What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 6 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,832 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
We would like to press amendment 7 to a vote. I do not consider the Minister to have sufficiently addressed our concerns around the reasons and impact of the provisions in the Bill.
I beg to move amendment 8, in clause 1, page 2, line 42, leave out “that include provision of the kind mentioned in subsection (3)(e) or (f)”. This amendment would ensure that all regulations made under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure, rather than only regulations containing provision of the kind mentioned in subsection (3)(e) or (f).
I shall also speak to amendments 9 and 10, and I will finish by briefly addressing clauses 1 to 3 stand part. The amendments concern a very straightforward principle: that Parliament ought to have a proper opportunity to scrutinise the regulations made under this legislation. The proposals would ensure that the relevant regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure, thereby requiring the approval of both Houses of Parliament, so they would preserve scrutiny, accountability and fair process for all concerned. Given the breadth of powers in the Bill, that is an entirely sensible safeguard. Who knows who the next Secretary of State might be? The regulations will have important and wide-reaching consequences for airlines, airports, passengers and the sector as a whole. Surely the Minister agrees that it is right for Parliament to have a meaningful opportunity to examine such decisions before they take effect. It was disappointing that when similar amendments were debated in the other place, the Government declined to accept that basic principle. I turn briefly to clauses 1 to 3. We support the objective of strengthening passenger protections, particularly for disabled passengers and those with reduced mobility. Clause 2 provides for consultation on several important issues, including assistance for disabled passengers, protections for those with allergies, complaints procedures and the provision of suitable wheelchairs. We welcome these practical steps, and look forward to the consultation producing timely and effective action. Clause 3 places the welcome principles of dignity, equal access, appropriate assistance and independent travel at the heart of the new framework. The importance of those objectives makes proper parliamentary scrutiny of the regulations all the more necessary. That is precisely what amendments 8 to 10 seek to secure, and I hope the Minister will support them.
I commend the Minister for his points about accessibility and disability, and as I mentioned, that is something that the Opposition support. However, I was somewhat flummoxed, nay dumbfounded, to hear Government Members and the Minister conflate parliamentary scrutiny with agility, growth and flexibility in an entirely negative way. They seem to think that this can go forward only without sufficient parliamentary scrutiny of what will become an Act with considerable ministerial powers. The Opposition’s position is absolutely that parliamentary scrutiny is the essence of our democracy. With a Bill with such significant powers, it is entirely appropriate that there should be much greater parliamentary scrutiny. We can demonstrate that that is not at the expense of agility and growth, so we will press the amendment to a vote. Question put, That the amendment be made.
I will speak briefly to clause 4. A wheelchair is clearly different from other pieces of luggage. For disabled passengers, it is what gives them their independence and allows them to travel with dignity. When an airline loses or damages someone’s wheelchair, the consequences can be serious and immediate. As such, it is only right that the passenger is properly compensated rather than being subject to the limits designed for ordinary baggage. We therefore welcome this clause’s inclusion in the Bill.
I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for his support, and indeed the Minister for recognising that the underlying principle is absolutely the right one—that this is an important safeguard, to use his words. It is not administrative, as he argued; we should be ensuring that the CAA is not judge and jury. Clause 5 and schedule 1 give the Civil Aviation Authority new enforcement powers, while clause 6 brings the existing rules on banned air carriers and informing passengers which airline will operate their flight within the consumer protection enforcement framework. We support those provisions and the principle of effective enforcement, but we believe that the process needs an additional safeguard for those affected by the CAA's decisions. As such, we have tabled amendment 11, which stands in my name. The Opposition have tabled the amendment to ensure that there is a more sensible and balanced process for reviewing enforcement notices issued by the Civil Aviation Authority. As the Bill is currently drafted, the route for challenging these decisions is through an appeal to the High Court or Court of Session. I must say I think that that is quite unreasonable. Surely there should be an opportunity for an independent review of the decision before businesses are expected to embark on potentially costly and lengthy court proceedings. That is precisely what our amendment seeks to achieve. We are simply suggesting that an additional check should be available, allowing an independent reviewer to consider whether a notice could be confirmed, varied or withdrawn before the matter proceeds to court. That would provide greater certainty and clarity for those affected, while helping to ensure that the process was fair and proportionate. Importantly, it would not prevent anyone from pursuing an appeal through the courts if they remained dissatisfied. It is an entirely sensible safeguard; I hope the Minister will now recognise the merits of the amendment and support it.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I am absolutely delighted that the Government have finally decided to back our amendment and that Ministers now concur with our excellent Conservative colleagues in the other place that a review of airport drop-off charges is desperately needed. I particularly welcome the Government’s slight change to the timelines, giving Ministers even more time to pore over this issue and examine precisely why these charges are soaring.
