5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

   Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

   I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for giving way. He has glossed over another thing that he will potentially be voting for today: allowing Gerry Adams to claim compensation on the basis that his internment was illegal because the Minister of State signed the order not the Secretary of State. Would he like to tell his veteran friends and the people of Halesowen why he is happy to walk through the Lobby to vote to give Gerry Adams that right?

   Hansard source
2. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

   Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

   I want to make a couple of points, one about democracy and one about service and justice. I am deeply uneasy about this remedial order being brought in today. I will make no criticism of those who are here, but for major parts of this debate over the past three hours, the Government Back Benches were empty and yet 20-plus veterans have stayed in the Public Gallery to watch our proceedings and see justice being done. I find it worrying. It is 6.57 pm on a Wednesday. There will be Members in the Tea Room and the bars, and Members working hard in their offices. The bells will ring, as the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) said, and they will come down and ask each other, “What are we voting on?” and they will say, “Oh, it’s a Northern Ireland thing.” What they will not realise is that this remedial order removes a law from existence before another one is put in place.

   Hansard source
3. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

   Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

   I haven’t got time. I do not think that we are doing the House, or indeed Parliament, justice by proceeding in this way. I was a soldier for 25 years and spent three and a half years in Northern Ireland. I once made the mistake of saying that to Ronnie Flanagan—he was the chief constable at the time—and he told me that I am only on my first tour. Soldiers put up with a lot. I was not given any more powers by this House than those of a private citizen—not really. They just slung a rifle round my neck and sent me off to do the Queen’s bidding. I happily did it and so did others. In my first of four Northern Ireland tours, two guardsmen—Guardsmen Fisher and Wright—were in a judgmental shooting situation, and they were convicted of murder by one man in a Diplock court and sentenced to life imprisonment, so soldiers put up with stuff. But one of the things I find it very difficult to put up with is that when all the Government Members troop through the Lobby tonight, they will remove the prohibition on giving Gerry Adams compensation. I find that incredibly difficult because it is on an admin error: his internment order was signed by a Minister of State and not the Secretary of State. It is on that technicality that he will be able to get compensation for being interned and for trying to escape unsuccessfully—twice. He will get a triple whammy of compensation.

   Hansard source
4. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

   Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

   I will not. I challenged the hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) earlier, asking him to speak to veterans and the people of Halesowen to justify why that triple whammy is okay, and why he is prepared to go through the Lobby to vote for it tonight. And he said, “The Prime Minister has told me that that’s okay, and that he is not going to allow it. I heard him here at PMQs.” Perhaps the hon. Gentleman, who I am delighted to see back in his place, is not aware that, immediately afterwards, the Prime Minister’s official spokesman said that he could not guarantee that compensation payments to Mr Adams and other former troubles internees would be prevented. The hon. Gentleman is completely free to wander through the Lobby in blissful ignorance of the fact that what the Prime Minister said does not amount to a hill of beans. If he can summon up the courage, he should at least abstain.

   Hansard source
5. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·Lewis Cocking

   Draft Non-Domestic Rating (Chargeable Amounts) (England) Regulations 2026

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I welcome the tiny—absolute minuscule—support that the Government are offering in this legislation. We are continually told that most rates will be capped and the changes will not affect most businesses on the high street, but I have not spoken to a single business or pub on my high street that is not seeing a significant increase in its business rates, even with the relief. Let us take the Farmers Boy in Brickendon: its business rates are going to go from £4,000 to £8,000. I do not understand which businesses the Minister or people in the Department are speaking to out there to say that most are not going to see an increase. From the businesses that I speak to, that is simply not true. We continually hear from the Government, “You guys were in power before the last general election,” but they have had 18 months and they have done nothing. They had 14 years in opposition when they could have come up with a credible plan for government, but they have proved to the people up and down the United Kingdom that they were clearly incapable of doing that. I want to understand from the Minister what the Government will do to support businesses and stop these closure notices—because they are closure notices for many of my constituents in Broxbourne.

