more than this brings in. So I urge the government to reconsider. For this reason, I will be pushing for a vote this often. The Liberal Democrat new clause five, which would require the government to calculate and publish the changes to lifetime pension values before and after the changes made in this bill have taken effect, and we will be voting against this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bill. Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. Thank you. Madam Chair. And for the reminder of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And for the reminder of the excellent debate we had before the Christmas break. And thank you to both hon. Members who have contributed to today's committee contributed to today's committee proceedings. Let me briefly reiterate the case for the three short, perfectly formed clauses of short, perfectly formed clauses of this bill before focusing my remarks on the hon. Member's amendments which we have discussed today. As hon. Members will know, this reform was inevitable. We had a detailed discussion of the last government's secret plan to implement a very similar proposal, a secret plan as labelled by the party opposite, not by the government frontbench and the cost of pension.

Salary sacrifice was due to almost treble, from 2.8 billion in 20 17 to 8 billion by 2030. That is the equivalent of the cost of the Royal Air Force, and the status quo is also hard to defend. When low earners in the 4.4 million self-employed people across the UK are entirely excluded, reinforcing the point made by my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

hon. Friend, of course. Thank you. And the Minister will recall our many happy.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

many happy. Hours together at the pensions Bill Committee, and one of the issues that the Liberal Democrats issues that the Liberal Democrats raised was the need for MOT for people as they approached their people as they approached their their pensions and seeing how it was going and the adequacy of their pensions, would the Minister accept that by putting these stark restrictions in place for somebody realises that the clock is ticking, that they're running out of time for being able to put that additional contributions in their pension to get to a better place.

You've restricted this significantly. And would the Minister consider extra flexibility so that that people could use perhaps ten years allowances in three years? Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I remind members that the scope of this bill is very narrow indeed, of this bill is very narrow indeed, and we really ought to be keeping to within the scope of the bill and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not bringing in new concepts. Minister. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll follow your advice, but try to respond to some of the points that the hon. Members raised in the question. I'm going to come on to about how we've gone about the changes that this bill introduces. So, as I've said, change is inevitable, but it is important to take a pragmatic approach to it, which is my answer to the hon. Member just now pragmatic by continuing to allow £2,000 to be salary sacrificed free of any NICs charge, ensuring that 95% of those earning 30,000 or less will be entirely unaffected.

Pragmatic. By giving employers and the industry

**** Possible New Speaker ****

four years to prepare Chris Vince. I think. Even where he said that the cost

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Even where he said that the cost the exchequer of the salary sacrifice scheme is going to triple by this decade, does he not agree with me that this is just with me that this is just unsustainable for the Treasury? And would he also agree that we've got to get real in this chamber? The reason people in my constituency parlour can't even begin to think about pensions or savings, because they're living day to day. And actually, what this government is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

actually, what this government is doing, what this government is doing, is tackling the cost of living crisis. Minister. Well, in a short move, I entirely agree with my honourable, my hon. Friend. And for those parties who have said that they intend to vote against this bill today, they cannot keep coming to this chamber and calling for additional spending in more areas day after day, while opposing any means to raise taxes to. Well, you've raised the welfare Budget and without trying the no, I will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not mention the welfare Budget because. Firstly, I've not raised

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Firstly, I've not raised anything. And secondly, we are not here to debate the welfare Budget. This is a very narrow bill with This is a very narrow bill with limited scope. The Minister can listen to the same strictures I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

listen to the same strictures I have given other members. Minister. I'm listening to every word of the the strictures. The. This bill the the strictures. The. This bill is also pragmatic by providing time to adjust and by ensuring that savings into our make a bit of progress, then maybe give way and by pragmatic, by ensuring that saving into a pension remains hugely tax advantaged. And I would just say gently to hon. Members that do not agree with the detail of this bill.

They should be careful not to give the impression to savers or those not saving, now that there is not already a very strong financial incentive to continue pension saving in exactly the way people have been doing, clause one provides for this pragmatic approach in Great Britain, while clause two does the same for Northern Ireland and clause three provides for the territorial extent and the start date of this measures now. Now, turning more substantively to the amendments tabled by the hon. Members for Wyre Forest and for Witney.

At one level, I was very glad to see amendments five and six from the opposition frontbench that aimed to exempt basic rate taxpayers because it shows them, as part of this secret plan that I mentioned earlier, accepting the inevitability of change and instead grappling with what the right pragmatic version of it looks like. And in many ways, these amendments aim to deliver the same objective as the £2,000 cap, which, as I said, means 95% of those earning less than 35,000 30,000 are unaffected, as are the vast majority of basic rate taxpayers, of course.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

So Ashley Fox. Could the Minister explain. What is pragmatic about withdrawing £0.02 in the pound tax relief from a higher rate taxpayer without a higher rate taxpayer without a student loan, and yet withdrawing £0.17 in the pound tax relief from a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

basic rate taxpayer who happens to have a student loan Minister. The pragmatic approach is to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The pragmatic approach is to allow people to continue salary sacrificing £2,000 and not bring in the measure for four years so people have time to adjust. But hon. Members opposite will need to justify wanting to spend more than is being spent on the Royal Air Force, of which I sat through PMQs today and heard people calling for more defence spending, while again not being able to live up to the what that requires, which is taking seriously that we spend tax reliefs effectively and for everybody, there will still be a strong incentive, a tax incentive to save into their pension.

Now, the now the approach proposed taking the approach proposed rather than our proposed cap, would likely be impossible to implement in practice and add unnecessary complexity, not least because employers would would not in many cases know which employees would end up being basic rate taxpayers, and they certainly wouldn't know for sure until the end, or at least late in the financial year. Amendments seven and eight seek to update the cap by inflation. The government has set out our policy intent for a £2,000 cap, to be introduced in April 2029, as the hon.

Member set out, with the timing driven by the desire to give everyone time to adjust. In that context, it does not make sense to index that cap ahead of 2029. While our view is that the future level of the cap in the next decade and beyond is for budgets in those decades, or at least significantly closer to them, I know hon. Members are keen to start debating the 2031 Budget, but having heard from Madam Chairman, I think we should leave that for another day.

This is consistent with the approach taken approach this House has taken under governments of all three main parties, which is to have key elements of the pension tax system that are not routinely indexed, including the annual allowance. But it is, of course, right that this and all governments will want to keep the level of the cap under review to ensure it continues to meet the objectives we have set out today. Turning now to the new clauses, several probe at the impact of the changes.

The government has published a tax information impact note alongside the introduction of this bill. This sets out the impact of the policy on the Exchequer, the economy and individuals and businesses. It also provides an overview of the equality impacts. New clauses one and two seek to focus on SMEs and I have heard suggestions. They were gently hinted at today that that those are more likely to be affected. SMEs are more likely to be affected. The opposite is true. Only 39% of employers offer pension salary sacrifices, and small businesses are less likely to do so than larger business.

Indeed, the status quo puts SMEs at a disadvantage relative to their larger competitive, which is the opposite. I think of the point the hon. Member wanted to make new clause three focuses on marginal tax rates, but the bill changes do not directly affect a person's marginal tax. Those wanting to make pension contributions to keep their taxable income below a certain level can continue to do so, and I have read much misleading commentary on that point. Turning now to new clause four, which proposes an impact assessment of the changes before they take effect and five years after.

I want to again commend the Member for Wyre Forest. He's showing admirable zeal for supporting the argument I made at Second Reading, that any responsible government should keep the £500 billion of tax reliefs under review to ensure they're delivering their objectives efficiently. That is, of course, the exact thought pattern that identified this relief as needing reform. And so I look forward to him changing his mind and supporting it. The government should and will continue to keep this and all taxes and tax reliefs under review, rather than singling this particular relief out via primary legislation.

Turning briefly to clauses five and new clauses five and six, which focus on the impact on pension savings, I can reassure the House that the OBR have set out that they do not expect any material impact on savings as a result of the Budget 2025 tax changes. I hope these remarks, Madam Chair, reassure members with regards to the points that their amendments have raised. And on that basis, Madam Chair, I beg to move that. Clauses 1 to 3

**** Possible New Speaker ****

stamp part of the bill here. I think the Minister will actually find that we're on amendment five, so he need not have amendment five, so he need not have moved those clauses. Then the question actually is that amendment question actually is that amendment five be made. As many as are of that opinion say aye. Of the that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. no. Division. Clear The The question The question is The question is that amendment five be made.

As many errors of that opinion say, are of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the contrary. No, No.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No. No, the tellers for the eyes are Katie Lam and Andrew Snowden. The tellers for the noes, Nesil
15:29
15:29
None Portrait Division
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Oh Oh dear, Oh dear, oh Oh dear, oh dear.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Oh dear, oh dear. The ayes to the right. 191. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right. 191. The noes to the left. 326.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noes to the left. 326. The ayes to the right were 191. The noes to the left 326. So the noes have it. The noes have it unlock. We now come to amendment seven to clause one, which had been selected for separate decision. Is it now your pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? Amendment by leave. Withdrawn. With the leave of the House? I shall put the question on clauses 1 to 3 together. The question is that clauses 1 to 3 stand part of the bill.

As many others of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. New clause five has been selected for separate decision. I call Charlie formally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move. Calculation and publication of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Calculation and publication of lifetime pension values. The question is that new clause five be question is that new clause five be read a second time. As many as of that opinion say aye. Of the that opinion say aye. Of the Question Question is Question is that Question is that new Question is that new clause Question is that new clause five Question is that new clause five be read a second time. As many as of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that opinion say I of the contrary. No. No. The tellers for the eyes are Zoe Franklin and Susan Murray, the Franklin and Susan Murray, the tellers for the nose. Nesil Order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right. 195. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noes to the left. 317. The ayes to the right were 195.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right were 195. The noes to the left 317. So the nose. Have it. The noes have it nose. Have it. The noes have it unlock. Order, order! The question is that I do report the bill to the House. The question is that I do report the bill to the House. As many are as of that opinion, say aye. Of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. the ayes have it.

The ayes have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order! Whip Order! Whip to Order! Whip to report. I beg to report that the committee has gone through the bill committee has gone through the bill and directed me to report the same without amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

without amendment. Minister to move. Third Reading.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister to move. Third Reading. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I beg to move that the bill now be read a third time. The bill amends the Social Security Contributions the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act, 1992, creating a power to apply employer and employee NI contributions on salary sacrifice. Pension contributions above £2,000 a year from April 2029. Reform of this type, as I've said, was inevitable. The cost to the Exchequer of salary sacrifice pension schemes was due to almost treble by 2030.

Without reform, the government is taking a pragmatic and balanced approach to that reform, firstly by introducing a cap so that ordinary workers are, in the vast majority of cases, unaffected. Secondly, by giving employers, employees and providers a long lead in time so that everybody has plenty of time to prepare. And thirdly, by ensuring that saving into a pension, including via salary sacrifice, remains hugely taxed advantageous. The government continues to provide over £70 billion of income tax and National Insurance relief on pension contributions each year.

Employer pension contributions will remain the most tax advantaged part of the system. Madam Deputy Speaker, in this debate and others around pensions, what we have heard is that there is a strong cross-party consensus that greater pension adequacy is important. We all look at the forecast for private pension income and see that those showing lower private pension income on average in 2050, relative to those retiring today, is not an acceptable place to be. But answering that question is the job of the pension Commission that we have put in place and with cross-party support, and it is rightly examining that question of retirement income adequacy and fairness.

And I would just gently note that those groups that we all agree are under saving into a for retirement, such as low earners and the self-employed, are precluded from using salary sacrifice or are much less likely to use it than other groups. Part of what is happening with the bill today is that we are delivering badly needed reforms to the tax system, alongside others from the Budget, and these are what it takes to keep waiting lists, falling, cut borrowing and cut energy bills in the years ahead.

And those that do not wish to support changes like this cannot have it both ways, and call for additional spending or additional support on energy bills and the rest. And it is important more generally, that we do all consider the effectiveness of tax reliefs in the system, which cost a cumulative £5,500 billion a year. If we just defend the status quo, even in the face of tax reliefs, which are hard to justify and whose costs are rising significantly. That does mean higher taxes for everybody else.

And that is not something that we are prepared to see happen. Indeed, in their hearts, I am sure that the parties opposite also believe these reforms are necessary. And as a question, as a test for that, well, then I would invite the hon. Member to stand up and commit to reversing these changes if they ever very unlikely. But if they ever happen to form a government again, and I am 100% sure he will not do that, because he knows these changes do need to be made.

And on that basis of what should be cross-party support, I commend this Bill to the House.
15:55
15:56
Mark Garnier Portrait Mark Garnier MP (Wyre Forest, Conservative)
-
-
cap, were viewed negatively. The report also pointed out that the £2,000 cap was the most complicated £2,000 cap was the most complicated option that was presented and, given the government tabled amendments, address the genuine concerns of savers and industry. It seems the Minister is still apparently chuffed that that he is implementing the policy that is, at best the least worst option for best the least worst option for everybody who was asked to comment. Secondly, the government is voting for a bill that will add to the administrative burden on businesses.

The pension system is already incredibly complex for experts to navigate, let alone the general public, and that is why salary sacrifice arrangements have been such a popular savings tool for both employees and employers. The principles are easy to understand, with the only real piece of admin being on the employer to ensure that the employee doesn't fall below the National Living Wage. So what are the government doing? They go for the option that report considered is the most complicated. The government chooses to confuse with complications the system that is currently the simplest to deliver, and that will add an estimated £30 million each year in administrative costs to employers.

And this is at a time when businesses and the wider economy already pay an estimated £15.4 billion just to comply with the tax system. But what about the effects on businesses who see a 15% employer National insurance bonus through helping people to save? These changes will mean employers will be hit with a 15% increase on costs of employment. These savings are employers achieved through salary sacrifice. Arrangements are often invested back into their employees and their businesses. This could be an increase in pension contributions to all employees, or higher wages, or more investment in plant and machinery for growth.

And this is a good thing. The government is taking money away from the product of part of the economy and putting it into other parts of the businesses think this is a nonsensical policy delivered by a directionless government, and all because they forget that it is businesses, businesses who are the ones that create wealth in our economy and add value to our economy, and who drive growth in our economy. And third, the government is supporting a bill that won't actually really raise the stated revenue.

As my hon. Friend in North Bedfordshire pointed out in winding up on the Second Reading, the change appears to have been timed to maximise revenue in 20 2930, the year that counts for the Chancellor's fiscal rules. That is 4.8 billion to fill the Chancellor's blackhole, which you will have by then in order to make a cynical attempt to stick to a fiscal rule, a cynical measure that destroys a lifetime of savings opportunities for just one year of revenue. And frankly, it's also likely that the government will not raise anywhere near the 4.8 billion budgeted for as higher earners max out the benefits of the scheme before it comes into force in 2029.

And in any event, people are working out a workaround to this, so forth. They're voting for a bill that harms lower earners the most. As I pointed out earlier, the Society of Pension Professionals has estimated over 850,000 basic rate taxpayers who use salary sacrifice will be affected by the changes, and those 850,000 people will be taxed at a higher rate than their wealthier colleagues, something the government apparently seeks to target with this policy. And I always thought, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the Labour government was going to be on the side of working people.

And fifth, and you'll be pleased to hear, finally, they are pleading for a bill that will make the pension the impending pensions adequacy crisis worse. As I said in my introduction, there is widespread agreement that people aren't saving enough. So why make the second largest revenue raising measure of the Budget from last year, the one that goes after people's savings for later life? It goes against that basic, important and agreed objective of people planning for their futures. And more importantly, it goes against the government's own financial inclusion strategy.

As the Economic Secretary said to the Treasury set out in in November, I quote, our aim is to create a culture in which everyone is supported, to build a savings habit, building their financial resilience in the long term. So how does this bill accomplish that? Accomplish that reasonable ambition? It won't. And this is because it's distinctive. It disincentivizes employees from saving more into their pensions, and it disincentivizes employers from providing it as an option in the first place. Altogether, it is the wrong policy that sends the wrong message at the wrong time.

Now, we gave them a chance to address some of these concerns a little bit earlier, and they didn't take it. So we hear all these concerns from from businesses and from savers and all the rest of it loud and clear, which is why we want the government to think again on this and why we will vote against this bill at Third Reading, people are simply not saving enough for their retirement. Instead of restricting options, we should be encouraging the creation of new incentives incentives that will encourage people to save more.

And instead, the government are pushing through a bill that will do the opposite and is unbelievably unpopular because it punishes 3.3 million people who actively try to save for retirement because it punishes 290,000 employers who incentivise their employees to save. And worst of all, it breaks another of Labour's manifesto promises that they will not increase taxes on working people. Madam Deputy Speaker, it remains a wrong policy to pursue. And that is why we will vote against it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah. Liberal Democrat spokesperson Charlie Maynard. OK.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

OK. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will let it pass from here. Thank

**** Possible New Speaker ****

you. Just clarify, the Minister

**** Possible New Speaker ****

wishes to respond. Minister. Thank goodness. The question is that the bill be.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the bill be. Now read the third time. As many as of that opinion say I of the contrary. No.
16:01
16:13
16:13
None Portrait Motion: Motion to approve the Draft Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 (Remedial) Order 2025
-

Benn.
16:13
Hilary Benn Portrait Rt Hon Hilary Benn MP, The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Leeds South, Labour)
-
-
Madam Deputy Speaker, I beg to move that the draft northern Ireland Troubles, Legacy and Ireland Troubles, Legacy and Reconciliation Act 2023 (Remedial) Order 2025, which was laid before the House on the 14th of October, 2025, be approved. As every one of us knows, Northern Ireland continues to live with the legacy of the troubles. Over 3500 people lost their lives during that period of brutal violence, including almost 2000 civilians and over 1000 people who were killed whilst bravely serving the state.

And we owe them, and always will, a huge debt of gratitude. 90% of all those who lost their lives were killed by paramilitaries. Each person was someone's father, brother, sister, mother or child, each one a tragic loss of life. In 1998, the people of Northern Ireland chose to leave this legacy of violence behind them when they voted for the Good Friday Agreement. But for too many families of the victims, questions remain as to why their loved ones died and at whose hands.

There have been many efforts to address the legacy of the troubles since, including the Stormont House agreement reached between the last government and the Irish government in 2014, and most recently, the 2023 Legacy Act, it is now beyond doubt that this last attempt, the Legacy Act, whatever its intentions, fundamentally failed. It failed because it has been found in many respects to be incompatible with our human rights obligations. The legislation simply did not work in its own terms.

But even more importantly, it failed because it did not command any support in Northern Ireland amongst victims and survivors or the political parties of. Well, I will give way. Yes, of course, to my honourable.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Watford honourable. Fleur Anderson. I thank the Secretary of State for giving way, and I commend him for giving way, and I commend him on the careful work, the thoughtful work that he has done to bring the House to this place today. And does House to this place today. And does he agree with me that in this is he's doing the right thing for victims? That means ordinary people. Madam Deputy Speaker, including veterans and the wider armed forces community, all of whom were injured community, all of whom were injured or lost loved ones.

And they're the ones, the people we have in our mind today. It was the conservative bad legislation that led us to having to do this remedial order today. And it's only the 11th time this has had to happen since the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Second World War. Order, order! This is a very long intervention. There are many speakers who wish to There are many speakers who wish to get in this afternoon. Can I urge members to keep interventions short? Secretary of State.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Secretary of State. I do agree with my hon. Friend that the Legacy Act needed dealing with any government that came into with any government that came into office in the summer of last year would have to be doing what we are doing. I give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

doing. I give way. Thank you for giving way. Just if we need to repeat it, it's worth bringing to the attention of the House again that the Legacy Act, legality or otherwise, is predicated by the membership we have of the ECHR. And would he agree, and would he reflect on the fact that there was an appeal against the supposed illegality of the Legacy Act at the time of the general election by the previous government, that this government decided to ditch? Yes.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

That is indeed a wholly accurate description of the sequence of description of the sequence of events, because this government does not agree with immunity. As a matter of principle. I'll go on to matter of principle. I'll go on to advance the argument a little later on, but it was also, as the hon. on, but it was also, as the hon. Gentleman points out, found to be incompatible with our obligations as a nation because we continue to as a nation because we continue to be signatories to the European Convention of Human Rights.

