Oral Answers to Questions
Paul Foster Excerpts(6 days, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Hilary Benn
The creation of the legacy commission took away from the PSNI some 1,000 cases, which it then fell to the commission to investigate. That cost has been transferred to the legacy commission. Whoever is investigating those cases, and whatever the system is, they will have to be looked into. When they are looked into, disclosure will be required.
Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
On 10 April we will celebrate the anniversary of the Good Friday agreement, which nearly 30 years ago brought an end to the troubles and enabled Northern Ireland to establish a power-sharing Government. In the years since, Northern Ireland has been transformed, and I look forward to working with everyone to make further progress.
Mr Foster
We approach the anniversary of the Good Friday agreement, which was historic in that it ultimately delivered peace for a generation. With the knowledge that it requires constant political co-operation and public support, its biggest challenge no doubt is the Tory-Reform policy of leaving the European convention on human rights. If the UK left the ECHR, that would undermine a core principle of the agreement. Does the Secretary of State agree that there are some within this Chamber who would wholly compromise the peace in Northern Ireland for short-lived, ill-judged political gain?
Hilary Benn
I do agree with my hon. Friend, and I do not understand why some are advocating removing the ECHR from the Good Friday agreement. It would be highly irresponsible, and it shows a complete lack of understanding about what the agreement involved. You cannot just walk in and pull out one of its pillars for the sake of party ideology.
Lord Mandelson
Paul Foster Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
Humble Addresses are very difficult for the Government of the day and for Chief Whips. The Minister for the Cabinet Office, who has just left the Chamber, tabled many Humble Address motions that I dealt with. They are difficult from a legal point of view, and from the position of protecting the rights of the Executive to have independent advice. As the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) said, sometimes those judgments are handled in a way that, retrospectively, might have been different.
The national security element is obviously extremely important, and I pay tribute to all our intelligence services for the protection they give our country, but I believe that this Humble Address is quite different from any other that has been put before Parliament. This Humble Address is about corruption at the very heart of our democracy. In my view, the corruption does not relate to the current Government, although there are obviously differing views on their judgment and so forth. For me, this Humble Address is the route by which we will start to get to the bottom of what looks like a level of corruption that we have not seen in this Parliament in recent times. How we handle that and move forward is critical to all of us, and it is vital for public trust.
Sir Julian Smith
I am not going to give away.
We heard earlier about a discussion between members of the ISC and the Government, and I know that conversations are taking place via the usual channels, but I say to Government Front Benchers that what I have heard from the House today is that it wants the Government to cede control of the relevant documents to either the House or the ISC, regardless of whether those documents relate to national security or foreign policy. I have also heard that the House is very cognisant of the fact that this place will not see all the documents. The ISC may see many of those documents and we will not see them, but the issue for the Government is whether they can make the next step to cede control of those documents to this House and the ISC.
Matt Bishop
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I think we are talking about trust across the House, so that includes every Member of this House, and across both Houses.
The Government’s violence against women and girls strategy is one of the proudest achievements of this Parliament. It is the product of years of tireless campaigning by survivors, advocates and frontline organisations who have fought to have their voices heard, but that work and that trust is fragile, and it risks being profoundly undermined when we appear unwilling to apply the same standards of transparency and accountability to those closest to power as we demand elsewhere. How can we stand in this Chamber and say to victims that we believe them and that we will stand with them, while refusing to release full documents relating to serious concerns about one of our own? How can we ask victims to trust the system if the system appears unwilling to scrutinise itself?
The files released last weekend further highlighted what many already fear: there exists a despicable elite network operating with proximity to power, entangled in international criminality, and shielded for far too long by status and influence.
Matt Bishop
Anybody linked should be investigated—simple.
If we are not fully transparent about how we vetted the ex-US ambassador in the face of such scandal, how on earth can we expect victims to come forward in future? How can we expect them to trust institutions that seem designed to protect the powerful rather than the vulnerable? I think of the survivors I have met in my constituency and since being elected. I think of the advocacy groups who have worked alongside all of us across the House: organisations such as the Hollie Gazzard Trust, Sarah Taylor from PEEPSA—Prevent, Educate and Eradicate Post Separation Abuse—and campaigners who have poured their lived experience into shaping the VAWG strategy. How can I go back to them and look them in the eye having voted for an amendment that has the potential to conceal the behaviour of powerful people and their potentially criminal relationships?