   Hansard source
6. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·Katie Lam

   Engagements

   Tens of thousands of people across Kent and Sussex were without running water last week. While the response of South East Water was shambolic, the Staplehurst emergency help team got a bottled water supplier, set up a collection station and delivered water to vulnerable people. Using only volunteers, they supported local people, businesses, farms and care homes with 20,000 bottles of water. Does the Prime Minister think, as I do, that South East Water should be ashamed to be schooled in crisis response by the volunteers of the Staplehurst emergency help team? Has he, like many of my constituents and many of our colleagues, lost confidence in South East Water’s chief executive?

   Hansard source
7. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·Harriet Cross

   Clean Energy Projects

   Mid-Wales is beautiful, but plans for 200 metre tall wind turbines in Radnor forest—turbines twice the height of Big Ben—will blight the landscape, impact local communities and harm the area’s vital tourism sector, and we are seeing similar proposals across Brecon and Radnorshire. The concerns of local communities, businesses and councils must be properly considered in planning decisions for energy infrastructure, not simply overridden by Government Ministers in Cardiff Bay to meet their own agenda. Does the Secretary of State agree?

   Hansard source
8. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·Harriet Cross

   Warm Homes Plan

   My hon. Friend the shadow Minister asked whether or not Chinese supply chains—slave labour supply chains—will be allowed in the procurement of any part of the solar panels involved in this scheme, but the Secretary of State did not manage to answer. Can he please confirm that not a single aspect of this project will come off the back of slave labour supply chains?

   Hansard source
9. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·Gareth Bacon

   Local Government Reorganisation: Referendums

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) for securing this important debate and congratulate him on the excellent points he made in his speech. Local government holds a special place in our multilayered and multifaceted democracy. It is democratically accountable, inherently bottom-up and strongly community-minded. The average local authority delivers more than 800 different services, providing key day-to-day functions that represent, for most people, the most noticeable interactions with political choices and democratic management. Whether it is bins, potholes, recycling and waste, libraries, adult social care or SEND services, the most obvious impact of many people’s choices at the ballot box are those delivered at the local level in their parish, district or county council. I am especially aware of that having served as a local councillor in the London borough of Bexley for 23 years and, on a regional level, as a London Assembly member for 13 years. It was a privilege to serve my constituents in those positions, just as it is as a Member of Parliament. That is why I know that local government deserves support and respect. Unfortunately, it has become increasingly clear that the Labour Government do not share that view. Along with my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), I noted that the hon. Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) said that local government reorganisation is complex, consequential and long-lasting. He is completely correct on that. However, my right hon. Friend was also completely correct to say that there was nothing in the Labour party manifesto that suggested a top-down, nationwide structural reorganisation of all local councils. There was no mention of riding roughshod over the wishes of local people and local government, but that is exactly the course the Government are pursuing. We have heard today from right hon. and hon. Members how the Government’s plans, which stretch far beyond the platform that they stood for at the election, will impact their local area and constituents. The Government’s programme of so-called devolution is already having sweeping impacts on councils and local people—not least, as we have seen for the second time in as many years, with the likelihood of the cancellation of local elections across vast swathes of the country. It is telling that of the 63 councils offered the chance to postpone elections by the Government, nearly three quarters of those doing so are Labour run or have a Labour majority. Following on from the Liberal Democrats spokesman, the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone), there are a further four local authorities where the Liberal Democrats have at least a share of power, and one where they are in outright control. It is widely believed that Labour is denying democracy and running scared of voters by cancelling elections where it feels it will get a pasting. Independent voices—from academia to politics and the Electoral Commission—are urging that the elections should go ahead. Just recently, the Government told us they would. As the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, told the House on Monday: “Just before Christmas, the Minister highlighted that councils were asked to delay elections, after the Secretary of State had repeatedly told our Committee that they would be going ahead…I am concerned that we are seeing a postponement yet again.”—[Official Report, 19 January 2026; Vol. 779, c. 58-59.] Her argument was supported by the hon. Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer), who said: “As a former leader of a major council and a Labour MP, I find this completely embarrassing. A Labour Government should not be taking the vote away from 3.7 million people. It is completely unprecedented for a Labour Government to do that. There is clearly a vested interest for some councillors who may feel, looking at the opinion polls, that they will lose their seat.”—[Official Report, 19 January 2026; Vol. 779, c. 60.] He is surely correct in his assertion that this is what lies behind the Government’s actions. When 3.7 million people are being denied the right to vote and the Government’s excuse is their own radically top-down and botched reorganisation of local government, it is no wonder that local people feel so ignored and insulted, as hon. Members have made clear today. Let me make it clear again: the Conservative party’s position is that the elections should go ahead. Our line has been completely clear and consistent. This mass suppression of democracy is, perhaps, the most egregious of the many negative outcomes of the Government’s bungled restructuring programme, although it is far from the only one. The greatest scandal comes in the Government’s approach to local councils as they seek to carry out this unmandated position. It is vital that local councils—the elected representatives of local people—and the communities in which they live are heard throughout any process affecting the make-up, functions and form of their local democratic institutions. Instead, Labour’s approach has been to dictate from Whitehall, forcing councils to sign up to a prescribed model of restructuring, imposed from the centre and leaving local people without a voice. We believe that true devolution requires clarity, accountability and sustainability in funding, elections and structure, but the Government have offered none of those things. While local referenda are expensive and non-binding, they provide another collective voice that could feed into the debate about how people want to be represented. The voices of local people should be front and centre of any restructuring process, but sadly, given their current approach, even if there were local referenda, it appears likely that this Government would simply ignore any view that did not correspond with their own.

