Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,578 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
I will call Melanie Onn to move the motion, and I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind Members that they may make a speech only with the prior permission of the Member in charge of the debate. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for a 30-minute debate.
I do not think you get a chance to wind-up, Melanie, in half-hour debates, but as we have extra time, you can have 30 seconds.
I remind Members to bob if they want to be called to speak. I see that a number of Members are bobbing, so I will give priority to those who applied early to speak in the debate.<span id="362WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="362WH"></span>
I shall call the Front Benchers from 5.10 pm. As you can see, a lot of people are standing, which gives you a feel for how long you have got. So, it is three or four minutes each, I am afraid.
Order. We have time for only one more Back Bencher from the Government side.
I call Kit Malthouse. Kit, I can give you a minute if you want.
In that case, I call the Liberal Democrat spokesman, Lisa Smart.
Order. The hon. Lady should wind up after this intervention.
<Question HRSContentId="{2274A503-93F0-482F-9FAE-F4A3746D780A}">10. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{BC658671-1572-48B6-B890-81408EC88781}">What plans she has to improve continuity of care in the NHS.</QuestionText> </Question>
Has the Minister read the Norwegian population study published in the <em>British Journal of General </em><em>Practice</em>, which says that people who see the same doctor over many years are 30% less likely to need out-of-hours care, 28% less likely to need emergency care and 25% less likely to die? It has been two years since the Government made the pledge to bring back the family doctor, but the basic structure of general practice has not changed. Can we see some changes in the next GP contract negotiations to bring back the system we used to have, in which everyone has their own doctor?
Order. The winding-up speeches will have to begin at half-past 10.
John Grady, you have half a minute.
Any regulation of the funeral sector must avoid unnecessary administrative burdens on small, local providers. How will the Department ensure that any proposed regulatory framework is proportionate and does not unfairly increase costs for independent funeral directors across my constituency and the country?
It is a pleasure to respond on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition and to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) for securing time in this House for this really important topic. I have heard a lot of very good speakers, and I agree with their sentiment. Although we may not always agree on every policy issue, I do agree that our best years are ahead of us. Before I was a Member of Parliament, I was a director of the local enterprise partnership in the west midlands. I remember my first ever meeting, in which I spoke to the chair of an FE college, who told me that the time between what his college could deliver and what businesses said that they wanted was about three years. That told me two things, as a small business owner: that the skills landscape is incredibly complex and difficult for businesses to navigate, and that demand plays a huge role. I will talk about demand in a bit. The UK’s manufacturing sector is hugely important, accounting for roughly 8.5% of total economic output across the country, and employing roughly 2.6 million people. I was delighted that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) mentioned the Lunar Society, because I was a member of a modern-day Lunar Society—in fact, I helped to write its constitution. I was pleased that she put that on the record. I am the proud Member of Parliament for Meriden and Solihull East, a constituency in the heart of the west midlands. We are also a UK manufacturing powerhouse, because we are the home of Jaguar Land Rover. The west midlands remains the UK’s leading manufacturing region, and Jaguar Land Rover is right at the heart of that. The region contributes £10.4 billion and employs more than 200,000 people. The shadow Chancellor and I recently visited Rolls-Royce, which has a huge facility in the west midlands. I invite the Minister to visit it, because it does a huge amount of work. I know it is said that the UK does not manufacture anything anymore, but I reject that; I do not think it is true. I saw at first hand engines and control panels being built for some of our most important and sensitive projects, and met a number of apprentices, who showed how important apprenticeships are. I am proud that the previous Government over 14 years created more than 5.2 million apprenticeships. As shadow Minister of State for Education, I regularly hold meetings with businesses, further education colleges and others who are very concerned about skills shortages in the manufacturing sector. In July, I hosted a roundtable in Parliament with Enginuity,<strong> </strong>a charity focused on closing skills gaps in the UK’s engineering and <span id="310WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="310WH"></span>manufacturing sector. It was clear from the businesses we met that they expect the Government to do much more to help support manufacturing, and help engineering businesses to recruit the best talent. We spoke at length about some of the findings in Enginuity’s recent “Mind the Gap” report. Its research found that around half of surveyed SMEs reported skills-related issues in the past year, with 36% experiencing skills gaps and difficulty recruiting workers. It estimates that the failure to plug that gap in manufacturing skills costs the UK economy £5.2 billion annually. That is clearly an important area that needs to be fixed, we must all agree. I would like to know about the Minister’s relationship with the DFE and how she works to ensure that the advanced manufacturing workforce is skilled, not just at NEET-level but throughout careers and lifelong learning. I am confident about the future of the UK’s manufacturing sector. It is a growing industry that will offer varied and exciting jobs for the future, but there are significant challenges coming manufacturers’ way as a result of Government policy, which we already see. Yesterday, the Prime Minister wrote in <em>The Times </em>about the prospect of Britain facing “economic catastrophe and moral failure” because a generation of young workers has been written off to a life on benefits. I agree, because youth unemployment is now 16.4%. When the Conservatives left office, it was 14.2%, so there has been a significant increase. There are currently one million 16 to 24-year-olds not in education, employment or training. I welcome the Government’s focus on reducing that number, because we will support them in the right policies; unfortunately, however, it is the view of His Majesty’s Opposition that the Government’s approach to tackling that grave injustice is entirely wrong. I have talked about demand in this sector. The drastic shortage of jobs in sectors such as manufacturing is a result of the Government’s policy platform. I did not once hear Labour Members talk about the impact of national insurance, tax and the reduction in the national insurance threshold, or that the cost of employing an apprentice has gone up so much that is has become challenging for businesses to take them on. Where they are employed, the opportunity cost means that fewer apprentices are taken on, as a result of such policies. It is obvious to us that the Government’s tax policies are making it harder for young people to get into good jobs. That is not just the view of the Opposition. Huw Pill, chief economist at the Bank of England, agrees that higher national insurance contributions and the Government’s increase in the national living and minimum wage have priced out entry-level workers, many of them young people.
