Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,731 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
Forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker. It was about whether the Minister would confirm that it will be the ISC that determines redactions on the basis of international relations and national security.
In the limited time I have, I say to the Secretary of State that this Bill was bad, and it is now a mess. He comes in front of the House to ask for a carry-over when he knows that carry-over motions are only ever to be used for Bills that are pretty well set, but have run out of time to progress. Such motions are not for highly contentious legislation that is about to be changed, possibly beyond recognition from what has gone before. He is now apparently addressing many of the issues, but we are not allowed to know, because they are a secret until next time, when we will come back to carry on with a massively changed Bill. It is bad procedure, and it is bad government. I say to the right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a lot of time—he knows that—that this is just a bad route to take. The problem that the Government have had from the beginning is that they have been tied up with trying to satisfy Sinn Féin and the hand of Ireland. I worry desperately about the arrangements. As the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) said, where are the promises on delivery from Ireland? For all these years, there has been all the stuff that they know about who did what, when they did it and how it was done. All that has been kept behind closed doors for so long, and the Irish Government could have dealt with it earlier. Instead, there are people who do not want this to be open and we are now singing to their tune. That is what really bothers me. We are now being asked to take a pitch in the dark. Having denied all the way through the Bill’s passage that veterans would be pursued vexatiously through the courts and having said that there were controls in place, the Government have apparently finally realised that that was not the case. All of a sudden, the position has changed.
It is astonishing. My right hon. Friend is exactly right. I served early on in Northern Ireland, and I lost a very good friend—I apologise for repeating his name—in Robert Nairac. We have never got to the bottom of what happened to him. I thought that the speech from the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) was incredibly interesting. It is very difficult to pursue truth, which is why I supported the previous legislation. That was not because I thought it was a great Bill, but because I wanted some truth to come out. I do not think the vexatious pursuit of veterans will ever produce the truth that he rightly seeks. There is a better way, and it is not this Bill.
I will, but briefly, because I do not get any extra time.
We will not altogether agree about this issue. We can debate what actually happened, but we will never know, because the Government refused to pursue this matter through the courts. South Africa was a good example of how it could be done. I went out to advise in South Africa at the time, and I genuinely believe that the truth and reconciliation committee got to the bottom of quite a lot of what happened in South Africa and allowed some mending of fences. We will no doubt debate that issue further. I have high respect for the hon. Gentleman, and I understand his position. In conclusion, we are being asked to vote blind on a Bill that we knew was damaged before. All our protestations about the vexatious pursuit of veterans were denied, as were all the issues that the right hon. Member for Belfast East has raised throughout the whole of this debate. The legislation was rather arrogantly pushed through, and the Government said, “No, you don’t know what you’re talking about. The legislation is perfectly okay.” At the last moment, when they have failed to get the Bill through, they have produced this idea that somehow there are amazing new amendments that will protect veterans going forward. Why should veterans, who have been vexatiously pursued endlessly for no particular reason, other than because they were veterans who served in Northern Ireland, now say, “Oh, that’s okay; it’d be a good idea to see what comes next time around, because they were so honest this time around.”? The Government have failed to be honest about this from start to finish. The Armed Forces Minister is not here for a reason—because he knows very well that he does not want to be sitting on the Front Bench when the Bill gets voted through to the future. [Interruption.] I say to all colleagues, it is time to call time on this piece of bad legislation and kick it into the gutter.
A referral to the Privileges Committee has always been considered a House matter—a matter for the individual judgment of Members of Parliament. It would be an abomination if it were to be whipped by either side, wouldn’t it?
On the question of the failure of the Government of the Republic, the reality is that they have an outstanding interstate case against us.
The truth of the matter is when the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister says that process was followed to appoint a diplomat, a professional diplomat would not have been appointed if they had taken dodgy loans, tried to flog passports and leaked to the Chinese and the Russians, so that was not the case. The motion on the Humble Address got through this House because it said that all documents would be handed to the ISC, because that is the most secure place for them to go. It is not in the gift of the Government not to hand this over—that was the view of the House. This is not being done in good faith. When will all these documents be given to the ISC, which was exactly what this House said should be done?
May I, through the right hon. Gentleman, thank the officials in the Cabinet Office who have assisted me in the work that I have been doing in this area as Chairman of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee? He will know that not all Government communications are carried on Government devices. Will he, for the benefit of the House, explain what is being done and what can be done to secure and get into the right domain correspondence between the principal players who have used their personal devices, rather than their Government devices? Will he also assure the House that when he and his colleagues do the sift as to who sees what and when, parliamentary privilege and all that that means is still absolutely at the heart of the decisions that he and his officials take?