   Hansard source
10. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·Gareth Bacon

    Local Government Reorganisation: Referendums

    Three local elections were delayed by one year in 2021, all of which were the result of local government reorganisations; a consultation took place with the authorities affected in advance and their views were taken on board. That is in complete contrast with what the Labour Government are doing right now. They are riding roughshod over the views of local people and cancelling elections for the second year running. It is vital that communities get the real empowerment they deserve, that taxpayers get the accountability they pay for and that new structures face proper scrutiny. That is why, on Report and Third Reading of the devolution Bill, the Opposition urged the Government to look again and accept amendments to ensure that the Bill provided those key tenets; true to form, the Government ignored those entreaties. The Opposition will continue to vote against the Government in Parliament on their botched handling of this issue. If the Government do not listen to local people, through whatever democratic means, we face a future for local government in which power is stripped from genuinely local authorities and people—parishes, town councils, neighbourhood groups and civic institutions—and centralised within geographically and demographically distant authorities instead. While the Government’s track record speaks for itself with rushed, top-down reorganisations of local government and higher council tax burdens on residents, the Conservatives believe that communities deserve a voice—not another expensive restructure that sidelines local priorities, moves decision making further away from voters and inflates the cost for taxpayers. While referenda, like elections, could be ignored by a Government who appear indifferent to the views of voters, the Opposition believe in local voices and will continue to stand up for our local democratic institutions. Our electoral process should not be abused or bent to the will of a particular party for its own partisan benefit. Ministers should treat voters with respect instead of disdain, stop undermining our democratic system and let the people of this country make their own decisions.

    Hansard source
11. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·Esther McVey

    Local Government Reorganisation: Referendums

    I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called to speak and that interventions should be short. We will come to the Front-Bench speeches just before 3.30 pm.

    Hansard source
12. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·Esther McVey

    Local Government Reorganisation: Referendums

    Order. Before the hon. Gentleman replies, we have a Division. I think there will be three Divisions, so Members should come back in 35 minutes.

    Hansard source
13. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·Esther McVey

    Local Government Reorganisation: Referendums

    I just wanted you to get to the end of your sentence.

    Hansard source
14. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·Esther McVey

    Local Government Reorganisation: Referendums

    Well, we will leave it there anyway. There is a Division, so we will suspend the debate for 15 minutes—unless Members are back sooner. If you all leg it back, we will start again sooner.

    Hansard source
15. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·Esther McVey

    UK Wine Industry

    I will call Tristan Osborne to move the motion and I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they can make a speech only with the prior permission of the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.

    Hansard source
16. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·Esther McVey

    Waste Collection: Birmingham and the West Midlands

    I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to speak in the debate. I also remind them that the latest that this debate can go to is 6.8 pm.

    Hansard source
17. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·Esther McVey

    Waste Collection: Birmingham and the West Midlands

    Order. Before you do, I think we are going off topic. Can we keep to the topic?

