Warm Homes Plan
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, who has two and a half minutes.
5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Warm Homes Plan
I welcome the hon. Lady’s thanks, but it is not down to me; it is down to the Secretary of State. We must stop using the word “you”.
- Hansard source
Warm Homes Plan
Order. I have confidence that the Secretary of State is across his brief and does not need to be warmed up before a question, so get straight to the question so that we get on to the next Member.
- Hansard source
Warm Homes Plan
Order. We do not reference Members by their names, but by their constituencies. Get straight to the question!
- Hansard source
Warm Homes Plan
Order. Questions need to be much shorter, as do the answers from the Secretary of State.
- Hansard source
Water White Paper
I call the shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
- Hansard source
Engagements
I welcome the Prime Minister following our lead on children accessing social media. In particular, I thank the shadow Education Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), 61 Labour MPs and the Greater Manchester Mayor for forcing him to think again. The Prime Minister and I agree: the future of Greenland should only be decided by the people of Greenland. When the Prime Minister made that point to President Trump on Monday, did the President agree or disagree?
- Hansard source
Engagements
I am very glad to hear the Prime Minister say that. We all know that the people of Greenland do not want to be ruled by America, but does he agree that just as those in Greenland should decide their own future, so should the Chagossians?
- Hansard source
Engagements
We will note that when I asked him what the President told him, he could not tell us. Now he expects us to believe that he knows what is going on in President Trump’s mind. Let me remind him that his Deputy Prime Minister, then Foreign Secretary, used to say that if President Trump did not like the deal, it would not go ahead. Let us look at what President Trump actually said. The Chagos deal is “an act of GREAT STUPIDITY”, and a sign of “total weakness.” We did not need President Trump to tell us that; we have been saying that for 12 months. Let us remind the Prime Minister: President Trump thought that the Prime Minister was doing this for money. The Prime Minister is giving away territory we own and paying £35 billion for the privilege. Why does he not just scrap this terrible deal and put the money into our armed forces?
- Hansard source
Engagements
I have already told the Prime Minister that we agree on Greenland; I am asking about the Chagos deal. That money—that £35 billion—should go to the armed forces. The world is changing and we are in a very different place—the most dangerous international environment since the end of the cold war. Last week, the head of the armed forces—not me, the head of the armed forces—warned that our military faces a £28 billion shortfall. Is he right?
- Hansard source
Engagements
The Prime Minister wants to talk about defections. Let me tell him that when I had someone undermining my party, I sacked him. If he sacked—[Interruption.]
- Hansard source
Engagements
We all know that if the Prime Minister sacked everyone undermining his party, his Front Bench would be empty. Jokes aside, these questions I am asking are about our national interest. We support our armed forces in every possible way. Later today, my party will vote to protect our veterans from unfair prosecution; he is ordering his MPs to vote against them. In our national interest, and for the sake of all the brave people in the armed forces, past, present and future, will the Prime Minister do the right thing and vote in support of our veterans, not against them?
- Hansard source
Engagements
The Prime Minister wants to talk about leadership. Three of his own Cabinet Ministers told The Times on Saturday that he needed to learn from me—[Interruption.]
- Hansard source
Engagements
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Back to the national interest. Instead of acting in it, the Prime Minister just tries to get through the day. On the Chinese spy hub embassy, he is too weak. On Chagos, he is too weak. On funding for the armed forces, he is too weak. On protecting our veterans from prosecution, he is too weak. I will support the Prime Minister when he does the right thing, but time after time, this Prime Minister has done the wrong thing for our country. Is it not the truth that he is too weak to stand up for our national interests?