I will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

give way. Yes, of course. There is immensely courteous member of this House, and always has been. He will aware that there has been. He will aware that there is a live legal case. However, by the Rule Ireland Veterans Movement and the Very Human Rights Act, which he cited, says that these kind of orders ought not to be kind of orders ought not to be moved, indeed would be ultra vires. moved, indeed would be ultra vires. Why, while a case is proceeding, how does he feel about that? And would he explain to the House why

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we're debating this at all in that in given given the all I've said? Well, I'm very. Grateful to the right hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that point. If he will bear with me, I will come very directly a little later on in my speech to precisely that point. Therefore, it is the government's view that there is government's view that there is both a legal necessity and an imperative imperative for us to act. And this (Remedial) Order is the And this (Remedial) Order is the first step in that process. Now the (Remedial) Order will remove two key effects of the provisions of the Northern Ireland Troubles Legacy and Reconciliation Act, 2023, which were found by the courts in Dillon to be incompatible with our human rights obligations.

One of the main reasons for the failure of the Legacy Act was its attempt to grant immunity, including to terrorists who murdered in cold blood soldiers and civilians in Northern Ireland and in towns and cities across England. Now, it probably, in fairness, seemed reassuring to veterans. It was almost certainly reassuring to terrorists who had committed those acts. But it was a false promise and it protected no one. It was never commenced. Very important fact. It was never commenced.

It was rejected by the courts as being incompatible with our legal obligations. And as a result, it was never implemented. No one ever got immunity. And while it may remain on the statute book, in practice it does not exist. Nevertheless, while it has not been commenced for many families, any uncertainty about their loved ones killers being granted immunity has been a deterrent to coming forward to seek answers from the independent commission. There has also been opposition from some who served in Northern Ireland, because immunity undermines the rule of law that they were seeking to uphold.

As David Crabbe, a UDR veteran who sits on the Victims and Survivors Forum, said of immunity and I quote, the vast majority of veterans living in Northern Ireland did not want or feel as if they needed this protection. It was viewed as a perversion of the law that went against the ethos of what those who served stood for, and what their role was in preserving, preserving law and order. And it was not only a false promise, it created a false equivalence between veterans, on the one hand and terrorists on the other.

And it still technically sits on the statute book. Today, I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman, may I. Remind the Secretary of State, because.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I know that he knows it, because he's heard it from me and others many times before. There is nothing many times before. There is nothing about creating a false equivalence between the two. Everybody is equal between the two. Everybody is equal before the law, and if anything created a false equivalence. It was created a false equivalence. It was the 1998 Northern Ireland Sentences Act which said that no matter how Act which said that no matter how many murders a paramilitary had committed, and no matter how many illegal acts, if any a soldier had committed, neither of them would ever serve more than two years of a sentence.

So that equivalence is there. It's not moral equivalence. It is equivalence before the law.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right when he describes the provisions of the 1998 legislation. But as he knows, that policy, along with the rest of the policy, along with the rest of the Good Friday Agreement, was supported by just over 70% of the supported by just over 70% of the people in Northern Ireland. Well, in the referendum that took place. And it was a very bitter pill to And it was a very bitter pill to swallow, as it was a very bitter pill to swallow for many people in Northern Ireland.

But it was a price to be paid for the peace. The point I am making in relation to this (Remedial) Order is that the last government chose to legislate to give immunity to veterans and to terrorists on the same basis. And as the noble Lord Dodds said about the legacy Bill, which, by the way, described as rotten and I quote, it basically elevates terrorists and perpetrators of violence above their victims. That is fundamentally wrong. And that is why we're bringing forward this remedial order to remove those provisions on immunity, which have done so much damage to trust in Northern Ireland.

Doing so will provide clarity and certainty ahead of the wider significant reforms contained in the troubles bill. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, the remedial order will also remove the bar on troubles related civil cases, which stripped UK citizens of their right to seek redress. Section 43 of the 2023 act left some 800 troubles related civil cases involving the Mod untouched. The act allowed them the I will give way. Yes, of course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You may shortly be coming on to this in his speech, but several cases have been raised as a concern, cases have been raised as a concern, as potential for lawfare, notwithstanding that obviously people like Gerry Adams are also subject to civil action in the coming months. Would he give an outline of what he expects in terms

**** Possible New Speaker ****

outline of what he expects in terms of civil cases against those that served in our military and security services? Well, I'm very grateful to my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I'm very grateful to my hon. Friend, for that intervention. These 800 cases were untouched. The act allowed them to carry on. It's a very important point, given some very inaccurate press reporting that appeared at the beginning of this week, that I'm sure many honourable and right hon. Members are aware of. But it did stop. About 230 new civil claims from proceeding. Those were claims that were lodged after the date of the first reading of the legacy Bill, about 120 of which are against the Mod, and it prevented any more claims from being brought in the future.

The point I'm making is there are 800 cases already there, left untouched by the last legacy, the legacy act of the last government. And there's 120 against the Mod that have been added since that will be enabled to proceed if the remedial order passes. And as we know, this bar on new civil cases was found by the courts to be incompatible with our legal

**** Possible New Speaker ****

obligations. Now bringing civil, I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman. Of course. The Secretary of State and I do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Secretary of State and I do intend to return to this in my contribution later on. But the issue around civil cases highlights most starkly for this House the discord, even between the courts. The High Court in Belfast only focussed on the retrospective application of the provisions on civil cases. It was the Court of Appeal that then said not only should it not be retrospective, it should have no application in the future as well. There was a disagreement between both courts, High Court and Court of Appeal about the import of this.

And yet the Secretary of State, more determined to pursue his policy objective than the law, decided not to appeal that issue at Supreme Court. That's why there are questions around the appropriate nature of this remedial order. Does he accept that?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I accept, first of all, that, and it's not unusual for high courts to take a different view on courts to take a different view on a matter from lower courts. That is the way the law works. I would give the way the law works. I would give the same answer to the right hon. Gentleman I gave to the earlier intervention. That is the intervention. That is the government's view that citizens of the United Kingdom should be able the United Kingdom should be able to bring civil cases as a matter of principle.

He may disagree, but that is the view of the government. And that is why we withdrew the appeal in relation to that element of the judgements to which he have just referred. And we should remember that bringing civil cases has included family members of victims who were murdered during the troubles, who've been against the paramilitaries, who were responsible for individuals, were found by a civil court to be responsible for the Omagh bombing in 2009. There's also been a civil case looking into the Hyde Park bombing, where John Downey was found to be an active participant in the killing of four soldiers and has been referred to a moment ago.

A civil case against Gerry Adams is due to take place in London this year. And so if you just let me finish the point and therefore to vote against this remedial order would be to prevent any more such cases being brought against paramilitaries. In future I will give way. Thank you. Well knows.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Blair government handed out hundreds of so-called letters of comfort to alleged IRA paramilitaries following their release from prison. John Downey, the alleged Hyde Park bomber, the alleged Hyde Park bomber, produced such a letter during his trial at the Old Bailey, whereupon the trial was immediately abandoned. Our Northern Ireland veterans have no such letters of comfort. Does no such letters of comfort. Does the Secretary of State agree that that letter of comfort let John occasion?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Well, as the hon. Gentleman, I'm sure is well aware, Mr. Downey, in that case was issued Mr. Downey, in that case was issued with a letter of comfort wrongly, because the letter said, we're not because the letter said, we're not seeking you for anything. And clearly the state was seeking him for something because he had been for something because he had been charged with the Hyde Park bombings. And as I recall, the judge said, well, I'm afraid this is an abuse well, I'm afraid this is an abuse of process and stopped the case.

How how ever. However, if the right hon. Gentleman stopped the case, however, the the letter that Mr. Downey received did not give him immunity because he is currently. This is a matter of public record. He is currently awaiting trial, charged with the murder of two soldiers in, I think 1972. And that proves what many people have said former prime Ministers, the chief constable, judges, they've all said the letters of comfort. The on the run letters did not. Grant never did and do not now.

Grant anybody immunity. I give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The hon. Gentleman, of course, changes the subject, as it were, from the what the letter of comfort was given for to what it was not given for. So it doesn't prove anything about letter of comfort. anything about letter of comfort. What is the case is that the judge at the time said he could not at the time said he could not prosecute, or he could not rule on this case because the state had made a promise to Mr. Downey. And made a promise to Mr.

Downey. And that prevented the case, as indeed we have also Queen's grant of mercy. That's also an amnesty. And we also had people released early. That's also an amnesty. So for him to say that the that the Good Friday Agreement did not involve amnesties is simply a defiance of the facts.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. If we're. If we are going to get on to the facts, first of all, the early facts, first of all, the early release scheme was part of the Good Friday Agreement and the legislation. The people of Northern legislation. The people of Northern Ireland voted for it in knowing what it involved on the royal what it involved on the royal prerogative of mercy. Those were granted. They were never pardons the convictions of those who received them were never quashed.

They were put in place to allow those individuals who, for technical reasons, could not, could not be eligible for the early release scheme. That is the the history of that. And in relation to the letters of comfort, the right hon. Gentleman who is very learned in these matters has not challenged the basic argument that I've put, which is the fact that Mr. Downey is currently awaiting prosecution, proves that it did. That letter he received did not did not give him immunity from prosecution.

Now we cannot. I'm going to make some process progress. We cannot and should not allow the victims of the troubles to be denied redress through the courts. That's our view of principle. I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman, the leader of the DUP, takes a different view. I now want to turn to the argument that the House should delay approving the remedial order, which we did hear advanced in the House before Christmas. Section ten, one of the Human Rights Act 1998, allows a remedial order to be made on two grounds.

First, if there has been a declaration of incompatibility in relation to a provision of legislation, and an appeal against the declaration has been determined or abandoned. Abandoned is a really important word here. And secondly, if there are compelling reasons to do so, the Northern Ireland High Court clearly made a declaration of incompatibility in relation to immunity, and in July 2024, the government, the newly elected government, abandoned these aspects of our appeal. The government is therefore clear that the issue of incompatibility for the immunity, and indeed the civil claims provisions, are no longer part of the appeal.

Now, before the Supreme

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Court, I will give way, of course. Jim Allister of course, the Secretary of State needs to go back Secretary of State needs to go back to what the High Court judgement said in the Dillon case. Now, if he said in the Dillon case. Now, if he goes to paragraph 710, he will see that the basis of ruling that immunity was unlawful was not just immunity was unlawful was not just in respect of the Echr, but it was also in respect of article two of the Windsor Framework.

That aspect which is wholly intertwined with this question, is the subject of appeal presently before the High Court. So how can it be that if a challenge which caused the High Court to decree that something was non-applicable, was based upon the applicability of article two of the Windsor framework and the government, and there is an appeal on that point. Why is that not something that rules this order out under section ten? Well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It doesn't rule it under section ten for this reason. There are two ten for this reason. There are two parts to the court's ruling in relation to immunity. The first part was the court found immunity part was the court found immunity to be incompatible with our international human rights obligations. The government obligations. The government withdrew an appeal against that finding. That finding remains, and finding. That finding remains, and that gives the government, because the appeal was abandoned by the government, that gives the government the right to proceed with the remedial order.

The second part of the judgement was in addition to finding the immunity provisions incompatible with the ECHR, the court decided to strike them down under article two of the Windsor framework. And the hon. Gentleman is quite correct that the government is continuing with the appeal in that respect, because there is a genuine argument, and it's one that the government has advanced as to. Well, is article two really be interpreted in the right way because it seems like a rather an expansive interpretation? And I would go on to say that the fact that the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement was granted permission to intervene in relation to the interpretation of article two of the Windsor Framework, because that's what the court allowed them to come in and talk about.

And the court is considering the question of the interpretation of article two. It does not and cannot alter the fundamental legal reality that immunity has been found to be incompatible with the European Convention and Section Barking. Well, I will give way. I'll give way. The two hon. Members I've seen standing, and then I'm

**** Possible New Speaker ****

going to bring my remarks to a close so others can contribute. Could refer the Secretary of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Could refer the Secretary of State to paragraph 710. Subsection two says of the Dillon judgement. two says of the Dillon judgement. It says pursuant to section seven of the EU Withdrawal Act, 2018, article two of the Ireland Northern Ireland Protocol, Windsor Framework has primacy over these provisions, has primacy over these provisions, thereby rendering them of no force and effect. These provisions, therefore, should be disapplied because of article two, and article two is before the Supreme Court, so it is inextricably linked to the to section ten.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

With great respect, I disagree, and I tried to explain an answer to his first intervention. He is right in what he reads out in relation to article two, and that is the subject of a continuing appeal. But subject of a continuing appeal. But the declaration of incompatibility under the ECHR, because the court under the ECHR, because the court ruled both of those things remains. It is not at issue in the appeal, and that gives the government the and that gives the government the ability to bring forward an order under section ten.

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, and then I'm

**** Possible New Speaker ****

close. I'm grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way, and it's all getting quite technical. So I just want to come back to the fundamentals of justice. Would the Secretary of State, if he were able to like to give immunity to our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to like to give immunity to our veterans? Well. I, I, I'm of the view that I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I, I, I'm of the view that I listen to what I quoted, what David Crabb said earlier, who was opposed to it. I have listened to the government, has listened to what the veterans commissioners have said, and indeed many others have said, we don't want immunity. We're not calling for immunity. We want fairness under the law. And I have made clear to the House, and it is a difference of view. But I have made clear to the House that the government does not agree with immunity as a matter of principle, because when our brave soldiers put on the King's uniform, they operating under the law, they're upholding the law and they operate underneath it.

And as Ben Wallace, the distinguished former defence secretary, said. We abide by the rule of law. That's what makes us better than the terrorists. Now, section ten also requires that I have compelling reasons to proceed. And whilst the government has indeed introduced primary legislation, the government is clear that these repeals need to happen as quickly as possible. Why? Because we need to provide clarity on immunity to build trust amongst victims, survivors and indeed veterans in the independent commission. Because while immunity remains on the statute book, it'll be harder for them to obtain the confidence of some victims and survivors.

I'm going to continue now. I am I've tried to cover the point that some have argued, particularly in the other place, that we should delay the (Remedial) Order until the Supreme Court ruling in Dillon. Dillon I would just say it's really easy to ask the government to wait, but I think it's much, much harder to ask. Families who have endured unimaginable suffering, including forces, families at the hands of paramilitary violence, to continue to wait while time marches on, as we as we know as we know, many of them, many of them are elderly.

They've been waiting a very long time for answers. And in my view, and the government's view, we should make these repeals as early as possible through the remedial order. So we have a legal framework that is fair, just and compliant with human rights. I have described it and I will do so again as a down payment on trust ahead of the troubles bill. And that is why I'm firmly of the view that the government has compelling reasons for proceeding with this order.

Even more importantly, this is also the view of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. To whom, well, to whom I am, to whom I am grateful for their diligent consideration of this matter. Well, since it is my the hon. Member, my hon. Friend, I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will give way one last time. Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the on the point of trust. Just so the on the point of trust. Just so we get the get it on record, is there any guarantee that the Republic of Ireland will withdraw Republic of Ireland will withdraw the interstate case once this passes? If this passes, Secretary of State well, the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of State well, the. Basis of the Republic of Ireland matter for them. Interstate case is that the last governments are. If I that the last governments are. If I just let me answer the question, I will do my best to respond. Was that the government's Legacy Act was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. It is correct in advancing that argument, because the courts in Northern Ireland have found the last government's Legacy Act to be incompatible in a number of respects.

And my job, the government's job is to make sure that the legislation is made compatible so that everyone in Northern Ireland can have confidence in the framework we are trying to put in place with as much support as possible, and at that moment there is no basis for the interstate case anymore. It's a matter for the Irish government as to what they do with it, but it will have no basis and it will not be able to go anywhere, because the House of Commons and the other place will have remedied the incompatibilities.

And I'm grateful to the Joint Committee on Human Rights for their diligent consideration of this matter. And they've been clear. No, I they've been clear. Well, well, who how could I resist? Just ask the the the Secretary of State to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

acknowledge that it was not a unanimous opinion. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. I was not about to advance the argument that it was a unanimous decision, but many a piece of legislation, many a report of a committee in this House and its history has been passed on a history has been passed on a majority vote. That is how we reach decisions. And the JCHR couldn't have been clearer in its second have been clearer in its second report, recognising the unique and delicate circumstances surrounding Northern Ireland legacy matters. And I quote it said the government has sufficiently compelling reasons to proceed by way of remedial order.

The committee has recommended that this order be approved by both Houses of Parliament, and I urge the House to heed that recommendation by voting for the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

order tonight. The question is, as on the Order Paper, shadow Secretary of State Alex Burghart.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Alex Burghart. Yes. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. It's an honour and a privilege to be able to speak in this important debate. And it's particularly important because I know that there are some people
16:42
Alex Burghart Portrait Alex Burghart MP (Brentwood and Ongar, Conservative)
-
-
know that there are some people watching this afternoon who themselves were on the line of action in what was surely one of the most difficult operations that British armed forces ever had to deploy. I know that that some veterans are with us today in the House, and some of them are sitting on these green benches. And I think one of the things that all members have a duty to keep in their minds throughout this debate is our responsibility to them.

The people who ultimately enabled peace to happen in Northern Ireland.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hear, hear. We are obviously opposed to the government's approach. We've government's approach. We've discussed this at a number of parliamentary events. Now. We think that the government has options that the government has options that it is not taking and that it is compromising both the peace of is compromising both the peace of mind of veterans, but also endangering our military capability endangering our military capability into the future. I noticed in the times today a an important letter from some retired SAS officers who said peace requires compromise, restraint and the decision to stop refighting the past and the legislation that the previous government brought in was specifically designed to try and draw a line under all of the events that had happened, not so that there would not be information provided to families and victims because it enabled that to happen.

But so we could move on from a new phase of the troubles conflict, which was being fought in the courts. What we have now and what we are debating today will, you know, will obviously have a chance to go through in greater detail when the legislation returns to the House for Committee of the whole House. But the government's (Remedial) Order that we're debating now, which seeks to delete parts of the 23 Legacy Act following the ruling of the Belfast Belfast Court of Appeal last year, means that the government says that that it has no choice but to act as it has has no choice but to try and change the legislation by means of (Remedial) Order.

But we don't believe that that's the whole story, because of course, when the government came to power, it had the option of appealing that decision that was made in the Court of Appeal in Belfast. There was we know that they did because the previous conservative administration had received legal advice, saying that not only was a legal challenge possible, a legal challenge had a high chance of success. Indeed, there were many experts outside of this house, legal experts outside of this House in think tanks such as Policy Exchange, who set out why that might be the case.

The government has implied two reasons why it dropped its appeal, the Secretary of State said in the House today, I think, and also on the 17th of December, that, you know, it was he believed that there was a moral outrage at the idea of immunity and that there was a need to respect human rights law and on their own grounds, these are respectable positions, but they're also clearly not quite true. In the first instance, the human rights argument can't stand on its own merits because there were grounds to appeal, and the government chose not to.

So the government never found out what the actual position on human rights might have been if it had gone to the highest court in the land, but also on the idea that immunity is a moral outrage. I fear that that the Labour Party is being at best disingenuous. And I say this because the Secretary of State and other Labour members often refer to the immunity that was in our act. Well, there was immunity, but it was conditional immunity.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That's the point. It was immunity that was conditional on people giving up information to Icrar. And this was information to Icrar. And this was not a novel concept. Indeed, this was a concept which was part of the cornerstone of the legislation introduced after 1998. There are plenty plenty of examples for you. plenty plenty of examples for you. The decommissioning of weapons legislation, which actively allowed for the destruction of forensic evidence, which could have led to prosecutions.

The victims remains legislation which allowed people to come forward and tell the authorities where victims were buried without fear of prosecution, what we might call immunity in return for information, the letters of comfort which have already been discussed. There can be no doubt that John Downey effectively received immunity for the Hyde Park bombing case by dint of his letter of comfort, and so with the royal prerogative of mercy. And so, most significantly of all, with the 2005 legislation that Peter Hain, now Lord Hain, then Secretary of State, brought to this House the Northern Ireland Offences Bill, which explicitly created or would have created had it been passed immunity for terrorists, terrorists, not for everyone, for terrorists.