    Hansard source
18. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

    Draft Medical Devices (Fees Amendment) Regulations 2026

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I agree that post-market surveillance is important for patient safety, but predictability for businesses and reducing the burden on them is also important. On 12 May 2025, the Minister for Secondary Care, the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), said that the SI that we were discussing on that occasion—the Draft Medical Devices and Blood Safety and Quality (Fees Amendment) Regulations 2025—would increase the fees across the MHRA for devices from June. That included fees for various things, most of which were increased by between 9% and 16%, but some fees, such as for clinical investigation charges, were increased much more. She said at the time that this would “ensure cost recovery until 2027”.—[Official Report, First Delegated Legislation Committee, 12 May 2025; c. 3.] It is now January 2026 and the Government are back for more money. Why is that? They increased the fees for regulation 53 of the Medical Devices Regulations 2002—a regulation that the regulations that we are debating today also affect—from £240 to £261 back in June, and they plan to increase them again. Let us consider why. In May, I raised some questions about the impact assessment produced for that legislation, for two reasons. First, it did not appear that the national insurance increase or the reduction in the national insurance threshold had been accounted for in the calculations. Secondly, the impact assessment assumed a 2.2% pay rise for civil servants for the years 2024-25 to 2026-27. Even then, that level was below inflation. Regarding staff costs, the Minister in that debate said she thought they were NHS staff, but she later wrote to me to confirm that the national insurance contribution hikes were payable by the MHRA because the staff were civil servants. In response to my written questions, the Minister declined to say whether national insurance was included, but assured the House that the MHRA had “modelled…future costs”, that the uplift would be enough until April 2027 and that the MHRA would find “efficiency savings” if required to manage any future shortfall. I asked the MHRA, by way of a freedom of information request, what increases it faced in national insurance costs as a result of reductions in the thresholds and increasing the rate. It said that it faced a yearly cost of £1.9 million. I also asked: “What estimate has the MHRA made of the additional cost arising from the difference between” the pay rise estimated in the impact assessment and the actual pay rise that was given. The answer was £1.2 million. That is a shortfall of £3.1 million, or 20% of the increase in fees from the last SI. The MHRA said at that time that “we believe that, while this extra cost” —national insurance— “was not included, our fees cost-recovery methodology and approved fees are still sufficient to cover projected costs over the next two years, without any negative impact on service delivery or financial sustainability.” That letter was dated 1 August 2025, which is after that PMS legislation came into effect. There was a significant difference between the calculations that the MHRA produced and the £3.1 million figure, which raises questions about their accuracy and the grip that the Government have on the detail and our public finances. The Government are now here again, wanting to increase the registration fee by an additional 15% to £300, but this time with no impact assessment. The regulations that we are discussing today not only increase the registration fee by 15% from April 2026, but add a maintenance fee of £300 for each device in a category listed, starting with “the fee period immediately following that in which the person paid the fee for the device registration…due on the first day of each…period”. That would seem to mean that if a device is registered between now and April, they pay £261 now and £300 on 1 April, which will presumably incentivise delaying any current registrations. I can see that the Minister has adjusted for this in future years, but he does not seem to have done so for those registering this year. I am interested in how sure the Minister is that his estimate for the increase in the post-market surveillance of £17 million is robust, given that we are back six months after the Government were sure they had enough. This year, the de minimis assessment says that £6 million will come from grant in aid from DHSC, £4.9 million from DHSC financial support and £6.1 million from the fee income. The current registration fees are predicted to produce £1.6 million, leaving a difference of £4.5 million to be covered by fee increases. The de minimis assessment’s best estimate says that the MHRA needs to make £4.3 million