Of course, the historical evidence is not in the hon. Gentleman’s favour. For example, universities charge education fees to the cap almost immediately, and the same is true of other things—market behaviour is such that that will happen. May I also correct his suggestion of the Conservative position on 20 mph limits? We do not want to get rid of all of them, only the blanket 20 mph limits. They need to be used precisely in order to meet their objective. That is why a blanket cap or ban makes no sense, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. We have already secured a review of these changes, and it makes sense to allow that work to take place before introducing further legislation .
I will speak briefly to amendment 27 and clause 8. On amendment 27, the Opposition of course believe that local communities should have the opportunity to make their voices heard when decisions may affect them—that is an important part of the process. Consultation should be meaningful and, intrinsically, there ought to be sensible, local, proportionate mitigations. I have concerns, however, about the additional requirements that the amendment would impose. The clause addresses the implementation of airspace changes, including those that have already been approved by the Civil Aviation Authority. I question whether it is sensible to require further environmental and noise impact assessments before the Secretary of State can even issue a direction to implement those changes. Our aim ought to be to reduce the merry-go-round of regulation that impairs growth and investment; after all, modernising our airspace is absolutely vital to improving capacity, reducing delays, and ensuring that our airports can grow and expand. The last thing we should do is introduce further requirements that risk holding up improvements that have already been through the appropriate approval process. Of course, local communities should have their voices heard and their concerns properly considered, but that must be done proportionately. We cannot allow endless assessments and procedural hurdles to strangle the growth of our aviation sector. Therefore, while I recognise the importance of local consultation and the intentions behind the amendment, I confess that I have reservations about the additional burdens it could create. For those reasons, the Opposition will abstain in any vote on the amendment. Clause 8 allows the Secretary of State to direct that approved airspace changes and the findings of airspace design reviews are implemented. We support the modernisation of our airspace, and we want to see approved changes delivered without unnecessary delay.
I will briefly address clauses 9 and 10 and schedule 2. Clause 9 and schedule 2 will update the licensing arrangements for air traffic services, including who should be consulted when licence conditions are changed and who should have the right to appeal. We support those provisions. I have concerns, however, about the drafting of clause 10. As my noble friend Lord Moylan pointed out in the other place, the clause says that a person may be charged where a service is “available for their use or benefit”, while also saying that “it is immaterial whether…the services…could be used by them.” How can a service be available for someone’s use if it could not be used by them? The Government amended part of the provision in the other place, but that basic question remains unanswered. The Minister must explain clearly who may be charged under this clause and how the Government will ensure that the new arrangements do not lead to unfair or disproportionate charges, particularly for general aviation. Subject to the Minister’s response, we will not oppose clause 10, but we do expect that ambiguity to be properly addressed. Question put and agreed to. Clause 9 accordingly agreed to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 2 agreed to. Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 11 Allocation of slots and co-ordination and facilitation of schedules
I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 11, page 11, line 12, leave out “other than excluded regulations,”. This amendment would ensure that all regulations made under new section 34A of the Airports Act 1986, including temporary regulations modifying or disapplying slot usage requirements, are subject to the affirmative procedure.