I reject the framing of the question. <em>[</em><em>Laughter.</em><em>]</em> No one finds youth unemployment funny. Many business owners talk to me about what happens when a young apprentice is interviewed. They say that if they have a 25-year-old with experience versus an 18-year-old with no experience, that hinders the prospects of <span id="311WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="311WH"></span>hiring them. That is the reality. I am sure the hon. Gentleman is a conscientious MP, so I encourage him to pose that question to his small business owners in the way I framed it.
No, I am going to carry on. When met with reality, the Government’s plans in this space fall far too short. The Government have made lots of noise about recruiting targets. I just noticed that the Government announced 40,000 new construction placements every single year. Will the Minister confirm whether that is the same or a different version of the announcement made in a Government press release in August 2025, which mentioned “40,000 future builders, bricklayers, electricians, carpenters and plumbers”? Government by press release is one thing but recycling old press releases is something else. Those apprentices deserve better. There has also been no mention of the impact of the Government’s fiscal policies. Just as we were having this debate, I saw a headline saying job vacancies are at their lowest in 12 years. There are 176,000 fewer jobs now than when Labour took office. Members have mentioned the Education Secretary’s ambition to close off academic options and offer more vocational options for the 14-to-16 age group. I am deeply sceptical of that policy, and the Opposition are calling for an evidence-based approach. When a previous Labour Government introduced similar reforms, fewer children from poorer backgrounds ended up going into academic subjects. They were funnelled into vocational work. We believe that plenty of people who would have been able to get into higher-quality jobs were funnelled off at a lower age, so we are deeply sceptical. The policy announcement is welcome, but we are yet to see significant detail. Many of the headteachers I spoke to last week asked how their teachers will be trained to deliver vocational subjects and where the funding will come from. We are incredibly proud of the reforms instituted by the previous Conservative Government, which have meant that England’s education delivery is among the best and most resilient in the world, according to the programme for international student assessment rankings. When I meet people from the advanced manufacturing sector, they laud the fact that a knowledge-rich curriculum has helped young people to gain critical and analytical skills, including in numeracy. We are really worried that some of the Education Secretary’s announcements will undermine opportunities for young people. The criticism comes not just from the Opposition. Jon White, the chief financial officer at building materials firm Huws Gray, has said that employers are struggling with a lack of incentives to hire younger people. He pointed to the Government’s narrowing of the gap in respect of the national minimum wage, which I have alluded to, and said that they should change the rules in respect of how employers can spend the apprenticeship levy. I hope the Minister can shed a bit of light on some of the questions around the apprenticeship levy.<span id="312WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="312WH"></span> Making it easier for employers to hire young people is really important, which is why we have pledged to halve employer national insurance for young people aged 21 to 24, to help them get to into work. We have also offered more incentives to small businesses to take on young people. Small businesses are often lauded as the lifeblood of the UK economy and the high street, and they, not big businesses, are the greatest employers of young people across the country. We believe our approach will free up the business sector and manufacturing to employ more young people; I would welcome the Minister’s response.
I recently met pharmacists in my constituency, who expressed concern about the resilience of the supply chain, and specifically about wholesale suppliers spreading rumours, with the result that medicines are stockpiled, forcing up prices. In this case, it was Ramipril, but this is an issue <span id="967" class="column-number" data-column-number="967"></span>across the board. It is the British taxpayer—our constituents—who suffer. Is the Secretary of State aware of this issue, and has she considered getting the Competition and Markets Authority involved?
Through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank Mr Speaker for granting me permission to speak on a matter that is of crucial importance to my constituents. The topic of this Adjournment debate is the impact of the East West Rail Bedford to Cambridge business case on North Bedfordshire constituency. I am very grateful to the Minister for being in his place; I have not have a chance to share some of my questions with him, so I would be very happy for him to write to me after the debate if he does not have answers to them tonight. What does East West Rail mean to North Bedfordshire? It is an opportunity that was lost. The concept of connecting Oxford through Milton Keynes to Bedford and Cambridge is a sensible one, but sadly it is a concept that in practice has gone very far off track. That is partly due to the legacy of the former Liberal Democrat mayor of Bedford borough, who supported a route through the town of Bedford and then north through rural North Bedfordshire. That route is long, hilly and incredibly environmentally damaging, and despite protestations, it must surely be much more expensive than any alternative. It has left my constituents scratching their heads about why we would build a railway line in such a damaging way. Since that time, my constituents across North Bedfordshire have faced a series of questions that remain unanswered and that are increasingly a source of irritation. The people who work at East West Rail are good people, and I have nothing against them, but I do have something against the project and how it is being progressed. The town of Clapham, just outside Bedford, will be cut in two by the development of the railway. The route takes a very sharp turn out of Bedford and goes up a hill, as part of the hilliness of this railway. Residents’ concerns about having a green tunnel to help somewhat with the environment stay in abatement. The villagers of Ravensden and Wilden are sadly getting increasingly resigned to the fact that a railway will carve through their rural landscape. At Chawston, which is a tiny little village, a substantial amount of land has been earmarked by East West Rail so that trains can pass. Finally, there are the villages of Roxton and then Tempsford, which is rumoured to be on the list to be a new town. Currently it is a village of 300 households. For North Bedfordshire, this railway will have a significant impact on the environment and on our rural life, but beyond that, the business case matters for a range of reasons. First, a substantial amount of public money—in the billions—will