of that, which is £300 a year on each of the devices, in the way that the Minister described. However, it also says that “we plan to seek approval for full cost recovery fee for subsequent years”, which the Minister has confirmed is his plan today. Why is that not in today’s regulations? Is that because it would have required an impact assessment? How much will this cost businesses? This will be a further £10.9 million and, if £300 a year will get the Minister £6.1 million, then for £17 million he will need about £836. That is a massive increase on businesses coming down the track next year, which I do not think he has fully considered. Burdens on businesses are important because they stifle activity and innovation. This Government have already added significant burdens to businesses: higher taxes and national insurance rates, the reduction of the national insurance threshold, the Employment Rights Act 2025 and, for family-owned businesses, the business property relief. They are now adding further costs, and I am concerned about the effects on innovation and early access to devices for patients. What is the Minister’s assessment of international comparators? In recent times we have seen a loss of pharma investment in the UK. Will the extra fees this year, and the prospect of hikes next year, deter investment? There is no impact assessment, so how can we be sure? I am particularly concerned about small businesses and microbusinesses. The de minimis assessment says that it is not possible to exempt microbusinesses. Why is it not possible? It is a political choice not to exempt them, but it is certainly possible to produce regulations that do. As the Minister described, the consultation revealed widespread concern, with only 10% support. Changes have been made following discussion with a trusted advisory group. Who is in the trusted advisory group? Whose voices from micro and small businesses were heard in that group? There has been no further consultation and no impact assessment on the regulations the Minister has presented today. I also have some specific questions about obsolescence. Do businesses need to pay a registration maintenance fee for putting a product on the market to sell or lease? That was previously a single charge that lasted for the product’s lifespan, however long that would be. There is now an annual fee. What provision is made for the clinical use and post-market surveillance of items that cease to be registered because a company goes bust or stops selling the item? Can the item still be used? How would a clinician know that the lapse of a previous licence had stopped, particularly if it was a personal piece of medical equipment such as a stethoscope? How does that affect post-market surveillance? Could registration be discontinued for some items, where someone has several categories possible, in order to register another category and force obsolescence? For example, I have seen one case where the failure to produce spare parts lead to an entire trust having to replace every single defibrillator, at great expense. If a company went bankrupt and was no longer able to pay its post-market surveillance fee, the item would no longer be registered. How would that work? I also want to ask about categories. Originally, as described in the consultation, the GMDN category was level 5, which is extremely specific. It is now level 2, which is better, but microbusinesses still pay the same charges as larger businesses, so a business selling one product would pay the same as a business selling dozens of products in the same category. Also, there is no accounting for the size of the product or the surveillance required. For example, the charge for an MRI scanner, worth £2 million, would be the same for as a single-use scalpel worth less than £1. Is that fair? I appreciate that people may sell more scalpels than scanners, but what about an umbilical artery dilator, of which not too many are used, at £24 each? Producers of inexpensive but highly specific and useful devices may be disadvantaged. What will the effects be on costs for patients? Again, there is no impact assessment, so we do not know. How much of the cost produced by these regulations does the Minister expect to be transferred back to the Government in paying for more expensive devices? Overall, there are many more questions raised than answered by these regulations. Patient safety is paramount. There is, of course, a cost to ensure that devices are properly and proportionately regulated, but the Government also need to be responsible and careful with money. As they are, the regulations are a blunt tool adding costs to businesses and a promise of much more cost to come. There is no proper impact assessment, and there is a risk to small businesses and microbusinesses and to inexpensive, low-volume items. As such, I cannot support the regulations.

