Live Debate: Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords message: Consideration of Lords message to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill Miatta Fahnbulleh MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Peckham, Labour )

- -

I am grateful once again to have the opportunity to speak on the the opportunity to speak on the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill throughout the bill's passage. I am pleased that we have worked constructively to we have worked constructively to ensure the bill is as strong as possible, and we have engaged in good faith with members across the good faith with members across the House and incorporated their feedback. With that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I'll now turn to the Speaker, I'll now turn to the amendments that remain in scope for ping pong.

Lord amendment two seeks to add rural affairs as a distinct area of competence within clause two of the Bill. As I said before, there is no difference in policy intent here. The government's position remains that these matters are already captured within the existing areas of competence. Nevertheless, we recognise the strength of feeling that has been expressed by noble Lords in the other place, and we extend devolution beyond the predominantly urban centres of England. It is right that strategic authorities look to use the powers and funding

17:07

Presentation of Bill

at their disposal to support communities across a wide range of geographies, whether urban, rural or coastal. The government is therefore prepared to accept the

17:07

Consideration of Lords message: Consideration of Lords message to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

addition of rural affairs and coastal communities to the list of subjects included within the area subjects included within the area of competence. Hon. Members, Madam Deputy Speaker, will know that the government's objective is for every government's objective is for every part of England to benefit from devolution and there, and that we want this to be fundamentally a bottom up process. So for the benefit of the House, I will repeat the government's commitment not to commence the ministerial powers of direction to establish non mayoral strategic authorities or expand existing strategic authorities without local consent for a period

17:07

Miatta Fahnbulleh MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Peckham, Labour )

- -

of two years following royal assent. This is the approach that we have taken in the conversations and the taken in the conversations and the engagement with local authorities in order to form foundational strategic authorities, and this is the intent approach we continue to take. At the same time, we have listened carefully to concerns listened carefully to concerns raised by some of this House and the. And in the other place, about the backstop powers to set out in the backstop powers to set out in schedule one.

We are therefore proposing to remove the power for the Secretary of State to establish a mayor in an area without local consent on to brownfield land. Madam Deputy Speaker, the government fully agrees on the importance of prioritising the development of brownfield land. As previously stated, the National Policy Policy Framework Planning Policy Framework is the framework with which planning policies and decisions are and should be made. It remains the right place to set clear expectations for how and where development should come forward.

I have previously set out imposing a legal requirement in the bill would risk undermining effective plan making and local flexibility in supporting sustainable development. The government considers the amendment passed by the Other place to be impractical, as it would undermine effective making. It would limit considerations of local circumstances and create inconsistency in terms of the requirement between spatial development strategies prepared by mayors and strategic authorities and those prepared by the upper tier county councils and unitary authorities. Therefore, I invite hon.

Members to reject the amendments in lieu on brownfield land. Turning to the issue of local authority governance arrangements, we remain firmly of the view that executive models of governance and in particular the leader and Cabinet model, provide the clearest and most transparent decision making model in local government. We continue to believe that our approach strikes the right balance between encouraging a more consistent model of governance across England's local authorities, whilst respecting local democratic mandates and decisions. Where a committee run council has adopted its governance model more recently.

I think we have got the balance right, we have listened, we have adapted and we do not intend to go further, and I invite hon. Members to reject the amendment on to town and parish councils. Madam Deputy Speaker, I recognise the strength of feeling about the role of parish councils in neighbourhood governance. The government has considered Lord amendment 37 and 91 Caerphilly. We cannot accept an amendment that would undermine the principle of autonomy and localism. The creation of new parish councils is for local authorities to decide based on their community's needs.

Central government should not intervene and should not direct. Any particular model of neighbourhood governance is right for a particular place. However, we have proposed a further amendment building on our previous commitments. The new change requires local authorities to engage with town and parish councils where appropriate, regarding parish representation under neighbourhood governance arrangements. This makes it clear that parish councils, where they exist, have an important role to play in neighbourhood governance. Again, this is a point I've consistently made to the passion of the Bill.

We absolutely recognise the role of town and parish councils, so we believe that this strikes the right balance alongside our commitments to review and update the guidance on community governance reviews and publish a neighbourhood governance framework. Finally, on Agent of Change. Madam Deputy Speaker, while I thank my colleagues for their insightful comments on the Agent of Change principle, I continue to hold that the most effective way to ensure the proper consideration of this principle is through strengthening existing mechanisms.

National planning policy is not wishy washy, as some have suggested. The framework carries significant weight in the planning system, and we are already in the most ambitious period of planning reforms in a decade. I recognise the concerns that have been raised with me through this debate, and it is clear that the principle is not being effectively implemented. We are already proposing to update policy to address these issues, and I have committed to reviewing the guidance to help disseminate best practice. Again, there is no fundamental difference in the policy intent.

It's the mechanism by which we take it forward, and we believe the changes we have already enshrined will ensure important businesses are protected from the effects of new development. And so with that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I urge the House to reject the amendments. To conclude, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Bill has undoubtedly been improved as a result of the scrutiny in ping pong so far, and we are incredibly grateful. We are pleased to be able to offer concessions on rural affairs and coastal communities, on the power to direct a mayor and on town and parish councils.

However, the government is not prepared to accept any of the other amendments we have discussed today, not because there is fundamentally a difference in terms of policy, but because we are thinking about the most effective mechanism by which we ensure those policies bite. I therefore urge the House to support the government's position and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

accept the government's concessions. The question is that this House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this House does not insist on its disagreement to Lords amendments to the proposed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment A the Lords amendments as on the notice paper and I call David Simmonds. Yes. Yeah yeah yeah yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah yeah yeah yeah. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know despite her centralising

17:13

David Simmonds MP (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, Conservative)

- -

I know despite her centralising zeal, I detect a slight weariness on the part of the Ministers. Once again, we are going toe to toe on these amendments. It remains, Madam Deputy Speaker, the position of the opposition that these are overall a set of centralising measures that the government brings forward in this bill, which fundamentally are about extending the control from Whitehall into our town halls, becoming, as we hear continually from local government leaders, from a government which does have a record of imposing both additional costs and responsibilities on our local authorities.

But it is welcome to hear from the Minister that there's been additional recognition from government about the differences that exist around our rural and our coastal communities. Now, I do have some coastline in my constituency, but Ruislip Lido is not what I think we had in mind when pushing forward the argument. But it is very clear that the needs of our rural communities and our coastal communities are often different, and the potential that they offer, different from what we see in urban and suburban areas.

So we will not be pushing for a further vote on the matter of extending the recognition of rural affairs. But let me turn, Madam Deputy Speaker, next to the amendment on prioritising brownfield sites for development. The concern that we are setting out very clearly as an opposition is that, taken alongside many of the other changes which the government are bringing forward to the planning system, the risk this continues to create is that at the end of this Parliament, the end of this period will see a significant increase in the number of greenfield sites that are brought forward, that have planning consent, and we will not see what cross-party we all say we want to see, which is a significant amount, in particular of our housing target delivered on brownfield sites that are brought back into use for residential purposes, and it is absolutely critical, particularly with the powers that this bill brings in for mayors to drive forward this development, that we ensure that brownfield is prioritised to manage the risk that we already see under some mayoral authorities a prioritising the easy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

wins rather than the ones that are most effective in delivering a housing target. At that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Point. Of course. Thank you, Madam Speaker. The point my friend is making is a very accurate description of what a very accurate description of what is happening in my local area of Bexley, where developers are trying to argue that greenfields are now ripe for development because of the ripe for development because of the government's planning changes. Does he share my concern that the government are continuing to try and barge this through of this and barge this through of this House, and also is concerned that both Reform and Labour both support the government's greenbelt position, which will have a detrimental impact on our local community and on our nature environment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend is absolutely right, and we know that old Bexley and Sidcup, just like Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, indeed, many of the constituencies that are represented on these benches share this concern on these benches share this concern that they see a Reform Party that is championing tearing up the is championing tearing up the greenbelt across our capital in pursuit of housing targets, but also the ambiguity that's been also the ambiguity that's been created by the government's position on greenbelt, which seems to be applied in general to any site on which a developer can argue that housing could be delivered because it's had some previous use.

And that level of ambiguity is another one of the reasons why we're very keen to push forward and see the government accept the case. Very strong case for why brownfield should be enshrined as the priority. Let me then turn briefly, Madam Deputy Speaker, to the amendment around the leader and Cabinet model of local government. Now, I need to be clear, as an opposition, we do not have a strong view about what governance arrangements town halls should choose. Many of us will have had experience under the committee system and a leader and Cabinet model.

Some, including with executive mayors. But the reason why we intend to still push forward on this is because it represents, once again that centralising tendency, a view in Whitehall that the government knows best what those structures should be. Now it happens to be the case. I agree with Ministers that the leader and Cabinet model is the most effective and efficient, but it is not for us to tell locally elected officials, locally elected councillors, how they should make their arrangements. Of course, I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank the Minister for giving way and may I congratulate him on his efforts yesterday. I'm sure his efforts yesterday. I'm sure we're both struggling to to Bob in the chamber this, this, this this afternoon. And I, I agree with him on on the views about the, the on on the views about the, the Cabinet arrangement of of local council. I think one of the advantages I'm sure he would agree advantages I'm sure he would agree with me of that is actually it means that there are less meetings and actually makes being a councillor more accessible to those councillor more accessible to those that have jobs and, and childcare commitments and doesn't just rely on, on, on, on councillors who perhaps are retired or retired, just on the on, on the point about the government's approach to local government, local authorities.

Would he agree with me, though, that the good thing that this government has done is ensure multiyear funding for local councils? Because when I was a councillor in Harlow mentioned Harlow got it in was just that. That was a real challenge, both for opposition and and the opposition to shadow budgets, but also the the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

administration, through their budgets. The timings of the Shadow

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Ministers marathon. Sufficient. Sufficient to say that I was significantly slower than the hon. Member for the Harlow who's who's outstanding efforts, I'm sure will leave him a little bit sore with bobbing today. But of bit sore with bobbing today. But of course, the Member for Harlow will also know the benefits of an effective leader and Cabinet model because he has a good conservative because he has a good conservative local authority led. By councillor. Councillor Dan Swords, and it is the work that Councillor Dan Swords and his team have done that's driven forward the improvements that Harlow has been able to enjoy over many years.

I think the I think the key point. I'm going to make a little progress, if I may, Madam Deputy Speaker, the key point is to ensure that our local authorities can set out their governance arrangements in a way that reflects the needs of their community. And we've already seen the government accept the argument that we need to ensure, in respect of rural and coastal communities, that there is a degree of nuance in this legislation. And this is another example of exactly that argument. Turning now to the amendment on parish governments.

I know not all of us will have parish councils in our local areas, but they are a significant feature of civic life across the country, and many of them will run important local facilities like leisure centres, car parks. And it is clearly significant that we ensure that their role is enshrined, especially at a time when the wider agenda which this government is undertaking of local government reorganisation is seeing a significant transfer of services to those parish councils from districts that are due to be abolished.

So it is welcome that we see the government moving forward on that. The final two amendments that we call to debate this afternoon are, firstly, in respect of the so-called agent of change principle, the idea that a new arrival in a community should bear the cost of the consequent changes that are there because of it gaining planning consent. So if somebody opens a new music venue or builds a new residential development, that that should not be at the expense of existing and long established uses.