be invested to construct an entirely new rail route from Bedford through to Cambridge. As the Minister will know, we are just a week away from a Budget. It is perhaps the third Budget in a row where a Labour Government will come back for more taxes. He will know, as we certainly do, that looking after public money is a primary duty of us here in this House. If we are seeing a waste of public money, it requires as much additional scrutiny as can be done—certainly in government, but also beyond—and yet it has been a number of years since the last assessment of <span id="1086" class="column-number" data-column-number="1086"></span>the economics of East West Rail was delivered by the company that was available for us to scrutinise. Incidentally, that assessment was pretty bad. When I say pretty bad, I mean bad, bad, bad from the point of view of public finances. Since then, there have been dramatic changes, and some that might help the case of East West Rail, but many—particularly with inflation—may move things the other way. My constituents are left in a position where they do not know whether this project will make any economic sense at all, and it started from a position where it clearly did not. I do not think that it is right that the people of North Bedfordshire should be left in the dark. I also, by the way, do not think that taxpayers should be left in the dark. That is why my purpose tonight is to convince the Minister that he and the Government owe it to the people of North Bedfordshire and to taxpayers to provide right now—tomorrow will do—the latest updated business case for the East West Rail project. The Minister covers lots of other forms of transportation and covers for rail for Lord Hendy in the other place, but he must know the importance that has been attributed to financial transparency in our rail projects specifically, and know not to wait until the deal is done. This is my key request to the Minister. I would like him to say that he has been convinced by the arguments about public money and that he has been convinced that allowing transparency of the business case is the right thing to do. It is his right and ability to do that, and I will explain to him why he should do it. First, this point of transparency was surely at the heart of the reviews of the oh-so-disastrously-managed HS2 project. You will remember that, Madam Deputy Speaker, as do I. Frankly, the taxpayers of this country will remember it for a long time. Rightly, Governments of the day had two reviews—Oakervee and Lovegrove—to try to find out how we could improve governance of our very important rail projects. I would like to go through some of that, because, sadly, it does not seem that Government have got the message on these things. I would be interested to know the Minister’s thoughts. In the Lovegrove report, there was a response to a request that was made by local campaigners in July for the Government to release the business case. Annex A of the letter from the Government refusing the release said that while the outline business case was still being developed, releasing it would “be misleading” and that disclosure would produce “a chilling effect” on discussions between the Department for Transport, Network Rail and East West Rail. So providing information about the business case would be “misleading”. Well, who is it going to mislead? Do the Government think we are not smart enough to understand that numbers may change, and inputs may not remain the same in terms of their costs? Do they think we will not understand the numbers? It seems to me an unusual defence to say that providing the British people with information about how their taxes might be spent before those taxes are committed is somehow misleading—and what is the “chilling effect”? I do not see loads of private companies rushing up to provide competing rail services from Oxford to Cambridge. It does not hang together. According to one of the campaigners, “Lovegrove’s account of HS2’s Accounting Officer Assessments in 2019 describes a Department that kept spending money on an unaffordable project ‘on the basis that a process to determine its <span id="1087" class="column-number" data-column-number="1087"></span>future was underway,’ while systematically failing to make clear to Parliament how immature the underlying costings actually were. He goes further, describing how the HS2 Board’s own information packs created ‘a veil behind which less good news becomes difficult to assess or even identify’—and that this was still true two years later, in 2021. The consequence, in his words, is that ‘the Civil Service failed to recognise the scale of the remaining intrinsic risk’ and gave ministers advice that ‘fails to give a good sense of the scale of the uncertainty.’” It is clear to me that the lesson from HS2 is that it is in the best interests of the Government to share information as a project is undergoing an evaluation of its financial costs, precisely so that the Government can avoid some of the mistakes that were identified in the HS2 project. If it was important for HS2, it is even more important for East West Rail, perhaps not in terms of scale but certainly in terms of relative lack of value. One of the ways in which the Government assess the value is through the benefit-cost ratio framework, and we do have information about that, dating back to 2023. Let me explain this to the House. A benefit-cost ratio of less than 1 is “poor”. There is nothing below “poor”. “Low” is 1 to 1.5, “medium” is 1.5 to 2, “high” is 2 to 4, and “very high” is greater than 4. When time is tight, public money is important, and one would hope that most of the projects are closer to the 4, 3 or 2. So where did East West Rail stand at the last count? Well, it did not stand at 4, or 3, or 2, or 1; it stood at 0.3. Basically, this is a railway project that wastes 70p in every pound, which is clearly “poor”. The East West Railway Company then came up with something called the theory of change to push the figure up—we can understand that; like other things, employment changes, new houses are built and so forth—which boosted it from 0.3 to 0.6. It is clear from the last time the public were given sight of the business case that this railway line project is extremely poor value for money. I think that that should concern the Minister, and it certainly concerns me. Over time, the milestones for the benefit-cost ratio got worse. In 2019, the benefit-cost ratio was 1.1 to 2.4. Now it is down to 0.3, although potentially it could be raised to 0.5 and potentially to above 1, so it is not doing very well on an absolute basis. An argument may be made that there is a social benefit to railways that goes beyond the financial benefit-cost ratio. Governments of all stripes—not just this lot; it was my lot before—have, as it were, counted other things in already. Perhaps it is possible to stretch it and say that there is even more public benefit, and I will come to what that may be in a minute. This is why the benefit-cost ratio causes even more concern. Let us just take a wander down the benefit-cost ratios of Britain’s railway projects in the recent past, so we can see whether East West Rail is an outlier or part of the pack with