    Hansard source
19. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

    Draft Medical Devices (Fees Amendment) Regulations 2026

    The Minister is making a great speech, but he is not answering lots of the questions—I appreciate that he may not have all the answers. Can he commit to answering them by letter? Will he also talk about the possibility of obsolescence? If an item ceases to be registered—he is encouraging people to deregister things that they are no longer selling—can it still be used in the NHS? How would a doctor know whether something had ever been registered in the past and was safe?

    Hansard source
20. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

    Draft Medical Devices (Fees Amendment) Regulations 2026

    Will this post-market surveillance continue if a device ceases to be registered?

    Hansard source
21. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

    Draft Medical Devices (Fees Amendment) Regulations 2026

    If a device ceases to be registered, can a doctor still use it in the NHS—legally?

    Hansard source
22. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

    Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

    It is worth bringing to the House’s attention again the fact that the legacy Act, whatever its legality or otherwise, was predicated on our membership of the European convention on human rights. Does the Secretary of State agree, and will he reflect on the fact, that there was an appeal against the supposed illegality of the Act at the time of the general election by the previous Government, and this Government decided to ditch it?

    Hansard source
23. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

    Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

    I have been listening very carefully to what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said. He is right to assert that there is no moral equivalence and there should be no legal equivalence between the perpetrators of terror and those sent out to do the state’s business in Northern Ireland. But can he understand the views of the great majority of veterans, many of whom I have the privilege to represent, who feel that what this Government are doing is undermining and holing below the water line legislation that, however imperfect and subject to appeal, was going some way towards giving them some comfort?

    Hansard source
24. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·David Simmonds

    Draft Non-Domestic Rating (Chargeable Amounts) (England) Regulations 2026

    It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Turner, for what I think is the first time. As the Minister outlined, the purpose of the draft regulations is to round off the otherwise larger increases in business rates, but it is important to put that in context. A short time ago, we had a general election, in which the Prime Minister said that there would be a new regime of “permanently lower business rates”. I appreciate that the Treasury is currently hiring a new business rates tax adviser, but this issue is not going away. In Prime Minister’s questions this afternoon, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) referred to a 2,000% increase in the business rates applying to one of the pubs in her constituency. Previously, the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) had reported that a survey showed an average increase of 41% for hospitality businesses, 44.4% for music venues and 27% for independent shops in her constituency. The body that represents the United Kingdom’s gym and health providers, ukactive, reports an average increase of 60% in the business rates for which its members are liable. The National Pharmacy Association has reported that its members are having to remortgage their homes and put their life savings into their businesses to meet the business rate increases proposed by the Government. To date, over the last 12 months, there have been a net 200,000 job losses in the retail sector, which businesses report are primarily due to increases in business rates and national insurance contributions. It is clear that that reflects a very substantial, permanently higher rate of business rates and an unwelcome U-turn by the Government. All of us can see the practical impact in our communities, and I would bet that there is not a Member in this room who has not been lobbied by local pubs, cafés and shops about the impact that this is having on their business.

    Hansard source
25. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·David Simmonds

    Draft Non-Domestic Rating (Chargeable Amounts) (England) Regulations 2026

    My hon. Friend has outlined in very clear terms what any of us in this room could on behalf of our constituencies. There will be different local dynamics, but everywhere is suffering as a consequence of the increased taxes on businesses. Government Members might not wish to hear such messages from Opposition Members—and that is understandable, because this is politics—but they might listen to the hon. Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier). In Prime Minister’s questions, he said that “any wins” had been “wiped out” by the increase in business rates, compared with what was proposed through transitional relief, and he reported to the House 60% and 70% rises in business rates affecting his local pubs. I will conclude with some questions for the Minister. First, what is the net benefit of all these measures—the increases in business rates and the transitional relief—to local councils? We know from the local government finance settlement that two thirds of local authorities in England lost net funding from central Government as a consequence. Given the substantial increase in business rates income that this would imply, what will the overall impact on local government funding be? Secondly, what assessment has the Department made of the impact that this will have on high streets and local businesses in particular? Many of those business have been lobbying us because the family business tax, the rise in national insurance and the interaction with the changes in the point at which national insurance is charged have put huge pressure on them. The impact of these business rates on top of that is enormous. Thirdly, what role have the local reliefs, which were briefly touched on by the Minister and are set out in the explanatory memo, played in the determination of the funding settlement? Although the fig leaf is offered that local reliefs may be available, it is clear that the Government’s assumption is that all these increases will be implemented in full before any consideration is given to additional funding. What consideration has the Minister given to a return to the local authority business growth incentive business rates regime, which was designed to incentivise local authorities, through additional support from central Government, to look to create opportunities to support local businesses and high streets, in a way that we know was very effective? The Prime Minister said on 7 January that the Government were in talks to see “what further support and action we can take.”—[Official Report, 7 January 2026; Vol. 778, c. 260.] That was days after he acknowledged that as a result of this settlement, pubs and hospitality, in particular, “will struggle.” The question for Opposition Members is, is this it?

    Hansard source
26. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·David Simmonds

    Draft Non-Domestic Rating (Chargeable Amounts) (England) Regulations 2026

    I am grateful to the Minister for addressing that point. It slightly begs the question, however, if the main purpose of these increases—we have heard about 2,000%, 60% and 27% increases for independent shops, as well as 200,000 job losses—is to raise additional business rates income, but the effect on local government finance is neutral. What on earth is the point of inflicting all that pain on the business sector if it does not put a single extra penny in the pockets of local government?