And many of us as constituency MPs will have had experience when, for example, a property developer creates a new residential development and then seeks to close down an existing venue like a local pub or in my case, I think of an example to do with a bus garage, because they were concerned about the impact that they would have. Now, clearly, those established uses with prior consent need to have a degree of priority, and that's something which has already found its way into law in Scotland.

And we believe that it is a reasonable recommendation for the government to take this forward and ensure that those existing uses have sufficient protection in this bill to ensure that they are not subject to the unfair impact of new and subsequent arrivals, seeking to pass costs of mitigating the consequences of their activity onto them. And then finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, the amendment 98 on the Secretary of State's powers on changes to strategic authorities. It was something hotly contested as this bill made its way through committee, that it contains chapters and chapters of new powers for the Secretary of State to direct mayors, to direct the combined authorities.

And that very much goes to the point about this being centralising legislation. So whilst it introduces a new layer of local government, it nonetheless results in central government having significantly more power over how the powers to levy a precept are used, the powers to create new housing development, the powers to create zoning to ensure that development takes place, the power to bring together groups of local authorities and to assume some of those responsibilities. All of those now fall much more strongly within the purview of a Secretary of State, issuing directions from Whitehall about how things should happen locally.

And it remains the position of the opposition that as supporters of devolution and as believers in devolution, that we should not simply pay lip service to it in the title. But we should ensure that those measures have the consent and the support of the locally elected politicians, whose mandate gives them the power to make those decisions on behalf of their community. So we remain determined that we will push ahead in favour of that principle of consent and ensure that local communities continue to have champions who will speak up for them in this chamber.

17:23

Alex Sobel MP (Leeds Central and Headingley, Labour )

- -

So thank you. going to address my comments to the agents of change principle. As the chair, the music APPG this has been long on our agenda, and I think that the shadow Minister got the gist of it. Well, in the fact that this is about existing venues, long standing venues, music venues and nightclubs in particular, having to effectively back back legal challenges from residents of new build, primarily apartments. But any new build residential property, and we've got examples of cases such as the Alphabet and Moth Club of 500 £0 or more.

Having taken the legal challenges of these new developments challenging their ongoing operations. I had a case like this in my own constituency, which is still which is which was we had to fight within planning committee, where effectively an organisation, music and arts production, who undertake work for those excluded from school to undertake, as I said, music and arts education in their building. Those young people otherwise would become Neet and are kept in the education system by music arts production.

Their service. One of the main source of funding for their service is a night called Cosmic Slop, which is a night on a Saturday night, which is a very significant funds. Their area is being heavily developed in terms of residential development and mabgate in Leeds, and there was an issue where there was going to be no protection from a new block of flats and no mitigation for sound by the developer, literally opposite their proposals. Leeds, in its Local Plan, had not mapped music venues or nightclubs at all, and we've got had an issue where I received thousands of emails, literally thousands from as far away as New York, about this planning application.

We had to have very significant discussions with planning counsel, department and councillors to ensure that the necessary stipulations were made in the decision for noise reduction, and also the fact that the that the that the new the new residents could not effectively close down that club night because then music and arts production would have to close down. And all those young people would not be able to take part in that education. And as I said, become Neet.

So I've got sympathy for the Minister or Ministers dealing with this in the fact that MP PFF has, throughout the whole process, not on a statutory basis, forced local authorities to do this. But I think if we looked at routes through secondary legislation, through the local planning process to address this issue, because at the moment this bill and the MP PFF does not adequately protect venues. And so what I what I'm looking for is for some reassurance from the Minister, who I know in her own constituency as well, has many music venues and nightclubs.

So it's obviously something that she cares deeply about that we that we look at the agents change principle and ensures that both locally and nationally, that the relevant, the relevant protections are available. And we are not going to see further pressures put on nightclubs and music venues who are already suffering under, for instance, not so much the music venues, but nightclubs. Under the. The business rate increases. Obviously all the other cost pressures that have happened recently and the additional costs of having to fight developers will eventually push those venues out of existence.

17:27

Zöe Franklin MP (Guildford, Liberal Democrat)

- -

17:34

Ms Polly Billington MP (East Thanet, Labour)

- -

sewage scandal, renewing our coastal towns and their local economies. Madam Deputy Speaker, economies. Madam Deputy Speaker, will be crucial in ensuring that all parts of the country share in the national renewal that the government is aiming to bring. That is why this amendment is so important. I hope the government will be clear in its expectations will be clear in its expectations of what metro mayors with responsibility for coastal communities should do. This needs communities should do. This needs to have a strong economic focus, with an understanding of how public services and infrastructure underpin the ability for a community to prosper.

Can my hon. Friend confirm, for example, that one of the commissioners will have will have to have responsibility for coastal communities. If a metro area has a coast. Furthermore, I hope that my right hon. Friend will discuss with colleagues on the Treasury bench how an economic strategy for the coast might be developed through the designation of a coastal economic area. This would complement the new competences outlined in this bill to ensure that our national strategic priorities for growth reach the communities that could not only benefit from that investment, but also so that we can contribute to the economic health of the nation.

I would also ask my hon. Friend to consider, in this context some of the perhaps unintended consequences of the local government reorganisation planned in the coming years. I am very much in favour of Unitisation, not only for efficiency, but also for the ability for places like mine to come together to develop a strategic vision for the wider economy and society of East Kent. However, research I have commissioned suggests that there may be unintended consequences for coastal towns from the local government reorganisation as planned.

There are 33 coastal towns and cities with a councils main office, town hall or or headquarters within their boundaries. 24 of those are going through the local government reorganisation process. 22 of those have a proposal or multiple proposals that could result in them being dissolved in their current structure, and merge with other councils into a larger unitary that covers a bigger area. Now, if that happens, Madam Deputy Speaker, the new unitary will need to decide where they have their headquarters. Town halls in coastal towns or cities are at a particular high risk of relocation because of their often peripheral location, their relative lack of proximity to the new, larger constituent population, their weaker transport links, and other issues such as flood risk that will have a detrimental impact on local economies.

Madam Deputy Speaker. At a time when many of those 22 coastal towns and cities are already struggling, it will also lead to them being more cut off from public leadership, increasing that left behind feeling. Now, if I was to remind the House that some of those high risk areas include Clacton on Sea, Sittingbourne, Margate, Blackpool, Cromer, Grimsby, Southend on Sea and Eastbourne, it ends up being a list of exactly the kind of places that we should be correcting, that we should be helping.

So there should be mitigations put in place for that. Precisely. I would also particularly like to refer to the issues relating to the parish and town Council amendments as outlined. I know my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Oldham mentioned that there was a commitment to hardwire community engagement and neighbourhood working into the new governance proposals. It is a shame, however, that parish and town councils are only designated to be important local partners, rather than create a legal requirement for them to be consulted.

The reason I say this is because we have town councils in Broadstairs and Ramsgate, which are highly valued and complementary to the existing local authority structures of the of Kent County Council and Thanet District Council. Those town councils being extremely valuable, we know and notice the difference that happens between that we see between what happens in Ramsgate and Broadstairs, where they have town councils and Margate, which doesn't. Now the reality is Margate is about to secure its own town council thanks to fantastic, strong community campaigning by some of my good friends and allies in Thanet Labour Party, and this will help to correct a democratic deficit that would otherwise occur.

And indeed Margate has has always been short of this democratic governance that will be needed all the more now because of Unitisation. So can my hon. Friend, reassure myself and colleagues that town and parish councils really will be fully incorporated into the new settlement and, as outlined in the new government amendments, existing town and parish councils will have a role to play. Could she also reassure us that those without existing town and parish councils will have the opportunity for strong neighbourhood governance? In summary, Madam Deputy Speaker, what we need is to ensure that those commissioners that will be part of the settlement have an economic focus if they are responsible for coastal communities and every Metro mayor who has the power to appoint a commissioner and has responsibility for the coast ensures that one commissioner has that focus, that local government reorganisation factors in appropriate mitigations for when there are risks of reduction of local government presence in coastal towns.

And finally, that parish and town councils continue to be a vital part of local government settlement.

17:40

Andrew George MP (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Andrew George Madam. >> It's a pleasure to follow the honourable. Member for East Thanet. Particularly her points about about parish and town councils in parish and town councils in Cornwall, where we are completely parished or parished in towns in in that sense. And of course, it's a really important vehicle for for communication up from the from the community and actually enabling the community to, to articulate the views of, of that, of that local community. And indeed, one might even argue that actually parish and town councils are indeed the highest tier of, of, of local authority in the sense that they are closest to the people closest to, to the pulse of, of, of what local opinion is and able to articulate that in, in the process.

I have two remarks on, on two other amendments which I wish to, to make one very briefly in respect of the the proposals regarding brownfield first, which which I strongly support, and I'm disappointed by the government's response to that, in that in that the government's policy, particularly with regard to its rewriting of the of the National Planning Policy Framework, which which which will result in in, in a a gold rush to the to the edges, to the greenfield edges of our of our towns and communities because they have set in December because they have set in December to 2025, 2024, the new housing targets which which, which, which effectively means that local authorities can no longer, no longer defend the the edges of their of their towns.

If they're unable to demonstrate that they have a a five year land supply. So in fact, policy is indeed going in exactly the opposite direction at present, which. And it also undermines fundamentally in in rural areas where where local authorities and local communities are seeking to advance rural exceptions policy, all of those rural exceptions, opportunities are now effectively lost as a result of, of, of local authorities no longer having five year land supplies. And that is to the detriment of those communities that are desperately seeking, seeking to meet, to meet local housing needs.

Hence the importance of making sure that that the local authorities are under a stronger obligation to to bring forward brownfield first, the the other, the other amendment I would welcome the opportunity to speak to. And I know that my my my my friends in, in in Camborne and Redruth and in North Cornwall will, will, will not only will, will, will, will echo these these concerns is, is is in respect of the, the, the Secretary of state's powers regarding combined combined all authorities without local consent.

And that is the the critical matter that that in fact, the only way in which the government can can demonstrate that that it has the backing of local communities is to actually make sure that they, they, they they they consult them throughout. Now in Cornwall and indeed on the Isles of Scilly, because I know that the Isles of Scilly is keen to work with Cornwall in ensuring that we achieve the maximum level of of devolution. It is really important that that the government looks at this very, very special case of Cornwall, particularly because we have a number of other cultural and language designations which actually mean that the integrity of of Cornwall becomes becomes ever more ever more important when, when navigating one's way through the extremely sensitive process of, of devolution, of devolving power, because it's easy to, to undermine those, those great strengths of a place like Cornwall, if those matters are not, are not properly considered.

We have already received a correspondence from the Secretary of State in November last year, which the Minister will be well aware of, in which he recognised the special status of Cornwall and the reason why the integrity of Cornwall would be retained. And that, I think, is really very, very important. There was a letter to the leader of the Council on the 26th of November last year in which he. He said that the the the Cornwall footprint, that the government is minded on exceptional basis to work with you.

That is the local authority to explore designating the the Council as a single foundation strategic authority. That's welcome, although we would like to go further than that, as my as my hon. Friends will will reemphasize, indeed in a moment. So. So it's helpful to have the the the, if you like, the building block of making sure that that is, is in place. But I think it is really important that we are able to go further. And indeed, Lord Teverson, in another place brought forward an amendment.