the usual returns. The benefit-cost ratio of HS2 was originally 2.3; it is 1.5 to 2.3. HS2 phase 1—the London to Birmingham part—had a benefit-cost ratio of 1.2 to 1.7, which is getting close, but is still four times the benefit-cost ratio of East West Rail. For Crossrail 2, it is 1.7 to 2.7—way ahead. For the Bakerloo line extension, it is 2 to 3, and for Sutton tram link extension, it is 1.3. I challenge the Minister to find a railway project that is such a grotesque waste of public money as East West Rail. I do not think he will. This matters, because being honest about public money matters. We should be honest when something sounds like a really good idea, but when we actually put our <span id="1088" class="column-number" data-column-number="1088"></span>mind to it and do the detailed work, it starts to look like a really bad idea. We really should have the courage—we need to have the courage in this House—and the Minister and the Government must have the courage to go back to first principles and say, “We just don’t want to be part of continuing something that has started to look completely wrong.” Year after year, I make the case to Ministers of all parties to have that moment of courage of going back to first principles. Their first principle is that they should look after public money as though it is their own, rather than just fritter it away because someone else in the past said it was a good idea, and perhaps that is the consensus, so we have to stick with it because someone said. That is no way to have our Executive run this country, because it just leads us into all sorts of mistakes. My hope is that the Minister will be that man of courage. I look at him and I think, “I am in with a fighting chance.” In that spirit, I have some questions for the Minister. As I said earlier, I do accept—I did not have the chance to brief the Minister beforehand—that he may not have the answers to hand, but I would be grateful if he wrote to me. First, when the last business case was produced, the Government used a discount rate of 3.5%. The Treasury has now decided to lower that discount rate to 3%. As the Minister will be aware, if we lower the discount rate from 3.5% to 3%, we will give more credit to revenues in the future relative to costs in the near term, which is clearly the profile for a rail project. Will the Minister commit that when, and I hope it will be tomorrow, he publishes the current business case, the financial case or full cash projections—I do not mind which of those three options he chooses—he will in all those cases ensure he has provided the information so that a like-for-like comparison can be made? Basically, we need the numbers for the period in which he is discounting the costs and revenues, so that we can assess the impact of the change in the discount rate. Secondly, in coming to Bedfordshire the wonderful initiative of Universal Studios has an impact on East West Rail and vice versa. As I understand it, to handle the structural demand, Network Rail has lined up an estimated £650 million of funding to help with the track capacity extension required. That takes us back to the decision in 2020, when there was a straighter, more direct route south of Bedford, and there was going to be a station—a hub station—at Wixams. Now that Universal Studios is being built at Wixams, would it not make sense to look at creating that hub station for Wixams, rather than going into the town of Bedford and going north? This is a very significant change, and Universal Studios is going to have 10 million visitors a year. Tempsford may or may not be a new town, but taking a village of 300 people and building a town of 100,000 is big change. One of the problems is that East West Rail, desperate to justify its business case, may want to take credit for new housing growth at Tempsford. Frankly, I do not think East West Rail contributes very much—certainly not in the near term—to the growth of Tempsford, because that planning has been there for quite a long time. Will the Minister commit to ensure that the case for East West Rail is made to stand on its own merits, rather than trying, artificially and in my view wrongly, to claim benefits from other measures, such as Tempsford new town?<span id="1089" class="column-number" data-column-number="1089"></span> East West Rail has built part of its railway. It has built the part from Oxford to Milton Keynes, which was opened to passenger traffic two years ago this month, in October 2024. As the Minister knows, since then not a single passenger has travelled on a train, because it cannot work out with the union whether or not there needs to be a guard to open and shut the doors. That is two years of zero passenger revenue against expectations, which will surely have an impact on the business case. Will the Minister commit to publishing an assessment of the financial impact of the failure to run a railway for two years on the overall financial case for East West Rail? Originally, East West Rail was to run trains on diesel. Then it was proposed to be electric. Then it was proposed to be battery. Now, it is proposed to be battery, electric and diesel. Can the Minister confirm whether East West Rail has finalised what form of traction it will use on its railway? It seems to me to be critical to know how it is going to pull the trains along on the line. I am not a railway engineer, but even I think that that is kind of a basic requirement. East West Rail needs to be forced to make a decision. I understand that it may not want to take a decision, but it really needs to. Finally, in closing, as I look to the Minister, who I trust to be a courageous man and a good man, I want to ask him a candid question. If he was given a proposal to spend billions of pounds on a railway to which he could say yes or no, and he was told the railway would be lose billions and billions of pounds, and he was told that on value-for-money terms it would be the worst railway built this century, and he was told that after 20 years of operation the company had still not decided on how to power its trains, and he was told that two years after opening its railway it still had not carried a single passenger, would he really give the project the go-ahead?
I do not think that the Minister has taken up my offer of releasing the business case tomorrow. If we go with the process that the Government are hiding behind, will the decision to go ahead by the Government, as well as the DCO from a planning point, have been approved by the time that case has been presented to the public?
Quickly.
I recently visited Newmedica in my constituency to see the vital role that independent providers have in offering NHS-funded eye surgery and care. With the Health Bill progressing, what assurances can the Minister provide that it will strengthen the right to choose across all providers and ensure that ICBs make full use of all the choices, which my ICB is not?
Order. I remind Members that in Committee they should not address the Chair as “Deputy Speaker”. Instead, please use our names—Ms Ghani—or “Madam Chair”, which is also acceptable. Clause 72 The Independent Commission on Information Retrieval <em>Question proposed,</em> That the clause stand part of the Bill.