- Hansard source
Local Government Reorganisation: Referendums
I beg to move, That this House has considered the potential merits of referendums on local government re-organisation. It is, as usual, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. Before I begin, I would like to ask the House a simple question: who truly understands the challenges and intricacies of local life in our constituencies? Is it civil servants sitting behind desks in Whitehall, or is it our constituents—the people who live, work and raise their families in the communities affected by local decisions? The obvious answer, as I hope the House will agree, is that our constituents know best, and yet we find ourselves in a situation where the Government appear determined to ignore those voices on local government reorganisation. Since those plans were announced and rumours emerged of an extension to the city council boundary in Leicester, I have led a campaign against it. I have tabled amendments to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, asked questions on the Floor of the House and written to Ministers, and yet the response remains the same. The Government simply do not want to listen to the people who will be most affected by any local government reorganisation. This is not to say that I am opposed to reforms. I recognise the potential benefits of consolidation: savings for the hard-pressed taxpayer, particularly at a time when this Government continue to raise taxes to unprecedented levels; and the possibility of more efficient public services. But any changes must be done with communities, not to communities. Residents must have a voice—a say in which neighbourhood plan they fall under, who runs their local services and, crucially, how much council tax they will be asked to pay. I do not want to predetermine what the Minister will say today, but if she decides against opening a discussion on the introduction of referendums, I will continue this campaign. I will be presenting a Bill to the House of Commons to give Members the opportunity to empower their residents with a final say on what local government reorganisation should look like in their areas.
- Hansard source
Local Government Reorganisation: Referendums
A lot can be learned from previous Governments of all different colours, and I ask the Minister to look at history and not repeat any mistakes that may have been made in the past. Local identity, democratic consent and keeping council tax low are all at the forefront of my constituents’ concerns. First, there is growing concern throughout villages such as Glenfield, Leicester Forest East, Birstall and many more that if they are absorbed into the city council area, they will have development after development quite literally dumped on their green and beautiful spaces. These communities see their villages—currently served by Leicestershire county council—coming under increased pressure from the city council expansion.
- Hansard source
Local Government Reorganisation: Referendums
I absolutely agree: council services should be accessible to all. One of the concerns that my constituents have—particularly those in rural areas—is that if they are absorbed into a city unitary authority, they will have less access to be able to get their views and thoughts across. I share the sentiment that the hon. Member expressed.
- Hansard source
Local Government Reorganisation: Referendums
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. As I said to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) earlier, this Government should reflect on the mistakes that previous Governments of different colours have made and ensure that the views of local people are always taken on board before any decisions are made, which was not the case in the example my hon. Friend just gave. In my constituency, development is being pushed further and further outwards, right up to the boundaries. As a result, my constituents see local services being stretched. In Glenfield, for example, it is becoming increasingly clear that the city mayor in Leicester, who recently declared a climate emergency, is looking to build over the much-loved Western Park golf course, which is on the city-county boundary. Residents’ groups are currently able to lobby their local representatives, including me, to try to protect such spaces, but ultimately we all know that if Glenfield is incorporated within the city boundary, residents’ groups will have fewer and fewer avenues through which to defend the character of their community.
- Hansard source
Local Government Reorganisation: Referendums
As I said to the hon. Members who intervened earlier, this Government should definitely learn from the mistakes of previous Governments. That is particularly true in relation to the example the hon. Gentleman just gave of local government reform being introduced against the wishes of local people, resulting in an adverse impact on their local services and the community. I take his point and I hope that the Minister will listen to him, too. I am not raising concerns today because I am a nimby—I fully accept that housing is needed—but we cannot allow a situation to develop whereby overbearing mayors, such as those in London, Birmingham or Leicester, are able to force their housing quotas on to the outer edges of their cities and gravely impact the lives of county communities. Secondly, it is clear from the consternation of many people in my constituency that they do not wish to be ruled by a city mayor who has little chance of being removed. My communities in Anstey, Birstall and Leicester Forest East, and in many of the villages that border the city, fear being permanently outvoted by the urban-focused city electorate.