Amendment 31. For the local authority of the local authority of, of, of a local government area does not have any specific responsibility for the stewardship of rights of its population under the European Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, in other words, to to bring that into the legislation itself would, would be, would be a, a helpful vehicle on which the government could then recognise the very special status of Cornwall and actually build, build a, in our view, a justification to to transfer combined mayoral authority powers to a location such as.

Such as Cornwall, the. The Minister on the 24th. In another place on the 24th of March, responded to this, explaining that that the government was minded to continue the conversation with the local authority and indeed with the six members of of. Representing constituencies in Cornwall to ensure that we are able to make some progress in this. And I hope that the Minister in responding will. Will reflect, and I hope, give us some encouragement that even though it's not on the face of the bill, that that the government will, according to the amendment, which the government is rejecting tonight, she.

Ensure that Cornwall is consulted and that there is proper, proper, proper effort to. I, I will just finish this book that there is a proper effort on the part of of Ministers to to work with the local authority to to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

achieve maximum devolution. Yes. I'll give way. I thank my the the hon. Member

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my the the hon. Member for, for for giving way. Does he agree with me that in relation to agree with me that in relation to Cornish devolution, that the fact that half of Cornish MPs are represented in a relatively sparse chamber at this late stage, and that other members would be here if that other members would be here if they were able to make. It is testament to the fact that we are in a position at the moment with devolution, when it feels like we've got part of the way there.

But as this this process meets a conclusion, there is still deep concern that we are still not considerably further forward in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

process of Cornish devolution. I just want to make stellar

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I just want to make stellar contributions on behalf of their constituencies, but I do not believe that we are discussing Cornish devolution right here, Cornish devolution right here, right now. And let's keep in scope of the amendments in front of us.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of the amendments in front of us. Andrew George I'm grateful to Madam Deputy Speaker and of course, I, I, I accept that that that I, I, I accept that that that whilst we're giving the example of Cornish devolution as one of the potential products, should the government not indeed reject the opportunity for communities to be for local authorities to be properly consulted, which which is what what is on the Order Paper this evening? And that is the. The most important thing this evening is to is to make sure that local authorities are consulted.

And what we're seeking is that that this then can become an effective vehicle to, to, to achieve what is very much desired throughout throughout Cornwall, both by the local authority and indeed and indeed by, by, by local members. But, but I accept the point that you you make. Madam Deputy Speaker, the point fundamentally is that whether it be Cornwall or indeed any other local authority that is seeking to make sure that its local communities and its and its wider communities are, are, are properly consulted.

But it's not a question of, of or seeking a process of isolation in this regard. And certainly, I think the government recognises that it and indeed, the point that we we perpetually make in relation to to Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, which we hope will be cooperating with Cornwall in this regard as a combined authority, after all, is that is that it's about cutting out, not not cutting ourselves off, but cutting ourselves into the celebration of diversity around around the United Kingdom.

And that I hope in the spirit of that, that that that Ministers will respond constructively. And in spite of the passing of this bill, that actually we have a vehicle to achieve the the desired ends as far as Cornwall is concerned. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

17:50

Perran Moon MP (Camborne and Redruth, Labour)

- -

Perran Moon MAPPAs Madam Deputy Speaker And before I start, I would like to ask for a little bit of like to ask for a little bit of leeway. I'm going to be speaking to two specific amendments. But these amendments have a direct impact on my experience of devolution, which is in Cornwall. And therefore I would just ask for a little bit of leeway. But in relation to the Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As long as you are referencing the amendment you're speaking to, of course the floor is yours.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to speak to the amendment and welcome the amendment amendment and welcome the amendment in relation to the covering coastal communities and the changes that communities and the changes that have been made. That is that is very encouraging. But I'm also very encouraging. But I'm also would like to speak to the amendment around consent, local authority consent. And I have to say, I'm deeply disappointed that the right for the Secretary of State to impose on, on, on a local authority without local assent has only been delayed for two years.

And the reason why I'm disappointed with with that, only that two year delay is that. And this is where I have to reference our experience in Cornwall is that for centuries, basically since the. Since the Stannary Parliament ceased to meet in 1753, Cornwall has longed for greater powers to control its own affairs and so this. This amendment was an opportunity to work with government, to provide those. Those. Those that level of devolution. But it should also be noted for constitutionalists that the Stannary Parliament was never actually revoked.

So the hunger for. For greater devolution runs deep in Cornwall and in the 21st century has been enhanced by the Council of Europe's Framework Convention of National Minority status. Recognising the Cornish as a national minority. And I fear that some of the amendments that have been brought forward, or some of the amendments that were brought forward but were not accepted by the government, including this one run in contravention to article 16 of that framework convention, the national minority, the process of which began under the last Labour government.

But I am very grateful of the Cornish language elevation to the status of all other British Celtic languages. So with this hunger for devolution and commitments from the party, expectations were high. However, as we approach the end of the bill's process, I have to report that I'm disappointed with the progress to date from MHCLG, and it's not like that. MHCLG didn't know what constitutes the devolution we were looking for. I'm deeply grateful to the Minister and to two Secretary of States for meeting so frequently with Cornish members from from both parties to to be able to elaborate on what what does constitute a a devolution deal.

And I'm very grateful that the Treasury has delivered the Kernow Industrial Growth Fund. DCMS is moving ahead with support for the language, as I mentioned, and the Department of Health and Education are investing in Cornwall. But it does feel a bit like MHCLG is not moving at the same progress as as others. And you know, this is never more starkly exposed within Cornwall than on the day that it was announced that Cornwall was losing its shared prosperity funding. New shared prosperity funding was announced in northern English mayoralties.

So in summary, Madam Deputy Speaker, whilst I'm grateful that the Secretary of State is mindful, as my hon. Friend from St Ives mentioned in his letter of November 25th, to offer Cornwall a single strategic authority status as Cornwall will never. Willingly become part of a mayoral combined authority because. To do so, as I've mentioned, compromises national minority status. When she gets to her feet, could the Minister please confirm when those outstanding areas, including transport, economic development, strategic place, Partnership for Housing and British and Irish Council attendance are going to be dealt with because until then, there will remain distrust and scepticism of the government's intentions for devolution in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Cornwall and its place within these British Isles. Ben Maguire. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker, and I'll keep my contribution brief to speak once again on Lords Amendment 98 once again on Lords Amendment 98 and 98 to allow other hon. Members to have a chance to speak. I and many of my North Cornwall many of my North Cornwall constituents were very disappointed last week that the Minister failed to mention Cornwall once. In her

17:55

Ben Maguire MP (North Cornwall, Liberal Democrat)

- -

closing statement in last Tuesday's session. This was despite me pointing out dangerous powers the government is still trying to instil into law which could force Cornwall to merge with another authority, either by this government or a future government, without the consent of Cornish people. Cornwall still faces the prospect of having no legal protections in this bill. Liberal Democrats have made efforts in the other place and in this place to secure them, which would take our national minority status into account under the European Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities.

I fear, Madam Deputy Speaker, that my constituents are being held to ransom by this government, accept our terms effectively, give up your national minority status, be forced into a merger with another region, and we might give you more money. And if you don't accept, we'll have the powers to force you to do it in two years time anyway. In my eyes, this amounts to nothing more than economic coercion against the national minority. The Minister keeps repeating, as she did last week, that the government's already committed not to use this power for two years.

How does that provide comfort for my constituents? Either a future government or this one could use that power after two years. I therefore hope all my Cornish colleagues and other members from across the House will join me this time again voting against the government's latest attempt at blocking Lords Amendment 98 today. Please don't hand this government or future governments this unlawful power to combine authorities against the will of local people who are our constituents. And to the Minister, I say again, you have not considered Cornwall's national minority status contrary to the European Framework Convention, and so you will likely expect a legal

**** Possible New Speaker ****

challenge if this bill becomes law. Thank you. Lewis Atkinson thank you, Madam

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lewis Atkinson thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I'd like to talk to Lords Amendment 94 B and 94 C regarding the Agent of Change principle. My particular concern in this, as I said in the debate last this, as I said in the debate last week, relates to grassroots music venues and the impact that the

17:57

Lewis Atkinson MP (Sunderland Central, Labour)

- -

18:11

Vikki Slade MP (Mid Dorset and North Poole, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Vikki Slade thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I'm really pleased to follow that speech with pleased to follow that speech with my own story from an early venue. I remember a time in 2007 when I visited Southampton and to the Stage Door, a pub venue above a pub Stage Door, a pub venue above a pub for one of the very first intimate gigs of scouting for girls, which now are internationally renowned and celebrating their 20th year, where we actually helped carry their kit up to and back afterwards.

There were so few of us there and without those little gigs, they would not have had the success that 20 years later we go and enjoy the summer festivals. But I rise in specifically to speak to Lords Amendment 37. During the Bill Committee, my hon. Friend for Stratford on Avon and myself spoke frequently about the importance of town and parish councils. As I know the Minister will recall, and about the need to strengthen them as unitary councils take decision making further away from local people and dilute the identity and priorities of clearly defined places.

Now, as local government is reorganised and councils cover ever larger geographies, it's critical that communities retain hyper local democratic structures not as an add on, but as an essential part of effective devolution. And we know that as part of the bill, originally, there was a lot of talk about what other structures might be in place if not a town and parish council, but that doesn't really seem to have made much progress. And I'm disappointed that without something really strong in its place, there isn't the the critical place for town and parish council that was so passionately talked about by the hon.

Member from East Thanet and my hon. Friend from Saint Ives as well, and recognising the strength of them which you know, which forms part of our communities now, with the forthcoming local government reorganisation, which doesn't affect my area. I've already spoken at the Second Reading about seeing the end of authorities like Winchester in Southampton City Council, and it's inconceivable that places like Winchester will not, either immediately or within a couple of years, re-establish a town council to protect the identity of these historic places and ensure their unique needs are met.

Beyond that, covered by the fairly nebulous unitary authorities that will replace them, parish and town councils give residents not only that opportunity to create their sense of place, but are direct, accountable. Voice in Dorset The plan for change, created in 2016, which came before our local government reorganisation, talked about the expansion of town and parish councils and the creation of neighbourhood level structures, but those decisions were deferred to future administrations to progress. And on the Dorset side of our reorganisation, they filled the gaps so the whole area became parished.

But in Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole they were never implemented. After being blocked by the then conservative led councils. And now, a decade on, we're having to retrofit them at local cost and administrative burden. I therefore welcome that conservatives in the other place have recognised that encouraging the expansion of parish governance in currently Unparished areas really does matter, and it's ironic then, that their colleagues have chosen not to even stand for election in the new town councils in Broadstone and Poole.

But as the remit of unitary authorities has expanded, the funding has inevitably focussed on statutory services and neighbourhoods with the highest levels of deprivation, and I welcome that. But as a consequence, many of the facilities that residents really value the fabric of everyday community life have quietly fallen away. When I moved to Broadstone at the turn of this century, Christmas lights, street furniture, replaced tree planting and small community grants were considered standard and funded, or at least supported by the local authority.