With this it will be convenient to consider the following: Clauses 73 to 76 stand part. Government amendment 232. Clause 77 stand part. Clauses 78 to 81 stand part. Amendment 74, in clause 82, page 64, line 39, after “ICIR” insert “, and (h) analysis of the ICIR’s engagement with non-state actors”. Clause 82 stand part. Government amendments 233 to 235. Clause 83 stand part. Amendment 51, in clause 84, page 66, line 6, at end insert— “(1A) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (3), no inquest may be resumed in relation to the deaths resulting from Operation Judy in Loughgall in 1987.” Amendment 109, page 66, line 18, leave out paragraph (b) and insert— “(ab) for subsection (2) substitute— ‘(2) The Presiding coroner has the power to allocate a coroner to resume and conduct such inquests.’ (ac) Omit subsection (3).’” <em>This amendment would require all inquests arising from the Northern Ireland Troubles to be subject to a coroner-led process.</em> Government amendments 236 and 237. Amendment 20, page 67, line 3, at end insert— “(5) If during the course of an inquest it appears to the coroner that the death may have resulted from a criminal offence, he shall stop the inquest and refer the matter of potential criminality to the Director of Public Prosecutions.”<span id="973" class="column-number" data-column-number="973"></span> Amendment 111, page 67, leave out from the beginning of line 4 to the end of line 11 on page 68. Amendment 113, page 67, line 10, leave out from “must” to end of line 12. <em>This amendment along with Amendments 114 and 115 would require all inquests that were initiated before 1 May 2024, but had not yet been allocated to a coroner, to be directed to the Legacy Commission</em><em>’</em><em>s senior judicial panel member for allocation as inquisitorial proceedings.</em> Government amendment 238. Amendment 114, page 67, leave out lines 17 to line 6 on page 68. <em>This amendment is consequential to Amendment 113.</em> Government amendment 239. Amendment 115, page 68, leave out line 16. <em>This amendment is consequential to Amendment 113.</em> Amendment 129, page 68, line 32, leave out subsection (3) and insert— “(3) A coroner conducting a resumed inquest must not do anything which duplicates anything previously done in connection with the inquest unless— (a) a New Evidence Certificate has been issued under section 30 and, (b) in their view, the duplication is essential.” <em>This amendment requires a New Evidence Certificate to be issued before resumed inquests may duplicate previous investigative steps.</em> Amendment 32, page 68, line 34, after “essential” insert “, if the inquest in question involves a person who has served in His Majesty’s Armed Forces or a former member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.” Amendment 33, page 69, line 2, after “A person” insert “who has served in His Majesty’s Armed Forces or a former member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and who is”. Government amendment 240. Amendment 112, page 69, leave out from the beginning of line 35 to the end of line 16 on page 70. Government amendments 241 to 243. Clause 84 stand part. Amendment 142, in clause 85, page 70, line 39, at end insert— “(5) A decision under this section is subject to section (Review of certain decisions relating to Veterans) where that section applies.” Clauses 85 to 87 stand part. Government amendment 244. Clause 88 stand part. Amendment 105, in clause 89, page 73, line 1, leave out subsection (4). <em>This amendment would remove the retrospective effect of the interim custody order provisions.</em> Clause 89 stand part. Amendment 106, in clause 90, page 73, line 7, leave out “does not affect the quashing of the conviction, but” and insert “shall not be applied retrospectively, and”. <em>This amendment and Amendment 107 clarify that the quashing of previous convictions on the grounds that the Secretary of State had not personally signed an interim custody order should not be disregarded for the purposes of securing compensation for miscarriages of justice.</em><span id="974" class="column-number" data-column-number="974"></span> Amendment 107, page 73, line 8, after “is” insert “not”. <em>See the explanatory statement for Amendment 106.</em> Clause 90 stand part. Government new clause 49—<em>Guidance about prosecution of Troubles-related offences: Northern Ireland</em> <em>and England and Wales</em>. Government new clause 50—<em>Consent requirement for prosecution of indictable-only Troubles-related offences</em><em>.</em> Government new clause 51—<em>On the run letters</em><em>.</em> Government new clause 52—<em>Removal of bars on bringing civil claims relating to the Troubles</em><em>.</em> Government new clause 53—<em>Independent reports about effect of certain provisions etc on former members of the security forces</em><em>.</em> New clause 7—<em>Annual Reporting on Recruitment and Retention within the Armed Forces</em>— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of any regulations being made under section 97(4) to commence this Act, appoint a person to act as an independent reviewer of the effect of this legislation on recruitment and retention in the United Kingdom Armed Forces (“the independent reviewer”). (2) The person appointed under subsection (1) must— (a) not have previously held elected political office in the United Kingdom; (b) not be a current member of a political party registered in the United Kingdom; (c) not be a current employee of a political party registered in the United Kingdom; (d) not be a current employee of the Northern Ireland Civil Service or of the United Kingdom Civil Service; (e) not be a current employee of the British Armed Forces. (3) The process for appointing the independent reviewer shall be conducted by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. (4) The person appointed as the independent reviewer under subsection (1) shall have a term in office of five years, renewable for a single additional term by the Secretary of State. (5) The independent reviewer must provide a report to the Secretary of State within six months of their appointment and every twelve months thereafter on the impact of this Act on recruitment and retention in the United Kingdom Armed Forces. (6) On receiving a report under subsection (5), the Secretary of State must lay a copy of it before Parliament along with the Secretary of State’s response to the report’s findings. (7) The Secretary of State may pay the expenses of the independent reviewer and may also pay them such allowances as the Secretary of State, with the advice of the Commissioner for Public Appointments, determines.” New clause 12—<em>Duty to promote reconciliation</em>— “(1) The Secretary of State must publish a strategy for the promotion of reconciliation in Northern Ireland arising from and in connection with the implementation of this Act. (2) The strategy must set out how the Secretary of State intends to— (a) support the transition from the legacy of the Troubles to a stable and shared future; (b) foster constructive relationships between different communities in Northern Ireland; and (c) acknowledge the suffering of victims and survivors. (3) In preparing the strategy, the Secretary of State must consult— (a) the Legacy Commission; (b) the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee of the House of Commons;<span id="975" class="column-number" data-column-number="975"></span> (c) the Victims and Survivors Advisory Group; and (d) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate. (4) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the strategy before both Houses of Parliament within six months of the Act coming into force. (5) In this section, references to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee shall, if the name of the Committee is changed, be taken to be references to the Committee by whatever name it is for the time called.” <em>This new clause places a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to produce and publish a strategy for promoting reconciliation in Northern Ireland in connection with the implementation of the Act.