For several months now, including when the Secretary of State has appeared before the Select Committee, he has in all good faith promised these amendments. Does he understand that his case this evening would be assisted if the House were to see those amendments? The motion effectively asks us to sign a blank cheque on a promissory note when we have no idea what it might contain.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Harris. We on this side of the House recognise the challenging situation that offshore wind developers face and the need to simplify the process to make schemes deliverable. Equally, we recognise the environmental issues. As we have heard, the regulations seek to shift how compensation for the environmental impact of developments is determined and delivered. Let me be clear: it is right that the Government prioritise energy security in cost-effective ways in order to lower the overall cost to the taxpayer, while also being responsible and honest custodians of our ecosystems in order to benefit future generations. However, I do have several concerns with the SI, which I hope the Minister can address. First, the SI leaves much of the crucial detail to future guidance. While I can see that the Government are attempting to adopt a new approach, that is no justification for asking for approval before the full details have become apparent, such as how the new compensation scheme would work in practice. The Government conducted a six-week public consultation ahead of the reforms, so I am unclear as to why the draft guidance could not have been published to coincide with the legislative process, as opposed to being published on 21 May, once the SI has come into force, as the Minister has indicated. I am keen to understand from her why the decision was made not to publish the guidance before we legislated on the reforms. I know that their lordships also made their concerns known on that point. How can we be reassured that the guidance will be of the highest quality, as the Minister has outlined, when it is published? My second concern relates to the compensation hierarchy. The regulations mandate the publication and use of a compensation hierarchy, which sets out categories of compensation measured on the basis of how the measures would benefit the UK marine protected area network. The secondary legislation states that tier 3 will cover compensation measures that provide ecological benefits to the UK marine protected area network more widely. My concern, however, is that that could allow for irreparable damage to key threatened species and habitats without any requirement for that species or habitat to obtain compensating benefit. That concern is shared by the Wildlife and Countryside Link, which believes that the tier 3 approach will not deliver ecologically effective compensation for environmental impacts from offshore wind and would not maintain current levels of environmental protection.
My hon. Friend makes an excellent and valid point. We would absolutely expect the Government not only to open those oil fields, but to make sure that they apply exactly the same criteria when any energy project gets the go-ahead, and it feels that a one-size-fits-all approach is not being adopted in this case. I want to expand on my concerns about the compensation hierarchy. It seems that the environmental protections are already not adequate to deliver favourable conditions for most sites or network coherence, so my second point to the Minister is to ask for reassurance that tier 3 will not become the norm or a simple way of bypassing the compensation hierarchy. What level of assessment has been given to that issue, and will she explain why no further detail has been published to date on the tier 3 compensation hierarchy? That concern has also been raised by their lordships in the other place. My third concern, which has not yet been touched on, relates to fisheries and the impact of offshore wind on our fishing communities. The shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), recently visited Peterhead fish market to discuss the issues facing fishermen in Scotland, which include a lack of workers and fuel costs. The Scottish Government plan to install up to 40 GW of offshore wind capacity by 2040, a target that it has been warned is “far too high” and would cause irreversible damage to our marine environment while displacing the fishing fleet from grounds it has worked for generations. A report carried out for the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation has shown that the surge in offshore wind farm developments will exclude the trawling fleet from approximately 50% of fishing grounds by 2050. I am sure the Minister will agree that the plans put forward by the Scottish Government show complete disregard for Scottish fishermen.
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. It appears that the Scottish Government are not only ignoring the challenges associated with spatial squeeze—
I will absolutely listen to your comments, Mrs Harris. I merely wish to make the point that spatial squeeze is an issue, whether it be north of the border in Scottish waters or south of the border in English waters, where there is a similar challenge to do with offshore wind farm development. Whether it be the UK Government or the Scottish Government addressing the issue, I would like to understand from the Minister what they are doing to address the concerns about spatial squeeze that our fishermen have raised, and how they will address their concerns in the future. Briefly, I would like to make a point about the establishment of marine recovery funds. I know it is hoped that marine recovery funds will enable developers to compensate for environmental impacts for multiple projects, yet they are not mentioned in the explanatory memorandum. It is also important to note that marine recovery funds are voluntary schemes. Can the Minister explain what the Government anticipate the take-up of marine recovery schemes to be, and how significant a role they will play in environmental compensation? To conclude, the central concerns that I present on behalf of the Opposition about the statutory instrument are focused on how the changes will operate in practice. The devil is always in the detail. To be clear, the Opposition support the development of affordable home-grown energy sources, which is why we are fighting so hard to oppose the Government’s ongoing ban on new oil and gas licences in the North sea. With all subsidies, environmental schemes and regulations such as these, it is crucial that we do not lose sight of the big picture. We need to prioritise our energy security in cost-effective ways to lower the overall cost to the taxpayer while being responsible and honest caretakers of our ecosystems. I look forward to the Minister’s response to the various concerns I have laid out.
Can the Minister expand on whether fishermen were included as one of the key stakeholder organisations as part of the guidance.