These amendments concern a very straightforward principle: that Parliament ought to have a proper opportunity to scrutinise the regulations made under this legislation. The amendments would ensure that the relevant regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure, requiring the approval of both Houses of Parliament and thus preserving scrutiny, accountability and fair process for all concerned. Given the breadth of powers in this Bill, that is an entirely reasonable safeguard. Who knows who the next Secretary of State might be? Regulations under the clause will have important and wide-reaching consequences for airlines, airports, passengers and the sector as a whole. Surely the Minister agrees that it is right for Parliament to have a meaningful opportunity to examine those decisions before they take effect. It was disappointing that when similar amendments were debated in the other place, the Government declined to accept that basic principle. I hope that the Government can recognise today the importance of affording this House that ability to scrutinise and do its job. Clause 11 gives the Secretary of State broad powers to amend or restate the airport slot allocation regime. We recognise that the system may need to respond quickly in genuine emergencies, but these powers must be exercised carefully and must not undermine the independence of the slot allocation process. That is precisely why the parliamentary scrutiny provided by amendments 12 and 13 is so important.
I hear the Minister’s remarks. I fear that we will not agree on the important need for affirmative parliamentary scrutiny. Question put, That the amendment be made.
I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 12, page 12, line 7, leave out “CAA may by rules (to be known as ‘CAA rules’)” and insert “Secretary of State may by regulations”. This amendment would provide for CAA rules to be made by regulations by the Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State should remain at the heart of aviation regulation, providing clear direction and ensuring that the CAA’s regulatory framework supports growth, competitiveness and investment. Ministers should be setting that direction and driving the CAA towards those objectives rather than handing them over extensive rule-making powers with insufficient democratic accountability. That is why we have tabled amendment 14, to ensure that the Government retain the ability to set that direction rather than sitting on the sidelines as a passive bystander. Amendment 15 is designed to provide clarity, explanation and to ensure that a smooth and transparent process is followed as a matter of course. It follows directly from the recommendation of the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which raised concerns about the extent of the rule-making powers being handed to the CAA. We are simply asking the Government to explain the principles governing which powers should remain with Ministers and which should be exercised by the regulator. I do not think that is an unreasonable request. Indeed, when this was debated in the other place, the Minister acknowledged the concerns and promised to consider them carefully. What became of those assurances? Why has the Government not seen fit to include this perfectly sensible safeguard in the Bill? I turn next to amendment 19, which I am inclined to support. It is entirely sensible those that affected by changes to aviation rules should have a proper opportunity to contribute to the process. That includes our airports, airlines and the wider aviation industry, which need clarity and certainty about the regulatory framework in which they operate. Giving businesses greater access to the process, and the opportunity to comment on draft rules before they are introduced, can only help them to plan ahead, make investment decisions, and ultimately grow and succeed. We want a regulatory framework that supports a thriving aviation sector, and proper consultation with those who actually have to operate under those rules is an important part of achieving that. On amendment 20, I think the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage is rather hedging his bets, having tabled two amendments seeking to address the same issue in slightly different ways. We certainly agree with the principle that the CAA should not be able to determine entirely for itself when consultation is unnecessary. However, we think amendment 21 provides a more sensible approach by ensuring that the Secretary of State also has a say in that decision. We support amendment 21, which is a very reasonable measure. The CAA should not be able to operate entirely off its own steam, deciding for itself when proposed rule changes are sufficiently minor to dispense with the normal consultation process. Surely it is right that the Secretary of State should have a role in that decision? Importantly, this amendment does not undermine the ambition of the clause to provide a faster, more responsive rule-making process. The fast track procedure would remain available. The amendment would simply require Ministers and the CAA to agree that a proposed change is sufficiently minor to justify using that procedure. That is hardly an onerous requirement. It simply provides an additional safeguard, ensures proper ministerial oversight and helps prevent the CAA from becoming a law unto itself. Amendment 22 is also perfectly sensible. Signposting provides clarity and I suspect it would be particularly useful for smaller aviation businesses, which may not have the resources to navigate multiple pieces of legislation and regulatory guidance. I know that the shadow Secretary of State has received representations from those involved in gliding and general aviation, and it is important that we consider the needs of those smaller operators alongside the major airlines and airports. Anything that makes the regulatory framework easier to understand and navigate is surely a good thing. This amendment would help to ensure that the guidance accompanying the CAA’s new rulebook