And it was only when, under pressure from families and and the Conservative Party, that the government agreed to bring veterans into that legislation, that it was dropped because Sinn Fein ceased to support it. Correct. And I say this respectfully, because the Secretary of State, for now, Secretary of State, was in the Cabinet at the time and would have been bound by collective responsibility on this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

issue. I am grateful to you for giving way, in essence. What he's talking. About here with the agreements

**** Possible New Speaker ****

About here with the agreements that a destruction of weaponry and the loss, therefore, of any ability to prosecute or proceed was, in a to prosecute or proceed was, in a way, one way, because there is no way on earth the same process was allowed for soldiers that had allowed for soldiers that had served in Northern Ireland, as all evidence was kept, captured and can evidence was kept, captured and can be used against them, whereas the weaponry that was destroyed and all other matters, such as letters of comfort, tended in one direction on this.

So when the government talks about equivalence, they're wrong.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It has never been about equivalence. It's been about one way traffic. My right hon. Friend, could not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My right hon. Friend, could not be more correct. It has always been one way traffic. And whenever this one way traffic. And whenever this side of the House, whenever the Conservative Party has tried to create equivalence for veterans, the Labour Party has backed down. the Labour Party has backed down. And that was something that we saw in the case of 2005. And I'm afraid that it's something we're seeing now, because when we introduced conditional immunity for veterans, in the same way that conditional immunity had been used time and time again after 1998, the Labour Party opposed this.

They did an incredibly selective memory over the issue of conditional immunity. And on my right hon. Friend's point about the the unlevel playing field. I was discussing this with my my hon. Friend Lord Cain, who, you know, served Northern Ireland brief for very many years. He reminded me last night that in 1992, the IRA bombed the major forensic lab in Belfast, one of the largest bombs ever planted, £3,000 bomb damaged about 100,000 houses. And it absolutely obliterated an enormous amount of forensic evidence that was kept on the IRA.

And to that extent, the IRA gave itself a form of immunity by destroying evidence in a way that the British state never would have done. The. So we have to ask ourselves, why did the government really drop its appeal? And Secretary of State says it was because of immunity, I'm afraid. I can't believe that because the Labour Party supported immunity in the past. And he says it's because of a lack of support for our legislation in Northern Ireland. And and it's true, you know, there was there was certainly not cross-party support for our legislation in Northern Ireland, but I, I hate to break it to the Secretary of State, but there is not party support for his legislation in Northern Ireland either.

And if this is if this is the case, it's really the case, then I'm not sure that the Secretary of State should be proceeding with what he's doing. And I'm afraid that that leads me to very happy to be away from my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

state. Frequently, he tells the truth, frequently says that the parties in Northern Ireland didn't support the legacy legislation. And I'm speaking from memory. So these numbers are approximate. But when numbers are approximate. But when there was a poll of the population of Northern Ireland, there was 30 something percent were in favour of the legacy legislation and about 2020 something percent against about 3 to 2. So if you're picking on popularity, on community support, dangerous in the wrong.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Dangerous territory. Well, my my right hon. Friend has always had a very good head for what's popular, and I and I will I will check his figures, but I'm sure that they're sure they're correct. It's a very important point. There was we important point. There was we cannot pretend there was no support for what we were doing in Northern Ireland, because there are plenty of people in Northern Ireland who of people in Northern Ireland who would like to move on. There are plenty of people who respect the decision to draw a line, and I'm

**** Possible New Speaker ****

decision to draw a line, and I'm very happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman. Thank you, Senator. And we can talk about political parties. We can talk about the general population. Does the shadow Secretary of State agree that there is nearly universal opposition amongst victims of terrorism on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

condition of human immunity in the previous Legacy Act? No, I don't acknowledge that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No, I don't acknowledge that because I've met victims and I've met people whose families were heavily affected by terrorism, who supported our legislation. So I'm afraid I can't agree with you on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that. I'm certainly alarmed by. It's often said, and rightly,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's often said, and rightly, that what is very important is that families should find out the truth about what happened, which scenario makes it more likely that families will get the truth after all this time? Is it a scenario where people can be prosecuted on either side and therefore have an incentive if they're guilty to conceal the truth? Or is it a scenario such as existed under the legislation that our government brought in, whereby people are much encouraged to tell the truth about what happened because they know they will not be punished if they do so?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I, my right hon. Friend, has very succinctly summarised the very succinctly summarised the central argument behind the Legacy Act 2023 that drawing a line does Act 2023 that drawing a line does not mean covering up the past. Drawing a line was an opportunity to open the past in the way the adversarial system was never going adversarial system was never going to allow. And incidentally, in which I do not believe the which I do not believe the adversarial system is going to bring justice for very many people at all, because we must we must remember.

Madam Deputy Speaker, that the peace process concluded in 1998, which is 28 years ago, and the troubles by most reckonings deemed to have started in 1966, which is 60 years ago. And we have recently seen the case of soldier F, where a one of the longest public inquiries in British legal history, you know, presented a, you know, the the most forensic evidence that could be imagined, but the court was unable to reach a conclusion. And this means that the chances, really, of any prosecution coming to a conclusion are very, very limited.

But that doesn't matter, because for many veterans it is the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

process that is the punishment. Yeah. It is the fact that, as we saw in October last year when a former SAS veteran SAS veteran who was SAS veteran SAS veteran who was being accused of having behaved wrongly in 1991, was dragged through the courts and eventually through the courts and eventually the court in Belfast said and I quote the judge, the case against him was ludicrous, that it should him was ludicrous, that it should never have come anywhere near him, but not after that individual hadn't been pursued for four years.

And there are many such cases. And if the process is the punishment, then the fear of the process is a punishment for so many people who.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will give way to my right hon. My right hon. Friend makes again a very good point on that specific a very good point on that specific case, but that judge also criticised the allocation of legal criticised the allocation of legal aid for that case. He said he could not understand how legal aid was given for such a futile case. But given for such a futile case. But isn't this also a problem in Northern Ireland that the legal aid rules there drive a machine which

**** Possible New Speaker ****

rules there drive a machine which harms our soldiers? Yeah. Again, I have to agree with my right hon. Gentleman. There is in some quarters an industry which I fear is allowing victims to believe that their chances of success are far greater than they are in practice. And this is, you know, this this is this is not, not pleasant. So we have to ask ourselves, why did the government drop its appeal? I will give way to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

my honourable. I'm very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way on that point as well as, you know, the as well as, you know, the Self-licking lollipop of legislation and compensation. Does legislation and compensation. Does he also acknowledge that this is a proxy war? This is all about Relitigating the question, who won?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Relitigating the question, who won? Yes. Yes. And and we are allowing our brave servicemen and women who serve the nation incredibly bravely in Northern Ireland to be used as pawns in a dreadful, awful proxy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

game to relitigate the question who won? Does he agree with that? Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend who I know has great experience of these matters. The experience of these matters. The truth is that this is for some people. This is the continuation of the troubles by other means. Yes. the troubles by other means. Yes. And it is time to draw a line. So if the government was not if the government was not withdrawing its appeal because of conditional immunity, because it supported conditional immunity in the past, if it was not really, you know, refusing to appeal because of your views in Northern Ireland, given views in Northern Ireland of its own legislation, it must be for another reason.

And I don't know what that reason is, and I don't suspect we will ever know. But I do wonder whether it is connected with the desire of this government to have close relationships with the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Irish government as part of the European reset. Are that point.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am happy to give way. Surely we are. Surely we are regrettably here, Shadow Minister, regrettably here, Shadow Minister, because of our membership of a foreign court, and without our membership of the OECD, we would not be in this mess, would not be having this debate, and we could be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

moving on towards truth and reconciliation. And that's that's exactly one of the reasons why the next conservative government will leave the European Convention on Human Rights. It is and I, I will give way to my Right Honourable.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Rights Act 1998 does not. Require the government to take any Require the government to take any action as a consequence of the decisions that were made in the courts. It's entirely a matter for this House. The government has made a choice, and the government had a a choice, and the government had a choice to pursue the to to pursue the (Remedial) Order through the (Remedial) Order through primary legislation or through this remedial order. It made a choice, notwithstanding the fact that it's got a bill coming down the line.

Frankly, I think that was a ridiculous decision by my committee. But there it is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I. Right I believe that we we almost got a sort of scintilla of almost got a sort of scintilla of insight into how my right hon. Friend feels about the the latest Joint Committee on Human Rights Joint Committee on Human Rights report, I and I but I and I'm grateful to him for for pre-empting some of what I'm about to say but I so I but I do worry that there is a bigger game going on in government. You know, my my hon.

Friend said that veterans are being used as a pawn in, you know, law firm. But I wonder whether the the case against veterans is also being used as a pawn in a bigger game that the government is playing with the European Union. The the Secretary of State then so says he has no choice. But of course, a His Majesty's Government does have a choice, has options. The first option it had was to appeal. It did not. Its second option it now has is of course, to wait because the Northern Ireland veterans movement on the 15th of October last year was, you know, Lord Wolfson, who Casey, who represents them, right hon.

Lord Wilson. Casey, who represents them pro bono. He was heard by the court and allowed to give oral and written evidence, which the court is now considering, and it is perfectly within the scope of what the European what the the UK Supreme Court might say, that it might find that elements of the Legacy Act are actually not incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. But if the Secretary of State's (Remedial) Order has gone through both houses by that time, we will be presented with legal chaos, because the government will have used an order that it had no authority to use in order to remove primary legislation, which should actually still be in place.

And it's the government can avoid this. All the government need do is wait. Wait and see what the Supreme Court says. And again, the Secretary of State, fellas, he thinks he knows what the secretary of what the Supreme Court will say. But I'm not sure. I'm not sure that he does in reality. And so he has an option. Third, the as my I will give way quickly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I hope I'm not misquoting the Secretary of State, but he said, I think the reason why they're using this guillotine motion today to withdraw parts of an existing law before they have another one in place, was because of urgency, and that the urgency was created by an obligation, a desire to build trust obligation, a desire to build trust in both the victims, civilian victims of terrorism and the victims of terrorism and the military victims of terrorism. He seemed to miss out one group in that building of trust, and that was the military veterans who will also come under consideration if he

**** Possible New Speaker ****

drops the guillotine on the existing act today. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. As once again, my hon. Friend is quite right because if the (Remedial) Order goes through both houses and the Supreme Court has houses and the Supreme Court has not opined, then from that moment, from the next day, civil cases will from the next day, civil cases will reopen and military veterans will be involved in that action. And I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

would be delighted to give way to my right hon. Friend. It seems to me that what the Secretary of State is doing is Secretary of State is doing is adopting a highly technical and extremely unmeritorious argument. extremely unmeritorious argument. He says that because the declaration of incompatibility is not the subject of the intervention not the subject of the intervention of the veterans, it gives him the opportunity entirely technically and devoid of any moral merit whatsoever, to bring this (Remedial) Order.

But he knows perfectly well that the substance of the argument on which the (Remedial) Order is based is very much in point. In the deliberations of the Supreme Court. And so what they would do if they decided against him is to remove the entire basis for the remedial order he's bringing, but because technically he can bring it, he's decided to do so. Yeah. That's not like the Secretary of State. That's not like

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the secretary. Of State. I'm delighted to have had the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm delighted to have had the support of my right hon. Friend, on a matter of pure legal substance, because and well and very learned friend and that that the truth is that if one looks back at the debates on the Human Rights Act, that section the purpose of section that section the purpose of section ten is to make sure that the government cannot use (Remedial) Order incredibly powerful tool of (Remedial) Order. Yeah, Statutory Instrument that can strike down primary legislation, cannot use this incredibly powerful instrument unless the case is fully decided.

In this case, it clearly isn't. In this case, it is open. And that is why this government is acting ultra virus. And I return briefly to the remarks made by my right hon. Friend behind me who's who represents the New Forest West part the best part of New Forest New Forest East joint. The the joint first best place in the New Forest. That that the the the the Secretary of State, you know, has has invoked invoked the joint committee.

But it is my understanding that the joint Committee, when it wrote its report, was unaware that the new Northern Ireland Veterans movement was being heard in the Supreme Court. And I rather think that that might have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

had a profound effect on what they wrote. I'm happy to give way. I am. Also a member of the Human

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Also a member of the Human Rights Committee, and whilst I, of course, cannot respond directly to the claim that the hon. Gentleman the claim that the hon. Gentleman has just made because that would be breaching parliamentary privilege and I would not want to do so, I will simply put on record that our Committee considered all the Committee considered all the relevant evidence when we created, not just our second report on this (Remedial) Order, but our first two. We considered all of the evidence in front of us.

We made our report

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and we stand by both of those reports. I'm not doubting that the committee examined all the evidence committee examined all the evidence it had available to it. What I'm disputing is what evidence it had available to it. Yeah. The so what available to it. Yeah. The so what we are, what we're faced with is a situation in which the government doesn't really have a legal basis doesn't really have a legal basis for what it's doing. It doesn't have a moral basis for what it's doing.

It's doing, and there are doing. It's doing, and there are real life consequences to the decisions it is making. I'd be Friend.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

They also consider then there's the political reason for the Northern Ireland Office to bring Northern Ireland Office to bring this forward, and that's to placate the Irish government in their timeline rather than the timeline of this place. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of this place. Yeah. I suspect very strongly that my hon. Friend is right. I suspect hon. Friend is right. I suspect that this is bound up in the agreement that the Secretary of State made with the Irish State made with the Irish government, but I he can he can correct that later on if he wishes to. But I, I have to say that, you know, there were and there was look, there were some things in that, in that agreement that I welcomed at the time.

And I welcome again. Now, if it leads to the Irish government opening its books and being clear about collusion between the Garda and the provisional IRA, then you know, I, I would welcome that. But something but something I, something I can't welcome is the fact that there was an opportunity in that agreement to ask the Republic of Ireland to open its own inquiry into the Omagh bombing, and this is something that was recommended at the time the British government recommended the British government.

We should have our own inquiry, but it was deemed to be pretty much a necessity that a similar inquiry was conducted on the other side of the border, so that there was the opportunity to compel witnesses to give evidence under oath about what they what was known and what, if any, collusion took place. And and I'm very sorry

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that that that opportunity was Lady. Many of those supporting the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Many of those supporting the Omagh families would like to see a parallel and comprehensive inquiry with the member. Agree with me that with the member. Agree with me that the logical thing to do would have been to co-design that, and for both governments to bring forward

**** Possible New Speaker ****

both governments to bring forward inquiries in parallel, rather than his government acting unilaterally when they announced. Yeah, yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah. No, I, I would be very open to, to that idea, but I believe that the previous administration, you know, did not feel that there was the opportunity to proceed in that way. But look what the hon. Lady, we were thinking about things for the future. I think what the hon. Lady proposes. Perfectly sensible idea. I give way to my hon. Friend

**** Possible New Speaker ****

from Strangford. Giving way. The reason that we don't trust the Irish government on don't trust the Irish government on legacy issues is that is clear, and was warned it was a murder haven for years. Many people who commit murders and we know hopefully we'll explain some of them. But they escaped across the border. And when we look at the the government, if we're going to rebuild bridges without the honesty of the state, collusion with IRA terrorists and the Irish government, quite clearly their hands are dirty and will come to this bill, then I want to see the I, the Republic of Ireland government and their Ministers and the Garda officers getting the same accountability in the process.

My constituents have never had justice. I want to see justice for them.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Would you give way on that point? I will, if my right hon. Friend

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will, if my right hon. Friend will allow me. I may respond to that intervention briefly and then allow him to supplement my answer. The my my hon. Friend from Strangford has very deep personal Strangford has very deep personal and professional experience of this matter. And of course, he is right matter. And of course, he is right that just as a the inquiry into the truth has been one sided within the United Kingdom, it is also, I think, for large periods being unequal without it as well.

I give way to my Right Honourable.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

hon. Friend as comments tie directly into the hon. Lady's comments. Because in the Omagh comments. Because in the Omagh bombing. The bomb was constructed in Ireland. The detonator was made in Ireland. The detonator was made at their factory, in effect in Ireland. The car came from Ireland Ireland. The car came from Ireland and they disappeared back into Ireland afterwards. And there is a suggestion that the Irish Special suggestion that the Irish Special Branch knew a great deal about it before it actually happened.

So there's very good reason why the Irish government doesn't want to have an inquiry into its part in this matter.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Indeed, these are all things that I know we would all love to get to the bottom of. And there's so look, as I draw my remarks to a close, Madam Deputy Speaker, I'd say to to Labour backbenchers who are are considering how they might are are considering how they might vote, not just this evening, but also when we when we get to the also when we when we get to the bill proper. This doesn't have to be done in this way.

I'm happy to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

give way to the chair of the Select Committee. I thank the Shadow Secretary of State for giving way, and I'd like State for giving way, and I'd like to make the point that a lot of work is done in good faith in this House, particularly on my select House, particularly on my select committee, particularly by the Secretary of State. I really do not Secretary of State. I really do not appreciate the way in which this debate is being led on the benches opposite, and I think he should opposite, and I think he should take a while to look through the recommendations of the troubles, work that we have done as a committee, and take it seriously and have productive conversations

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on how to move this forward. I take everything the hon. Ladies Committee does incredibly Ladies Committee does incredibly seriously. It's a good deal of experience on there, and she always has interesting witnesses. I, you has interesting witnesses. I, you know, very interested in the remarks, made her committee the other day by experts in, you know, other day by experts in, you know, police, Northern police service Northern Ireland. I hope to have the opportunity to talk to her about that, as well as to the about that, as well as to the people who were giving evidence.

But I'm afraid this doesn't none of none of that takes away from the fact that there is a choice before this House. We do not have to go down this route of erasing the line that has been we have attempted to draw under the troubles. And I say to hon. Members opposite, there is, you know, there is a not just a moral risk in this. There is also a political risk for anyone who has doubts because it is simply put, the Prime Minister has, over the course of the past few months, U-turned, I'd say, is it 12 or 13 times I 14 times I lose, I lose track, and I believe that there is every possibility that just as there was a U-turn 24 hours ago on social media for young people because of representations that were made, I believe, from 60 members of the Labour backbench.

So there is the opportunity to stop the government in its tracks on this incredibly serious issue. I will give way to one more time to my hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm incredibly grateful to the Shadow Secretary of State for giving way on that point. He he giving way on that point. He he makes a very powerful point, but I think it's worth putting on the record that it's pretty unlikely record that it's pretty unlikely that his words will carry the day on the basis that there are eight on the basis that there are eight Labour backbenchers here to hear this debate about applying a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this debate about applying a guillotine to gut a piece of existing legislation without putting anything else in place. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No, I'm very pleased. My hon. Friend had the opportunity to put Friend had the opportunity to put that on the record that that, sadly, are not many members of the Labour are not many members of the Labour backbench here to hear it. And I wish there were, because, as I say, there is an alternative and I know there is an alternative and I know I will give way. No, no, I will not I will give way. No, no, I will not give way.

The I. There, you there. I do believe that if the Labour backbench was to mount significant pressure in private, the government would think again. Yeah, the government would think again and if they did, it would create the opportunity once again for many of our brave veterans from Operation Banner to be able to sleep

**** Possible New Speaker ****

peacefully at night. Yeah. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I draw my remarks to a close, I remind all hon. Members to be remind all hon. Members to be mindful of the past and the future. The Conservatives sought to draw a The Conservatives sought to draw a line. This government is erasing that line and in so doing, is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

dredging up the past in a way that will allow the troubles to be fought again and again in the courtroom. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This continuation of the conflict by other means, by legal conflict by other means, by legal means, ultimately undermines and reduces the opportunity that we reduces the opportunity that we have for reconciliation. It also undeniably comes at an operational undeniably comes at an operational cost. Yes, we know this because those people who know most about those people who know most about military operations tell us it is so general sir Nick Parker and General Sir Peter Wall, both of whom who have served our country at the very highest levels, right today in the Telegraph, those currently serving, particularly in operations where judgement is exercised under extreme pressure, are watching closely if lawful decisions taken in good faith can be re-examined endlessly decades later.

Confidence in command, willingness to serve and trust in political backing inevitably suffer enemies and allies. Notice this as well. Let us remember the general's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

words. Andy MacDonald.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I welcome the introduction of the I welcome the introduction of the (Remedial) Order. It is a necessary and overdue step if this government is to retain the confidence of the people of Northern Ireland, that it is serious about justice, is serious about justice, accountability and dealing honestly with the legacy of the troubles. As several gallant and hon. Members have said from these benches, they never wanted special protection exemptions or immunity from the law.