</em> New clause 22—<em>Restriction on repeated investigations without new and compelling evidence</em>— “(1) The Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (“the ICRIR”) must not begin, continue, or reopen any review or investigation of conduct forming part of the Troubles where— (a) that conduct has previously been the subject of an investigation, inquest or other legal proceedings, and (b) no new and compelling evidence has become available. (2) For the purposes of this section, “new and compelling evidence” means evidence which— (a) was not available to any previous investigation, inquest or proceedings, and (b) is reliable, substantial and highly probative such that it gives rise to a realistic prospect of a different outcome. (3) No review or investigation may be begun, continued or reopened by virtue of subsection (1) unless the Secretary of State has certified that— (a) the test in subsection (2) is met, and (b) it is in the interests of justice to proceed. (4) In deciding whether to issue a certificate under subsection (3), the Secretary of State must have regard to— (a) the public interest in finality of investigations, (b) the age, health and welfare of the person concerned, and (c) the need to ensure fair and proportionate treatment. (5) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for an independent review of decisions made under subsection (3).” <em>This new clause would prevent the reopening or continuation of Troubles-related investigations or reviews where there is no new and compelling evidence, and introduces a certification requirement whereby the public interest, age and health of persons concerned, and the need for fair and proportionate treatment are considered before a review or investigation may be begun, continued, or re-opened.</em> New clause 30—<em>Mandatory Compliance with Medical Certificate</em>— “(1) This section applies where a person (“P”) is required, or has been requested, to give evidence in connection with— (a) an investigation under Part 3; (b) inquisitorial proceedings under Part 4; or (c) a resumed inquest under Part 7. (2) Where P has provided a certificate issued by a registered medical practitioner stating that P is unfit to give oral evidence, the relevant decision-maker must not require P to give oral evidence unless subsection (3) applies. (3) Where there are substantial grounds to believe that a medical certificate produced by P has been procured by fraud, or in any other way dishonestly, the relevant decision-maker may require P to disclose their full medical records for the purposes of determining P’s fitness to give evidence.<span id="976" class="column-number" data-column-number="976"></span> (4) Where medical records have been requested under subsection (3), P is under no obligation to supply those records to any person other than the relevant decision maker and such records shall not be supplied by the decision maker to any other individual. (5) Save where the circumstances described in subsection (3) apply, and the decision-maker determines that P is in fact fit to give evidence, no adverse inference may be drawn from any person’s reliance on medical unfitness certification. (6) For the purpose of this section, “the relevant decision-maker” means— (a) the relevant Director of Investigations; (b) the relevant judicial panel member; or (c) the coroner conducting the resumed inquest (as the case may be).” New clause 31—<em>Review of certain decisions relating to Veterans</em>— “(1) This section applies where a decision is made under— (a) section 28(11) (requests for investigations by certain persons); (b) section 43 (referral to prosecutors: investigations); (c) section 61 (referral to prosecutors: inquisitorial proceedings); or (d) any provision of Part 7 (inquests). (2) A person to whom the decision relates may, within such period as may be prescribed by regulations made under the affirmative statutory instrument procedure by the Secretary of State, request that the decision be reviewed in accordance with this section. (3) Where a request is made under subsection (2), the decision must be referred to— (a) the Attorney General for England and Wales; (b) a person appointed by the Attorney General for England and Wales who— (i) holds or has held high judicial office in the courts of England and Wales; and (ii) does not hold office in Northern Ireland. (4) A reviewer under subsection (3) may— (a) confirm the decision; (b) quash the decision; (c) remit the decision to the original decision maker for reconsideration, together with directions as to the matters to which regard must be had in reconsidering the decision.” <em>This new clause provides for the review of certain decisions by the Attorney General, or a serving or former Judge from outside Northern Ireland.</em> New clause 54—<em>Reconciliation, transparency and memorialisation of the Troubles</em>— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, lay before both Houses of Parliament a statement on the implementation of Part 4 of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 (“the 2023 Act”). (2) The statement made by the Secretary of State must include, but be not limited to— (a) details on how the implementation of Part 4 of the 2023 Act will occur in relation to the entry into force of this Act. (b) a proposed appointment process for selecting “designated persons”, for the purposes of Part 4 of the 2023 Act, that is transparent and guarantees the independence of those persons appointed. (c) provisions detailing the reconciliation projects that will receive funding from His Majesty’s Government.”<span id="977" class="column-number" data-column-number="977"></span> <em>This new clause would require the Government to make a statement on progress in implementing Part 4 of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, reflecting recommendations made by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in its Second Report of Session 2024–26.</em> Government amendment 245. Clause 91 stand part. Government amendments 267 to 275. Schedule 6 stand part. Clause 92 stand part. Amendment 277, in clause 93, page 76, line 10, leave out “, or” and insert “, (ea) F is a grandparent of D, (eb) F is an aunt or uncle of D, (ec) F is a niece or nephew of D, (ed) F is a grandchild of D, or”. <em>This amendment would extend the definition of a close family member of a deceased person, as recommended by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in its Second Report of Session 2024-26.</em> Government amendments 246 to 248. Clause 93 stand part. Government amendments 249 and 250. Clause 94 stand part. Clauses 95 and 96 stand part. Amendment 45, in clause 97, page 78, line 35, after “(2)” insert “and subject to the provisions of subsections (3A) and (3B)”. <em>This amendment is a paving amendment for Amendment 46.</em> Government amendment 251. Amendment 46, page 78, line 36, at end insert— “(3A) No regulations may be made by the Secretary of State under subsection (3) unless the condition in subsection (3B) is met. (3B) The condition in this subsection is that the Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament a written statement which outlines the steps undertaken by both the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of Ireland to implement the undertakings made in “The Legacy of the Troubles: A Joint Framework between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of Ireland” (“the Joint Framework”), including, but not limited to, a report of the Secretary of State’s understanding of progress on— (a) a cross-border body on information retrieval, (b) the establishment of a dedicated unit within An Garda Síochána to be a central point of contact for cross-border cooperation on Troubles-related cases and Troubles-related investigations being undertaken by An Garda Síochána, (c) the investigation by An Garda Síochána of all unresolved Troubles-related incidents within its jurisdiction.” Clauses 97 and 98 stand part.
Order. Before the Secretary of State responds, I appreciate how sensitive these questions and answers are, but it is not “you” and not “your”.