Today, they're routinely deemed out of scope for huge councils doing their best to protect the most vulnerable in statutory services. But these things still matter deeply to the residents that they serve, and without them, communities begin to feel overlooked and unloved in their place. We increasingly rely on the extraordinary efforts of volunteers, people like Denise and her team at Broadstone in Bloom, who lead the youth club, and the flag fairies. Yes, we have flag fairies in our town that pop up because the lights are out, the lights at Christmas and the flags throughout the year overnight.

So we wake up to a festooned town and there will always be wonderful volunteers in our communities, but they shouldn't have to replace everything. They shouldn't have to raise every penny themselves and organise the whole piece. They do remarkable work, but they shouldn't be replacing local, accountable democratic structures. I pay tribute to the town councils and parish councils in the Dorset side of my constituency, where people say they can't imagine not having their town council or their parish council.

And when I suggest to them that in our part of the area, we simply have that giant council across the top, they're horrified and say, well, how does anything actually get done? And it doesn't. So Lords amendment 37 recognises this reality and the government's amendment to consult parish councils where they exist just isn't good enough. Because if it doesn't exist, it doesn't exist. And this amendment goes further and puts. It helps those organisations to exist in the first place.

If we are serious about devolution, about identity of place and about rebuilding trust in local government, we should be supporting this amendment, and I'm disappointed that we're not going to have the opportunity to vote on it. I now.

18:17

Miatta Fahnbulleh MP (Peckham, Labour )

- -

18:51

Division

19:42

Consideration of Lords message: Consideration of Lords message to the Pension Schemes Bill Andrew Western MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Stretford and Urmston, Labour)

- -

>> Andrew Western thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and thank you to the rather shrinking number of peers and hon. Members engaged in the scrutiny of this Bill. It has clearly come a long way since I closed the debate at Second Reading. I am glad, in particular, to see that some progress has been made in recent days with the other places agreement to this House as amendments on the approach to DC schemes, achieving scale and on the transparency of public sector pension liabilities.

That leaves one issue remaining the Lords amendments on asset allocation. This House has already previously considered this question twice, and on both occasions it has rejected the Lords position. On both occasions, it has done so by majorities of over 100. The government has at each stage reiterated the need for the core policy intent to be delivered, while responding with changes to primary legislation that directly address specific issues raised. I hope the House will bear with me while I set out what we are now proposing and why I believe it is time for these exchanges to conclude.

First, Madam Deputy Speaker, the amendments we have previously agreed the reserve power is capped at the Mansion House Accord targets no more than 10% in qualifying assets, no more than 5% in UK specific assets. It explicitly applies only to main default funds. Regulations cannot concentrate the requirement in any single asset class. The power can only be used once and, if unused, lapses entirely in 2032. Even if

**** Possible New Speaker ****

you certainly. Jim Shannon Gedling. We Minister. I've been reading the last couple of time. It refers to the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Scottish Parliament and the government have approved legislative consent resolutions. Some of my colleagues in the Assembly back home have expressed some of the concerns expressed some of the concerns which the Lords have expressed as well. I'm conscious of where we're going and where we're going to end up. I can't the Minister maybe please give me some indication of those discussions that took took place within Northern Ireland, simply because the MLAs tell me they express concern.

I'm trying to understand how a consent motion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

could be conveyed and agreed. Please. Thanks so much. The hon. Gentleman will be aware

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that conversations are always ongoing to ensure that any legislation that comes from this place is able to be adopted by all place is able to be adopted by all of the nations of this great country. What I would say to him on this specifically, is that I hope that some of the concerns that have continued to be raised by his colleagues, by peers in the Lords as well, will be addressed by some of the detail that I am about to set out in what we are now putting forward.

So no more than 10% in qualifying assets, no more than 5% in UK specific assets, and it explicitly applies only to main default funds. Regulations cannot concentrate the requirement in any single asset class. The power can only be used once and, if unused, lapses entirely in 2032. But even if it is used, the entire asset allocation regime falls out of effect and the statute book at the end of 2035, these provisions rule out any of the more lurid uses we have heard.

It claimed that the power would be used for restricting it narrowly to underpinning the Mansion House accord. In addition to insisting on that package, the government is today bringing forward further amendments to the Savers interest test in 28 G of the bill. As a reminder, the reserve power exists because providers have said that they struggle to do something that is in savers interests, namely, invest in a wider range of assets. But the Sabres interest test exists for circumstances where schemes can show that even investing as little as 10% in private assets, far below the levels we see internationally or in open DB schemes here in the UK might not be in their particular savers interest in those circumstances.

It allows them a route to seek an exemption from any requirements imposed by the reserve. Power arguments have been made here and in the other place about whether the test, as drafted, included sufficiently clear and strong protections. The government has reflected on those arguments and the further amendments before the House today respond to them. There are four changes. First, we are lowering the threshold for an exemption. The bill, as drafted, would have allowed regulations to require a scheme to show that compliance would cause material financial detriment.

We are changing that to would be likely to cause a scheme will need to show that detriment is the probable consequence, not a certain one. Second. The bill now makes explicit that where a scheme meets the threshold, the regulator must grant the exemption. That has always been the government's intention, and the amendment ensures that there is no room for doubt around it. Thirdly, I want to respond directly to arguments raised by noble Lords about the weight that should be given to the judgement of trustees and scheme managers.

We are proposing a change to put their assessments of savers interests centre stage. The new text makes it clear that the responsible regulator must not only receive the scheme's own assessment of why compliance would be likely to cause material financial detriment, but requires them to have due regard to it. Schemes must set out their reasoning and the regulator must engage with it properly and thoroughly. Due regard is established statutory language with legal weight. It means the regulator cannot simply pay little or no attention to the schemes analysis.

Fourthly, the regulator must give reasons when it refuses an application that matters because schemes have a right of appeal to the upper tribunal, a right that is strengthened if applicants know why they were turned down. So let me draw this together. Madam Deputy Speaker, the savers interest test now provides a lower threshold, an explicit guarantee that exemptions will be granted where the test is met, a requirement for the regulator to give proper weight to the scheme's own analysis and transparency and accountability if an application should fail.

Taken alongside the constraints on the power itself, the percentage caps, the single use restriction, the 2032 sunset and the 2035 full repeal. This is a framework of strong and explicit protections. There are those here and in the other place who would prefer the reserve power not to exist at all. But as members of this House know, we respect that position. But it is not a position we share and it is not the position of the government. There is a well-evidenced collective action problem in the defined contribution market, and the consequences of leaving it unresolved fall on pension savers.

That is not a risk the government is prepared to take. This House has made its view clear decisively. On two occasions, the government has responded by baking in a raft of additional safeguards to primary legislation. This is now a third round of material changes, which I suspect this House may again endorse with a decisive majority at some point. The question before the House is no longer the detail of the amendments, but whether the Other place should continue to reject the clearly expressed view of the elected House and delay the passage of a bill that delivers for savers in a whole host of ways.

And so I urge the House to send these amendments back to the other place and to bring these exchanges to a close.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Question is that this House insists on its disagreement with insists on its disagreement with Lords amendments 15 to 24, 27, 30 to 34, 36, 38 to 42, 83 and 88 and to 34, 36, 38 to 42, 83 and 88 and insists on its amendments 88, A 88 C and 88 E to £0.88 to the words restored to the bill by that disagreement, but proposes amendments A to F to the words so

**** Possible New Speaker ****

restored to the bill. I call the Shadow Secretary of State. Helen Whately. Thank you, Madam.

19:50

Helen Whately MP (Faversham and Mid Kent, Conservative)

- -

Deputy Speaker. First, may I thank the hon. Gentleman opposite for opening this evening's debate and for setting out the latest and for setting out the latest government amendments in place of the Pensions Minister. These ping pong sessions were. The hon. Member for Swansea West have become a regular in my diary and I will miss him this evening. When this Bill was introduced last summer, we said much of it was a sensible step forward, building on the work of the previous conservative government, and we stand by that view.

But supporting the broad direction of a bill does not mean unqualified support for every provision in it. That is why we have challenged the government throughout its passage on the Local government pension scheme, on member communications and on the scale requirements in the Bill. But Madam Deputy Speaker, you will be pleased to know that those debates are behind us today. There is just one issue left Mandation, or, as the government prefers to call it, the reserve power, a power that sat in clause 40 until the noble Lords once again removed it from the Bill last Wednesday.

The government's case for this power is straightforward they want more pension investment in private markets and, by extension, more pension investment in the UK. That was the ambition behind the Mansion House Accord and it is an ambition that we share. We want to see the accord succeed, we want more productive investment and we want pension capital working harder for savers. But while the ambition is right, this policy is not Mandation is the wrong lever to achieve these aims. And as the House has heard from me and from my hon.

Friend from Wyre Forest at each stage of this Bill Mandation is flawed both in principle and in practice. The government may call it a reserve power, but everyone knows what it is a threat hanging over pension schemes if they do not fall into line. The Mansion House Accord was a voluntary agreement built on trust, with mutual commitments between industry and the government. Mandation replaces trust with a threat in law. Why would the pension sector, or in fact any sector ever try to come together and agree a voluntary pact amongst themselves and the government again, if they may just find it hammered into law a few months later? Mandation puts in statute a power which, though more limited in its current manifestation, could be put to all manner of uses.

It cuts across the fundamental duty of trustees to act in the best interests of savers. Instead, that duty is trumped by requirements of the government in law, and it means pension savings or a share of them will be put to work to serve the interests of the government, not the interests of the saver who wants their pension to provide them with a decent income in later life. And so, perhaps most seriously of all, mandation risks undermining public trust in the pension system.

And that is why, Madam Deputy Speaker, this power is not just unnecessary, it is dangerous, and it has no place in this bill. I will now turn to the government's latest amendments on Mandation before us today to the so-called savers Interest test. At the moment, if a pension scheme believes complying with the government's mandation power would not be in the member's interests, it may apply for an exemption, but to secure one, it must show that compliance would cause material financial detriment for members.

That's a wording in the bill at the moment that is an extraordinarily high bar. The government has heard the concerns raised in this House and the other place ed in particular by Lady Bowles, and has now brought forward further amendments to this. They say he told us that the amendments will strengthen the exemption process. Well, they do make it slightly easier for schemes to argue that a mandated investment allocation may damage returns, and instead of having to prove that Mandation would cause material financial detriment, schemes will now need to show that such detriment is just likely.

We've gone from wood to likely. Well, frankly, if the hon. Member opposite thinks that this one word change is now truly a robust safeguard, I urge him to think again. But the very need for these amendments tells its own story. The government accepts that Mandation risks conflicting with the duties trustees and pension providers owed to savers. If no such conflict is existed, there would be no need for an exemption process at all. The right to appeal, enhanced with today's amendments, demonstrates that Ministers accept mandation may force schemes away from doing what is in their members best interests, even as amended.

Schemes must still prove likely financial harm before they are allowed to do what is best for savers. That misunderstands the principle at the heart of fiduciary duty, trustees should not need state approval to act in the best interests of their members. These amendments just tinker at the margins. They do not fix the flaw in the policy. Madam Deputy Speaker, I have been talking in somewhat technical terms, but I just want to remind the House of the consequences of what we're talking about.