- Hansard source
Local Government Reorganisation: Referendums
The hon. Gentleman makes a passionate point about his constituency. I know that he has been working on this issue for many years and I hope the Minister will take heed of what he just said. I know he will continue to champion those causes. My constituents have watched Leicester itself decline while the county continues to deliver. The previous Conservative administration at county hall presided over better education services, better roads and better social care—all at a fraction of the cost. Quite simply, my constituents do not want Leicester city, or its mayor, to drag them down. Is it any wonder that they ask, “Who in their right mind would want to be a part of an urban-focused Leicester city council?” Indeed, on the doorsteps many of my constituents tell me that they moved to the county precisely to escape the decline of the city. Frankly, I could not agree with them more: I made the same decision just over a decade ago. I believe in devolution, but expansion would leave county representatives outnumbered and overruled while city priorities, such as the climate crisis, take precedence over the needs of areas such as Mid Leicestershire. Finally, and perhaps crucially, any reorganisation must be preceded by a referendum—
- Hansard source
Local Government Reorganisation: Referendums
I think all the residents who would be impacted by any changes should be consulted in a referendum. All the constituents who would be part of a potential new authority should be consulted as part of that referendum—that is how I see it working. Of course, there are different models, and the Government could explain and explore those models in any approach they introduce. As I was saying, any reorganisation must be preceded by a referendum, because reorganisations directly determine local priorities and how much council tax our constituents will pay. If the boundaries are redrawn and my constituents are absorbed into a city council area, I believe they will face higher taxes for poorer services. Why on earth should we say to my constituents in villages such as Birstall, Anstey or Thurcaston, who are already dealing with the highest tax burden in a generation, that they will pay more for less—and without a say? To conclude, at a time when trust in politics and in this place is at an all-time low, what better way is there for the Government to show that they are listening than letting ordinary people—the people who are impacted by such reorganisations—have the final say on how their local services are delivered? They should have the final decision on how changes are implemented.
- Hansard source
Local Government Reorganisation: Referendums
I thank all Members from across the House for contributing to the debate. There is clearly passion across the House about our local areas and constituencies. Local decision making matters so much to our residents. I ask the Minister to reconsider the Government’s approach, particularly in the light of my point that local people should always have the final say on structural changes in their areas. That could be achieved by introducing local referenda. I reiterate my point to the Minister and ask the Government to reconsider their position. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the potential merits of referendums on local government reorganisation.
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation
As the Secretary of State well knows, the Blair Government handed out hundreds of so-called letters of comfort to alleged IRA paramilitaries following their release from prison. John Downey, the alleged Hyde Park bomber, produced such a letter during his trial at the Old Bailey, whereupon the trial was immediately abandoned. Our Northern Ireland veterans have no such letters of comfort. Does the Secretary of State agree that that letter of comfort let John Downey off on that particular occasion?
- Hansard source
Draft Non-Domestic Rating (Chargeable Amounts) (England) Regulations 2026
Does the shadow Minister agree that this is creating a perfect storm and that the reason so many people are getting in touch with us—many MPs on both sides of the House will have owners of pubs, restaurants and bars getting in touch with them—is that this business rates change will crystallise that? In coastal areas like Fylde, people have less money in their pockets, so there are fewer visitors to hospitality venues to start with. Those businesses already face significant cost increases because of changes to national insurance and other changes in the tax system. As a result, these 40%, 50% or 60% changes in business rates will be the final straw for many of those businesses.
- Hansard source
Draft Non-Domestic Rating (Chargeable Amounts) (England) Regulations 2026
If that is the case, would it not have been better if the Government had had the foresight to put a new system in place to deal with the discounts that existed before, and made some choices about where the pounds are spent—rather than on higher welfare, maybe on supporting businesses?
- Hansard source
Railways: Funding
Following a freedom of information request, several questions at the Dispatch Box and my pre-Christmas letter to the Secretary of State, a serious explanation of railway funding in Wales is still lacking. Previously, she said in the Chamber: “We are investing…to right the years of underfunding”—[Official Report, 16 July 2025; Vol. 771, c. 282.] She told the Welsh Affairs Committee that there was “widespread agreement… and many others have expressed similar sentiments.” That is not evidence of underfunding; it is an opinion. Will she finally tell the House what method she is using to form her opinion, and will she outline how much Network Rail intends to invest in Welsh railways?
- Hansard source
Cost of Living: Wales
Wales could be disproportionately affected by US tariffs, which could be a challenge for many Welsh businesses—the words of Labour First Minister Baroness Eluned Morgan in correspondence to the Prime Minister. There has been lots of talk about traitors, but over the past 27 years we, the Conservatives, are the ones who have seriously scrutinised, challenged and exposed the failings of Welsh Labour, which is clearly propped up by Plaid and the Lib Dems. Will the Secretary of State confirm that it is the two fabled Labour Governments who simply cannot work together who are making the cost of living and unemployment worse in Wales?
- Hansard source
National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill
I beg to move amendment 5, page 1, line 10, after “income tax” insert— “at the higher or additional rate”. This amendment would exempt basic rate taxpayers in England, Wales and Scotland from the £2,000 cap.