properly signposts related requirements elsewhere in aviation legislation. Ease, clarity and transparency are principles that we are always inclined to support, and for those reasons we will press the amendment to a vote. I turn to amendment 16, which stands in my name. One of our key concerns throughout consideration of the Bill has been the extent to which the CAA is being given increasingly unfettered powers, with insufficient accountability to Ministers and to Parliament. It should always be the case that Government set the direction of aviation policy, with the CAA responsible for delivering within that framework. I struggle to understand why the regulator should have the final say over the priorities and objectives set by the Secretary of State. The amendment therefore seeks to tighten that relationship considerably, ensuring that Ministers retain the authority to set the direction and can be held accountable to Parliament for the decisions they make. Amendment 23 is also very sensible. Providing greater clarity on how the CAA’s rules interact with existing legislation will be particularly helpful for airlines, airports and the wider aviation sector. Businesses need to understand the regulatory framework in which they operate, and anything that makes that framework clearer and easier to navigate should be welcomed. It appears to be a straightforward, practical measure that will help aviation businesses to comply with their obligations, and we are therefore happy to support it. Finally, I turn to amendment 17, which stands in my name. It seeks to delete a Henry VIII provision from clause 12. We have consistently raised concerns throughout the Bill’s passage about the extent to which powers are being transferred away from Parliament, and this provision is another such example. The Government are giving the CAA substantial new rule-making powers, while also giving Ministers the ability to amend or repeal primary legislation through secondary legislation to facilitate those rules. I appreciate that the Minister in the other place argued that that was necessary to avoid gaps in legislation and to ensure a smooth transition. However, surely a little admin inconvenience cannot be an excuse for hollowing out parliamentary scrutiny and accountability. Acts of Parliament should be amended through parliamentary process, and we should be extremely cautious about granting Ministers powers to bypass those processes. For those reasons, the Opposition have tabled amendment 17 and will press it to a vote. I will conclude by speaking briefly to clause 12 itself. We recognise the need for aviation rules to be updated efficiently, and to keep pace with changing international standards. However, clause 12 transfers substantial rule-making powers to the CAA, and those powers must be accompanied by proper ministerial accountability and parliamentary oversight. That is why the safeguards contained in our amendments are so important.
We have reached the conclusion that the Minister and I are probably not going to agree on the need for parliamentary scrutiny or for the holding back of Henry VIII powers in the Bill, so I will press the amendments to a vote. Question put, That the amendment be made.
I will briefly address clauses 13 and 14. Clauses 15 and 16 are technical, and even by the exacting standards of Opposition scrutiny it would be a little harsh to take issue with clause 17, which simply gives the Bill its name. I shall leave those clauses alone. Clause 13 widens the circumstances in which air navigation orders may create, amend or appeal criminal offences connected with aviation safety requirements. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain how those powers are expected to be used and what parliamentary scrutiny will apply. Clause 14 gives the Secretary of State the power to make consequential provision arising from the Bill, including the power to amend or appeal primary legislation. The Government’s own memorandum says: “We have identified all the changes to primary legislation that we believe are necessary…and have included them in the Bill.” They also say that the power is being retained in case something important has been missed. I would therefore be interested to hear in what circumstances the Minister expects that power to be used?
I will speak briefly to new clause 1. I appreciate what the hon. Member for Horsham is seeking to achieve with this new clause, but much of what he is calling for is already addressed through the wider provisions of this Bill, particularly the new powers being given to the CAA to protect consumers and enforce passenger rights. I am therefore concerned that introducing another layer of regulation through a separate aviation ombudsman would be unnecessarily cumbersome and potentially duplicative. We should allow the measurements in this Bill to take effect before creating further regulatory structures. For those reasons, the Opposition will abstain on the new clause. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
I will speak to new clause 9. I have considerable sympathy with what the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage is seeking to achieve, and the principle behind this new clause is very sensible. Passengers deserve timely, accurate information when their flights are delayed and the industry should absolutely be doing everything possible to improve communication. However, I do have some concerns about the practical implications of requiring airlines to provide updated departure estimates every 30 minutes, particularly when delays are caused by circumstances outside their control, as we have seen with the recent National Air Traffic Services incidents. We must be careful not to impose additional costs and administrative burdens on airlines without being satisfied that those requirements are proportionate and deliver a genuine benefit to passengers. While the Conservatives strongly support its direction of travel, we have some reservations about the precise requirements in this new clause and will therefore abstain.