The Minister is being incredibly kind in giving way, but to push her on that point: has the guidance been stress-tested on the fishermen to date? The Minister said she will work with them. Have the fishermen been involved yet?
The Child Maintenance Service is not working for parents and it is not working for children. My own casework shows that the majority of those getting in touch about the CMS believe it to be ineffective, with systemic issues in communication, timeliness and case handling. My constituents are not alone. The independent case examiner received 1,827 complaints about the CMS in 2024-25, up from 1,519 in 2023-24. In November 2024, the charity Gingerbread published a report, “Fix the CMS”. In October 2025, a House of Lords Public Services Committee report recommended a range of changes to do the same. The Government have responded to both, but when will the Government enact the changes to bring forward the recommended and acknowledged improvements to the service?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart, and a privilege to respond to this debate on behalf of His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition. This is my first time responding to a petition debate and I am happy to do so under your chairmanship, Sir. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) on most ably leading the debate, and I thank the more than 100,000 people who have taken the time to sign the petition. The previous Conservative Government had a strong record on improving animal welfare standards across the board with measures such as the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Act 2024, which banned the export from Great Britain of live animals, including cattle, sheep and pigs, for slaughter and fattening; the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021, which increased the maximum prison sentence for animal cruelty from six months to five years; the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, which recognised vertebrate animals as sentient beings for the first time; the Animals (Penalty Notices) Act 2022, which created new financial penalties for those who commit offences across animal health and welfare against farm animals, zoo animals and pets; and the Glue Traps (Offences) Act 2022, which banned the use of glue traps in England in all but the most exceptional circumstances. The testing of products and medicines on animals has always been an emotive topic, and one on which many people hold extremely strong views, so it is absolutely right that animal testing is heavily regulated. It is clear that there is a national consensus that animals ought to be treated with dignity and respect, and I am pleased that the Government have continued to take the welfare of animals as seriously as the previous Government did. The use of protected animals for any experimental or other scientific procedure that causes “pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm” to the animal is regulated by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. Scientific procedures covered by the Act are controlled using a triple licensing system enforced by the Home Office. That requires a personal licence for the scientific investigator, a licence for the establishment where the procedure is to take place, and a project licence, which contains details of the animals to be used and the procedures to be performed. The Act requires a cost-benefit analysis to be performed, weighing the likely adverse effects on the animals against the scientific learning arising from the procedure. The UK has a policy to limit the number of animals used in science through replacement, reduction and refinement of research design—the three Rs. That requires licence applicants to demonstrate that they have considered using non-animal alternatives as far as possible. Moreover, under existing legislation, the use of animals in research is prohibited if there is a non-animal method available that could be used instead. Put simply, animals can be used in research only when no alternative methods are available. In 2024, 2.6 million scientific procedures involving living animals were carried out in Great Britain. Of the animals used in those procedures, 73% were mice. That figure seems huge, but it must be recognised that it is 37% lower than the recent peak of 4.1 million in 2015. That is a welcome development, but more work definitely needs to be done. It has been hugely valuable to hear the range of views of those who have taken part in this very constructive debate, and I thank all Members for their contributions. There were lots of passionate interventions —in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) gave us particular food for thought on the testing of botox—but let me focus on the substantive contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) did his job as a local MP and visited a lab to give us an understanding of the scenario. It is difficult for us to think about what goes on in there, and we thank him for setting that out for us. The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) talked about the pragmatic approach to testing, but also about an aggressive and urgent push to move to alternative processes as soon as possible. The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) stressed that, especially in an area as important as this one, ambition is not enough, and that a strategy needs to be implemented urgently. The hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) spoke about the ethics involved and showed that, while animals may not have a voice, hon. Members can provide one for them—and she did so extraordinarily well. The hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) talked about the possibility of using AI to replace experimentation, and about not being anti-science, but using better science. The hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) reminded us of the deep relationships that we can have with animals. I do hope that his slippers are returned very soon. The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) developed the theme of our relationship with animals and told us of his conversations with cats. Nobody has ever won a debate with a cat, and we could use some of that feline tenacity in pushing this issue through. The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) again stressed the need to move to modern alternatives, and that was also highlighted by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance). The hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) raised important questions about licensing and enforcement, and the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) raised important questions about morality. The hon. Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) talked about how the mark of a civilised society is treating animals well—I concur. Let me stress that the Conservatives are keen to support any work that aims to accelerate the point at which animal research and testing is no longer necessary, having been fully replaced by effective alternatives whenever possible. I welcome that the Government have published a road map for phasing out animal testing. While we support its broad aims, there are concerns, such as that life sciences’ research and investment could move overseas to countries that test on animals to far lower standards. At this point, I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers). Concern arises because regulators have set out that certain products still require animal testing. Medicines, drugs and vaccines are manufactured for sale around the world, and companies can move their operations to places where the ethical and clinical regulations around animal testing are much laxer. I ask the Minister to address that point. On the timeline for the Government’s road map, will the Minister set out how the 2030 target for a 35% reduction in the use of dogs and non-human primates is backed up by alternative methods? Is that actually achievable? How do the Government plan to report to the House on whether the milestones are being met, and what happens if alternative methods are not validated in time? The goal of seeing no animal suffer needlessly in a laboratory is one that we all share, but that vision is not enough on its own. If we move too slowly, we betray the millions of people who rightly find the continued use of animals in laboratories morally unacceptable, but moving too fast, without validated alternatives, risks both patient safety and the very sector that funds the research on which we all depend. We will continue to ask those questions of the Government and hold them accountable for their actions.