    Hansard source
27. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·David Davis

    Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

    The right hon. Gentleman changes the subject, from what the letter of comfort was given for to what it was not given for, which does not prove anything about the letter of comfort. What is the case is that the judge said at the time that he could not rule on the case because the state had made a promise to Mr Downey, and that prevented the case. We also have the Queen’s grant of mercy, which is an amnesty, and people were released early, which is another form of amnesty. For the Secretary of State to say that the Good Friday agreement did not involve amnesties is simply in defiance of the facts.

    Hansard source
28. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·David Davis

    Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

    The Secretary of State—who tells the truth—frequently says that the parties in Northern Ireland did not support the legacy legislation. I am speaking from memory, so these numbers are approximate, but when there was a poll of the population of Northern Ireland, 30-something per cent were in favour of the legislation and about 20-something per cent were against it, so it was about three to two. So if the Secretary of State is picking on popularity, on community support, he is in the wrong.

    Hansard source
29. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·David Davis

    Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

    My hon. Friend makes a very good point about that specific case. The judge also criticised the allocation of legal aid for that case. He said that he could not understand how legal aid was given for such a futile case. Is it not a problem that the legal aid rules in Northern Ireland drive a machine that harms our soldiers?

    Hansard source
30. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·David Davis

    Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

    My hon. Friend’s comments tie in directly to those from the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna). In the Omagh bombing, the bomb was constructed in Ireland, the detonator was made—at a factory, in effect—in Ireland, the car came from Ireland, they disappeared back into Ireland afterwards, and there is a suggestion that the Irish special branch knew a great deal about it before it actually happened; there is a very good reason why the Irish Government do not want to have an inquiry into their part in the matter.

    Hansard source
31. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·David Davis

    Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

    The point that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) made relates directly back to the Human Rights Act, which is the law in this country.

    Hansard source
32. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·David Davis

    Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

    I suppose I should declare an interest: I was the only person, other than Tom Watson, to have had an Act of Parliament struck down in the courts—not using a declaration of incompatibility, but actually using article rights and so on—so I am quite familiar with that process, and this is not it. I commend the hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) for taking part in the JCHR—it is an incredibly important Committee. I will say to him that, throughout its history, the Committee has mostly had unanimous judgments. Certainly under Harriet Harman, for example, who was a brilliant chairman, the judgments were almost entirely unanimous; they were never on a party basis. To make the Opposition side of the House happy, I will start by talking about the Human Rights Act 1998. The Act requires “compelling reasons” to bring forward a remedial order, with the Joint Committee on Human Rights later clarifying that there is a “general constitutional principle” that “it is desirable for amendments to primary legislation to be made by way of a Bill”, not by a remedial order. Although the JCHR allowed the progress of the remedial order, it was after significant amendment and by majority vote—not the usual unanimity—and with it stating: “It is…highly unusual that the Government has laid a Bill and a remedial order concerning the same subject matter on the very same day. Usually…we would consider the Government’s approach constitutionally improper.” I agree, and I encourage colleagues to read this report, as my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) did earlier, because we can almost see the Committee’s discomfort. What happened is that the Secretary of State made an appeal on the basis of the urgency of the matter, in his mind. The hon. Member for Bracknell just referred to it as “unique” in its complexity. That is precisely a reason to use primary legislation, not a parliamentary technique that allows no amendment whatsoever. My arguments about this are arguments of detail that go to the interests of the people of Northern Ireland individually, not some sweeping order that takes away rights.

    Hansard source
33. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·David Davis

    Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

    I encourage everybody to read it. I am not saying that people should take my word for it; I am saying that they should read this report, because we can see the tension in the Committee. Of course, as the Secretary of State said, there are a number of real innocent victims who are seeking some sort of succour or recourse, which he is aiming to help. But he started by talking about the huge number of people who were killed by paramilitaries in Northern Ireland. I warrant that when this order goes through, there will be a massive differential between those who were killed by paramilitaries and those who are asking for information.