- Hansard source
National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill
It is a great pleasure to be with you yet again, Ms Nokes. I enjoyed our last sparring with the Pensions Minister just before Christmas, which cheered us up to no end. Let me speak to amendments 5, 7, 6 and 8 as well as new clause 4, which all stand in my name. It will not surprise the Pensions Minister to hear that we are not at all happy with this Bill, which actually will do nothing to enhance pension savings. I will go through each of our amendments in the reverse order of importance. New clause 4 would require the Government to assess the impact of the Bill, should it receive Royal Assent, before and after its implementation in 2029. We think it is important that the Government do their homework before implementing policies. We asked for something similar in the Pension Schemes Bill, but the Pensions Minister described it as unnecessary. In this case, the Government seem not to have listened to industry, to experts or to savers. Our new clause asks the Government to do that, so that we can better understand the impact. First, how will the Bill affect pensions adequacy? That will be after the pensions review has concluded, so we do need to know. Secondly, how many people use salary sacrifice or optional remuneration arrangements? Thirdly, what are the investment capability of UK pensions? There has been a certain amount of commentary on this matter. The Association of British Insurers has said: “We have consistently raised concerns about the potential impact of a cap on pension salary sacrifice on both people’s savings and employers’ resources.” There are some issues that are of great concern to many people on this matter, so have the Government fully considered the knock-on effect that it will have on investment from UK pension funds? Also, will the Government update the terms of reference for the pensions commissioner, which is being led by Baroness Drake, to ensure that this is considered? We are unlikely to press new clause 4 to a vote. However, I believe that the Liberal Democrats’ new clause 5 would have a similar effect. Should the Liberal Democrats wish to move the new clause, we would support it. Amendments 7 and 8 concern the indexation of the cap. These amendments look to make the £2,000 cap naturally rise in line with the consumer prices index. We have brought these amendments forward because if the cap remains static, it will become increasingly meaningless. We have seen today, when we have had an above-expectation inflation rise of 3.4%, that would clearly devalue the value of the cap, even by the time that it is implemented in 2029. Our amendments seek to address that so that salary sacrifice arrangements do not become redundant without parliamentary intervention. Obviously, we use CPI because it is the basis for inflation. Again, the ABI has made a similar argument, as the cap does not allow for inflationary changes. Having said that, we do not propose to press those amendments. Let me move on to amendments 5 and 6, which we feel particularly strongly about. They are mirror arrangements for each other. Importantly, we are trying to make what we feel is a very poor Bill into something that is less poor. The amendments would make basic rate taxpayers exempt from the £2,000 cap. They would support the group in the UK that typically under-saves and is the least prepared for retirement. According to the Society of Pension Professionals, a quarter of the people who enjoy salary sacrifice, who will be hit by the changes that this Bill brings in, are basic rate taxpayers. Around 850,000 basic rate taxpayers will be affected by the cap. More fundamental to that is the fact that this group of people—lower-paid workers—will be hit disproportionately hard. Salary sacrifice allows an employee to give up a certain amount of their salary to be contributed to their pension directly by the employer. We all understand that, but it not only takes advantage of the income tax allowance, as with all pension contributions, but allows national insurance contributions to be included and transferred into the pension, in the case of an employee national insurance, and allows for employer national insurance to be used at the discretion of the employer. The employee element—the national insurance that we all pay as employees—is the important part of this matter. While higher rate taxpayers will continue to enjoy 40% tax relief at their higher rate, the national insurance is just 2 percentage points—around one-twentieth of the tax break on the income tax. While a basic rate taxpayer enjoys just 20% income tax breaks, their national insurance contribution is 8%. The effect on lower-paid workers is four times that on higher-paid workers. That is not a good thing—indeed, 8% is two-fifths of the value of the other contribution for which they benefit from their income tax savings. In absolute terms, as I have said, the marginal rate is four times more expensive for lower rate taxpayers than it is for higher rate taxpayers, but there is an even bigger problem: this is a harder attack on other types of savers than we had anticipated. Another group of people affected are those paying back student loans. Graduates pay back their student loans once they pass the thresholds of £28,745, and they do so at a rate of 9%. Graduates who would otherwise enjoy that 9% that goes into student loans being paid into a pension will not see it being paid into their pension because of the salary sacrifice cap. The effective loss for a graduate paying back student loans is 9%. Graduates on the basic rate of tax will see not just a loss of 8% for their national insurance schemes, but a total loss of 17% of the benefit at the marginal level above the £2,000 cap. The director of the Chartered Institute of Taxation agrees. She said: “The change will disproportionately affect basic rate taxpayers because they will pay at 8% NIC on contributions over the £2,000 cap, compared with a 2% charge on higher earners. It will also disproportionately impact those with student loans who earn above the repayment threshold, as they will have incurred an extra 9% student loan deduction from their pay.” At a time when we are trying to get people to do the right thing and save for the future, it seems that the Government want to whack the lower-paid harder. Because of the way that this system works, they will whack the lower paid. They also want to whack a younger generation even harder than those who enjoyed free university education. That younger generation cannot afford to buy a house and have to pay for university education. The Government have made it far harder to get a job, with their jobs tax, and at a time when we are desperately trying to get people to save for their retirement, they are making it harder to save for a pension. I challenge Labour MPs. Why are they being whipped to vote against these measures and against the interests of lower-paid people? Why are they being asked to vote against the interests of graduates and younger people and vote for a regressive tax?