They wanted and expected exactly what the public expects to be judged by the same universal standards of justice that apply to everyone else. Accountability does not weaken the armed forces. It strengthens trust in them. The (Remedial) Order recognises this basic principle. It removes the conditional immunity, the de facto amnesty contained in the 2023 Legacy Act, provisions that were found unlawful by the courts in the
17:16
Andy McDonald Portrait Andy McDonald MP (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East, Labour)
-
-
Dillon case in Belfast, the High Court and the Court of Appeal were clear that those provisions breached articles two and three of the European Convention on Human the European Convention on Human Rights and the Windsor Framework. The government accepted that judgement and rightly abandoned its judgement and rightly abandoned its appeal. These immunity provisions never legally took effect, and it is right that they are now formally removed. The order also restores access to civil claims, reopening an important route to truth and accountability that had been wrongly closed.

These processes were never about witch hunts since the Good Friday Agreement, only one former soldier has been convicted for a troubles era killing, and he received a suspended sentence that is not lawfare. What civil cases and inquests have done is correct. False records expose wrongdoing and finally give families truthful answers after decades of official denial. However, we must be honest. The (Remedial) Order does not go far enough. Section 45 of the Legacy Act, which blocks the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland from investigating troubles related police misconduct, remains and addressed.

The Court of Appeal found this to be incompatible with human rights. Yet victims and families are still denied access to a fully independent investigative mechanism. That failure continues. The government is, of course, serious about a victim centred approach to the past. But in pursuit of that, further amendments are essential. National security must not be used as a smokescreen for secrecy. Families must have enforceable rights to truth, information and challenge, particularly where the Secretary of State retains wide powers over legacy bodies.

This is especially important given the unresolved disagreements surrounding the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Public Office Accountability Bill. I'll give a word. To the hon. Member for giving

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To the hon. Member for giving way. I'm new in this place, but my sense of him is that he's a great parliamentarian. And so I would parliamentarian. And so I would just like to understand how he has reconciled himself with the government bringing in a remedial government bringing in a remedial order when whereby we're pulling a law out before we put a new one in. law out before we put a new one in. How has he reconciled himself that that is the correct course to take?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. And of course, there intervention. And of course, there is an obligation upon this government under the Human Rights Act where it deems where it has Act where it deems where it has been told by a court that there's legislation that's incompatible with the convention, right. Under section four of the Human Rights Act. They're duty bound and have Act. They're duty bound and have the ability to make that to remove that incompatibility.

And that is exactly what is being done here. So. Well, I'm afraid that's the hon. Member from a sedentary position, but that is actually the legal position. But I'll enclosing, Madam Deputy Speaker, the (Remedial) Order is a positive correction, but it's only a first step. Justice delayed has already cost families decades. Justice diluted will cost confidence all together. If we want reconciliation rooted in truth, the law must apply equally to all. And independent investigations must be fully restored.

Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Liberal Democrat spokesperson Paul Carlisle. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I've listened carefully to those who have spoken before me, and while there are clear differences across the house, I hope there's a shared recognition of the gravity of the issues we are debating responsibility that rests on responsibility that rests on Parliament. Approach them with care. I'll begin, as I have done previously, on this matter, by recognising the deep, enduring scars left by the troubles for victims, survivors, veterans, families and communities across Northern Ireland and beyond.

The issues we are considering reflect lived experience and demand serious seriousness and humility. Not grandstanding. But that does not preclude, in fact, requires us making clear the Legacy Act was a failure. It fell victims, it felt survivors, and it failed veterans. It's not the opinion of the Liberal Democrats. It's the view of every major party in Northern Ireland, victims organisations, the vast
17:22
Paul Kohler Portrait Mr Paul Kohler MP (Wimbledon, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
majority of veterans I have met and ultimately the courts. The Northern Ireland Court of Appeal was clear Ireland Court of Appeal was clear in 2024 that core provisions of the act were incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. Parliament cannot simply shrug his shoulders at that judgement, and shoulders at that judgement, and there is no more time than now to confirm we are a country governed by the rule of law, not by wishful by the rule of law, not by wishful thinking or culture war rhetoric.

For that reason, Liberal Democrats welcome this (Remedial) Order. And can I remind this House there are greater percentage of veterans in my parliamentary party than any other party in this House, a gallant cohort who will agree to nothing that will let down our veterans and believe the (Remedial) Order is necessary because it removes most egregious provisions of the act, including immunity that extended to terrorists and bars on civil actions. Those measures were corrosive to trust, creating an abhorrent moral equivalence between those who serve the state and those who sought to destroy it.

This (Remedial) Order must consequently be seen as a prerequisite to any credible legacy process, was a concession to apologists and terrorists. That is why it's difficult to understand those who argue this House should vote against the (Remedial) Order. To do so would be to defend legislation that courts have ruled unlawful, to prolong uncertainty for victims and veterans alike. It would leave us knowingly in breach of international obligations and further undermine confidence in the institutions tasked with dealing with the past. It is simply wrong as a matter of principle and in practice.

And to those who argue, the (Remedial) Order should be delayed until judgement is handed down, I would simply concur with the Secretary of State. Put simply, notwithstanding paragraph 710 of the Court of Appeal judgement, the declaration of incompatibility will remain whether or not the government wins its appeal on article two of the Windsor Framework. Now, while Secretary of State will doubtless welcome our support, I do not wish to lull into a false sense of security. Welcoming the (Remedial) Order does not mean declaring the job done.

There remains serious deficiencies in the forthcoming Troubles Bill that must be addressed if any new framework is to command confidence across communities. That is why my party has tabled constructive amendments and new clauses not to wreck the legislation, but to save it. In particular, we remain deeply concerned about protections for veterans, but are not asking for immunity. They tell me repeatedly they don't want immunity. They're asking for fairness, proportionality, and the fear that the process of investigation

**** Possible New Speaker ****

becomes an instrument of persecution. I will. I'm grateful to the Liberal Democrat spokesman for giving way. I fear he may have misspoken earlier on in his remarks. And I'm just going to quote from the Joint Committee on Human Rights report on the first draft, a declaration of the first draft, a declaration of incompatibility has no legal effect and does not affect the ongoing validity of the incompatible legislation. It is merely a tool by which the courts can draw attention to an incompatibility.

It is then, for the government and the Parliament to decide what action,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

if any, it takes. This is otherwise, and it's for our government to stand up for our our government to stand up for our international obligations. Look about you. Look what's happening with Greenland. This is the time with Greenland. This is the time when we should stand up for our international obligations. This is something we believe in the rule of law. There's a declaration of incompatibility. And we as a government, we as a government should absolutely stand up for our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

should absolutely stand up for our international obligations. My hon. Friend, my hon. Friend

**** Possible New Speaker ****

made relates directly back to the Human Rights Act. That is the law in this country. Thank you. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. I think that intervention and the government has a choice to make to stand up for international obligations. That is the right obligations. That is the right thing to do. That is surely the right thing to do at this time of all time. Surely we stand up for all time. Surely we stand up for international obligations. Our amendments seek to put clearly clear statutory definitions in clear statutory definitions in place to strengthen safeguards and proportionate legal action for the presumption of remote participation, to protect anonymity.

To establish independent oversight of how the safeguards operate. In practice, our approach is about recognising service context and the cumulative impact of decades of investigation, not about shielding wrongdoing. The Liberal Democrats also recognise that reconciliation cannot be achieved by mechanisms mechanisms alone. If we are to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Seen a. Pattern for you. I thank the hon. Member for giving way, but I hope he didn't giving way, but I hope he didn't misquote where he said that the Liberal Democrats had more veterans in the parliamentary party than anyone else where where they have anyone else where where they have eight and we have 17. And I do only see that I believe one of yours is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

here today, where many of ours are here. Thank you. Intervention. We have a greater percentage, I think

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a greater percentage, I think you'll find. And it's more. Well, I did say that. I did say that. I'm. So where are they?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm sorry. I did say that. Yeah, these are the words.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, these are the words. Listen to what I said is what I say. Listen to what I said is what I say. Where are they? Now that. Let's look at this. This is the. We need more gravity in the house and this, this grandstanding, the jocularity, the jokes. This is not the way to the jokes. This is not the way to approach the serious situation. No, I will not give any. I know I'm not, I'm not, I'm no, no, no, we're now it's just grandstanding.

And I'm

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not going to give into more ground stone. Order, order, order! Please sit

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order, order! Please sit down. The temperature just needs to be lowered to allow the hon. Gentleman to deliver his remarks.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Paul Kohler. If we are serious about moving towards a shared future for Northern Ireland, legacy processes Northern Ireland, legacy processes must be connected to a broader reconciliation strategy. That is why we have proposed a statutory why we have proposed a statutory duty on state, published such a strategy, developed a consultation with victims institutions and Parliament just in the past and building the future must go hand in hand. Finally, a word about the European Convention on Human Rights. This (Remedial) Order arises precisely because the compliance matters.

The Good Friday Agreement is built on it, and as such, peace in Northern Ireland depends on it. Those who casually call for the withdrawal of playing fast and loose with our history, our rights, our futures and our very union, we will support this (Remedial) Order oppose those who would block it for self-serving reasons, and continue to work constructively with members across the House to fashion an appropriate legacy process. Thank

**** Possible New Speaker ****

you. I call Peter Swallow. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I felt it important to speak on this debate today as a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I'll acknowledge, of course, that we until recently had another member in the House from that committee, the hon. Member for New Forest West. When he came over to speak to me just now, I was speak to me just now, I was slightly worried he was defecting. But I, I assured that he was just in fact, letting me know that unfortunately, he wasn't able to stay for the rest of the debate.

But I did want to just start by acknowledging that there were differences of opinion as he set out on this important issue, but nevertheless, the committee carried out its constitutional role to scrutinise this (Remedial) Order, as the standing orders of both houses set out, we must, as we're mandated to do. The JCHR has produced two reports on the (Remedial) Order concern today, and has been clear and unambiguous in its recommendation that this remedial order be approved by the House.

I should emphasise that the focus of the report was on the remedial order in front of us today, not the bill, and I'll similarly similarly focus my remarks squarely on the order, as my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State has
17:30
Peter Swallow Portrait Peter Swallow MP (Bracknell, Labour)
-
-
set out this (Remedial) Order follows rulings by the high, the High Court of Northern Ireland, and the Court of Appeal that declared a number of provisions within the previous government's Legacy Act to be incompatible with our human rights obligations under the ECHR, the Legacy Act prohibited any the Legacy Act prohibited any criminal investigations into troubles related offences being being initiated or continued. Prohibited any criminal enforcement action in relation to non serious troubles related offences ended. Troubles related civil claims, which began after the Legacy Act's first reading and prohibited new ones and obliged the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery to give immunity from prosecution where certain conditions were met.

And yes, this extended to giving immunity from prosecution to terrorists. The Legacy Act was a deeply flawed piece of legislation, a fact which has been reflected in the court's rulings on its incompatibilities with our human rights legislation. This order, alongside the bill, seeks to remedy these incompatibilities, of course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So this order alongside that bill, and I am actually very grateful to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on which he sits for producing this report. I think it's very, very good, but I would like to try and get a question, which I didn't get earlier, to how the hon. Member reconciles the fact that Member reconciles the fact that this remedial order is being used as a guillotine to gut an existing as a guillotine to gut an existing piece of legislation before his government has put something else in place.

How has he reconciled

**** Possible New Speaker ****

with that? I'm very happy to to jump

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very happy to to jump forward in my speech to, to to address the issue that the hon. Member raises, what I would just gently say to start with, however, is that by removing is that by removing incompatibilities which courts have put in legal limbo, this government put in legal limbo, this government is quite rightly acting to correct those those incompatibilities. That is good governance, not bad. Let me address the point more specifically, to say that it is unusual for any government to introduce a remedial order and a bill, both addressing incompatibilities on the same day would be an understatement, and the committee's long held view is that primary legislation is always preferable to address incompatibilities where that is available.

A view re-emphasised in our second report. But and this is important, we also recognise the unique complexities and sensitivities of this issue. And for that reason, our recommendation was that this remedial order be approved. I want to acknowledge that it is an unusual remedial order in that it's being presented at the same time, as I've said, as a bill, and I do welcome the bill as well, the one that the bill before the House, unlike the Legacy Act introduced by the last government, this is a bill which does not give immunity to terrorists and recognises the rights of communities to access the justice our legal framework affords to all.

It also produces important safeguards for veterans, including protection from repeated investigations, the right to seek anonymity, the right not to be forced to travel, to give evidence protection in old age, and protection from cold calling or unexpected letters. Importantly, these safeguards also include a right for veterans voices to be heard through the inclusion of veterans representatives in the statutory Victims and Survivors Advisory Group. These measures strike the balance between protecting those who serve to keep the peace and protect life, and ensuring that terrorist acts are not granted immunity.

Of course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to the hon. Member for giving way who's describing the bill. We're not here to debate the bill. We're here to debate the bill. We're here to debate the remedial order. And I asked him why he got comfortable with the fact he got comfortable with the fact that we're not, you know, we're guillotining a piece of law without putting something in place. And he putting something in place. And he hasn't answered that yet, and he's answered that they can he hasn't

**** Possible New Speaker ****

answered that they can he hasn't answered why they should. As the report sets out, the government set forward its reasons for proceeding with the remedial order alongside a bill, and the Secretary of State has shared those reasons today. It always befalls a government where a where an incompatibility has been identified to choose the manner in which to address it. There are four options. The first option is to do nothing, which of course we very well could have done.

But as the as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson eloquently pointed out, would not see us complying with our international obligations. And that's not something I would feel comfortable with. The second would be to introduce a remedial order, which had to be approved as an urgent (Remedial) Order. He'll forgive me if I don't remember the precise language on my feet, but there is a route for a more rapid (Remedial) Order. That's not the route the government decided to go down, and I welcome that as well, because I think it is important that we have the time to properly scrutinise anything on this most sensitive issue.

The third option is the option the government has taken, and the fourth is, of course, to deal with it solely in primary legislation, as the Secretary of State set out. And he was very forthcoming in appearing before the committee and also providing additional correspondence to us as well. The decision that he took was that the appropriate route was to address this with a remedial order, and he did that because it was important to build trust in communities across Northern Ireland by more swiftly addressing the incompatibilities that have been identified.

I hope that fulsome response has addressed the hon. Gentleman's concerns, and I can continue with my speech. Fantastic. Thank you. My my right hon. Friend has been clear that he recognises that this is a sensitive bill which seeks to address not only the lasting legacy of a highly emotive and contested period of our history, but also the enduring lived reality of what that legacy means for communities across Northern Ireland and the whole of the UK. For this reason, the government has set out its grounds for seeking to use a remedial order.

I refer to that in great detail. I will also just emphasise that that given the nature of the Bill before the House, it will be the case that the legislation will take some time to progress as it scrutinised by both houses and indeed will undergo scrutiny by our committee. That is, I think Madam Deputy Speaker is indicating more than enough for me to set out the reasons why the Joint Committee on Human Rights recommended that this remedial order be approved I and only to emphasise that as a member of the JCHR, I stand by the reports we have made and our considered recommendation to approve is clear.
17:37
David Davis Portrait Rt Hon David Davis MP (Goole and Pocklington, Conservative)
-
-
Members will have seen the >> Members will have seen the interest in this debate shown by the number of members on their feet, and will be aware of the short and will be aware of the short timescale that we've got. I would therefore ask that members, whilst I don't want to bring a time limit in at this moment, I would ask that members do keep their comments as brief as possible to help each other out. So David Davis.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I suppose I should declare an interest. I. I was the only person, along with Tom Watson, only person, along with Tom Watson, to have had a Act of Parliament struck down in the courts, not using a declaration of incompatibility, but actually using article rights and so on. So I'm quite familiar with that process. quite familiar with that process. And this is not it. Also, I say to the hon. Gentleman who's just been the hon. Gentleman who's just been speaking, I commend him for taking part in the JCHR.

I think it's an incredibly important committee. I will say to him that mostly through its history, it has had unanimous judgement. Certainly when Harriet Harman, for example, was a brilliant chairman, it was almost entirely unanimous judgements. It was never on a party basis. Now, in order to make this side of the House very happy, I'm going to start by talking about the Human Rights Act, the Human Rights Act 1998 requires quotes compelling reasons to bring forward a remedial remedial order with the Joint Committee on Human Rights later clarifying that there is, and I quote, a general constitutional principle that it is desirable for amendments to primary legislation to be made by way of a bill, not by a remedial order.

And although the JCHR allowed the progress of (Remedial) Order, it was after significant amendment and by majority vote not the usual unanimity, and with them stating and I do recommend hon. Friends and honourable colleagues read this, I quote. It is highly unusual that the government has laid a bill and a remedial order concerning the same subject matter on the very same day. Usually we will consider the government's approach constitutionally improper. Right? I agree, and I do encourage colleagues to read this bill because these this this report, which my friend is waving earlier because you can almost see the discomfort in dealing with this.

Now, what happened in a moment. What happened was the Secretary of State made an appeal on the basis of the urgency in his mind of of this matter. And the hon. Gentleman Barking to give way to a second, just referred to it, the hon. Member for Bracknell as unique in its complexity. Now, I say to all of the House, that's precisely a reason to use primary legislation, not a piece, not a parliamentary technique which allows no amendment whatsoever.

Because my arguments about this are arguments of detail that go to the interests of the people of Northern Ireland

**** Possible New Speaker ****

individually, not some sweeping order that takes away rights. I give why? I'm grateful for the right hon. Gentleman for referring to our report to advance his argument. I wonder if he could be as kind as to read the next sentence in our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

report. I should I encourage everybody to read it. I'm not saying take my to read it. I'm not saying take my word for it. I'm saying read this word for it. I'm saying read this report because you can the tension in the committee. In reading the report, a number of real innocent victims who are seeking some sort of succour or recourse, which he's aiming to help. But he started out by talking about the huge number of people who are killed by paramilitaries in Northern Ireland.

And I warrant that when this goes through, there will be a massive differential between those who are were killed by paramilitaries and those who are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

asking for information. I give you. The figures of. The. Second stage himself. Give bear out the. Argument that the member out the. Argument that the member is making. Of the 200 additional is making. Of the 200 additional civil cases, 120 of them are directed towards the Mod. Does that not bear out the very point that the member's making, that this is will be a one sided outcome and a will be a one sided outcome and a one sided operation? Yes.

I mean the hon. Gentleman and honourable service in this area, and he's exactly right. And he understands, as everybody in this size does. Well, most people on this side do, that the that there are asymmetries, asymmetries built into the system which are handicap and indeed sometimes terrifying to people on one side of the argument whilst favouring those on the other. And I want to talk to that because obviously, as we've heard, the new (Remedial) Order will allow new civil cases to be brought and, we're told, bring justice to victims.

Well, government policy, as we've heard time and again, does not differentiate between real victims and terrorists. It will allow IRA sympathisers to continue their campaign of vexatious lawfare, hauling our brave veterans into court. I'll remind the House. In 2006, the Blair government passed a law which said anyone hurt in the troubles is classed as a victim. That means a proven murderer, a proven serial murderer killed in the process of carrying out another murder is classed as a victim.

Imagine it in the rest of the UK. Imagine a bank robber who's already a murderer and is shot trying to rob another bank. Do we think he's think he's a victim? Now that's out of the politics of Northern Ireland. But in Northern Ireland, classified as a victim. So when Secretary of State talks about victims families, he is actually in many cases referring to families of IRA terrorists. Now, frankly, if the government's legislation matched the government's rhetoric, the word victim would also always be preceded by the word innocent.