Last week, I asked the Prime Minister if he would publish his decision note on the box note given to him on 11 November from Simon Case. The Prime Minister said he could not remember the answer in that box note, and in the debate last week, the Minister himself said that redactions are only in black. The decision response on the box note has been left blank. Was there a decision, why has it not been published and will the Minister now undertake to publish the decision on that request from Simon Case, because this House and I believe that it will be fundamental to see whether the Prime Minister is actually telling the truth?
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have to admit that I am confused, which is not unusual. I seek your guidance. The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister said that documents have been published in the first tranche relating to the box note issued to the Prime Minister on 11 November by Simon Case. I asked the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister whether that had been redacted, and he said to me that redactions are in black. The Prime Minister’s decision box is blank. I have asked three times now; why is there no response, and why has that not been published? No Minister has answered that for me. My question to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, is: where can I go to get an answer?
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Order. Let us keep our questions short and omit the word “you” because I am not responding.
The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister’s responsibilities are just growing and growing!
The right hon. Member has got his point on the record. Unfortunately, I am not responsible for the content of Ministers’ speeches, let alone the answers—if only we were. We do not want to continue this debate, but that point is, no doubt, now on the record.
The Chair has no power to compel the Government to produce amendments earlier than the tabling deadline set out in the Standing Orders. However, those on the Treasury Bench will have heard the hon. Member’s comments. When we consider the carry-over motion later—there is some time for that—he will have a chance to raise the matter with the Secretary of State, who will no doubt be back in the Chamber.
The hon. Member is a very professional Member of Parliament, and will no doubt know which other avenues he can take to get the answer. Unfortunately, I am not responsible for the answers that Ministers give here in the Chamber, but he will no doubt use every opportunity to hold the Minister to account.
I thank the right hon. Member for his point of order. The Government’s decision on whether to undertake an inquiry on the subject is not a matter for the Chair. However, his comments will have been heard by the Front-Bench team, and they will take action, if they wish to.
I thank the right hon. Member for his point of order, and for raising this very serious matter. It would not be appropriate to discuss publicly the details of preventive action, and of how Members are supported to protect themselves against these kinds of cyber-threats. If Members would like security advice on how to make personal accounts and devices more resilient, they should contact the Parliamentary Security Department. For matters relating to parliamentary accounts or equipment, Members should contact the Parliamentary Digital Service through the PDS service desk.
I confirm that nothing in the Lords message engages Commons financial privilege. Clause 2 Areas of competence
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following Government motions: That this House disagrees with the Lords in their Amendments 89B and 89C. That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendments 36, 90 and 155, insists on its amendments 155A to 155F to the words restored to the Bill by that disagreement with Amendment 155, and proposes further Amendment (a) to the words so restored to the Bill by that disagreement. That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendments 37 and 91, does not insist on its amendment 37A in lieu, and proposes Amendments (a) to (c) to the Bill in lieu of those amendments. That this House disagrees with the Lords in their Amendments 94B and 94C. That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendments 85 and 86, 97 to 116, 120, 121 and 123 but proposes Amendments (a) to (h) to the Bill in lieu of those amendments.
I call the shadow Minister.
It would be interesting to know the timings of the shadow Minister’s marathon.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
I encourage Members to ensure that their contributions are linked to the amendments that are in front of us.
Order. I am aware that Members wish to make stellar contributions on behalf of their constituencies, but I do not believe that we are discussing Cornish devolution right now. Let us keep the debate in scope of the amendments in front of us.
So long as you are referencing the amendment to which you are speaking, then of course—the Floor is yours.
Financial privilege is not engaged by any of the items in the Lords message relating to the Bill. Clause 40 Certain schemes providing money purchase benefits: scale and asset allocation
I can inform the House that Lords amendment 38X engages Commons financial privilege. If the Lords amendment is agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal. After Clause 26 Power to require internet service providers to prevent or restrict access by children to internet services
With this it will be convenient to consider the following Government motion: That this House agrees with the Lords in their Amendment 105C.
Order. I have not spoken about swift action. Would the hon. Member like to make another short intervention appropriately?