I am delighted to hear the Minister’s comments. This is such an important topic. It is quite extraordinary; anyone who flies regularly will know how disruptive such behaviour is, and this has become an increasingly concerning issue in recent years. It is a serious matter for passengers, cabin crew and airlines, and I am delighted to hear from the Minister that the Government are now giving this proper attention. I look forward to a timeline from him on when he will bring forward this system. The Liberal Democrats have suggested a timeline in their new clause, which has been rejected, so I look forward to hearing an alternative proposal from the Minister.
I thank the Minister for his response. To conclude, although we welcome the debate that the new clause has prompted, and we recognise the importance of the issue that it raises, we will be abstaining, pending more information from the Minister.
New clause 10 is a very sensible amendment and one that is clearly in the interests of passengers. Given the significant changes being introduced through the Bill, it seems entirely reasonable to review their impacts after two years, particularly on passenger protections and accessibility. It is a fair point; providing greater clarity and accountability over whether the measures are working can only be a good thing. We are therefore happy to support the new clause. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
I find new clause 12 quite extraordinary. We have been clear throughout these proceedings that we want to see economic growth, greater investment and a thriving, internationally competitive aviation sector. Airport expansion has an important role to play in achieving these ambitions, subject to sensible, local, proportionate mitigations. I simply cannot understand why we would want to insert a provision into the Bill that deliberately seeks to restrict our ability to deliver that growth. We want Britain to succeed and we will not be signing up to measures that deliberately seek to curtail the economic growth our country so desperately needs. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
I am delighted to hear from the Minister that work is ongoing on this important subject. New clause 15 makes a valuable contribution and we are happy to support it. Given the multiple serious failures at NATS in recent years, including two in September alone, it is absolutely right that the regulatory framework places greater emphasis on operational resilience and reliability, and preventing major disruption. We have seen the enormous consequences of these failures for airlines, passengers and the wider aviation industry, with thousands of flights disrupted through absolutely no fault of their own. What message does that send to potential investors—those wishing to expand and grow? Frankly, I question whether the Government have taken their eye off the ball when it comes to ensuring that our air traffic control system is fit for purpose. They could not even be bothered to come to the House to make a statement, and had to be dragged to the Chamber to answer the urgent question asked by the shadow Transport Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith). We must do everything possible to safeguard passengers and airlines from further disruption and ensure that the regulatory framework properly incentivises NATS to prevent these failures in the first place. I therefore welcome the new clause, and the Opposition will support it. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
I start by paying tribute to those who spoke yesterday on the first day of Committee. There were excellent contributions from both sides of the Committee and from all sides of the debate. A number of the issues discussed are not strictly within scope of the new clauses and amendments today, but I will return to them on Third Reading because they are essential to the broader discussion that we are having. I just wanted to say that there were some powerful speeches that resonated across the divides. In that spirit, I want to begin with what the Opposition welcome. Government new clause 51 effectively ends the debate on the highly controversial on-the-run letters, the so-called letters of comfort. These were letters issued by the Government to republican suspects, primarily those affiliated to the IRA. They arose because, while the 1998 agreement’s early release scheme covered convicted paramilitary prisoners, it did not cover those who had never been charged, who had been charged but had escaped, or who had escaped after conviction. Sinn Féin argued that this was anomalous and that resolving the status of such individuals, many of whom were seen as important to republican support for the peace process, was necessary. Where Sinn Féin identified concerned individuals, the Government then assessed whether they were wanted, and if they were not, a letter of reassurance was issued. It has long been argued that such letters did not offer immunity to prosecution. However, as the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) has pointed out, that was not so, because in 2014, John Downey, an IRA man accused of perpetrating the 1982 Hyde Park bombing, produced his letter at the Old Bailey