If we're talking about innocent victims, I think many of the differences across this law would evaporate. But that's not the truth. And indeed the other side in this argument, Sinn Fein and IRA sympathisers actually know this. The DUP proved this actually in September last year, when they attempted to put a motion in front of storm in front of Stormont, actually putting innocent in front of the word victim. And it was voted down by Sinn Fein and their allies because they know they depend on this massive confusion of the rest of the world over what a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

victim really is. I'll give. The honourable. Member, except from me, that one of the classic examples of what of the classic examples of what he's just saying was the Shankill bomb, where the perpetrator of that bomb, where the perpetrator of that bomb was an IRA terrorist and he was killed along with the innocent people whom he murdered. And yet people whom he murdered. And yet Sinn Féin and republicans insist on trying to portray him as a victim,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

as opposed to those that he genuinely caused to be victims. Right. Of course, that's a part of what my hon. Friend was describing earlier about trying to rewrite history. But you see, this comes right to the core of what the Secretary of State has already done in this, because we know he's promised married Kelly that there's going to be a coroner's inquest for Loughgall. Why? Because her brother, Patrick Kelly, was killed in Loughgall. The victim, except he killed at least five other people previously, including two UDR officers.

He and his gang of eight were attempting to blow up. Well, in fact, they did attempted. They did blow up the police station with soldiers and policemen inside a £400 bomb, and they had heavy weapons. Again, my hon. Friend will recognise him. G36 to shoot through the walls and kill policemen there, and we want to see a piece of rewriting of history. Kelly's family have already attempted to rewrite history, claiming that Loughgall. He went to blow up, not to kill, despite his long and bloody track record proving otherwise.

He's obviously designed a bomb that only hits bricks, not people. Now, I don't aim to make light of this because it is incredibly serious and as we've heard with 120 actions, Kelly's family have already brought legal action against the Minister of Defence. And they're not the only one. Let's look at the other IRA terrorists quotes. Victims have brought civil cases in 2011. Aiden McKeever, the getaway driver at the Clonoe incident in 1992, in which four IRA terrorists were killed, was awarded £75,000 sustained when fleeing the scene.

He's not a victim, he's a terrorist and he got £75,000. Remember, the IRA are trying to pretend that this is a killing operation. The SAS or the soldiers on the scene, whoever they were, actually gave him first aid to save his life because he'd been shot and injured. And yet he gets £75,000 from the state in 2023. The family are staying. Carberry tried to sue the Minister of Defence for his death in 1972. Carberry was an IRA volunteer and he was killed after a soldier returned fire at the vehicle that he was shooting from.

So forgive me, I really want to get to the end of it. And Gerry Adams, we know, was already preparing legal action, challenging the decision to prevent him and others from being compensated for being interned in the troubles. The surviving IRA terrorists and their families will benefit from what we're doing today. There will be few. There will be some. The. The right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State actually mentioned some of them. Civil claims brought against IRA killers, but there'll be rather special circumstances.

Omagh is one of them. I could explain why, but we haven't got time. There will be a few, but they'll be very, very few. Compared with thousands. Thousands of deaths, tortures and murders. And that's largely because Tony Blair and Jonathan Powell accepted, as part of the Good Friday Agreement, not to allow the decommissioned weapons to be studied for forensic purposes. Point one they also precluded recovered bodies from being examined for forensic purposes. So those people have had people murdered and the bodies been recovered.

They're not even allowed to use the bullets in them to see who killed them. You know, those families. So that's how this justice works. And of course, there will be no witnesses to IRA crimes. The IRA themselves will not give witness, and I'm afraid anybody else will be taking their lives in their hands. So I want to finish by saying this. Today's (Remedial) Order will allow the IRA to further their campaign of rewriting the history of the troubles, portraying our brave soldiers as state of state sponsored killers, and falsely representing themselves as victims and heroes.

Neither of which is true.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah. Alex Ballinger. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I'm happy to speak today in support of this motion on the Northern Ireland Legacy Act. (Remedial) Order. The wider context (Remedial) Order. The wider context is straightforward. The Legacy Act, passed by the Conservatives in 2023, attempted to replace long standing attempted to replace long standing legal roots with a new commission and a conditional immunity scheme. That approach did not command That approach did not command support in Northern Ireland, and it did not withstand legal scrutiny, and both the High Court and the Belfast Belfast Court of Appeal found key provisions in the act incompatible with UK human rights law, in particular where they undermine the state's duties to investigate serious harm and where the act victims, including the victims of terrorist attacks, out of court.

And this was entirely foreseeable, as the Joint Committee on Human Rights warned in 2022, at a time when there was a majority of conservative politicians on the joint committee, they warned the government's approach risked widespread breaches of human rights law and would fail to meet minimum standards for effective investigations. Victims of the troubles and their families, including British servicemen killed by terrorists, would have had their routes to justice shut down by the Conservatives Unlawful Legacy Act. Nevertheless, they pressed ahead regardless, passing an act they knew would never be compatible with UK law and therefore would never commence.

False promises were made to our veterans and negligence was dressed up as decisiveness. So it is right that the Labour government has committed to repeal and replace their failed act through primary legislation, but today is about a necessary interim step. The (Remedial) Order before the House. This (Remedial) Order exists to fix human rights breaches quickly, when the courts have found that Parliament's work has cut across basic protections. So what does it actually do? First, it removes the Act's conditional immunity provisions, the quite outrageous provisions that allow terrorists to secure immunity from prosecution by offering an account to the best of their knowledge and belief.

Those provisions were never enacted as they were struck down by the courts, but their presence on the statute book has done real damage. It has fuelled mistrust, created uncertainty, and offered a false promise of protection to veterans that could never be delivered. Second, it removes the statutory bar on troubles related civil claims. The 2023 act sought to block citizens of the United Kingdom for pursuing crimes. Sorry for pursuing justice for crimes that they have faced during the troubles. I believe that was wrong in principle, and indeed it was found incompatible with article six of the convention.

And thirdly, it removes the exclusion of protected material gathered by Ikaria from being used in civil proceedings and certain other processes. In plain English, this stops victims who would have had their hands tied by the law from using evidence they would need to seek justice. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, much of the opposition's rhetoric has been directed at veterans. And as a veteran myself, let me address that head on. There has never been and never will be any moral equivalence between our armed forces who serve to uphold law and order, and terrorist organisations that targeted civilians.

I will happily give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He's glossed over for giving way. He's glossed over another thing that he's potentially going to walk through the voting lobby to do today, and that is lobby to do today, and that is going to be allow Gerry Adams to claim compensation because he was claim compensation because he was interned on the basis. That was illegal because the Secretary of State didn't sign his order. It was State didn't sign his order.

It was the Minister of state. So would he like to talk, tell his veteran friends and tell the peoples of Halesowen why he's happy to walk through that voting lobby and to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

direct. And in fact, the Prime Minister, when asked this question a few weeks ago, said categorically we would not allow Gerry Adams to claim compensation. In fact, there claim compensation. In fact, there are several civil cases that would be blocked supporting the victims of IRA terrorism, including a case involving Gerry Adams, that this (Remedial) Order will help go forward. So I think it's important forward. So I think it's important that we look about and think about the victims of the appalling terrorist paramilitary crimes.

I will give way. I've been listening very carefully to what he has to say, and he's right to assert that there is no moral. There should be no legal equivalence between the perpetrators of terror and those sent out to do the state's business in Northern Ireland. But can he understand the views of the great majority of veterans, many of whom I have the privilege to represent? That feels what this government is doing is undermining and holding below the waterline legislation which, however imperfect and subject to an appeal, was going some way to giving them some comfort.

So I am a veteran. I speak to many veterans and I think he will agree. There are a range of
17:53
Alex Ballinger Portrait Alex Ballinger MP (Halesowen, Labour)
-
-
views on this issue. Those of us who have served, we served to uphold the rule of law in whatever uphold the rule of law in whatever service that was. And I think it's beholden on us and it's beholden on beholden on us and it's beholden on people that serve that. If they are upholding the rule of law, they're accountable to that rule of law. And I will say, Brigadier John Donnelly, who did serve in Northern Ireland and was chair of the centre for Military Justice, currently chair.

He said you cannot have a system of law that applies to some groups and not to others. It is vital that soldiers operating in support of the civil powers are held fully accountable for the laws they are required to enforce. That is the difference between the soldier and the terrorist. And this, of course, is not happening in Afghanistan or Iraq. This is happening in Northern Ireland where UK citizens are affected. So I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

important. Will you give way on that point? I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I just briefly wanted to recognise the point that he's just made. You can't have immunity for one group and not another. That is one group and not another. That is a position that the previous government recognised. It was recognised in their bill, which is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

recognised in their bill, which is why their bill gave immunity to terrorists. Is that not the case? He is right. And I think it's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He is right. And I think it's important that for everyone involved, including the many veterans that are concerned about the situation in Northern Ireland, that we end this legal wild west, the defective act that led to more litigation, more uncertainty and more distress, both for victims and those who served on Op Banner

**** Possible New Speaker ****

should end, and I'll give way one more time, and then I must I must make progress. Another thing about the rule of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

law this is. About on an. Industrial scale. The terrorist organisations

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The terrorist organisations seeking to rewrite the history of the troubles and using the fact that the army and the force of law and order in Northern Ireland have all the records, they have none.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And therefore it's a one sided organisation. It's a one sided operation. I thank him for his intervention. I didn't have do not have the statistics in front of me, but he will know the overwhelming number of prosecutions that have happened in Northern Ireland have been prosecutions of paramilitaries and terrorist groups, and only and only one member, one service person has been convicted since 2010. And that was a suspended sentence, so that the threat is exaggerated for political effect, I'm afraid, by our opponents, and that is not helpful for what is a very serious, serious business that people are very concerned about.

It is important we deal in facts, not scare stories. Claims that 800 civil cases will be reactivated and that this will drag veterans through the courts again are simply untrue. The reality is that almost 800 civil cases continued unaffected by the Conservatives Legacy Act of 2023, as this act was aimed at new claims. But as the act was rejected by the courts, it never provided any protection to veterans. We will go on to protections for veterans as part of Labour's new bill.

I won't cover that now because we'll have another opportunity to debate. But I will finally end by saying this (Remedial) Order is a necessary correction. It removes discredited provisions, restores basic legal rights, and helps rebuild confidence in a process that must command legitimacy across Northern

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Ireland. And I will be supporting this motion. Members, may I wish to know that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will shortly be bringing in a three minute time limit, but without a time limit. Gavin Robinson. Thank you very much, Madam

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I say firstly, on a point of in a point of agreement and a positivity, can I thank the Leader of the House and usual channels for agreeing that usual channels for agreeing that this motion should be three hours, because had it had rested at 90 minutes, no Northern Ireland voice would have been heard in this debate at all. And I think that would be shameful. So can I thank you for the indication that you will bring in a time limit, Madam Deputy Speaker? And can I indicate that I do not intend to take
17:57
Gavin Robinson Portrait Rt Hon Gavin Robinson MP (Belfast East, Democratic Unionist Party)
-
-
advantage of my opportunity to speak without time limit, because I'm not going to be discourteous to Northern Ireland colleagues or any Northern Ireland colleagues or any other who wishes to participate. Can I say to the Secretary of State and he knows my position on this? I believe he is bringing this remedial order in wrongly. I think remedial order in wrongly. I think he is attaching to these issues a level of undue haste. I said to him on the 17th of December in this chamber that given that he knows there are issues still before the Supreme Court, he should at least wait.

Though he abandoned the appeal, the Northern Ireland veterans movement have not. And yet this government and the last speaker made a valiant effort, have tried to indicate their support for in their understanding of the concerns of veterans. And yet we have veterans waiting on the challenge that they lodged in the Supreme Court. And the government can't wait until these issues have been determined. I say to the Secretary of State, again, remedial orders are there to deal with an incompatibility with human rights law, not his policy objectives.

And yet that's exactly what I believe he has been doing in this regard. If I'm wrong, then surely it's incumbent upon him to use this mechanism to deal with all the incompatibilities that were highlighted by the courts. The High Court in Belfast highlighted a number, yet he left one out. The Court of Appeal added three more. Yet within this remedial order he only added one. And yet the Joint Committee on Human Rights have given their indication that, yes, this (Remedial) Order should be approved.

They have offered absolutely no view whatsoever on the issues that have been left out of this remedial order. But I am going to raise them because when we mention civil cases earlier, the Secretary of State has not reconciled. Why the High Court in Belfast and the Court of Appeal were in two fundamentally different places on civil cases. Nor did he take the opportunity to pursue the differential and get a determined outcome in the Supreme Court. He has not indicated why he believes the High Court in Belfast thought the retrospective application was wrong.

And yet the Court of Appeal allow civil cases to be lodged indefinitely and in perpetuity. He posed the question to me when I intervened to him about the matter of principle of bringing civil cases. I agree in the principle of bringing civil cases, but it is not uncommon within the law to understand limitations and to understand the limitations act that we have and understand the parliamentary sovereignty of this Parliament. To be able to say enough is enough, time has moved on.

You have exhausted your opportunity for claim because we know veterans, know the security services, know the PSNI, know about the unlimited quest through legal aid for lawfare, to rewrite the past, to rewrite the history of Northern Ireland, and to turn that which was bad into good. And we will always speak out against that. He has chosen to leave out the interim custody order issue from his (Remedial) Order. He has chosen to try and attempt to deal with that within the Troubles Bill.

Yet I say to him, articles 89 and 90 in the Troubles Bill will not deal with Gerry Adams, the Gerry Adams case, and if he reads the judgement, Lord Kerr's probably his final judgement before he retired from and sadly demised from the Supreme Court indicated that that was he applies or intends to bring forward an article 89 does not stand legally, and in article 90, article 90 engages consideration about a conviction that was quashed remains quashed. But yet there can be no compensation.

Silent. Silent on whether Gerry Adams would be able to attain compensation not from the quashed conviction, but from the fact that he was detained without trial under the interim custody order in the first place. Can I say to you, the Secretary of State, he is deficient in what he has provided towards this House. He hasn't chosen to deal with the incompatibility through the interim, through this remedial order. And nor do I believe, given the path he has taken in primary legislation, dealt with it sufficiently either on several cases.

The Secretary of State lectures Northern Ireland continually about living within our Budget, living within our means. He has expanded the scope of legacy investigations in the Legacy Commission exponentially by the actions of this remedial order and indeed the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. Has he suggested for one moment that he's going to increase the Budget available to the Legacy Commission no. 250 million over five years, almost £100 million already spent. And yet this raft of work that's going to have to befall us in Northern Ireland.

Is he going to pick up the tab? No. The decisions being made by this chamber now and in the future with the Troubles Bill, have a material impact on our ability to move on to the future rather than deal with the past. But yet I hear no concern for that. And when I see that 800 odd civil claims now to be accompanied by an additional 200 civil claims, who's to pick up the bill? Secretary of State, if it's the people of the Northern Ireland, if it's the people who were troubled for 30 years by terrorists in Northern Ireland, if it's a fledgling executive which is struggling to make public services deliver for their people because of these issues, then I think that is something I need to raise out of responsibility and something I think he needs to wrestle with and deal with.

And then, most fundamentally of all, there was a suggestion that this process was to provide an immediate or a quick resolution to an issue raised by the courts. We are now some 16, 18 months on from a manifesto commitment to repeal and replace. And yet, what do we hear? This government is locked in logjam between the NIO and the Mod about the substance of amendments that may or not, may or may not be brought forward. Two weeks ago, the government were maintaining the position that the safeguards that they call protections in the bill were sufficient.

Only two weeks ago, the Prime Minister accepted with me that they were insufficient and he was going to have to bring forward amendments to be shot down by a representative of the Irish government some two hours later, who said he, the Secretary of State has no power to bring forward any amendments unless he attains their agreement. Shame, shame, I say. It is a matter of fact that that was said by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in Parliament Buildings, Belfast, and well, he knows it, but we'll attest and we'll see the amendments that he brings forward.

I regret, I seriously and personally regret that we are in a position that we cannot offer our support to this (Remedial) Order. I regret that, having asked the Secretary of State on the 17th of December to wait, hearings concluded in October, the Supreme Court will issue a determination he would be in a much stronger space to build credibility and confidence on these issues. If at least he allowed the judicial process to conclude. But he chose not to. And with that, he loses our support.
18:05
Claire Hanna Portrait Claire Hanna MP (Belfast South and Mid Down, Social Democratic & Labour Party)
-
-
Claire Hanna much the SDLP welcomes this (Remedial) Order which which goes some way to restoring rule of law to legacy processes and to the present day. The introduction by the previous government of an amnesty and the government of an amnesty and the closure of processes was the very definition of the phrase justice delayed and denied. This order, specifically, is about the troubles legacy Bill. But across these islands, I think in every jurisdiction, in every day, we can see evidence of cases where wrongs were not properly addressed at the time, and we now see the hurt and the damage compounded by delay.

Hillsborough infected blood, the post office scandal, the Magdalene laundries. There won't be a member of this House who cannot speak to an experience in their own constituency. And my ask is simply that you think about my constituents and people across Northern Ireland in the same way. It's not about who won. I have to bite my tongue quite a lot in this house, and particularly today. It's not about who won. The people who are waiting to access some of these processes, none of them have won.

All of them have lost members of the family. And it's not about people being able to draw a line under the past, because MPs in London have told them to, and MPs have called them IRA sympathisers. And the previous legislation, which this undoes was not about reconciliation or truth. The word reconciliation appeared in the title of the bill and nowhere else, but it was about closing down truth and ensuring that republican and loyalist paramilitaries again, would have had their crimes retrospectively legalised.

This wasn't just a free pass for paramilitaries, and I'm not here to write the reference for any of them. Tens of thousands of them did at least go through the justice system. But these provisions and amnesties apply in the darkest corners, yes, of security services, but of those who directed terrorism onto played God with people and of course, who should be held to the law, the Conservatives justified their approach with the fiction that nothing is working. Inquests have worked.

They have been belated. Yes, because there was a failure to address the crimes at the time or to fund the system. And yes, they have been complex and expensive, but that is because of the layers of veto and information suppression that have been applied by those with most to hide. But they have exposed truth and they have corrected false narratives. I think of the Ballymurphy families, where the Parachute Regiment, just five months before they went on to kill in Bloody Sunday, opened fire on innocent civilians, falsely labelling them as armed threats.

The 2021 inquest freed those families, freed people who'd grown up with a lifetime of being told that their mother or their father or their parish priest was a God man. When it was entirely obvious that that was not true, they finally got accountability from a regiment who operated without it. The false narratives have been used by security forces and by IRA and Republican and loyalist terrorists to impugned add grievous insult to injury to so many victims. I also think of the Kingsmill massacre, where an inquest less than two years ago today rightly concluded that that was a sectarian attack.

Ten Protestant workmen were murdered in an act of ethnic cleansing by the IRA, carried out by people who who claimed the legacy of James Connolly while shooting dead the very people who he would have stood aside. So for people to talk about it being IRA sympathisers who benefit from these inquests is such an insult to decent and non-sectarian people like Alan Black. I particularly welcome the ending of the immunity scheme from the Good Friday Agreement, the bitter pills to swallow in that, and Eames, Bradley and Haass, O'Sullivan and the on the run letters and all of these processes that have put the needs of victim makers ahead of victims.

This bill is a turning around of that. It's just the beginning. We have to get the processes right. If we are to escape the shackles of the past and create a space that is for truth and accountability and remembrance, and that has to be rooted in the future as much as it is in the past, but in human rights, compliance and truth and justice too. So again, today, I urge the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister where concerns exist around disclosure and Echr compatibility and judicial independence.

Independence. We must face down those vested interests in or out of uniform, and we should show Britain as a country, a democracy that upholds laws and rights. Dealing with legacy won't be confined to this (Remedial) Order or the Troubles Bill or the joint frameworks. The chips, as members from across the House know our politics, our policing, how communities relate to each other and how we can best deliver a shared future we can't afford another missed opportunity. The answers won't all be found in this order.

They won't all be found in the legislation to come. We've never needed a complex legal process for people to acknowledge what they did, for the IRA, to acknowledge that they used human lives, nearly 2000 of them, as collateral damage, for loyalism, to acknowledge that their war was with innocent Catholic and for the European or for the UK security forces to acknowledge that their soldiers did not always uphold the law. I can stand here and acknowledge that so many did serve decently, did try to serve decently.