- Hansard source
National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill
I completely agree. That is a fundamental problem. We are doing completely the wrong thing for people who want to do the right thing. We are disincentivising people taking responsibility for their future at a time when the state pension is coming under a lot of pressure. It is expected in 11 or 12 years, I think, that less money will be paid into the pension schemes pot than is withdrawn by those of us who are approaching retirement—I declare an interest, in my own case.
- Hansard source
National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill
I am trying to finish my speech—in fact, I had finished my speech. This is a very important point, and we will push amendment 5 to a vote. As I said, we will challenge Labour MPs not to do the wrong thing for their constituents—for the young, hard-working graduates who are desperate to do the right thing.
- Hansard source
National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill
The Pensions Minister is absolutely right that there is an awful lot that we agree on. It is always a great pleasure to spar with him and agree on certain things, but this Bill is not one of them. Let me be clear why we disagree with the Minister. First, the contributors to the research done by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs were absolutely against this Bill. The report, which was published last year and which the Minister mentioned on Second Reading, concluded that all the hypothetical scenarios explored in the research, including the £2,000 cap, were viewed negatively. It also pointed out that the £2,000 cap was the most complicated option presented. Given that the Government tabled no amendments to address the genuine concerns of savers and industry, it seems that the Minister is still apparently chuffed that he is implementing a policy that is, at best, the least worst option for everybody who was asked to comment. Secondly, the Government are voting for a Bill that will add to the administrative burden on businesses. The pensions system is already incredibly complex for experts to navigate, let alone the general public. That is why salary sacrifice arrangements have been such a popular savings tool for both employees and employers. The principles are easy to understand, with the only real piece of admin being on the employer to ensure that the employee does not fall below the national living wage. But what are the Government doing? They are going for the option that the report considered to be the most complicated. The Government are choosing to confuse with complications a system that is currently the simplest to deliver. The changes will add an estimated £30 million each year in administrative costs to employers—and this comes at a time when businesses and the wider economy already pay an estimated £15.4 billion just to comply with the tax system. What about the effects on businesses, which see a 15% employer national insurance bonus through helping people to save? The changes will mean that employers will be hit with a 15% increase on the costs of employment. The savings that employers achieve through salary sacrifice arrangements are often invested back into their employees and their businesses, including through increased pension contributions to all employees, higher wages, or more investment into plant and machinery for growth. That is a good thing. The Government are now taking money away from the productive part of the economy and putting it into other parts. No wonder businesses think that this is a nonsensical policy delivered by a directionless Government, who forget that businesses are the ones that create wealth in our economy, add value to it and drive growth. Thirdly, the Government are supporting a Bill that will not actually raise the stated revenue. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) pointed out when winding up on Second Reading, the change appears to have been timed to maximise revenue in 2029-30: the year that counts for the Chancellor’s fiscal rules. That is £4.8 billion to fill the Chancellor’s black hole—she will have one by then—in order to make a cynical attempt to stick to a fiscal rule. This is a cynical measure that destroys a lifetime of savings opportunities for just one year of revenue. Frankly, it is also likely that the Government will not raise anywhere near the £4.8 billion budgeted for, as higher earners max out the benefits of the scheme before it comes into force in 2029; and, in any event, people are figuring out a workaround. Fourthly, the Government are voting for a Bill that harms lower earners the most. As I pointed out earlier, the Society of Pension Professionals estimates that over 850,000 basic rate taxpayers who use salary sacrifice will be affected by the changes, and those 850,000 people will be taxed at a higher rate than their wealthier colleagues—something that the Government apparently seek to target with this policy. And I always thought that Labour Governments were meant to be on the side of working people, Madam Deputy Speaker! Fifthly, and finally, the Government are voting for a Bill that will make the impending pension adequacy crisis worse. As I said in my introduction, there is widespread agreement