and the trial collapsed. While it was said that Mr Downey’s letter had been issued in error, there is no doubt that that letter prevented him from being put on trial for that crime. Whatever confidence there was in the scheme then completely collapsed, and despite the considerable work of Lady Justice Hallett, doubts have lingered. The Government are right to put this issue beyond all doubt by amending the Bill. Similarly, we welcome Government amendment 251, which obliges the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a statement about the actions taken by His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom and the Government of Ireland in pursuance of the joint framework. This is a replacement to amendment 46, tabled in my name, which did much the same thing. The importance of this measure is that the Government will have to give an assessment of the progress that the Republic has made in laying its own legislation before ours can come into force. I ask the Secretary of State to confirm from the Dispatch Box that this statement will explicitly cover, as I think is set out in the framework, the investigation by the Garda of all unresolved troubles-related incidents within its jurisdiction. It is important that any statement that he gives to the House when both pieces of legislation are complete covers that specific issue, which was an important element of the framework.
My hon. Friend raises an important case, and I am glad that he has had an opportunity to put it on record. Yesterday, the Secretary of State said that the Irish Government had committed to working “in lockstep with us so that our legislation and their legislation will come into force on the same day.”—[Official Report, 19 October 2026; Vol. 791, c. 798.] I hope the Secretary of State will confirm that, this being the case, he will not commence this legislation until the Irish legislation is ready to be commenced.
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that reassurance. All that being said, we should be clear-eyed about what the Irish legislation does and does not do, and why it is in no way equivalent to the legislation that this House is passing. The general scheme put forward by the Irish Government is a means by which the Irish state may co-operate with the legacy commission. It does not require it to do so, nor does it set up any body equivalent to the legacy commission in the Republic. In short, while it is a step in the right direction, it guarantees nothing and it does not create an equivalent action in the south. Yesterday, we heard in powerful terms about the failure of the Republic to engage fully on Omagh. Sadly, in the rejection of the Democratic Unionist party’s amendment, we also heard something about this Government’s failure to engage on Omagh. This afternoon, my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) has raised the issue again. I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that, in 2021, when Mr Justice Horner recommended an inquiry, he urged that an equivalent investigation take place in the Republic. He could see, having assessed all the evidence, that one was needed, yet here we are, five years on, and there is no equivalent investigation in the Republic at all; nor is there any sign that there will ever be one. It is a source of sadness for this Committee that the framework that was signed by the previous Administration did not have within it an undertaking from the Republic that there would be such an inquiry. That was a significant omission.
That is precisely why, in 2021, Mr Justice Horner urged that there be a parallel inquiry in the Republic. The fact that no such parallel inquiry has happened, and that there is no sign that any such parallel inquiry will happen, speaks volumes. Sadly, this brings us to a major point of contention: the issue of inquests. Yesterday, the hon. and gallant Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) spoke powerfully about the problems that exist with inquests, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) will do likewise today. The essence of the problem is this: the inquisitorial process in Northern Ireland has suffered a massive loss of confidence. The reasons for that loss of confidence will be very well known to anyone who has followed the Coagh and Clonoe cases, and it is precisely why colleagues are so concerned about the Loughgall case, which is covered by amendment 51, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington. In Great Britain, inquests exist to establish the facts, and at the first suspicion of unlawful killing, they are required to stop and pass evidence to the DPP—I nearly said “the DUP”. In Northern Ireland, however, inquests have far too often sought to assign blame. That is why the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) tabled amendment 20. Yesterday, we heard moving accounts from the hon. Members for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) and for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) of children being killed, very possibly murdered—awful, heart-wrenching stories. To be clear, the most contested inquests do not deal with such cases. They deal with the shooting of terrorists by security forces.