If the government pushes pension schemes into the wrong investments, and if those investments underperform, and if savers end up with weaker returns, who carries the can? Not the Minister who stepped in valiantly today, not the government which legislated for this power? It will be pensioners who retire with less. And let's remember whose pensions we are talking about here. Who is most likely to suffer if the government turns out to be a poor asset manager? The millions of workers who contribute via auto enrolment, people who've never chosen an investment strategy, but just trust pension providers to do the right thing on their behalf.

People who are not poring over fun fact sheets, but are getting on with work and supporting themselves and their families, hoping that one day they will be able to retire with financial security. This policy asks those savers to place their trust not in pension managers, but in government Ministers. And in doing so, it risks undermining the very trust on which auto enrolment depends. You can debate whether the level of auto enrolment is right, but no one challenges whether it's a good thing overall.

Yet this government is putting this success story around which there has been great political consensus at risk. And the consequences do not stop with pension savers. Madam Deputy Speaker, what signal does this send to the wider investment community? We hear major city reforms are to come in the King's Speech, but will the market really greet those reforms with confidence? If the Pension Schemes Bill goes into law with mandation in it, confidence would be created if investors could see that the government is committed to making the UK a good place to invest in.

Mandation sends the opposite message. It tells people that we have a government prepared to go where the UK state doesn't usually go, to get involved in the allocation of private capital, and it tells people that the government will take a short cut to getting investment in the UK, forcing pension schemes to do so, rather than fixing the underlying problems. I say to the Minister, I don't think his colleagues have really thought this through. The easy answer is rarely the right answer.

So where does it leave us? It leaves us at an impasse, an agreement on the diagnosis, but profound disagreement on the prescription. We all want more pension investment in the UK. We support moving from a focus on cost to value. We support removing barriers to the Mansion House Accord. But there is no consensus for state compulsion. Pensions belong to the people who earn them, not government Ministers. I have yet to find anyone who wants to trust a politician with their hard earned pension savings, but that is exactly what the government is trying to force on the country.

Savers in this bill, the Minister today finds himself tasked with defending the indefensible, and it is his one provision preventing an otherwise good bill from passing. The government's amendments make Mandation less bad. But if something is wrong in principle, it does not become right in smaller doses. So I leave the government with one simple message remove mandation and the job is done. This bill will pass.

19:59

Steve Darling MP (Torbay, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Yeah. >> Liberal Democrat. >> Spokesperson Steve Darling. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And as Liberal Democrats, and as my And as Liberal Democrats, and as my colleague to my right has alluded to, the fact is, there is more than enough to be welcomed within this bill. I know that as part of the process of going this through this bill, we've looked whether to Australia or Canada, and there is much to be seen there that we have drawn from, as well as best practice throughout the world, and the proposed pensions world that we're looking to enter, to enter into with this bill is much to be welcomed and what we desperately need to see up and down the United Kingdom from Tobermory to in Mull or Torbay in Devon, is greater investment in our economy and making sure that we have a productive economy.

However, sadly, Mandation is not the way to achieve this. We need a government that acts as a facilitator to investment, but not one that dictates to investment. So therefore we can ensure that we have a pipeline of opportunities that then feeds the Mansion House accord. And that's really what the government should be about, is making the weather the right weather to invest within the United Kingdom and giving those opportunities to investment, which I believe, and I'm sure many colleagues in the House believe, that that is what the Mansion House accord achieves.

If there are dud investments that are made, the people who suffer are pensioners and so therefore it should be not up to government to decide who are winners and who are losers in our economy, because sadly, governments around the world have a poor track record on this. And so I would suggest that from the Liberal Democrats that this is not the way to drive the productivity that we want to see, as from all sides of this chamber at the last last week, I described this as a Trojan horse that had been sneaked into this bill.

And I know that Ministers may well have been soaring off now three legs from that Trojan horse, and it's still attempting to hop over the finish line at this late stage, but it still remains a Trojan horse that has something within it that is not welcomed. For our pension industry. We know that the pension industry have grave concerns around Mandation, and that is why we, as Liberal Democrats will be voting against these government proposals.

20:02

Andrew Western MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Stretford and Urmston, Labour)

- -

Yes. >> Minister. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I do recognise, as the Shadow Secretary of State set out, that there has been a great deal of there has been a great deal of consensus on many of the aspects of the Bill, and that we are wrangling merely over this one remaining issue. But when Madam Deputy Speaker, the opposition argued that this power is wrong in principle, we fundamentally disagree. We have had this debate on a number of occasions. We had it at Second Reading.

I set out the rationale why it continues to be the government position in my opening speech, and we have heard the arguments against. But I would just gently point out that the shadow Secretary of State's own letter to industry last week conceded that funds are understandably cautious about being first movers without this sort of power, and that is a legitimate concern. That is the collective action problem that we have. The Mansion House Compact has been running since 2023, but progress has been modest.

The industry itself has identified competitive pressure to keep costs low as the single biggest barrier to delivering on its own commitments. In other words, providers want to diversify in their members interests, but they risk being undercut on cost by competitors who do not. The reserve power gives the market confidence to move together. We have also heard. We have also heard that the power undermines fiduciary duty. It does not. Trustees duties of loyalty, prudence and acting in members best interests.

Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

With the greatest of respect, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Minister is talking nonsense. At the end of the day, every trustee has a the day, every trustee has a fiduciary duty to get the best return for their members. By putting in these powers, the government is fundamentally going against the outer, the most basic principle of the City of London, which is dictum may impact on my which is dictum may impact on my word is my bond. The government entered into a pact with the industry, and it is now reneging on industry, and it is now reneging on that pact by making it a mandate and not allowing them to move this forward.

The government is so, so, so wrong on this whole point that he really should withdraw the mandate and powers and get rid of clause 40.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. I mean, I'm sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but that is not going to happen. We have to deal with the collective action problem that we are facing in this in order that we are facing in this in order to ensure that providers are able to move forward on the commitments that they have made. This gives them assurance. We hope that this is a power that we will never need is a power that we will never need to use, but the fact of the matter is that they require that certainty, and without it, they will not be able to deal with it, given the collective action problem that exists and that has been accepted by the Shadow Secretary of State, I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will yeah. I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He's quoting selectively from a letter which I selectively from a letter which I have written to the industry. In fact, we had this exact debate with fact, we had this exact debate with the Pensions Minister last week where, yes, there is an acknowledged and debated collective acknowledged and debated collective action problem, and around that there is a level of consensus, but there is no consensus that Mandation is the right answer. In Mandation is the right answer.

In fact, there is a consensus among the sector that Mandation is the wrong answer. And in fact, this very bill contains clauses that will make a difference to fixing this collective action problem, like the value for money framework. And I say to him, the Mansion House Accord was only signed last year. Give it time to work. We do not need mandation in this bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Exactly, exactly. What I would say to the hon. Lady as to the consensus of the Lady as to the consensus of the industry, is that they want to see this bill done and through this House, but tonight's amendments on House, but tonight's amendments on the question of the savers interest test, make that test easier to pass test, make that test easier to pass a lower threshold for an exemption certainty. The exemption will be granted where the threshold is met granted where the threshold is met due regard paying being paid to the scheme's own assessment and reasons for any refusal being set out.

The House has now considered this bill three times on each occasion. It has endorsed the government's position. We have listened to the concerns raised in the other place, and we have responded with numerous material changes to the primary legislation. Across three rounds. The power is capped, provided to be neutral across asset classes, restricted to a single use, completely sunsetted in 2035 and subject to a savers interest test tonight, that tonight's amendments have materially strengthened, the TUC has said it is vital that this bill passes age.

UK has said the measures in this Bill will help both today's and tomorrow's pensioners. The industry wants to get on with implementing these reforms. The Abi and its members have said the same. They have welcomed the safeguards the government has put in place on the reserve power. Madam Deputy Speaker, it is time to get this bill passed, and I commend the government's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

position to the House. The question is that this House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this House insists on its disagreement with Lords amendments 15 to 24, 27, 30 Lords amendments 15 to 24, 27, 30 to 34, 36, 38, 42, 83 and 88 insists on its amendments 88 A, 88 insists on its amendments 88 A, 88 C and 88 E to £0.88 to the words restored to the bill by that restored to the bill by that disagreement, but proposes amendments A to F to the words so restored to the Bill.

As many as of that opinion say aye. I Of the contrary, no. no. Version. Clear

20:07

Division

The The question The question is, The question is, as The question is, as on The question is, as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion, say I, I. The that opinion, say I, I. The contrary. No, no. The tellers for the ayes r Mark Ferguson and Nesil Caliskan the Tellers for the noes Caliskan the Tellers for the noes

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, Order, order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order. The I for. The right to 279. The Noes to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the left 164. The ayes to the right were 279

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right were 279 the noes to the left. 164 so the ayes have it. The ayes have it unlock. That concludes consideration of the Lords message on the Pension Schemes Bill. Order. Before we come to the Northern Ireland Troubles bill carry over motion. I would like to remind the House that this is a procedural motion about whether the Bill ought to be carried over to the next session of Parliament. While I will allow some leeway on scope, I would gently encourage members to focus their remarks on the issue of carryover.

We now come to the motion on the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill carryover. Minister to move. Secretary of State.

20:20

Rt Hon Hilary Benn MP, The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Leeds South, Labour)

- -

20:33

Alex Burghart MP (Brentwood and Ongar, Conservative)

- -

20:56

Mr Bayo Alaba MP (Southend East and Rochford, Labour)

- -

Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Madam. >> Deputy Speaker. >> This debate is a deeply personal one for me. And that's because, in one for me. And that's because, in addition to being the Member for Southend East and Rochford, I'm also a proud former paratrooper. For me and countless others with military backgrounds like my own, the legacy of the troubles is not a distant memory, but something our community continues to carry the weight of. Back in November, I brought members of the Parachute Regiment Association, together with officials from the Northern Ireland Office and the Ministry of Defence.

I had one simple aim to ensure veterans had a voice and their concerns about this bill were heard clearly and directly. I'd like to thank those officials for their attendance and their engagement. Let me be clear. The legislation by the conservative government must be updated. This isn't a myth or a fallacy. Indeed, even some members opposite have acknowledged that the current legislation is inadequate. So it troubles me when colleagues from this House head over to Parliament Square, as they did this afternoon, not to engage with former colleagues or members of their military, local military associations, but to virtue signal, as my teenage daughter would put it, our duty as parliamentarians is to lead, is to make difficult decisions and to speak with honesty and with sincerity.

Our deputy, our duty, Madam Deputy Speaker, is not to spew negative, dangerous rhetoric, as some across the chamber seem intent on doing. Well said. They parade around with lapel badges larger than some solar panels bearing the slogan proud of government.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Here. This does not help or resolve this issue. And it's resolve this issue. And it's certainly not why the public voted us into this special place. It's dangerous and unproductive noise. Hear, hear. But I but I must be equally clear that as it stands today, the bill leaves many questions unanswered and needs additional work. This is not something we can afford to rush. While justice must be delivered, we must also take the time to make sure that this legislation delivers the protections our veterans both need and deserve.

Those who served in Northern Ireland followed orders. They put their lives on the line to defend our country, and they cannot be an afterthought in this process. So I say to the government, let's make. Let's take the time to get this right. Let's take the time to continue our engagement. Let's take the time to listen to those who serve. And let's take the time to listen to the families who lost loved ones. Yeah. And let's take the time to ensure that both that before this bill moves to its next stage in this House, veterans can have the full confidence that it will deliver what it is intended to do without creating serious unintended consequences that cannot be undone.