I can stand here and acknowledge the pride that many members here feel in the service of of themselves and their loved one, but I hope that others can acknowledge that that was not the experience that everybody in Northern Ireland had. 300,000 soldiers served in Operation Banner. Fewer than two dozen of them have ever faced judicial proceedings. We have wasted a lot of time with victims families and we have wasted money as well. It is time to move forward. This bill is the start of that, and I would ask that members approach it in that framework and with respect for the dignity of all the people who lost their lives in Northern Ireland.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

If members would be able to limit their interventions, I can start with a four minute time limit. start with a four minute time limit. Gregory Campbell. Are. Sir Julian Lewis.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the limited time available, I In the limited time available, I shall try and address a few of the basic issues, including the ones on which I intervened. Earlier. It
18:12
Julian Lewis Portrait Rt Hon Sir Julian Lewis MP (New Forest East, Conservative)
-
-
became fairly obvious towards the end of the Secretary of State's remarks. Under questioning from my fellow colleagues on this side of fellow colleagues on this side of the House, that although there was much in his speech suggesting that he had to do what he's doing today, he had to do what he's doing today, his really doing it because he wants to do it. It was in their manifesto that they were going to repeal the legislation, and he is seizing an opportunity to strike it down at the first possible chance that he gets.

Now, sometimes one gets into a position of almost wondering about the futility of entering into a debate. 40 years ago, I used to debate against the same people again and again over the question of whether Britain should one sidedly give up its nuclear weapons. And I would often find that I would put forward an argument that countered something they'd said. They'd have no answer to it, and then I'd go to the next debate and they would say exactly the same thing over and over again, and I would have to put forward the same argument, and no one was getting anywhere.

I feel like that over this point about the supposed equating of service personnel with IRA and other paramilitary terrorists. Nobody. And I say it to the hon. Gentleman who made the point a few moments ago from the opposite benches. He said, there is no moral equivalence between these people. Nobody in this debate is saying that there is any moral equivalence between these people. What we are saying is that everybody is equal before the law. And I have to remind the House of what I said six months ago to the day this time last week in in Westminster Hall.

We had a debate on the 14th of July last year covering all these subjects. And at that time I pointed out that the Defence Select Committee in April 2017 had published a report on a consensus cross-party basis entitled investigation into Fatalities in Northern Ireland involving British Military Personnel and in the inquiries that led up to the publication of that report. We had taken evidence on the 7th of March 2017 from four professors of law Professor Philip Sands of University College London, Peter Rowe of Lancaster University, Kieran McEvoy of Queen's University Belfast, and Richard Eakins of Oxford University.

All of those professors agreed that it was possible and it was legal whether they wanted to do it or not, but it was possible, and it was legal to have a statute of limitation, provided it was accompanied by a truth recovery mechanism. That is what the bill that is now being struck down brought into effect. The bill has a very good chance of surviving further legal scrutiny. It is no argument to say that it has been discredited just because the government and its supporters don't like it.

The truth of the matter is that you have to give immunity to everyone or to no one. And if the price of giving immunity to our servicemen is that we give it to terrorists too, then it is a price worth paying.
18:15
Calvin Bailey Portrait Mr Calvin Bailey MP (Leyton and Wanstead, Labour)
-
-
Calvin Bailey. >> Thank you. >> Madam Deputy Speaker. And today I'm going to try and speak as freely as I can about something in freely as I can about something in which I believe passionately, and I hope to explain why I believe in the principles which are underwriting this bill, and which is why I consider it necessary that we keep working on the specifics during the next the coming bills phase in Parliament. During this discussion, I'm going to try and explain some of the complexity and emotion and why I find it despicable that some seek to gain political advantage from it on both sides of the chamber, and it's for this reason I'll be circumspect about accepting interventions.

I love this country. I'm proudly British, and I'm prepared to fight and die for the protection of the principles and fundamentals which define it, most important of which is the rule of law and the principle that law is applied evenly to all of its citizens. And I'm also aware that these principles and fundamentals, which have been hard won, but also most recently during our deconstruction of our post-imperial self from 1945 into the late 1970s and early 80s. And I suggest perhaps that some reflect on this, because it is a time when our behaviour overseas and the way that we behaved in places in which we had sovereignty and where our legal situation was distinct from the law as exercised here at home in the UK, was different.

This is important because when the UK faced an internal crisis similar to the crisis it sought to manage elsewhere, it used military support to the civil authority to address it. This, in my opinion, should have been a state of emergency and under such a state, the government would enact powers not able to it during peacetime. Most important and pertinent of which is the ability to deploy its own military on its own streets, in the protection of its own civilians, and in doing so in the issuance of such orders.

We should bring with them clear and defined parameters under which those acting as a sub in the supplementary capacity of the police have the right and authorities to use legal force on behalf of the state in an attempt to save life. That, Madam Deputy Speaker never happened. Instead, this was done through emergency legislation and security powers. What never happened was the creation of a coherent, unified legal framework equivalent to civilian policing. And it is for this reason that those acts asked to act on behalf of the state, have been left in turmoil because the state inadequately defines the parameters under which its servants would act, and the protections and the responsibilities that the state would provide for those actors.

If those individuals acted in line with the law and and the derivations provided to support the troubles. It is for this reason that immunity from prosecution, from prosecution is not something that we here are being asked of for our police officers. At no point have I heard those arguing for the maintenance of the failed bill, arguing that the police officers of the RUC should be given similar immunity because the context in which they were asked to act was known and the parameters of them doing so was clearly defined.

For our soldiers acting as police officers, it was not. Now, I was going to share some of my experiences as military person, and some of the things that have shaped my view of the of, of the world.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But what I would say order. Unfortunately, hon. Gentleman,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Unfortunately, hon. Gentleman, has reached the time limit. So Julian Lewis. He's been he's.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He's been he's. Spoken. Iain Duncan Smith. Mr. speaker, I have to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. speaker, I have to congratulate the others that have been before, particularly the the Member for Belfast East who set out, Member for Belfast East who set out, I think, in precise and excellent detail and eloquently, exactly what is wrong with what is happening today and will be wrong. What is happening when the government brings forward next legislation? I
18:20
Iain Duncan Smith Portrait Rt Hon Sir Iain Duncan Smith MP (Chingford and Woodford Green, Conservative)
-
-
do not understand, and I still don't understand the reason for this rush to get this thing through. Today we have legislation coming Today we have legislation coming before us. Surely it would have been reasonable to allow the courts to get on with their business and to get on with their business and for us to legislate on the basis of what they come forward to. And I simply say to the government, this simply say to the government, this is a badly done, really badly done that we are rushing this through in the House is being forced to vote the House is being forced to vote on this today.

I also want to make a couple of points, not about the legalities of this, because that's been trenched over endlessly. And as I said, the right hon. Member has made a brilliant exposition of that. And I there's nothing I can add to that. But I do want to talk simply about what we were trying to do, what the government was trying to do. Previously, when it brought its previous legislation in. I went out back in about 93, 94 to South Africa with a delegation to look at how they could bring the country together again and clear themselves of the baggage of what had happened over those desperate years where many, many more men and women were killed in South Africa than we are dealing with today, tragic as that is.

And it was that process and the truth and reconciliation process that took place that persuaded me that something along those lines was vitally necessary here for Northern Ireland. I say that as somebody who served in Northern Ireland, I also say it because I'm one of those who lost somebody. I mentioned his name before, a good friend, Captain Robert Nairac, and the main point I make here is I no longer wish to pursue those people, and the families of the parents have gone and died and the rest of the family, they don't want to pursue them for justice.

They want to find out what happened to Bob Nairac. Nobody knows. And nobody will come forward with the possibility of prosecution hanging over their heads, because what happened there was terrible. But we want to know what. And that is, the want to know what. And that is, the bit that I feel strongly about is is draw a line under this. And I'm afraid that, particularly as it were, those who are like me, veterans of this area, and also there is no help here for what will happen over Ireland and their pursuit to.

And what are we going to do? There is nothing coming forward that says Ireland will now agree to drop what they're doing and to open their records, because so much of what happens happened in their records as people fled from their brutal crimes. This is not about equivalence, because equivalence, as I've said before and was raised earlier by my right hon. Friend back back in 98. That was when equivalence came about, when there was a limitation on the case, on the incarceration limits that you could have that brought equivalence to terrorism and to terrorists.

And the hon. Gentleman that spoke earlier who's not in his place now, he made the point about the vast majority of prosecutions have happened over terrorists. Well over 3000 of the deaths were down to terrorists. Only around 300 had anything to do with the armed forces. So of course there are going to have so far been more prosecutions, but they'll never be enough. Well, you cannot get the records that do not exist of those who committed these foul acts. So it is a one way street.

Again, as I made the point to my hon. Friend and I have just finish on this because time is absolutely limited, I simply say Norman Tebbit died quite recently, and I remember a conversation with him in which I asked him what was the worst thing that happened to him. He said it wasn't lying under the rubble. It wasn't even believing that his wife had died. As she lay next to him after the bombing, he said the worst thing was when he had to swallow hard and watch the person who had set the bomb and blown his wife into a different future that he said was the worst thing, but he understood why it was necessary, and he swallowed on it and didn't determine for prosecution.

That is what I was hoping for with the previous legislation, that we could get to the truth of things, rather than this ridiculous pursuit that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will never end for those gallant veterans who served in Northern Ireland like I did. Yeah. Sarah Pochin.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sarah Pochin. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. This (Remedial) Order is just This (Remedial) Order is just another step by this government to order repealing an overriding the order repealing an overriding the last government's legacy Act. This government, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the Prime Minister, the Attorney General, Minister, the Attorney General, Lord Hermer, who has in the past represented Gerry Adams, claimed that the Legacy Act 2023 is contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights. And there again we hear the wrongly allowed to interfere in our justice system.

The Legacy Act put a stop to
18:25
18:25
18:25
18:26
Alex Easton Portrait Alex Easton MP (North Down, Independent)
-
-
The. >> I call Alex Easton. >> Thank you, Madam. >> Deputy Speaker. I rise as a proud Unionist from Northern proud Unionist from Northern Ireland and as somebody who stands for shared with our veterans, innocent victims and their families, I have deep concerns about the the (Remedial) Order and how this is going to operate. And from the perspective of our veterans who served in Northern Ireland, this entire legacy framework is nothing short of deeply worrying. These are men and women, often now in their 70s and 80s, who put on the uniform of this country, who operated under orders, under rules, under the law and under unimaginable pressure to hold the line between democracy and terrorism.

Yet what is this message that we are sending today? Speaking welcome to Labour's Northern Ireland, where republicans run around with letters of comfort in their pockets while innocent soldiers like soldier F are honoured and hounded through the courts. We are told this order is about remedying and fixing deficiencies. In the 2003 act. It does nothing of the kind. The central obscenity remains the effect of closing down of routes to meaningful justice for hundreds of innocent families, while leaving entirely intact the pattern in which the vast majority of new investigatory energy is directed at former members of the security forces.

Let us be absolutely clear our veterans did not start the troubles. They did not choose the battleground. They were sent by this Parliament to defend the rule of law, to protect both communities, and to uphold the very democracy that allows some in this chamber to denounce them today, to watch in 2025, as the state bends over backwards to accommodate the sensitivities of those who waged war against it, while putting elderly veterans back in the dock for split second decisions made in the fog of conflict half a century ago is to witness a profound moral failure for the victims of terrorism Protestant, Catholic and non.

This framework still closes doors. It still moves them from a justice based system to a process based system, from the possibility of accountability to the inevitability of managed disappointment. They are told to accept truth recovery with no guarantee of truth reconciliation with no guarantee of remorse and closure with no guarantee of justice. For veterans. It is even worse. They see those who tried to murder them or who murdered their comrades sitting in government or appearing on TV, their past laundered and legitimised at the same time.

They see files reopened against them, headlines splashed against them, and their last years overshadowed by legal and political warfare. This is not equal treatment. This is not a balanced approach to the past. It is calculated political accommodation with republicanism paid for with peace of mind of those who served this country. I say this directly to the Minister, if they will not stand with the men and women who defended this kingdom, do not be surprised when they conclude that this kingdom is no longer standing with them.
18:30
Sorcha Eastwood Portrait Sorcha Eastwood MP (Lagan Valley, Alliance)
-
-
Sorcha Eastwood. government, and I will welcome the removal of the word reconciliation. There is a lot that I would like to There is a lot that I would like to say about this, but we're short on time, so I'll just get to the point. I've heard some remarks today that are incredibly disturbing and distressing, particularly, and I don't want to pick on anybody but the right hon. Member for New Forest East and I quote, do forgive me if I misrepresent you, but if the price of giving veterans an amnesty is that terrorists get the same, well, then that's a price I'm willing to pay.

But that's a price I and the people of Lagan Valley and the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland, are simply not willing to pay. We have had a conversation today about, oh, we all agree there's no moral equivalence. Fair enough. But I don't know what on earth moral equivalence is, unless it's a situation where terrorists and people who wore uniform are both given a carve out from the rule of law. And by the way, none of us get to speak en masse for veterans, I veterans in my own house.

I'm proud of them. And do you know what? They never asked for immunity. In fact, I agree with my colleagues from Northern Ireland whenever they say there's a wholesale rewriting of history. Absolutely there is. It's already in progress. But what I would say is I would simply ask colleagues to stop for pause and think if there is a rewriting of history already going on to those who are not present in this House today who say, see, I told you so, they all needed to get out of jail free card, because we can't guarantee that every single person that served in Northern Ireland did so honourably and lawfully think what that will give them.

I don't want that to happen. I do not want that to happen. And where there was wrongdoing were there is a list of cases. Some of the people that I know that served both in the RUC, the UDR, the regular army will be the first to say whether there was wrongdoing. Let us put it right, because we do not want that to besmirch our reputation. And lastly, we are in a situation arguably already in hybrid war where potentially considering future deployments, I do not want anybody representing the UK to be abroad overseas with this hanging over them.

I'm proud to be Northern Irish. I'm proud to be British. I'm also proud to be Irish. But most of all, I am proud to say that we should be able to stand by the rule of law wherever we are deployed. We should not lower our standards because we worry about the standards of terrorists and the evidence available to them. We should maintain our rule of law and I will be supporting this today. Thank you.
18:32
Sammy Wilson Portrait Rt Hon Sammy Wilson MP (East Antrim, Democratic Unionist Party)
-
-
Sammy Wilson. Veterans will have heard the honeyed words of the Secretary of State at the start of his speech today, when he talked about the debt of gratitude we owe to those who served in Northern Ireland under very difficult circumstances. And yet this order is all about removing protections that there would have been available to those very veterans against what is a continued terrorist campaign conducted not through guns, not through bombs, not through killings, but through the courts.

And I've heard many people on the other side talk about. Oh, we have got to uphold the rule of law. That's totally naive. This is not about the rule of law in Northern Ireland. This is about the abuse of the law, the abuse of the law by those who can't accept that they lost in their terrorist campaign. Want to rewrite the history of the terrorist campaign, and want to put the blame on the forces of law and order who stood between the citizens and the murderers and the criminals.

I'm grateful to him for giving way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Would he accept that it is not the people on this side of the argument who oppose what is argument who oppose what is happening today? It is not because we don't wish people who did wrong we don't wish people who did wrong to face justice. It's because we know that these cases will almost certainly fail, just like the one against soldier F failed. But as my colleague from the front bench said, colleague from the front bench said, the punishment is the process people will be put through unnecessary hell before they're

**** Possible New Speaker ****

acquitted. That has nothing to do with justice, has. Nothing to do with justice. And

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Nothing to do with justice. And the thing is, although the Secretary of State and other speakers today have argued that speakers today have argued that this is all about helping victims, innocent victims will not get any innocent victims will not get any justice through the system, because who holds the record when it goes who holds the record when it goes to the courts? Are the IRA going to be are there going to be documentation to bring from IRA campaigns and IRA activities? No, there's not.

And people should read the book written by Andrew Stack, whose father was a prison officer in Portlaoise and he saw 20 years ago justice. And there was one phrase in it that stood out when Gerry Adams took him to meet some of the IRA commanders. On the way in the car, he said to him, don't expect too much because we don't keep records and that's it. That's the that's the problem. The state kept records, the IRA and the terrorists don't keep records and didn't keep records.

So it's going to be a one sided. And and I mean, the state told us today that as a result of of this, it will open 2200 new civil cases, 120 of them, he said, were against the Mod. Now the statistics have been quite clear. Most of the murders were carried out by paramilitaries, yet most of the civil cases are going to be taken against the Mod. Why? Because first of all, there is a deliberate campaign, a deliberate campaign to rewrite history, and many of the people who are who are taking these cases, in fact, the vast majority of people are taking these cases, want to ensure that they get a case in the court that drag out all of the information which is available held by the state, and they they get a result which paints the picture that the the IRA and the terrorists were the wrong parties and, and the state were.

And if anything, this does not give comfort to victims. This only rubs salt in the wounds of the victims. And that's why this is ordered. This this remedial order is wrong. The result will be that history will it gives a chance to rewrite history. It will lead to cost, huge costs in compensation claims. And has been said it will also be a warning to people who we call to serve this country in future, that this tactic might be used against them.

That's why this is bad. And the Secretary of State knows he didn't need to bring this. I'm not going to go through the reasons given by my party leader in his excellent speech, but he knows he doesn't need to go through this. Why is he going through it? He knows the results of it. Why does he pursue it? I can only assume that, first of all, he puts the adherence to the above the interest of the the veterans, the interims of the victims.

And that's a disgrace. Hear, hear.
18:38
Carla Lockhart Portrait Carla Lockhart MP (Upper Bann, Democratic Unionist Party)
-
-
Carla Lockhart. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have been unwavering in our opposition to the notion of immunity. There has never been a immunity. There has never been a justification for arbitrarily closing down legal routes for innocent victims, not in 1998, not during the darkest days of the trouble, and certainly not today. While the Secretary of State and his party are perhaps late to this party, we do welcome his desire to remove the prospect of amnesty, and with it the perverse equivalence drawn between those brave soldiers and police officers who acted within the law, and the terrorists who were intent only on murder and destruction, that moral equivalence has poisoned legacy discourse for far too long.

So when we think of today's debate, the government's push to press ahead prematurely with this remedial action is not that we dispute the policy, but the fact that that it is rubbing salt in the wounds and will open the floodgates will not help one innocent victim, but will open the floodgates against our brave soldiers, those who stood as human shields between good and evil. So what is disputed is the reckless manner in which this government is attempting to achieve it, and all to placate Dublin, a government whose approach has always been obstruction and concealment.

The fact that the Secretary of State is willing to pre-empt the outcome of an appeal to the highest court in the land, sets a dangerous precedent and, more importantly, it sends a message to the Northern Ireland veterans movement, men and women who have already given more than enough that their views and their stake in this process are dispensable. It will come as no shock to the Secretary of State that there are aspects of this draft (Remedial) Order that we would express grave concern about.

It is clear that any benefit of reinstating civil cases will be accrued by a subset of victims whose claims are directed towards the security forces. Once again, the full weight of the state is being aimed not a terrorist, but at those who stood against them. And Madam Deputy Speaker, where exactly does the right hon. Member suggest those bereaved at the hands of terrorists can seek compensation from the provisional IRA, from an organisation that still refuses to disband, disarm fully and even acknowledge the scale and brutality of its crimes and murders innocent victims and our brave ex-service personnel are crying out for fairness, not arrangements that aid and abet the rewriting of history, a history which terrorists are daily being recast as victims and soldiers as villains.

The Secretary of State seems content to acquiesce to those who would use the courts to distort the truth of the past. This House should be under no illusion. This is not about justice. It's about narrative. And we only have to think of. Let us be absolutely clear about what your goal was. Not a tragic accident, not a miscarriage of justice, but the right and proper action on the part of brave soldiers to halt and take out an armed terrorist unit on the verge of carnage.

Yeah. Decades later, the full machinery of the state is being turned against those who prevent a massacre. When the Secretary of State backs this latest inquest. Meanwhile, families devastated by IRA bombs and bullets continue to wait, many without answers, many without justice, and many without even acknowledgement. So tonight. Today, a this is not about truth. It's about blurring the distinction between those who serve the law and those who sought to destroy it. It's time for this government to show the resolve that it's needed to defend those who defended us.