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Order. If people wish to participate in the debate, they should do so by formal intervention, so that it can be recorded in <em>Hansard</em>, and not by chuntering from a sedentary position.
Order. I hope the hon. Member agrees that there has been order throughout the debate.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Order. I know that very important and sensitive points are being raised, but please do not say “you” or “your”. I remind Sir David Davis that many people wish to contribute to this debate.
I call Gavin Robinson.
Order.
I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. Just after the second world war, in May ’46, the first commercial flights departed Heathrow, marking the beginning of an 80-year journey that has seen over 3 billion passengers move through the airport and take 22 million flights. Between September last year and August this year, 84 million passengers went through Heathrow. The Prime Minister likes to talk about the industrialisation of the past century. Heathrow and our other airports across the country are symbols of the modern industrialised world, where transportation between countries is a major engine of economic development. That leads us to the subject of today’s debate, Heathrow expansion. A long-running and undeniably contentious issue is at stake here. I do not think anyone could be surprised to see the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) make the case against expansion. Her predecessors as MPs did the same, all the way back to Hugh Jenkins, who in 1970 asked the Government to give an undertaking “that no further enlargement of Heathrow Airport will be permitted and that no additional runways of any kind will be allowed.”<span id="vol805_col366W" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="1" data-column-number="366W" data-volume-number="805">—[<em>Official Report</em>, 4 November 1970; Vol. 805, c. 366W.]</span> However, the figure of 84 million passengers makes it clear that Heathrow is at capacity. The lack of further capacity is severely constraining its ability to grow and, as a consequence, Britain’s ability to grow through its hub airport. Data published in March by Airports Council International showed that the growth in passenger numbers at Heathrow of 1.9% falls well behind the European average of 4.6%. If we want businesses in this country to grow and to encourage private investment, we should not stand in the way of development that offers economic benefits. If we do, the demand for flights will not dissipate. Rather, operators will choose to fly and invest elsewhere—particularly given that Heathrow is a hub airport—and most likely at competing European airports that have expanded their facilities, such as Schiphol, Charles de Gaulle and Frankfurt. In many cases, they will also build new runways. Alongside that will be the jobs and the other opportunities that go with it.
I will come on to those figures because I think we can all agree that there is questioning of them. It surprises me that the former Chancellor of Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves), and the current Chancellor of Exchequer are so vociferously supportive of the airport expansion if those figures are true.
The hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly important point. I remember, as a Transport Minister, visiting Belfast City airport, Belfast International airport and City of Derry airport. They are so important, and they reinforced to me how important that plug-in from Heathrow, as our international hub, is for not just Northern Ireland but Scotland, Wales and the north of England. None of our other airports have that hub status. That is why Heathrow is under different regulations and a different model. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about how that connectivity drives growth right across the UK.
No; I have just given way twice, and I will happily give way again later. Since the announcement was made, the Conservative party’s leadership has been clear: expansion should go ahead provided that sensible and proportionate local mitigation measures form part of that plan. Heathrow and the Government have already set out a number of those measures. However, it is critical that they genuinely serve the interests of local residents and do not impose excessive costs that will ultimately be passed on to passengers. I turn to the challenges posed for the Minister in the debate. The former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Leeds West and Pudsey, as well as the former Prime Minister and the current Chancellor have all backed the project. The Minister is now in the unenviable position of trying to explain whether the Government of which he is a member actually support expansion or not. The situation has become a political version of Schrödinger’s cat. The Prime Minister seems to believe that by refusing to give a clear answer and by deflecting attention towards the concerns about other projects, he can leave some people believing that the runway idea is alive and some believing it is dead, all at the same time.<span id="343WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="343WH"></span> The other day, the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the International Monetary Fund: “The case for a third runway at Heathrow has always been a case for growth”. This created a completely different impression of the Government’s position. Unfortunately, that good cop, bad cop approach to expansion does little to reassure investors—not just investors in Heathrow, but investors in the UK in general. As Heathrow made clear in evidence to the Transport Committee, investors want clarity about the regulatory framework so that they can assess the project’s business case with confidence. Although there has been much speculation about the timetable for expansion, the lack of clarity over the Government’s position and regulatory framework risks undermining confidence further. If the Prime Minister does not appear to give the project his support, how on earth can investors have confidence in the regulatory process, which is ultimately overseen by the Government he leads? I am afraid that the discrepancy between the Prime Minister and the Chancellor gets to the heart of the challenges facing the Government. By giving the public the impression that they are jettisoning the previous Government’s commitment, the Prime Minister is once again demonstrating what has become his trademark skill: evading responsibility and avoiding difficult decisions.
Whenever there is a large infrastructure project in the country—we are fully aware of this and always have been—there will always be local objections, as we would expect at council and sometimes constituency MP level. I think everybody understands that. The broader point is that Heathrow will be a privately funded project, and we support it on that basis. What is the cost of the failure to make a decision? It is lost growth and forgone private sector investment. This is the same behaviour that we have seen towards vital projects such as more drilling in the North sea. The Prime Minister wants to talk about re-industrialisation without giving British companies or businesses the tools they need to achieve that. As the Leader of the Opposition stated: “The future of our country’s busiest airport is not a regional matter” That is why I take issue with some of the speeches made by Members today. This is a matter for the country and for the Prime Minister, so, in the words of the Leader of the Opposition, he needs to “stop faffing about” and “get this runway built.”<span id="344WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="344WH"></span> There has been much discussion today about the level of economic growth that the airport would deliver, to pick up on the intervention made by the hon. Member for Richmond Park. However, we should all be able to agree that the project would bring economic benefits. The £17 billion in benefits estimated by Heathrow is a considerable sum. Although I understand that the Department has produced different figures, I ask the Minister what steps the Department is taking to ensure that its economic analysis captures the full benefits for passengers and trade in full and, indeed, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, right across the United Kingdom as well. Furthermore, the project will increase investment in UK supply chains, create jobs and provide opportunities for new apprenticeships. The chief executive officer of Heathrow said only last week that of the billions in private sector investment, 95% will go into the UK supply chains, alongside more than 100,000 jobs that Heathrow says the project could support.