Madam Deputy Speaker. Let me finish with this. To every member of our armed forces community who have served and to those who continue to serve, we owe a debt that cannot be repaid. And to those watching from the gallery today, thank you. Thank you for standing up for the memory of those we've lost, and for standing together to protect those who are yet to serve. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

21:00

Mr Paul Kohler MP (Wimbledon, Liberal Democrat)

- -

I call Liberal Democrat spokesperson Paul Kohler. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Liberal Democrats are committed to ensuring all those who serve to uphold the rule of law during Operation Banner are treated with dignity and afforded proper legal protection. As a member of a parliamentary party with a percentage where the percentage of veterans is well into double figures, I assure the House that experience informs my party's approach and strengthens our determination to assist the Secretary of State in getting this right.

Before I address the substance of this motion, however, I would like briefly to correct something I said to the hon. Member for South Shropshire when we last debated this hugely consequential matter. In response to his intervention during the debate on the government's remedial order, I said that the percentage of veterans in my parliamentary party is greater than in his. During my research for today's speech, however, I discovered that whilst we're close. That is not the case. In my defence, Madam Deputy Speaker, what were the ever dwindling number of conservative MPs? It's hard to keep track of the denominator in that equation, but may I nonetheless apologise to the hon.

Member and this House for my error? The debate provides an opportunity to judge whether the Troubles Bill is fit for purpose, commands confidence and does justice to those it seeks to serve. On all three counts, it gives me no pleasure to conclude it currently falls far short. Yeah, as I hope the Secretary of State recognises, Liberal Democrats have engaged constructively from the outset with the Troubles Bill. Although we voted with the Conservatives on their recent amendment to kill the bill, we broke with them to abstain at Second Reading to signify that whilst we are deeply unsatisfied with many of the provisions, protections and omissions, the Troubles Bill, we remain opposed to the blanket immunity confirmed by the Legacy Act.

Somewhat delicately described as conditional immunity by the Conservatives, even though the only condition is the admission of guilt. As a party that believes in the rule of law and fulfilling our international obligations under the ECHR, we also supported the government's subsequent remedial order, which simply removes two provisions where the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal issued declarations of incompatibility, incompatibility of with the Human Rights Act, one of which has never even been brought into force. Sadly, the Conservative Party sought to weaponize that vote, seeking to create a false dichotomy between veterans and victims cynically pitching one against the other, seemingly oblivious to the fact that those two categories are far from mutually exclusive.

Cases like that of Private Tony Harrison, murdered by the IRA in 1991, bring this into sharp focus. His family has spent years seeking truth and accountability only for legislation granting blanket immunity to terrorists to strip away hope. But strip away hope those responsible would ever be properly investigated, charged or convicted. Or Patsy Gillespie, who worked in an Army base in 1990, was strapped into a van by the IRA while his wife and children were held at gunpoint. A hero whose last act was to shout a warning that saved the lives of many.

For he and five members of the King's regiment died as the bombs went off. As the bomb went off. The Conservatives, who claim to have always had our veterans backs, had little to say when their own legislation barred investigations into the maiming and murder of hundreds of state actors such as these. There's a stark irony here. A party that claims to stand by veterans introduced a system that precluded justice for the families of those very veterans, which is why every veterans organisation with which I'm working are opposed to these callous attempts to these very.

To use the very real plight of our veterans now nakedly. Political assault on the Human Rights Act. The Liberal Democrats will remain adamant. Supporting the remedial order was the right thing to do. The narrow technical measure to remove two unlawful provisions granting blanket immunity to paramilitaries and veterans alike. These measures were consistently opposed in the last parliament as contrary to the rule of law, which are an inappropriate moral moral equivalence between terrorists and servants of the state. More importantly, they were provisions that all the veterans organisations with whom I'm working oppose, as do every political party and community in Northern Ireland.

Voting in the favour of the remedial order, however, does not require us to do likewise. Regarding the current Bill, which, despite many months of patient negotiation between the NIO and veterans groups and commissioners, opposition parties and the MoD remains deeply flawed. The central issue is the lack of sufficient protections for veterans and failure to address the very real danger the process becomes the punishment. The Secretary of State heralds his six safeguards, but even he is now acknowledged they do not go far enough.

As currently drafted, there's no clear statutory threshold for repeat investigations. Without genuinely new evidence, no firm presumption in favour of remote participation and limited clarity around how welfare, proportionality and the cumulative impact of past investigations will be applied in practice. Under the current bill, veterans will continue to face uncertainty around repeat investigations, the threshold for re-opening cases and the circumstances in which they may be required to engage again with investigatory processes. I acknowledge the Secretary of State has made clear his intention to bring forward amendments, but we currently have no idea how extensive these will be.

While there is still no confirmed date for the Committee stage, which has been repeatedly delayed and is still planned to be a Committee of the whole House, precluding the detailed line by line scrutiny that could usefully take place outside this chamber. In that context, it's difficult to justify carrying the bill over without greater clarity. That is not opposing progress, but about ensuring that the legislation we pass is robust and capable of delivering a process that people, and in particular veterans and victims can trust.

This carry over motion risks extending uncertainty without resolving the underlying problem. It's important my party makes clear that the current bill is far from adequate. For these reasons, we will oppose this motion.

21:06

Colum Eastwood MP (Foyle, Social Democratic & Labour Party)

- -

Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Colum Eastwood. The first thing to say, Madam Speaker, is that to say, Madam Speaker, is that there was an alternative. There's been a lot of debate recently about whether or not there was an alternative to murder and mayhem. There was an alternative. And that's represented by the party that I am a member of. And I think the only honest way to deal with this particular issue is to make it clear that the murder of anybody, no matter whether the culprit, the perpetrator, was wearing a uniform or not, the murder of anybody was wrong.

That violence brought us no closer to the aims that I hold very dear. And it took democratic struggle, actually, to get us to the point of peace and an opportunity for real change. I was at an event on Friday in my constituency for the 45th anniversary of a boy called Paul Whitter, who was shot in the head by a police officer and died. He was 15 years old. It was very moving event. His family were there. His mother had come home from Glasgow.

She'd had to leave. Of course, after all of that heartache and pain, there was 186 children killed in our troubles, 186. 80 of them were killed by Republicans, 50 by loyalists and 49 by the British Army or the RUC. I want people to think when they talk about this issue, about those children, because all I ever hear from certain quarters in this House is about veterans and about organisations that are lobbying and about votes and backbenchers and all this stuff.

Children. Julie Livingston was in Lenadoon a month after Paul. She was 14. She was shot in the head and killed as well. Steven Mcconomy, 11 years old. I know his family very, very well. Decent, hard working people. He was 11 years old. He was shot and killed by a soldier in 1982. The people who went to try and comfort and see if Steven was OK, we're told they'd be shot as well. The soldier who carried out that murder, that's what it was, was interviewed for one hour by the RUC.

Six months after that, the RUC and British Army came to Steve Mcnamee's house, and Bishop Daley at the time said that they were in his house longer than they interviewed the soldier. They killed him again, 11 years old. Alan Mak was five months old and his pram when they are a set off a bomb in Strabane killed him. I just want people to think about this. This is not some political game. Those of us who live there, we don't always agree.

As you might know, we take this very seriously. This is about trying to give the people who've been left out of this process some truth and some justice if possible. We all know how difficult justice will be, but why are they not entitled to the same access to justice as any of us would expect today? Why not ask yourself if you're against trying to sort this problem out, why not? And do not tell me to draw a line under the past.

The people who want to move on the most are the victims who've been left behind in our society. They can't just draw a line under the past when the truth isn't out there about what happened. Their loved one, when the justice that they deserve hasn't been achieved. The bottom line is this if we're serious about bringing our communities together, whatever your constitutional view for serious about reconciling our communities, we have to do it on the basis of truth and honesty. And we should stop using our victims as political footballs.

Thank you.

21:10

Rt Hon Gavin Robinson MP (Belfast East, Democratic Unionist Party)

- -

21:16

Alex Baker MP (Aldershot, Labour)

- -

Alex Baker thank. >> You, Madam Deputy Speaker, for my community, the home of the British Army. This debate goes to the heart of our history and who we are in Aldershot. We remember the 22nd of February 1972, when the IRA detonated a bomb targeting the headquarters of the British Army's 16th Parachute Brigade. It was the one of the first attacks by the IRA on mainland Britain, and took the lives of seven innocent victims. Father Gerald Weston, Thelma Bosley, Margaret Grant, Joan Lunn, Jill Mansfield, Sherry Munton and John Hasler.

We remember them every year at the memorial that stands in their honour. We also honour the members of our armed forces who served in Operation Banner to keep the peace over many decades. I pay tribute to them for their service, including those watching over our debate in the gallery tonight. I want to thank the Aldershot Parachute Regimental Association, the Royal British Legion and the many individual veterans who I have been engaging with over many months. I want the voices of our veterans to be heard in this debate.

Too many families, including hundreds of armed forces, families lost lost loved ones in the troubles and are still looking for answers to many of our veterans have been left completely without legal protections because of the previous government's legislation, which was rejected by the courts. Ultimately, we are here today because of a decision by the previous government to grant that conditional immunity to terrorists, like the terrorists who murdered British soldiers and civilians. In my community. I believe that decision was wrong.

These issues need to be addressed. I voted for this bill at Second Reading so Parliament could debate how we fix these problems, and I'm grateful to both the MoD and the Northern Ireland Ministers for the discussions that they have had with me ever since the legislation was introduced. But I want to be clear today with my government, the veterans I have been speaking to over many months still need to be convinced by this legislation. They need further reassurances.

And until we see the full package of amendments, I am reserving judgement. We must get this right. No veteran who served with honour following orders in fast moving, most difficult circumstances should be left fearing repeat investigations, and there should be no equivalence between those who serve to protect lives and the terrorists, who are only focussed on taking lives. I wrote to the Secretary of State in January asking for more to be done on these points. I am encouraged that the government is now committed to strengthening protections for our veterans.

Right now, our veterans have been left with no protections whatsoever. That needs to change. Our veterans need to be protected by law. I hope much more can be done in the next session before we reach Third Reading, so we can give every veteran clarity and confidence. Let me conclude with a reflection about what we owe to our veterans who served in Northern Ireland and beyond. Last year I travelled 8000 miles to pay my respects to those from my community who fought in the Falkland Islands.

The Falklands are British and remain British thanks to their service. The islanders told me that they owe a debt of gratitude to my community that will never be able to be repaid. We owe a debt to all those who serve our country now and forever, and I will always have their backs.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. I will be calling Sir David Davies, after which there will be a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Davies, after which there will be a Davies. Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members my entry in the Register of Members Interests, and given what I'm going to say also to the fact that I was a trustee of the SAS Regimental Association for two decades, up until a few years ago, this bill was sold to the House and the was sold to the House and the country on the premise of delivering human rights and the rule of law.

And I, as the House knows, pay great attention to human rights and the rule of law. So much so, I defeated my own government in court on exactly that issue. But what we have here is neither human rights nor justice. It's a perversion of rights, and it's a travesty of justice. The government clearly has made promises to Sinn Fein, to IRA families, and to would be rewriters of history, including the Irish government, and putting those ahead of the interests of our soldiers.