I am sure that the Secretary of State will have heard what the hon. Gentleman said and will refer to it in his final remarks. The cases that we are talking about here include that of Coagh and Michael Ryan—an IRA man who shot two Ulster Defence Regiment officers, both in the presence of children.
I am happy to clarify my remarks for the hon. Gentleman. I am certainly not saying that at all. I am explaining why the inquisitorial process has suffered such a loss of confidence. It is because of the way in which certain inquests have been conducted and the way they have behaved. I am not talking at cross-purposes with the hon. Gentleman. In the case of Clonoe, we are dealing with the fact that a van-load of men shot up a police station with a fully automatic machine gun and were confronted by the security forces. In the case of Loughgall, an IRA unit attacked a Royal Ulster Constabulary base and were shot. Those security forces, who kept our country safe in those moments, were asked to do extremely difficult things. They no longer trust the inquisitorial process, because they can see where it leads. It leads to lawfare—to years of court processes in which, even when the judges say, “This is a farce,” or, “This is ludicrous,” they are powerless to prevent the legal aid cavalcade from going on and on. Amendment 113, which appears in my name, and the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington would essentially do the same thing that the hon. and gallant Member for Birmingham Selly Oak was seeking yesterday: they say, “Enough of the multi-track approach; let us put all the inquests into the legacy commission.” Let us dispense with the twin-track approach, which the hon. and gallant Member argued against yesterday. Of course, the twin-track approach is really a three-track approach, because inquiries are still being granted. As we argued at the time, the Government should have asked ICRIR to deal with, for example, the Finucane inquiry rather than set up a new public inquiry. Then, because of civil cases, we will have a four-track approach. For all the reasons mentioned here, I very much hope that the Government will at the very least accept that, where we are dealing with military action against known terrorists, the inquests ought to be dealt with by the legacy commission.
As ever, my hon. Friend gives us a powerful story of some of the dreadful things that happened. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington said last week: “If this Bill was really about human rights and justice, the first coroner’s inquest would not be about whether the killings at Loughgall were unlawful; it would instead be about one of the 1,800 murders carried out by the IRA, every single one of which was unlawful.”—[Official Report, 13 October 2026; Vol. 791, c. 333.] There is, I am afraid, an inequity of priorities here. The Bill is not on the side of right. While I am on my feet on this point, I pay tribute to the veterans who are with us today, who help to keep our country safe.
While I have the opportunity, I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for his time as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. We disagreed on many things, but he always conducted himself with great dignity and great respect, and I am grateful to him for the briefings that he gave me while we were opposite numbers. Two things are true: our legislation would have stopped the Loughgall inquest. That was something that my party supported. Secondly, since that time, there have been some egregious cases in which the inquisitorial process has gone wrong, and we have seen why veterans have lost confidence in those inquisitorial processes. There is a viable alternative, which the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to recognise when he became Secretary of State. He decided not to tear up ICRIR completely or close it down, but to develop it. We might agree with that in some ways and not in others, but there is an alternative way of dealing with this matter, and I believe that that would command the confidence of many veterans, such as the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak, who spoke out yesterday. I turn to the issue of “new and compelling”, which was raised yesterday and is back again today because of new clause 22, in the name of the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton). The problem is that the Government claim that their qualification “essential” will restrict repeat investigations. However, legal authorities outside the House have pointed out that “essential”, as described by the Government, is no bar at all. As one leading lawyer put it: “Any lawyer worth their salt can find new evidence”, but a real test would be to find “new and compelling” evidence. Given that decisions have been taken to prosecute cases in which there is no evidence, there should be a check and balance, and a certification via a judge, to support the fact that there is new and compelling evidence. That would prevent a biased decision from being taken in Northern Ireland. The Bill currently provides no protection for veterans accused of unlawful shootings from rinse-and-repeat investigations. They are treated not as witnesses but as suspects. The Bill is drafted expressly to permit the past abuse to continue. The Secretary of State says that that is not the case, but he objects to amending the Bill in a way that enshrines his public statements that there should be no rinse-and-repeat investigations. The Secretary of State has also said that witnesses cannot be approached unless there is new and compelling evidence, but that is not quite what the Bill says. Rather, whether there is new evidence is a factor to be weighed in the decision to approach witnesses. If it is considered “essential” but there is no new and compelling evidence, the witnesses can still be approached. There is absolutely no bar to approaching witnesses. The Bill does not define “essential”. The Secretary of State has given his Dispatch Box definition, but that means that what is “essential” will be open to interpretation by the legacy commission and the coroners. It is a subjective term, and that feeds uncertainty. What is essential to you, Ms Ghani, may not be essential to me.