Not with warm words, not with platitudes, but with action. This (Remedial) Order fails in that aim. It weakens protections in law for and abandons veterans to endless legal jeopardy. And we cannot and will not support it.
18:42
Jim Allister Portrait Jim Allister KC MP (North Antrim, Traditional Unionist Voice)
-
-
Yeah. >> On the first Sunday of this year,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On the first Sunday of this year, I stood with the families of the innocent victims of the Kingsmill innocent victims of the Kingsmill massacre as they marked 50 years from that horrendous event. It would have been fitting if the Secretary of State had been there. He was not. And last Sunday, another commemoration to mark the equally horrendous sectarian murder of more Protestant workmen at Teebane and the common denominator of victims and families such as that, is that they know not just fail, they know they are the forgotten ones.

They know that they are not the priority of this government, and they do know that the country that gave shelter to the murderers of our loved ones are the priority of this government. Dress it up as he will today, the Secretary of State's remedial order is motivated by one thing and one thing only. Appeasing the government of the Irish Republic, which wants to drag this United Kingdom before the bar of the European Court of Human Rights.

That's what this remedial order is about. It's not that it's to cease to implement laws with which they disagree, because those aspects of the legacy previous Legacy Act are already removed from effectiveness. Just look at paragraph 67 of the Explanatory motion memorandum that comes with this (Remedial) Order. It says although the provisions declared incompatible with the Echr by the High Court in Northern Ireland have also been disapplied, they're gone. The government considers it important to remove these provisions from the statute

**** Possible New Speaker ****

book swiftly. Why yes. The answer is the one I've given

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The answer is the one I've given to appease the Dublin government, and indeed the Secretary of State came pretty close to confirming came pretty close to confirming that when he said in this House this afternoon that if and when this remedial order goes through, this remedial order goes through, he has his view, there would be no basis upon which to continue the basis upon which to continue the Republic of Ireland's action. And that is the problem. We have a Secretary of State that is genuflecting to the Dublin government, and that is the feeling of innocent victims in our country.

They are forgotten, but worse than that, they are way down the queue when it comes to a government that is interested primarily in facilitating those who give the shelter to their killers, there is no legal justification for this. It's quite clear under section ten of the Human Rights Act that there is a live issue before a live case in the Supreme Court. It's the issue of whether or not article two of the Windsor Framework, which was used by the court, as I demonstrated in the interventions to require these provisions to be disapplied whether or not that was a valid basis for this application, that is a live issue, and therefore there is no legal justification.

Quite the reverse for this remedial order, which drives us to the conclusion that it is for the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reason I've said. Yeah. I call Jim Shannon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I call Jim Shannon. Speaker myself and my party, the
18:46
Jim Shannon Portrait Jim Shannon MP (Strangford, Democratic Unionist Party)
-
-
>> Speaker myself and my party, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

EPP. Take a stance Crawley. You take an intervention. Take an intervention. I'm

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Take an intervention. I'm grateful to the intervention, and I'm sure that what he's about to tell us will be very important. And I wonder if he would just take a deep breath and give us his counsel.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Jim Shannon. All of us have a pension. The door to justice must remain open. No one can or should be drawn between the innocent victim and the perpetrators. Every family deserves a full and fair investigation into a full and fair investigation into the death of their loved ones. And there should be no appropriate there should be no appropriate safeguards against vexatious troubles. Investigations. So I'm here today to speak on behalf of all those families who seek justice.

My family seek justice justice for his friend and his comrade, and it's for them. I underline the major flaws in the bill. The bill does not provide protection for service personnel. The recent history of members of the security forces being blind and dragged through the courts as a result of excessive allegations. Let us never forget, these stemmed from an attempt to whitewash the history of the troubles, which was overwhelming paramilitaries murdering and maiming at their unjustifiable will. Let me be clear.

I talk about those with clean hands. The announcement of the Irish government's role in this process, considering its perceived inaction on legacy issues within its own jurisdiction, includes a parallel inquiry into the Omagh bombing is yet more salt in the wound of those who watched murderers skip over the border without impunity. The reason we do not trust the Irish government legacy issues is clear in it's a murder happen for years. Without this, there can be no Irish influence anything less. And this is a grievous insult to the memory of those murdered and the families who grieve them all.

The fact of the matter is, you can never equate the death of a terrorist killed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

when carrying out murder. For getting away, and he'll know the respect with which he's held in the respect with which he's held in this chamber for raising attention to the matters of terrorist atrocities over many years and on atrocities over many years and on both sides of the House. We are very keen to hear his story. So we just like to take a moment and we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

just like to take a moment and we look forward to hearing that. Jim Shannon hon. Friend. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Jim Shannon hon. Friend. The fact is, my cousin Karin Smyth and his good friend Daniel McCormack were murdered in an ambush on their way to work on the 10th of December, 71, 54 years ago. No justice for my family, no justice for young McCormick. Their only crime was to wear the uniform of this nation. And because they were in the UDR, they dared to cross the religious divide. Daniel was a Roman Catholic. My cousin, my cousin Kenneth was a Protestant.

And protect their communities from evil men. And on the 10th of December they were slaughtered, leaving their wives and their three young children behind, and they escaped across the border. That haven? Yes, that murder haven and the Republic of Ireland. And they escaped across the border. Stuart Montgomery, 18 year old, murdered by the IRA of Saint Pomeroy. Never any accountability for his family. Winston Donnell, murdered by the IRA in the 9th of August, 71, Manning a checkpoint outside my my farm down at Clery.

When they shot him with the Thompson submachine gun. They drove across the road. They cleared the bridge. And where did they go? To the Republic. Remember corn? I don't know if he was watching this. I'm sure he is. Back home. His son was murdered by the UVF and and because he stood up to him, he seeks justice as well. I seek justice for him. To put it on record. The bill does nothing for those mourning factories, families, nothing for the families of the Diolch yn fawr.

On April 9th, 1990, near Ballydougan, Downpatrick, a provisional IRA band blew up four men, three of whom I knew, Private Michael Adams. I worked with him in a butcher's shop. I served with him in the Territorial Army and he joined the UDR private John Birch the day he was born. I remember John Birch and he died as well. Lance-Corporal Bradley, from Dundalk, didn't know him, unfortunately, but he deserves justice. Private Stephen Smart from Ards and his dad and the family really? Well.

They were killed. The explosives master killed the four men in the second vehicle, instantly creating a crater some 50ft long. But the point I want to make is this. This bill does not protect the RUC officer who shot the man who pushed the button, who blew up the Ford's Callum Marks. I'll put it on record in this house. He was a murdering scum of the IRA commander in Downpatrick who killed those four UDR man. Was he ever made accountable? No he wasn't, but he did get hit one time because in Downpatrick, when he tried to set up a mortar, a horizontal mortar bomb, he was shot by an RUC officer who was then taken to in charge.

But the investigation was found that he was not guilty. But the point I want to make is this we need protection, we need to make sure. So I'm going to finish with this. I'm sorry, Madam deputy. Speak to me about that. Apologise for my for my tears. I find it very hard to to express, to have people that I serve with in you. So I'm asking the members in this House to ask themselves this. Will this legislation do with the troubles legislation was intended for and provide justice? No it won't.

It will help my cousin Shelly and my family and all the other families and the family of Private Stephen Smart, a lovely young boy who I in the family I speak to down the street in Luton North. No it won't. Well, this legislation enabled continued persecution of RUC UDR and British Army veterans, many of whom have had their honourable service doubted and their service disputed, and who deserve better than this House. The question now is will this bill help to bring healing or comfort? I doubt that, and the answer is no, it will not.

And therefore I believe tonight it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

must not pass. Yeah, yeah. Robin Swann. Thank you very much. Madam Deputy Speaker, I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker, I. Thank can I ask the House just. acknowledge.
18:52
Robin Swann Portrait Robin Swann MP (South Antrim, Ulster Unionist Party)
-
-
>> The the. >> Contribution from our hon. Friend from Strangford? >> Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Because, Madam Deputy Speaker, that emotion, that story, that that emotion, that story, that heartfelt contribution to today's debate is replicated across many houses across Northern Ireland and indeed this United Kingdom in regards to those who lost both at the hands of terrorism and in other circumstances in Northern Ireland. But that emotion is also one that is felt by our veterans. And when this place talks, and it is only when I come into this place and I realise as a Northern Ireland politician, when I speak of a Northern Ireland veteran, we speak of the RUC, the UDR, the home regiments, those who served the member from Strangford family and relatives and all those who contributed, but all those who went home at night, all those who didn't know if their colleague working beside them was actually that individual who was passing the information to the person who was in planning and planning their death on murder in regards to that.

But when I came here, when I realised the conversation that is of Northern Ireland veterans of those from England, Scotland and Wales who came to Northern Ireland to serve, to defend and protect what we saw and what we believe was a democratic system in regards to our rights and our beliefs. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, it's when you take that context in regards to that emotion, that service, and then when you look to what is actually being brought forward to this house and what is being asked of members of this House, and what is being asked of members of the government.

And I've respect for many of them. But throughout this three hour debate, no harm to the government. Your benches were empty. But you see, when the bell rings, they will come and they will do what they have been bid to do. Madam Deputy Speaker, and a complete contrast to Monday evening. The question has been raised why are we rushing this (Remedial) Order where there is no legacy Troubles Bill to take place in regards to that? Why the rush on Monday evening? And I quote the the private Under-Secretary of state for justice, when she spoke on the Public Office Accountability Bill.

We must think about all the possibilities and scenarios and unintended consequences. It is right to acknowledge that this is not a simple issue. The government remain resolutely committed to finding a way forward on this, which is why we have taken the decision to delay. Madam Deputy Speaker, it was right for the government to do that on Monday evening. It is right for this Secretary of State to delay this (Remedial) Order until the judge and the courts have had their opportunity to complete their processes in regards to what is right, what is just.

And then this House can have that legal, informed debate on why we should be moving forward in this. I want to reference to two contributions from the government. The hon. Member for Putney and her contribution, and I have a lot of respect for her when she served in the Northern Ireland Office, referred to how rare it was to use this (Remedial) Order so why use it in haste? Why not take the time to actually take time to reflect on what it is in regards to those parts that are being removed? Because it was the Member for Middlesbrough that actually said part of the legislation that has been removed have actually never taken effect.

So why the rush to bring this?
18:56
Lincoln Jopp Portrait Lincoln Jopp MP (Spelthorne, Conservative)
-
-
(Remedial) Order Lincoln Jopp. >> (Remedial) Order Lincoln Jopp. >> Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to make a couple of points, one about democracy and one about service and justice. I'm deeply uneasy about this (Remedial) Order being brought this (Remedial) Order being brought in today, and I'm going to make no criticism of those who are here. But for major parts of this debate over the last three hours, the government backbenchers were empty. And yet 20 plus veterans have stayed in the public gallery to watch our proceedings and to see justice being done.

And I find it very worrying. And as a member of South Antrim has said, it's so it's 657 in the evening on a Wednesday, there will be members in the tea room, there will be members in the bars, there'll be members working hard in their offices, and the bell will ring and they will come down and they will ask each other, what are we voting on? And they'll say, oh, it's a Northern Ireland thing. And what they don't realise is that this (Remedial) Order removes a law from existence before another one is put in place.

And I, I haven't got time. I really don't think that we are doing the House justice or indeed Parliament justice in proceeding in this way. The other point that I want to make is that I was a soldier for 25 years. I spent three and a half years in Northern Ireland. I once made the mistake of saying that to Ronnie Flanagan, and he said, I'm only on my first tour. And but he was the chief constable at the time. And, and soldiers put up with a lot.

I wasn't really given by this House any more powers than a private citizen. Not really. They just slung a rifle round my neck and sent me off to do the Queen's bidding. And I happily did it, and so did others. And in my first of four Northern Ireland tours, two Guardsman, Guardsmen, Fisher and Guardsman, right, were in a judgemental shooting situation and they were convicted of murder by one man in a Diplock court and sentenced to life imprisonment. So soldiers put up with stuff.

But one of the things I find very difficult to put up with is that when all the government members troop through their lobby tonight, they will remove the prohibition on giving Gerry Adams compensation. And I find that incredibly difficult because it's on an admin error. His in internment order was signed by a Minister of state and not the Secretary of State. And it's on that technicality that he will be able to get compensation for being interned. He will be able to get compensation for trying to escape unsuccessfully twice.

So he'll get a triple whammy of compensation. I won't but but but but but I challenge the Member for Halesowen earlier on said please speak to the veterans and please speak to the members of Halesowen and justify why that's OK, and why he's prepared to go through that lobby to vote for that tonight. And he said, because the Prime Minister has told me that that's OK. He's not going to allow it because I heard him here at PMQs. He said, we're not going to allow it.

And maybe he just wasn't aware, and I'm delighted to see him back in his place. Maybe he wasn't aware that immediately after that, the Prime Minister's official spokesman said yes. His official spokesman said that he could not guarantee that compensation payments to Mr. Adams and other former troubles internees would be prevented. So he's he's completely free to wander through the lobby in blissful ignorance of the fact that actually, what the Prime Minister said doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

And if he's if he can just summon up the courage, he should at least abstain.
19:00
Hilary Benn Portrait Rt Hon Hilary Benn MP, The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Leeds South, Labour)
-
-
Yeah. >> Secretary of State. >> Thank you very much. >> Indeed. >> Madam Deputy. >> Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speaker. We've had a very full and a wide ranging debate in which many different contributions have been made, which, if I may say so, have demonstrated once again just how difficult dealing with legacy is. That is a truth, I think, around which we could all rally. If it was easy, it would have been dealt with a very long time ago. But because it's difficult doesn't mean that we should not attempt to deal with it.

Now. The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar, he made his case, if I may say to him gently, I was slightly disappointed by the bit he got to at the end when he suggested that the government was doing this for reasons that are in some way hidden or unknown, or may only be discovered in the years to come. I, I hope he would accept that the reasons the government is doing this are very, very clear. First of all, to deal with the failure of the previous government's Legacy Act, for the reasons that I tried to set out in my opening remarks, failure legally and failure because it gained no consent from the people in Northern Ireland.

Well,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

yeah, I will give way. I thank the Secretary of State for giving away. He said there was no consensus in Northern Ireland listening to the speeches tonight. Does he believe his approach has achieved that?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

achieved that? Well, I will come on to that point. Indeed. I'll take the opportunity to make the point now. opportunity to make the point now. I listened very carefully to every single contribution has been made. I think it is fair to say that a majority of people who have spoken in this debate do not agree with immunity. Now, they may not all be voting for the (Remedial) Order tonight, but they do not agree with immunity. And that is the position of the government.

And I respect those who take a different view. I think it was a failed policy. It doesn't exist. So we are charged with taking away something that doesn't exist, never enacted and found incompatible by the courts. And indeed, and indeed, of course,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will give way. It's very generous of him to give way. Will the right hon. give way. Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that conditional immunity, which is all that was in immunity, which is all that was in the Legacy Act 2023? The conditional immunity was the very foundation of all the legislation foundation of all the legislation that was passed after 1998. And for the Labour Party to pretend now that it is in some way morally abhorrent, is utterly inconsistent.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

With what I have said to the hon. Gentleman, is that the government does not agree with the conditional immunity that was contained in the Legacy Act. Now the word conditional is always used like, well, it didn't necessarily guarantee that it would be granted, but I would urge members who think but I would urge members who think that to go and read the legislation that the last government passed. What it said was, if someone comes What it said was, if someone comes forward, whoever they are, and gives a full and truthful account, which persuades the commission that it is a full and truthful account of what they did, which would have been a criminal offence.

The legislation said not well, you can make your mind up and decide whether to grant it or not. The legislation that the last government passed said the commission must grant immunity in those. But in those circumstances, it doesn't. It doesn't sound very conditional to me. I'm going to make progress because I am trying to respond to the many, many points that have been made in the debate. And the second reason we are doing this is because we want to enable those who are still seeking answers, to be able to seek them in a system that they can have confidence in.

And there has not been the confidence in the last government's Legacy Act for reasons that we've heard, including from members from Northern Ireland. Now, the hon. Member for Wimbledon made a very powerful contribution in defence of our human rights obligations, and I'm grateful for him and his party's support for the remedial order tonight. We've also heard very important contributions on both sides of the argument, and I, I recognise that and I recognise the sincerity and force with which those arguments have been put on on this side of the house.

My friend the Member for Middleton and Thornaby East, for Brighton, for Halesowen, for Leyton and Wanstead, if I may say, the members for Belfast South and Mid Down and for Lagan Valley both made extremely strong and well argued cases. I would say to the right hon. Member for Belfast East, he says, wait. And he's of course perfectly entitled to advance that argument. But he is, of course, one of the majority have taken part in the debate. Who is in favour of getting rid of immunity, which is what the remedial order does.

I would say to the hon. Member for North Antrim, he said. Nobody's interested in those who were affected by the Kingsmill massacre. I disagree with that. The Kingsmill massacre, as he will know, is currently the subject of an investigation by the Legacy Commission. And I really hope, along with all of those investigations, it is able to make

**** Possible New Speaker ****

progress on the interim. Oh well, yes. Very. Yes, of course. I'm grateful to the Secretary. I understand why he focuses on understand why he focuses on amnesty, because it means he doesn't have to focus on the things that he didn't include, which are also incompatible, or the other also incompatible, or the other things that are included. But can he indicate to the House what he will do if the Supreme Court says

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will do if the Supreme Court says he is wrong, and therefore this inappropriate? Well, I say to the hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I say to the hon. Gentleman, we are all subject to the decisions of the court, and it is a hypothetical. No, it's a hypothetical question he asked. And like the answer to all of those will cross that bridge if and when we come to it. Could I say to the hon. Member for Spelthorne, I'm afraid he's just wrong on the question of Interim Custody Orders because he he has not caught up with actually what the government has done.

The difference, the one difference between the first version of the remedial order and the one that we are debating tonight is the government listened to the arguments that were made which said, why are you removing, why are you taking off the legislation? Sections 46 and 47 that were added very late in the day of the consideration of the legacy Bill, in an attempt to deal with the consequences of the 2020 Supreme Court judgement, which did not uphold the Carltona principle. Carltona principle, as the House knows, has long held anything signed by a junior Minister has the force of a signature of the Secretary of State.

The Supreme Court decided in that case they would not apply that to the signing of Interim Custody Orders. We decided to leave that defence there, even though it's proved flimsy, because it didn't win out in the Fitzsimmons case. And we are bringing forward legislation in the bill which the government thinks will do the task of restoring the legality of those Interim Custody Orders that were signed, whether it was by the Secretary of State at the time or other Ministers.

And I think that that is extremely important indeed on the ICO VR and the hon. Member for Chingford talked about his friend Robert Nairac. We all are living in hope that he and the other three sets of remains will be found. But what the ICO did was to say, if you give information about the location of remains, anything that is found will be regarded. I'm not going to give way because I do want to respond to the other points that were made.

Anything that is found and the information you've given us cannot be used in a prosecution. That is what's known as a protected disclosure, a protected disclosure that the last government agreed to when it reached the Stormont House agreement. When it came up with the idea of the information recovery body that is going to form part. It is part of the troubles bill that the government has published. But there is the world of difference between a protected disclosure and immunity from prosecution.

Now, the the other point I wanted to make with this, it has been suggested that this is about Relitigating who won. And I would say that that answer is already crystal clear piece one piece one in Northern Ireland, because of the Good Friday Agreement. It is not about it is not about placating anyone. It is about seeking to do the right thing. And it is not about dredging up the past. No, it is not about dredging up the past, because I have I have met and many other honourable and right hon.

Members will have met far too many people. The families of victims who live with the past every single day and have done for the past 20, 30, 40, 50 years. And the my hon. Friend, the Member for Strangford laid bare the pain and the sorrow and the heartache that the loss of loved ones has caused to so many people across Northern Ireland, and that pain and sorrow and heartache is as powerful today as it was.

I suspect on the day that they first heard the news of the death of their loved ones, and what the government is seeking to do is to put in place a system which more people can have confidence in, because there was not widespread confidence in the government's Legacy Act on the part of victim survivors, political parties and others in Northern Ireland, so that where it is possible, answers can be found. We all know you only have to look at the figures for prosecutions.