Thank you very much, Sir John. I will just say that there are clearly vested interests on all sides. If the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West does not think that existing airlines with existing slots have vested interests, he is living on a different planet. With the most recent economic figures showing a contraction in construction output, how on earth can we justify failing to provide clarity about such a significant infrastructure project? From the outset, it has felt that the Department for Transport was trying to catch up with announcements made by the Treasury and Prime Minister. Now it appears that progress might be stalled by No. 10 instead. I am afraid that the non-answers we have seen from the Government to date demonstrate a lack of seriousness on their part. I hope that the Minister can encourage his more senior colleagues to provide some of that certainty, and maybe he can provide even more today.
On the DCO process for surface access targets, could the Minister address the point about drop-off charges? That is important for the surface access proposals being put forward by the Government.
I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the recognition of polygamous marriages, marriages within prohibited degrees, and certain other marriages between close relatives, in the social security system. I have brought the Bill to the House to correct an extraordinary fault in our welfare system—one so bizarre and indefensible that I can scarcely believe that we need legislation to address it. We do not yet know what the Government wish to do in this area, but I hope that if the Bill passes today, they will not oppose it on Friday 13 November. We should begin with a simple question: what is welfare for? Beveridge understood the principles of making a contribution, of responsibility, and of providing security for hard times. You pay into a system and help sustain it, and it is there for you when you need it. Alongside that, help is there for those most in need—those who simply cannot or will never be able to look after themselves. That is the essence of a system that Members on all sides of this House could agree to—a system that is contributory and compassionate. How far have we drifted when our rules make special provision for polygamy or incest to be recognised in the benefit system? Can Government Members—or any other Members—point to where in the Beveridge report it is envisaged that a man’s third or fourth wife be supported? Where was any of that when Beveridge laid the foundations of our modern welfare system? Some Members take a different view on Beveridge. They have never seen a benefit of any kind, for anyone, that they did not want preserved at any cost. They are unable or unwilling to say no. Whenever the moment arrives to top up a budget or dish out another handout, those Members are there. I hope that the Bill will stir a new feeling in those Members, and that the blinkers will fall from their eyes. I hope that when they see a system that gives special treatment to men with multiple wives, and potentially to incestuous marriages, their inner conservativism will break out. We are talking about provisions that recognise overseas polygamous marriages and make allowance for additional spouses—a second or third wife and onwards. We are talking about a man rinsing the taxpayer for social security benefits under unbelievable provisions in law that recognise polygamous marriages, which are illegal in the UK. We chuck around welfare payments to such people with abandon. Taxpayers are entitled to ask what on earth we are doing. The Bill is about polygamy, but it is also about overseas marriages between close relatives. To one of my written parliamentary questions, which I know Ministers appreciate dearly, I received an extraordinary answer. What did a Minister say about overseas marriages between an uncle and his niece, or an aunt and her nephew—marriages that are illegal in the UK—being recognised in our welfare budget? They said it was “unlikely”. Frankly, “unlikely” is not good enough, especially when <span id="971" class="column-number" data-column-number="971"></span>Ministers cannot give me an answer on how many polygamous or incestuous marriages are being supported by our welfare system. The standards at issue here are hardly novel. Bigamy has been a statutory criminal offence in the UK since 1604, more than four centuries ago. Marriages within prohibited degrees, including incestuous ones between uncle and niece or aunt and nephew, were made automatically void by the Marriage Act 1835, nearly two centuries ago. Our modern legislation explicitly outlaws incestuous sexual activity between uncles and nieces or aunts and nephews. When Parliament has rightly drawn those boundaries, surely it is right that our welfare system should uphold them. I have brought to the House this Bill, backed by the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), to end recognition of polygamous marriages and put it beyond doubt that overseas incestuous marriages cannot and should not be recognised in our welfare system for social security purposes. How did we get here, when such marriages are illegal in our country? How did it come about that we recognise them if they were conducted overseas? The situation developed as a result of common-law rules and decisions made by courts. As in so many other areas, these decisions were probably well meaning, but this situation is completely inimical to a cohesive society and a coherent polity, and anathema to the values of our country. The beautiful thing about our country and Parliament is that we are sovereign; Parliament can legislate to remove uncertainty and revoke common law where it is wrong. Parliament must take responsibility. We decide what our welfare system recognises, and that is the signal that this House should send, clearly and explicitly, through the law of this country. Time and again, I meet constituents in Basildon and Billericay who need support, or those on the other side, who are being squeezed more and more by higher taxes—people who work long hours, but who see their bills rise as they try to support their family. Why are my constituents not more deserving of our attention? Instead, we are bundling cash, first class, to men with multiple wives, and to those who made an uncle-niece marriage overseas. Let us take a sensible step to address the issue in a way that recognises the values behind our benefit system, which is rooted in compassion and the principle of contribution, and in the values of our country. It is not there to pay for cultural practices that are illegal here. Surely it is insane that our welfare rules make special provision for men with many wives. I believe that Parliament should put the matter beyond doubt. I hope that the House supports the Bill, and that the Government do not back away from it, but instead support it on its Second Reading on Friday 13 November. <em>Question put and agreed to.</em> <em>Ordered,</em> That Mr Richard Holden, Mrs Kemi Badenoch, Helen Whateley, Claire Coutinho, Laura Trott, Tom Tugendhat, Katie Lam, Dame Rebecca Harris, Joy Morrissey, Andrew Griffith, Nick Timothy and Neil O’Brien present the Bill. Mr Richard Holden accordingly presented the Bill. <em>Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday </em><em>13 November</em><em>, and to</em><em> </em><em>be printed (Bill 1</em><em>63</em><em>).</em>
Amen.