The KCs whose advice I have sought have not been able to produce any such definition. All of this feeds uncertainty. Decisions will be challenged in the courts and there will be more lawfare. Republicans will argue that interviewing veterans is essential. The reason we are insisting on the use of “new and compelling” is that it is a term used in the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021 and the Criminal Justice Act 2003. It is the very test used to determine whether someone acquitted of a serious offence can be retried. We are asking for certification in this case—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman says there is—
Finally, a bit of order!
You are quite right as ever, Ms Ghani—it is good to be finally put right on that.
As the right hon. Member knows, judicial review is a process in the system. I am asking him to refine the inadequate process that he has put forward. “Essential” is inadequate. “Essential” will be judicially reviewed, and of course “new and compelling” and certification will be judicially reviewed, but there will be an opportunity to create much greater confidence in all communities that we will not have the sort of rinse-and-repeat investigations that have taken place.
it is because there has been a complete loss of confidence in the process. If the right hon. Gentleman is saying, “We will accept ‘new and compelling’ but we do not want certification,” let us have that debate, but that is not what he is saying. He is saying that he wants “essential”, which is understood by legal authorities to be a very low bar—
The right hon. Gentleman says no from a sedentary position, but that is not the case. We have received legal advice that “essential” is no bar at all. For the reasons I have already set out, it will be very easily stepped over, whereas “new and compelling”, as we know from the overseas operations Act, is a more significant legal test. “New and compelling” provides certainty in three ways. First, it is a filter test: no engagement with veterans unless there is new and compelling evidence. Secondly, it is a term already applied by the courts, so we have one system and equality of treatment. Thirdly, it is not subjective like “essential”: the evidence must be new and must be a matter of fact, and it must be compelling, meaning that it will impact the outcome. The test of new evidence only would be meaningless as there is no threshold. Finally, I turn to new clause 7 in my name. It would require annual reporting on recruitment and retention within the armed forces. We have all seen repeated reports that our special forces are under threat because of the demoralising effects of lawfare, both present and historical. In October, we were warned by the SAS Regimental Association that lawfare was “eroding the will to fight”. In November, we were warned by eight retired generals and one chief marshal that “recruitment, retention and morale” were all suffering. In December, seven former senior SAS officers spoke of the dangerous operational consequences of lawfare. This morning, Brigadier Ed Butler, former commanding officer of 22 SAS, said in stark terms that “continued lawfare” was affecting recruitment and retention. When leaders with such experience issue such warnings, I think we all have a duty to listen and to take them seriously.
I reassure the hon. Gentleman that that is absolutely not the point I am making or, indeed, a point I have ever made. The simple point I am making is that vexatious repeat-and-rinse investigations are hugely demoralising to people who once served and people who still serve. That is very different to what he has just alleged.
My right hon. Friend puts it better than I ever could. This House deserves to be reassured that the tip of the spear is not being blunted. Although details of special forces are necessarily restricted, it would be a huge dereliction of function if we did not ask for these issues to be monitored. For that process to have confidence, it should, as our amendment sets out, be conducted by an independent figure. I know that Governments hate to accept such amendments, but I would really value the Secretary of State’s considered response on how this House can be reassured that one of our most prized national assets—the special forces—is not being allowed to wither. I know that he will say that recruitment is up generally, but I am making a specific point about special forces and the consequences of rinse and repeat. I return to where I started: there are some things with which we can agree today, but the fundamentals are still problematic. I very much hope that the Government will take the opportunity now and in the Lords to put them right.