They are diminishing, they're diminishing rapidly. There are there are nine currently live, by the way. Seven of them relate to paramilitary paramilitaries. One relates to the army. So when it said this is only about the armed forces, that is not correct, because that's not what the evidence shows. Currently there are nine. There are nine live cases, seven relating to paramilitaries. And I hope that in due course and we will return, of course, to the Troubles Bill when we come to the Committee stage, that the House will be able to come together to fashion a system that more people can have confidence in, so that the people that we have met, the people we have heard from who are still tortured by the fact that they haven't had answers as to what happened to their loved ones, may have the chance to find that answer, and it is in that spirit that I would ask the House to support this (Remedial) Order GFA.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is, as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Paper, as many as are of that opinion say I. I of the contrary, no. Know.
19:12
19:26
19:26
19:27
Wera Hobhouse Portrait Adjournment: Anti-social behaviour on canals and rivers in Bath Wera Hobhouse MP (Bath, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Wales, more than 30,000 boats are licensed to navigate our canals and rivers, and Bath stands out as a particular hotspot. Many boaters choose to make Bath their home, whether moored permanently or passing through as part of a longer journey. The Kennet and Avon Canal flows gracefully through our world heritage city, shaping our landscape and connecting our community through nature. We value everyone of our boaters and Bath, especially our live aboard boating communities, many of whom work locally, raise families and care deeply about the waterways.

Our riverside businesses contribute so much to our local economy, and they create welcoming spaces enjoyed by people across the city. We have a shared responsibility to keep these places safe, clean and accessible to everyone. Rising rents, a lack of social housing and an increased cost of living mean living on the water is a more affordable option for many. There are more boats on our canals than during the peak of the Industrial Revolution, with a quarter of these estimated to be liveaboard residential vessels, a study from Marine Finance found that three quarters of liveaboard owners have never owned a home, with 90% of them citing cost of living as a factor in Bath.

Boaters and residents of houses along our waterways have coexisted peacefully for decades as neighbours and friends. But it is not just residents who make use of our canals and waterways. People from all over Bath and beyond come to see the beautiful scenery and nature the canal provides. The towpath also serves as an important active travel route for walkers and cyclists. These areas must be protected for boaters, local residents and visitors alike. That brings me to the purpose of this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker.

In recent years, residents along the Kennet and Avon Canal have experienced persistent and at times dangerous anti-social behaviour by a small minority of individuals. Our canals are residential areas, yet all too often families and individuals have been subjected to loud music late into the night, bonfires and acts of vandalism that make it impossible to enjoy their homes in peace. Of course I will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The hon. Member for giving way. And in terms of vandalism in particular, I have a private member's bill on water safety, and of course, it covers a whole array of things in memory of a young lad of things in memory of a young lad who lives in Yorkshire, who who passed away actually from drowning in a reservoir. Now, that water in a reservoir. Now, that water bill I promised in the name of Sam that I would do something around vandalism and what what that vandalism and what what that particular thing is, is that we would want to make it a named, a named criminal offence for anybody to vandalise water safety equipment so that should anybody do it, the, the, the risk in terms of the penalty is a lot higher and it prevents that from happening.

Would you agree with me that in the honour of Sam and for his dad, Simon Laycock, that that is something that we should fight to do?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

First of all, let me express my condolences to the family of your constituents who drown so constituents who drown so tragically. And those tragedies only show that anti-social behaviour is often some thoughtless behaviour is often some thoughtless vandalism. People don't understand what they're doing. And yes, absolutely, if we can make sure absolutely, if we can make sure that we make people think of what they actually do, and if we need legislation to enforce that, I think he's absolutely right to think he's absolutely right to raise that as a particular concern.

And I would, of course, be very much welcoming and supporting his bill. And good luck to it. My constituents have written to me with deeply concerning accounts of drug and alcohol misuse, public urination and towpaths obstructed by furniture and dumped rubbish that can also be a massive hazard. People often don't think when they do these things, so unfortunately we sometimes have to bring the law behind in order to encourage right behaviour. No residents or visitor to Bath should ever feel unsafe on our canals and this behaviour is completely unacceptable.

Even more troubling are reports of human waste being emptied directly into the canal, black bags of excrement left beside towpath, and diesel and oil spills polluting the water. There are also serious concerns about boats remaining in short term roaring zones for months, sometimes over a year, alongside abandoned vessels blocking locks and essential services, and preventing higher boats from being navigated safely. All of those are issues where people are thoughtless, and therefore it is important that we have the right measures in place to keep people safe.

My constituents, and I am sure many others across the country, are rightly frustrated at the ongoing failure to enforce rules governing our canals. These problems are well known, yet no one seems to be able to fix them. A key reason for this is a fragmented enforcement landscape. The Canal and River trust is responsible for managing the majority of canals in England and Wales. Its remit covers everything from boat licensing and mooring rules to obstruction and navigation. Yet the Canal and River trust is attempting to enforce their statutory responsibilities within a framework which is fundamentally flawed.

The trust Madam Deputy Speaker was established as a charity in 2012 to take over from British Waterways, the statutory body that previously managed our canal network. While the Canal and River trust would still receive a government grant, the idea was that any shortfall would be made up by trusts. Various commercial ventures in much the same way as the National Trust. However, the Canal and River trust and the National Trust are very different. The latter has commercial properties, thousands of paying members, and huge amounts of tourist revenues.

The Canal and River trust has a property portfolio that is costly to maintain, and only a small amount of income from the rents it paid that is paid by boats. No other charity has as its primary responsibility. The upkeep of so much critical infrastructure. As a result, we we we now have a charity tasked with enforcement powers, but without the legal clarity or practical capacity to use them effectively. However, resources alone are not the core issue. I have met with the Council with the Canal and River trust on numerous occasions, including a candid discussion about these issues only a few days ago.

They are clear that the principal barrier they face is the outdated legal framework governing our waterways. The Waterways Act provides only limited powers. Crucially, it fails to give the trust the powers it needs to manage boats effectively or fairly. Take the rules governing boats without a permanent mooring. The law states that such boats must not remain continuously in any one place for more than 14 days, yet it offers no definition. What continues one place nor what it means, what a continuous one place means, nor how far a boat must move to comply.

So it is left to the Canal and River trust to interpret the legislation itself, leading to regular disputes which take up valuable time and resources. I urge the Minister to take this back to her department and engage with the Canal and River trust on improving this part of the of the legislation. The Trust's powers to deal with unlicensed boats are also severely limited, even where powers exist, enforcement can take 2 or 3 years or longer if challenged, rendering them largely ineffective.

It is currently very difficult to remove abandoned boats. Firstly, the Canal and River trust must establish who the boat belongs to, and even then removal can cost around £8,000 per boat money. The trust often does not get back. Of course, safeguards must remain in place, particularly for those people who live on these boats. Boaters should have the right to contest any decision of this nature. But our waterways are shared public assets. Residents and responsible boaters alike are rightly frustrated at having to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

wait for years for action to be taken against persistent vessels. On that point.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On that point. Please. Of course. Before I take the hon. Gentleman's intervention, I am Gentleman's intervention, I am looking forward to hearing his knowledge of the canals and rivers

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in Bath Jim Shannon. Madam Deputy Speaker. First of all, can I commend the hon. Lady, all, can I commend the hon. Lady, for I did speak to the hon. Lady beforehand, and I explained to her why it's so important they support the hon. Lady, because in the middle of Newton Abbot, my major town, we have a massive canal. It's been there since the year one, so I understand some of the some of the things that the hon. Lady is referring to. I did ask her about the anti-social behaviour.

That's what I wanted to focus on. In my own main town of the canal has been long been a focus of anti-social behaviour and particularly as a local park is right beside it. So does the hon. Lady not agree that whilst it's wonderful that our local team of street pastors are active to to address the issue of anti-social behaviour, it's a partnership and the hon. Lady, she said to me and her words were partnership, the partnership between street parties, the partnership between the police, the partnership between the communities.

Those are things that help to address anti-social behaviour, always trying to be helpful to any any debate. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. He did ask me before and I was happy to say me before and I was happy to say yes, of course, because I think what I'm raising here, Bath is an what I'm raising here, Bath is an example of the canal. The canal and river trust challenges that exist river trust challenges that exist everywhere, and we are here to discuss these, but also absolutely to point to the partnerships that are essential to resolve the issues.

And therefore, I was very happy for his contribution. And yes, we need to work in partnerships. The Canal and River trust stands ready, Madam Deputy Speaker, to act, but it needs clearer and stronger legal powers to do so. Perhaps the most baffling of all is that the Canal and River trust has no powers to issue fines, or even refuse a licence. The solution is straightforward the law should be strengthened to clarify exactly what is required of boaters, and to equip the trust with proportionate, enforceable powers balanced by appropriate safeguards to ensure those powers are fairly used.

The Canal and River trust are very keen to engage constructively with all parties on this issue, particularly in hotspot areas like Bath. But another major obstacle is the range of different stakeholders involved. While the Canal and River trust manages day to day canal operations, the Environment Agency is responsible for for pollution and environmental protection. Local authorities oversee byelaws relating to littering and anti-social behaviour, while the police retain responsibility for criminal offences. It is easy to see how issues such as dumping, vandalism or the burning of inappropriate fuels fall between these overlapping remits.

As the saying goes, when everyone is responsible, no one is responsible. This is why all too often these issues remain unresolved. Matters are further complicated by restrictive interpretations of GDPR, which restricts information sharing between agencies. Each body recognises the problem, but none can resolve it alone. I intend to bring together the canal and River trust, the police, the Environment Agency and the local authority to improve local coordination and enforcement. But let me be clear while better collaboration is essential, this alone is not enough to genuinely improve enforcement on our waterways.

I echo the calls of the Canal and River trust. We must see meaningful reform of the law. Madam Deputy Speaker, to conclude, Bath is certainly a hot spot for boaters, but this is a nationwide problem. It is a nationwide problem. The future of licensing, commissioning of the Licensing Commission report, published in October 2025, highlights insufficient powers, chronic under-resourcing and unsustainable enforcement arrangements as just some of the issues facing the Canal and River trust, my constituents in Bath are tired of waiting for action.

They want clear accountability for anti-social behaviour on our waterways, proper funding for enforcement services, faster, proportionate powers where behaviour is dangerous or polluting, and better multi-agency coordination between the canal and river trust Council, police and the Environment Agency. If we are serious about fixing this, we must give those responsible the clear authority and resources they need authority to regulate, to enforce and to act so that our canals and rivers are not sources of frustration and conflict, but safe, well-managed, managed spaces that work for residents, boaters and the wider community alike.

Thank you.
19:41
Mary Creagh Portrait Mary Creagh MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Coventry East, Labour)
-
-
Minister. >> Thank you. >> Madam Deputy Speaker, and pleasure it's a to serve under your chairship this evening. Can I begin by congratulating the hon. Lady for Bath for securing this debate, and Bath for securing this debate, and thank her for raising this important issue, and I thank other hon. Members present for their insightful contributions on the canals in Northern Ireland. And also, can I send my sympathies to the parents of the little boy who died in Doncaster East, through my friend er, for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme.

His tragic story is a reminder that a senseless act of vandalism, or what looks and feels like fun in the moment, can have absolutely devastating consequences, and the need for those who are responsible for those reservoirs or those towpaths to have a regime in place that makes sure that that safety equipment is always properly there and properly maintained. I share hon. Members and the public's concerns about these serious matters, and we've heard of significant nuisance to local people communities, which can also involve damage to property, physical threats, and even instances of assault.

And of course, as she says, the cost of living crisis is at the heart of this because people have been priced out of homes and of houses in the gorgeous city of bath, where there are many second home owners, there are many Airbnbs and I have enjoyed. Well, I've enjoyed a weekend there with my husband. Let's just say that to celebrate our wedding anniversary. And it's lovely. But there's, you know, you can feel that it's a very special place and it might be very hard for people to afford local housing in her city.

We are committed as a government to tackling this type of anti-social behaviour. We are proposing a range of measures in the Crime and Policing Bill that is currently in Committee stage, in the other place, and some of those new powers include a new respect order to ban adult offenders from engaging in specified activities, and increasing the maximum fixed penalty for a for breaches of a Public Spaces Protection Order or a Community Protection Notice. Increasing those penalties from £100 to £500.

And as she says, in some ways I think from my sort of cycling up and down canal towpaths, slowly and always dinging twice behind pedestrians, that actually people living on the waterways are a deterrent against the types of anti-social behaviour that the hon. Gentleman for, for Strangford has been talking about. So if you have, you have that natural surveillance of people living there. And actually that means that there's a huge disincentive because you just, you know, very, very close to people who are living in the boats and that that is a disincentive to criminal behaviour.

As she says, the Canal and River trust is the responsible authority for the Kennet and Avon Canal and the River Avon in Bath. It is aware of the problems and the concerns raised locally. It does not have policing powers, but it is responsible for the safe management, both of its land and of waterways. It. If I can just make a little progress, it has policies governing unacceptable behaviour and site management and these set out the expected conduct and they outline when the trust can intervene or escalate issues or give way.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

She has mentioned before that more powers will be given to the police. But the main problem is police. But the main problem is often that police says we don't have the resources to actually police the canal all the time, and the canal and River trust is ultimately the one that really looks after the canals and rivers and the towpath. And I wonder and the towpath. And I wonder whether there must be more that the canal and river trust can do about anti-social behaviour?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

anti-social behaviour? Well, I think if she were to convene a regular set of meetings, say, quarterly on this with the police, the local council and the CRT, I think I've found the steady drumbeat of of local accountability is very effective in bringing these partners together and in tackling these issues together alongside, obviously, the community of users and canal dwellers, I give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Minister for all the shadows and her answers to the hon. Lady for and trying to find a way Lady for and trying to find a way forward, and my constituency of Strangford I mentioned with the street pastor. I'm not. I'm not street pastor. I'm not. I'm not sure if every town and city has state street parties, but I believe there are many, many people from the churches who have an interest the churches who have an interest in young people and some of the issues that happen.

And I always have great believer, Madam Deputy have great believer, Madam Deputy Speaker, and rehabilitation and working with young people, they're not all bad. And if we can have somebody to work alongside them, perhaps we can address some of the issues of anti-social behaviour. Just a thought, Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

What he says is so true. Madam Deputy Speaker, and I know from my own enjoyment of the Foleshill own enjoyment of the Foleshill Canal in Coventry and Coventry Canal, which runs through Foleshill. Canal, which runs through Foleshill. Lots of communities fear canals. They don't think it's a blue space for their recreation, they don't for their recreation, they don't feel ownership of it. And the comparison between the usership of the canal that runs through the canal that runs through Foleshill, through the poorest part of my constituency, the poorest part of the city of Coventry.

And, you know, the canal that runs through King's Cross, St Pancras, where I've cycled up and down many times, is is staggering. The difference and the way that communities feel ownership or exclusion and I think everywhere is safer where everybody feels that they can belong. And unpicking some of those barriers and working with, you know, communities that may be typecast in certain areas, such as young people, is a very positive solution to making sure that people feel that, you know, they don't want to litter, they don't want to leave their beer bottles, they don't want to do anti-social behaviour.

But from reading about this beforehand, it seems to me that there's an issue with stag parties on boats as well. There certainly has been in the past and that all sounded quite tricky. So there is also a thing about people having the competencies, so that if they're hiring a boat, it's supposed to only go 3 or 4 miles an hour, that they actually know what they're doing because they're quite difficult to steer and you don't want to go too fast. As I discovered when I had to have the tiller taken off me at a certain moment when we were going through a very narrow bridge.

Anyway, yes, I'm always grateful to have a training course in these issues. So let's get back to canals and towpaths and riverbanks. They are shared spaces freely accessible to anyone and that is absolutely right. They used by walkers, anglers, joggers and cyclists and I and I do as a cyclist see anti-social behaviour on canal towpath. And I'm very, very conscious of trying to avoid it, of slowing down and particularly when tackling bridges, of going super slow so that there's no unexpected surprises for people who may have their headphones in.

The trust has published its towpath code and encourages all users to be respectful and considerate. Pedestrians have priority. Cyclists are urged to slow down. Dog walkers should keep their dogs under control. And, you know, because that's quite tricky as well. And people are encouraged to take their litter home with them. There are, however, mindless minority who use the canal and towpath inconsiderately. We've seen instances of fires being lit, littering, fly tipping, drunken behaviour, loud noise at night, from night, from moored boats, speeding boats, blockages on the towpath and out of control dogs.

The trust works closely with Avon and Somerset Police and Bath and North East Somerset Council to address safety and community concerns, and it's engaging to develop this Anti-social Behaviour Action Plan that manages the competing demands of waterway users and local residents fairly. We saw an example of this recently in London, where the trust worked with police to remove an illegal encampment from the River Lee navigation that had caused significant disruption to the local community and to other boaters nearby. The government fully supports the trust and law enforcement agencies in dealing with anti-social behaviour, and we intend to strengthen the powers available to them to do so.

Now, one of the issues raised this evening is that of the statutory powers available to the trust to enforce its rules, and I've heard the hon. Lady's concerns that these powers are inadequate, fragmented and can lead to lengthy, costly enforcement. The trust recognises this challenge. In December 2024, its established an Independent Boat Licensing Commission to review its licensing regime. The Commission published its report in November 2025 with 36 recommendations to make licensing fairer, simpler, more enforceable and better aligned with the Trust's charitable objectives.

Among these are that the trust should clearly define the navigation requirement for continuous cruising boat licences, to replace the current vague legal requirement for bona fide navigation, to seek powers to introduce differential charging or rationing for moorings in area of high congestion. To seek powers to use force as a last resort with safeguards following a court order to remove a boat from a waterway. Having the civil powers to levy fines on licence holders in response to breaches of terms and conditions, and on towpath users for antisocial behaviours like fly tipping, have the right to fit a tracking device to any vessel that is not complying with movement requirements, particularly in congested areas.

And to make the case to my department for consolidating the legislation by which the trust operates. The trust is looking at those recommendations, determining which to prioritise, recognising many will require new or amended legislation which will need wider consultation and where legislative change may be needed. We are ready to support the trust. We are in regular touch with the trust, including quarterly formal meetings with the CEO and executive team, and we will use our engagement to support them in identifying quick and robust solutions.

As an independent charity, the trust makes its own management and operational decisions. Since taking over statutory duties from British Waterways in 2012, it has received government support as it establishes its role and builds greater financial independence. The canal network presents a considerable challenge, but the trust has as a significant commercial and charitable portfolio. This is a main source of their income. Rather than filling shortfalls, harnessing the diverse uses of the canal network will be vital to maintaining it for the future, and it has proved to be commercially dynamic.

It has this the trust has doubled the value of its property endowment from government from around £500 million in 2012 to £1 billion today. Last year, this endowment provided around £50 million of revenue a year while both boat licences provided around £55 million. The government currently provides the trust with an annual grant of £52.6 million. This amounts. This amount represented 22% of the trust's total income in the last financial year. It primarily contributes to the Trust's waterway infrastructure maintenance costs, which, as she says, are considerable and which keep certain heritage skills alive as well.

I remember Stanley Lock Stanley Ferry, up near Wakefield, was the site of the last lock. Lock gate makers in the country, and seeing that incredible craft work, you know, on locks around the country. So do look out for their badge when you're when you're next at a canal lock. The government has agreed to provide the trust with a further ten year grant from April 2027 of £401 million. This will continue to support the trust's canal infrastructure maintenance, helping to keep waterways safe and navigable.

In closing, I thank all hon. Members present and I agree that we must take action to tackle anti-social behaviour on the canals and towpaths in all its forms. People deserve to enjoy these blue walkways and these amazing places. And who would have believed that you would see a kingfisher on Coventry Canal right next to the old Cashes Silk Works in the heart, one mile from the heart of Coventry city centre, a sight I never thought I'd see my first ever kingfisher.

People deserve to live free from nuisance, intimidation and damage to their property and feel safe in the place they call home. Dignity and respect are not optional extras. They are the foundations of strong, decent communities that have pride in where they live. We will keep working until every neighbourhood, including on her canals, in bath and across the country, feel safe. The Canal and River trust is playing its part by working closely with local authorities, police and other agencies to tackle anti-social behaviour on the waterways, strengthening and streamlining stream licence Steve Yemm.

Gosh, I haven't had anything to drink yet. Madam Deputy Speaker, it's working to streamline its licensing powers to ensure fairness for all users. We'll continue to support this work through grant funding, assisting with any legislation changes that may be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

necessary. Thank you. Hear, hear. The question is that this House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this House do now adjourn. As many as are of that opinion, say I. I the ayes
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page