Yeah, yeah. The recent revelations that the Attorney General, Lord Hermer, pursued cases against our soldiers, despite knowing that the allegations may be false, is indicative. I am afraid that the attitude of this government to the rights of our soldiers, as indicated by the Secretary of State's response to my right hon. Friend. Earlier, undermining our soldiers at home while they fight abroad. And the same will happen under this bill. We have had a rehearsal already. We've had a preview of what is to come.

This month's Court of Appeal, in the case of soldier B over the firefight is a perfect illustration. The shadow Northern Ireland Secretary read out some of the judge's comments. In that case, I'll take it a little further. In that quote firefight. What happened was the IRA plotted to murder a UDR soldier. That was the plan. And in the process of doing that, they were hit by an SAS patrol and they all died. The IRA terrorists all died. And an inquest found that the SAS actions were all entirely lawful.

So what happened? One of the IRA members families use taxpayers money, legal aid, to force a judicial review. The judge threw that out, stating, in this challenge, this court is being asked to slow the passage of time down to analyse events in freeze frame. It is ludicrous to suggest this court should analyse the events of the day in question in that manner, and he went on to say I cannot conclude this judgement without expressing my surprise that legal aid funding was made

**** Possible New Speaker ****

available to mount such a challenge. I will give way. I'm grateful to the right hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to the right hon. Member for giving way. He's incredibly well informed on this subject and his research. Has he subject and his research. Has he found any justification for why public money was used in this way?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

public money was used in this way? No, but it simply is the rule in Northern Ireland. It's easier to get legal aid for these issues. And get legal aid for these issues. And why I can see there being a reason for that. In the past what has happened is it's effectively perverted the course of justice against soldiers who did nothing more than their duty. And that's what that's what's going to happen with this bill, because it went on, it actually went to appeal.

And the judge in that appeal actually struck it down in even more robust terms, if anything, than the previous judge. So a brave, patriotic, honourable soldier was dragged through three courts over several years by gratuitous actions funded by the taxpayer. Precisely. When I say brave, honourable and patriotic, these are not casual words. I have actually known soldier B for 30 years. As well as being a brave soldier, he is also a firm believer in the rule of law.

He does not believe there should be exemptions. He believes there should be proper rule of law which is not given by this. Indeed, I would say, given his history and his views, he has a better claim to have defended justice in our country than anybody else in this House. Certainly on the front benches opposite. Now, that's, as I say, a rehearsal of what's going to come if this bill goes through, if it if the bill passes, hundreds and hundreds more will follow.

This bill puts the interest of the Irish

21:25

Rt Hon David Davis MP (Goole and Pocklington, Conservative)

- -

government, Sinn Fein and IRA apologists above those of our apologists above those of our veterans who will rewrite history ahead of providing proper justice. It's unpatriotic, it's disingenuous, It's unpatriotic, it's disingenuous, and it's dishonourable. The bill satisfies no one. It solves nothing. Everything it touches, it makes worse. I note the Minister of State for the Armed Forces is not here for the Armed Forces is not here for the vote. I can understand entirely why. But if he wants to avoid association with disgraceful legislation, if he can't vote for it, neither should we.

We should reject this disgraceful bill out of hand.

21:25

Andy McDonald MP (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East, Labour)

- -

And with a three minute time limit. >> Andy McDonald thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. This bill must be carried over. We need to replace carried over. We need to replace the unlawful 2023 act, and we must get this right. This is a test of whether the House is serious about addressing legacy in Northern Ireland. The Good Friday Agreement commits us to reconciliation based on self-determination, consent and rights, and that must work for victims, veterans and civilians alike, and command confidence because it is rooted in human rights and the rule of law.

The previous act was found incompatible with the UK's obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, particularly the duty to properly investigate serious crimes. That's why the government was right to bring forward a remedial order and introduce legislation to replace it. There is no justification for sweeping immunity measures that risk undermining both justice and reconciliation victims, including those who served in our armed forces, deserve more more than slogans, they deserve answers, truth and processes they can trust.

We should also listen carefully to Bernard Duhem, the UN special rapporteur who met the Secretary of State and briefed members last week. He recognised that the September 25th joint framework with the Irish government provides a genuine multilateral foundation for a comprehensive legacy mechanism. But he also issued clear warnings that the governance of any legacy commission must preclude interference by those whose conduct may be under investigation, that a reparations mechanism should be considered to give victims an accessible route to remedy, and that claims of disproportionate targeting of veterans are simply not supported by the evidence.

Protecting individuals from poor quality investigations is one thing. Shielding anyone from accountability where evidence exists is quite another, and the bill must not permit that outcome. And when the Secretary of State speaks of safeguarding Operation Banner veterans, he must take care not to alienate those families still seeking justice in cases involving the actions of British forces. So again, opposing this carry over motion would be irresponsible and would undermine the pursuit of justice and reconciliation. But confidence also depends on getting the legislation right.

Excessive delay or poorly judged amendments risk undermining that confidence, too. We look forward to constructive engagement in the weeks and months ahead, because getting this wrong would not just be a legislative failure, but a moral one.

21:28

Alex Easton MP (North Down, Independent)

- -

I call Alex Easton. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The motion before the House to carry over the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill into the next session of Parliament may be dressed up as of Parliament may be dressed up as a matter of procedural convenience. It is no such thing. It goes to the very heart of how this Parliament chooses to deal with the legacy of conflict, with the rights of victims and survivors, and with our fidelity to both our own constitutional traditions and our binding international obligations.

This bill, in its present form, fails the test. It does not command the confidence of victims. It does not command the confidence of the wider community in Northern Ireland, or indeed, our brave veterans, to agree to its carry over would therefore be more than a tidying up exercise. It would be a conscious, deliberate decision by the House to prolong the life of a measure that, at best is deeply contested and, at worst, fundamentally misconceived. We should be honest with ourselves. The Bill as drafted is not the solution that victims deserve, and is not the solution that veterans deserve either.

The Secretary of State has mentioned amendments that will be submitted to give better protection for veterans, but we don't even know what they are. So how can we pass this tonight on the amendments? Would he give way? That's a good way. Giving way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Does he agree with me that the person who's likely to be drafting those amendments would, of course, be the Advocate General for be the Advocate General for Northern Ireland, who is one of the same as Lord Hermer? What same as Lord Hermer? What confidence then, do you think the armed forces community can have that this bill will be any better?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that this bill will be any better? Thank the hon. Member for his comments and I totally agree. There will not be a lot of support there. These are not abstract or academic concerns. They go to the essence of what it means to live under the rule of law. The bill fails to grapple in any credible way with the status of the so-called on the run letters of comfort, and with the plain injustice that flows from a position in which those who fled justice were handed such letters.

Well, veterans of Operation Banner have been handed only letters of continued investigation and the threat of prosecution that is morally wrong, in which this Bill does nothing to rectify. In that context, the carry over motion assumes genuine constitutional significance. Carry over is an exceptional procedure. It is not a routine device to be used to spare a struggling bill from the consequences of its own lack of support. The government is not merely asking us to keep an administrative option open. It is asking us to confer an extended lease of life on legislative scheme that has failed to win.

The confidence of those confidence is indispensable. These proposals must include real safeguards for veterans, men and women who are entitled to see concrete protections on the face of the statute, not to be fobbed off with warm words and vague assurances of future safeguards, and those proposals must ensure that the oversight mechanisms and any victims and survivor panels are not constituted in a way that does not invite those who murdered and maimed to sit in judgement on, or presume to adjudicate the human rights of the innocent.

That would be an affront to natural justice and to basic decency. I must also exclude political parties that support terrorism either past, present or carried out into the future. To vote for carry over tonight is not, therefore, to remain neutral or to keep all options open. It is to keep on political life support, a scheme which many veterans and victims and survivors are feeling. They are being imposed upon them, which many veterans regard with deep and understandable scepticism, in which many across Northern Ireland do not support.

Accordingly, I am unable to support the motion for carry over and I urge this House to do the right thing and reject it. Yeah, thank you.

21:32

Peter Swallow MP (Bracknell, Labour)

- -

Peter Swallow thank you. >> Peter Swallow thank you. >> Madam Deputy Speaker and as a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, can I start by thanking the Secretary of State for thanking the Secretary of State for appearing in front of our committee on two occasions? Now, he truly has embraced scrutiny. The JCHR are currently carrying out legislative scrutiny of this bill, and the remarks tonight are informed by the evidence we have received, although, of course, we're still still working through that process.

As we all recognise, there is no more complex and sensitive legacy than the troubles, and that is why it is so tragic that the previous government's Legacy Act failed so greatly. It failed because it could not command cross-community support. It failed because it was rejected as unlawful by the British courts. And of course, it failed because it introduced immunity, including for terrorists, a point made actually most strongly, I think, tonight by the shadow Secretary of State himself.

We owe it to the victims of the troubles to do better. And in that, as my hon. Friend, the Member for Aldershot pointed out, that includes, of course, families of service personnel and the police on veterans and those who served. I do note that genuine concerns have been raised, and as MP for Sandhurst, I know how important this is for all those who put on a uniform and bravely put themselves forward to defend our country. I want to thank the Secretary of State, listening to those concerns and committing to bringing forth amendments.

And whilst, of course I, as with all members of this House, will scrutinise those amendments closely when they are brought forward, I am grateful for that commitment. I think that really underlines why it's so important we carry over this bill so that important scrutiny can take place from all members. But I think also it is our opportunity to finally begin to address the legacy of the troubles, something which I feel very strongly. We, all of us, have a duty to take seriously and to carry out, with all due seriousness.

21:34

Rt Hon Sir Iain Duncan Smith MP (Chingford and Woodford Green, Conservative)

- -

Sir Iain Duncan Smith Madam. >> Speaker, in the limited. >> Time, I just want to say to the right hon. Gentleman on the front right hon. Gentleman on the front bench that this bill is a. It was bad, and it's now a mess, and to come in front of the house and ask for carry over when. He knows very well that carryover legislation is only ever to be used for bills that are pretty well set, but have run out of existing time to progress.

Not highly contentious legislation, which is right now about to be changed, possibly without any recognition of what has gone before. Much of the issues that he is now apparently meant to be addressing. But we're not allowed to know about them because they're a secret. Until next time, when we come back to carry on this massively changed bill. It's it's really bad procedure and it's bad government. And I say to the gentleman who I have a lot of time for, he knows that this is just a bad route to take.

And the problem, I think from the beginning they've had is they've been tied up with trying to satisfy Sinn Fein and the hand of Ireland in this. And I worry desperately about the arrangements. Quite rightly said that where are the promises? Where are the absolute delivery of Ireland in all these years over all the. The stuff they know about who did what when they did it, how it was done, all that has been kept behind closed doors for so long, and they could have dealt with this early, instead of which they don't want this open.

And therefore we are now singing to their tune, I think. And that is what really bothers me altogether. And we are now being asked, Madam Deputy Speaker, we are being asked to take a pitch in the dark to accept that maybe, after having denied it all the way through this bill, that there were controls and that the troops veterans would not be pursued vexatiously through the courts, they said that would not happen. They've now finally apparently realised that that wasn't the case, and they could now be trailed through vexatious, through the courts.