that people are not saving enough, so why make the second largest revenue-raising measure of last year’s Budget one that goes after people’s savings for later life? It goes against that basic, important and agreed objective of people planning for their futures. More importantly, it goes against the Government’s own financial inclusion strategy. As the Economic Secretary to the Treasury set out in November, “Our aim is to create a culture in which everyone is supported to build a savings habit, building their financial resilience in the long term.” How does the Bill accomplish that reasonable ambition? It won’t, because it disincentivises employees from saving more in their pensions and it disincentivises employers from providing it as an option in the first place. Altogether, it is the wrong policy that sends the wrong message at the wrong time. We gave the Government a chance to address some of those concerns earlier, and they did not take it. We hear all those concerns loud and clear from businesses, savers and all the rest of them, which is why we want the Government to think again on this issue and why we will vote against this Bill on Third Reading. People are simply not saving enough for their retirement. Rather than restricting the options, we should be encouraging the creation of new incentives that encourage people to save more. Instead, the Government are pushing through a Bill that will do the opposite. It is unbelievably unpopular because it punishes 3.3 million people who actively try to save for retirement by punishing the 290,000 employers who incentivise their employees to save. Worst of all, it breaks another of Labour’s manifesto promises: that it will not increase taxes on working people. It remains the wrong policy to pursue, and that is why we will vote against it.
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation
This is all getting quite technical, so I want to come back to the fundamentals of justice. If the Secretary of State were able to, would he like to give immunity to our veterans?
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation
As well as the self-licking lollipop of legislation and compensation, does my hon. Friend acknowledge that this is a proxy war? It is all about relitigating the question, “Who won?” Does he agree that we are allowing our brave servicemen and women, who served the nation incredibly bravely in Northern Ireland, to be used as pawns in a dreadful proxy game to relitigate the question, “Who won?”
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation
I hope I am not misquoting the Secretary of State, but he said the Government are using this guillotine motion to withdraw parts of an existing law before they have another one in place because of the urgency, and that that urgency was created by a desire to “build trust” in both the civilian victims of terrorism and the military victims of terrorism. In wanting to build trust, he seemed to miss out one group: military veterans, who will also come under consideration if he drops the guillotine on the existing Act today.
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation
The shadow Secretary of State makes a very powerful point, but I think it is worth putting it on the record that it is pretty unlikely his words will carry the day on the basis that there are eight Labour Back Benchers here to hear this debate about applying a guillotine to gut a piece of existing legislation without putting anything else in place.
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation
I am new in this place, but my sense of the hon. Member is that he a great parliamentarian, so I would like to understand how he has reconciled himself with this being the correct course for the Government to take—bringing in a remedial order that pulls a law out before we put a new one in?
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation
I fear that the Liberal Democrat spokesman may have misspoken earlier in his remarks. I will quote from the Joint Committee on Human Rights report on the first draft: “A declaration of incompatibility has no legal effect and does not affect the ongoing validity of the incompatible legislation. It is merely a tool by which the courts can draw attention to an incompatibility; it is then for the Government and Parliament to decide what action, if any, to take.”
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation
As the hon. Member says, we are considering this order alongside the Bill. I am grateful to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on which he sits, for producing this very good report, but I would like to try to get an answer that I did not get earlier. How is he reconciled with the fact that this remedial order is being used as a guillotine to gut an existing piece of legislation before his Government have put something else in place?
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation
The hon. Member is describing the Bill, but we are not here to debate the Bill; we are here to debate the remedial order. I asked him why he was comfortable with the fact that the Government are guillotining a piece of law without putting something else in place, and he has not answered that yet. He has answered that they can, but he has not told us why they should.