So all of a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sudden it's changed all. On the on the question of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On the on the question of the failure of the government of the Republic, the reality is that they have an outstanding case, interstate case against us. Yeah, exactly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And it's astonishing really. I say to my hon. Friend. Exactly right. And I, I served in Northern Ireland. I served early on in Ireland. I served early on in Northern Ireland. I lost a very good friend. I apologise for repeating his name, Robert Nairac. We've never got to the bottom of what happened to him. And I say, follow on the hon. Gentleman and I. And I thought his speech incredibly interesting, but the point I would say is on truth, it's very difficult to pursue that, which is why I supported the last legislation, not because I thought it was a great bill, but because I wanted some truth to come out.

And I don't think vexatious pursuit of veterans is ever going to produce the truth that he may well seek. Quite rightly. And I say there is a better way, and it is not this bill. I will give way briefly, because I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

don't get any extra time. For the. For the hon. Member for giving way. I understand his point, and a point was made earlier about the. The Commission for the retrieval of of remains, where retrieval of of remains, where basically IRA members who were involved in the disappearance of of people were given immunity within people were given immunity within the confines of giving information around that day. The bottom line is it did not work. Jean McConville it did not work.

Jean McConville was found by a Passer-by Columba McVeigh still not being found, and others have not been found. They already didn't give the information even once they were given immunity. It doesn't work. It has been proven not to work.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, we will not altogether agree about this. But then we can debate what never actually happened. debate what never actually happened. So we will never know because the government refused to pursue this back through the court. So I respect him. But I think that there respect him. But I think that there was some. South Africa was a very good example of how this could have been done. I went out to advise him been done. I went out to advise him in South Africa at the time, and I genuinely believe that one of the things they had, the Truth and Reconciliation Committee, which was Reconciliation Committee, which was based, actually got to the bottom of quite a lot of what happened in South Africa and allowed some of the mending of those fences.

But we will no doubt debate that further. I have high respect for him, and I understand his his position. But I say in conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we are therefore being asked to vote blind on a bill which we knew was damaged before, which denied all of our protestations about vexatious pursuit of veterans, denied all the issues that the right hon. Gentleman has raised throughout the whole of this rather arrogantly was pushed through. No, no, no, we don't know what we're talking about.

It's perfectly OK at the last moment, at the last moment, when they have failed to get it through, they produce this idea that somehow there is new amendments that will be amazing and will protect veterans going forward in the future. Why should veterans, why should veterans who have been vexatiously pursued endlessly for no particular reason other than because they were veterans serving in Northern Ireland? Why should they now say, oh, that's OK, it'd be a good idea to let see what comes next time round because they were so honest this time round.

The government has failed to be honest about this from start to finish, and the veterans Minister is not here for a reason, Madam Deputy Speaker, because he knows very well that he doesn't want to be sitting on that bench when this bill gets voted through to the future. And I say to all those colleagues, it's time to call time on this piece of bad legislation and kick it into the gutter.

21:40

Mike Kane MP (Wythenshawe and Sale East, Labour)

- -

I call Mike Kane. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. A teacher wrote to me today who's got concerns about this legislation from my constituency, pointing out the fact that some MPs will be the fact that some MPs will be voting tonight who were born after the Good Friday Belfast Agreement. We need to let that settle in for just a moment. The Secretary of State is absolutely right in saying this is our sort of last opportunity to get legacy issues right, but the fundamental reality is that life during the troubles exposed ordinary people to fear danger that few outside Northern Ireland could ever hope to comprehend.

Those who lived and worked through that period, particularly those who charged with protecting our young people. It has been pointed out, in our communities, had lived under constant threat and constant uncertainty, and that burden involved deserves recognition and respect. I think we all agree about that in this House, those years placed extraordinary pressures on everybody involved. It would be profoundly wrong of this House to disregard the risks faced by members of the armed forces, the police, emergency services, civilians during that time, and including the teacher who wrote to me today saying how difficult a situation it was for them.

And I'm reminded from my Saint George's Day parish quiz on Saturday night at church that the RUC is only one of three organisations that collectively received the Red cross. And while taking that opportunity, can I commend Councillor Tommy Judge in my constituency, who's been the Member for Sharston for 25 years, who was on the 1974 M62 bus, he sat in a different seat that day. 12 of his colleagues died and 38 of them were injured there. But for the grace of God and I thank him for his service in our armed services, and I thank him for his municipal service in Manchester for the last quarter of a century as well.

So this is our last chance for those who remember the purpose of the Troubles Bill, as I see it, is not to deny the experience, but to those who served in good faith. On the contrary, it reflects a recognition that for decades the legacy of the past has not been addressed properly or lawfully, and families from all communities have been left answers. And as confidence in existing processes. And the shadow Secretary of State said post hoc, post hoc, ergo propter hoc is the next part of that sentence.

Correlation does not equate with causation, and I'm acutely conscious of the human dimension of this as growing up as a Mancunian Irish Catholic and seeing those bombs through the 70s and 80s and 90s, and because we had the wrong accents about how our family was treated as well, but no equivalents to those who suffered in Northern Ireland. That is why this legislation matters, and why Parliament must approach it with seriousness and respect for all those lives who were shaped by those troubles.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

21:43

Rt Hon Robert Jenrick MP (Newark, Reform UK)

- -

Robert Jenrick Madam Deputy >> Robert Jenrick Madam Deputy Speaker, this bill is a betrayal of our veterans. It's a betrayal of the men who put on a British the men who put on a British uniform and served their country, risking their lives to protect people of all communities in Northern Ireland. During the period of the troubles, men like David Griffin, who I had the privilege to meet an 84 year old Royal Marine veteran who lives out his life at the Royal Hospital in Chelsea, a man half a lifetime ago.

In 1972, in a split second decision when he was ambushed by terrorists, made a call. That call should not haunt him. In the last years of his life, he should not have to wake up every morning worried that a letter will drop through his letterbox, telling him that he is going to be prosecuted. Old men like him have been hounded for far too long. That is the reason why. Belatedly, yes, but belatedly it did happen. The Legacy Act provided a degree of immunity to those brave men.

This bill rips that up. It will be open season for men like David Griffin. Men like David Griffin deserve better than this bill. And men who are serving this country now do as well, because this is not just about the past, it is about the present and the future as well. What signal does this bill send to those who sign up to serve our country, that in half a lifetimes time, new laws may come or go, and they will be hounded through the courts.

They will live out the last days of their lives. Worried of a knock on the door, a letter through the post. No, that is wrong. That is not the country that I want to live in. And when I hold this bill up to the light, I see the fingerprints of Lord Hermer all over it. A man who frankly hates this country. Let us be honest with ourselves. Let's be honest with ourselves. I never thought I would see the day. I never thought I'd see the day where Gerry Adams lawyer sits around the Cabinet table of the United Kingdom, in the very room that the IRA tried to blow up when I was a child.

Well, the men who serve our country deserve better than this bill. They deserve better than Lord Hermer. They deserve better than this government. I will be voting against it. And I hope this bill dies tonight.

21:45

Rt Hon Hilary Benn MP, The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Leeds South, Labour)

- -

I call the Secretary of State. >> I call the Secretary of State. >> Hilary Benn thank you very much indeed. >> Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm going to do.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to do. My best to respond to as many of the points that's been raised in the debate as possible. I say to the hon. Member for Brentwood and the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar, I listened very carefully to his speech, but I'm sorry to say he did not address the central problem, which is that the last government's legislation failed and it needs to be replaced. He also appeared to suggest that he knows that victims and survivors will find nothing out from the very process that that legislation put in place, which I am keeping the Legacy Commission well, that is what he said.

And on his point about judicial review, is he arguing that judicial review should be removed from legacy cases? Is that his argument? Because if it is his argument, if it is his argument, that would not be available to have challenged the inquest, a challenge which the government is supporting. I say to the hon. Member for Wimbledon, he shares the government's opposition to immunity. I was, I must confess, disappointed by his party's stance on the bill because if there is no bill, we cannot get it right.

I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend East and Rochford, himself a distinguished veteran, he made a powerful appeal for reason in order to try and get this right. The hon. Member for Foyle was listened to in absolute silence, rightly as he described a number of the children who were killed during the troubles. Silence, which was in marked contrast to some of what we heard earlier. I say to the right hon. Gentleman for Belfast East, I do welcome the fact, notwithstanding what he said in most of his speech, that at the end he made it clear that he is opposed to giving terrorists immunity and his party, which he leads, has always been clear that it did not support the immunity provisions in the last government's Legacy Act, and that is indeed the policy of the government.

I I'm I will very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

briefly, but I do need to respond to the others. Giving way. He made a remark in his speech where he suggested that his speech where he suggested that no comfort letters were ever issued by Tony Blair. However, a court case collapsed specifically because of that case. So could he just clarify that? But also more specifically to the Member for Belfast East said that a member of staff has been hired by the Northern Ireland Office, who is having meetings about the early having meetings about the early release of IRA dissidents.

This worries the House intensely. So can the Central State confirm that no such requests have been made? The Northern Ireland Office and if any such requests have been made, they have been immediately denied in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

writing and verbally, very clearly. Well, it's a matter of public

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, it's a matter of public record that there's been no early release of any prisoners at all. I release of any prisoners at all. I did not say I did, I did not say that the letters of. And there have that the letters of. And there have been no negotiations. I've said it in the House before. I'll say it again. There have been no negotiations with dissident negotiations with dissident terrorists at all, but I did not say that the letters or no letters of comfort were issued.

What I said to the House was that the letters of comfort did not grant immunity from prosecution. And since the hon. Member from a sitting position refers to Mr. Downey as he will be aware, it's a matter of public record. He is currently facing prosecution for the murder of two individuals. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot made gave us a moving reminder of those whose lives have been lost. My hon. Friend for Wythenshawe and Sale East called for seriousness and respect in this debate.

I say to the right hon. Member for Newark he is wrong. This bill does not rip up immunity. It was never commenced. Well, it's no good shaking his head. It was never commenced by the last government, and it has been found to be incompatible with our legal obligations. And I would say in conclusion, madam, I'm not giving way. Madam Deputy Speaker, we need

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to deal with this. And I've heard lots of arguments as to what we need to. Understand in order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Understand in order. Number 88. I must now put the question. The question is, as on the Order Paper, as many as are of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion, say. I, I. Of the contrary, no. know.

21:50

Division

The The question The question is, as on the Order Paper, As many as of that opinion say aye. Of the. Know. Tellers for the ayes Mark Ferguson Nesil Caliskan Tellers for Order, Order, order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right. 279. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Noes to the left 176. The ayes to the right were. 279

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right were. 279 the noes to the left were 176 so the ayes have it. The ayes have it the ayes have it. The ayes have it unlocked. We now come to the 10:00 motion.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move. The question is, as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that Paper, as many as are of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now come to the motion on Public Office Accountability Bill. I'll give a few moments for the frontbenchers few moments for the frontbenchers to swap over. To the motion on Public Office (Accountability) Bill. Carry over, Minister to move.

22:05

Motion: Consideration of a carry-over motion relating to the Public Office (Accountability) Bill Alex Davies-Jones MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Pontypridd, Labour)