    Hansard source
34. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·David Davis

    Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

    The right hon. Gentleman has a long and honourable service in this area. He is exactly right, and he understands, as everybody on this side of the House does—well, most people on this side of the House—that asymmetries are built into the system that handicap, and indeed sometimes terrify, the people on one side of the argument while favouring those on the other. I want to talk to that because, obviously, as we have heard, the remedial order will allow new civil cases to be brought and, we are told, bring justice to victims. Government policy, as we have heard time and again, does not differentiate between real victims and terrorists. It will allow IRA sympathisers to continue their campaign of vexatious lawfare, hauling our brave veterans into court. I remind the House that in 2006 the Blair Government passed a law that said that anyone hurt in the troubles is classed as a victim. That means a proven murderer—a proven serial murderer—killed in the process of carrying out another murder, is classed as a victim. Imagine that happening in the rest of the UK. Imagine a bank robber, already a murderer, who is shot while trying to rob another bank. Do we think he is a victim? That is outwith the politics of Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland, however, he is classed as a victim. When the Secretary of State talks about victims’ families, he is, in many cases, referring to the families of IRA terrorists. Frankly, if the Government’s legislation matched their rhetoric, the word “victim” would always be preceded by the word “innocent”. If we were talking about innocent victims, many of our differences would evaporate. But that is not the truth. Indeed, the other side of this argument—Sinn Féin and IRA sympathisers—know this. The DUP proved it last September when it moved a motion in Stormont to put “innocent” in front of the word “victim”. The motion was voted down by Sinn Féin and its allies because they know that they depend on this massive confusion, in the rest of the world, over what a victim really is.

    Hansard source
35. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·David Davis

    Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

    That is part of what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) was describing earlier about trying to rewrite history. This goes right to the core of what the Secretary of State has already done. We know that he has promised Mairead Kelly that there will be a coroner’s inquest for Loughgall. Why? Because her brother, Patrick Kelly, was killed at Loughgall. He was a victim, except he had killed at least five other people previously, including two UDR officers. He and his gang of eight were attempting to blow up—well, they were not attempting; they did blow up the police station, with soldiers and policemen inside. It was a 400 lb bomb, and they had heavy weapons, G36s—my hon. and gallant Friend will recognise them—to shoot through the walls and kill policemen. If we want to see the rewriting of history, Kelly’s family have already attempted to rewrite history, claiming that at Loughgall he “went out to blow up, not to kill”, despite his long and bloody track record proving otherwise. He obviously designed a bomb that only hits bricks, not people. I do not aim to make light of this, because it is incredibly serious. As with the 120 cases already mentioned, Kelly’s family have already brought legal action against the Ministry of Defence. They are not the only ones, so let us look at other IRA terrorist “victims” who have brought civil cases. In 2011, Aidan McKeever, the getaway driver at the Clonoe incident in 1992, in which four IRA terrorists were killed, was awarded £75,000 for injuries sustained when fleeing the scene. He is not a victim; he is a terrorist, and he got £75,000. The IRA tried to pretend that it was a killing operation, but the SAS, or the soldiers on the scene—whoever they were—actually gave him first aid to save his life because he had been shot and injured, yet he gets £75,000 from the state. In 2023, the family of Stan Carberry tried to sue the Ministry of Defence for his death in 1972. Carberry, an IRA volunteer, was killed after a soldier returned fire at the vehicle that he was shooting from.

    Hansard source
36. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·David Davis

    Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

    Forgive me but I will not, as I want to get to the end of this. As we know, Gerry Adams is already preparing legal action, challenging the decision to prevent him and others from being compensated for being interned during the troubles. The surviving IRA terrorists and their families will benefit from what we are doing today. There will be some civil claims brought against IRA killers—the Secretary of State mentioned some of them—but they will be rather special circumstances. Omagh is one of those; I could explain why, but we do not have the time. There will be a few of those, but very few compared with thousands of deaths, tortures and murders. That is largely because Tony Blair and Jonathan Powell accepted, as part of the Good Friday agreement, not to allow decommissioned weapons to be studied for forensic purposes. They also precluded recovered bodies from being examined for forensic purposes. The families of people who have been murdered, where the body has been recovered, are not even allowed to use the bullets in them to see who killed them. That is how this justice works. And, of course, there will be no witnesses to the IRA crimes. The IRA themselves will not give witness, and I am afraid that anybody else will be taking their life in their hands. I will finish by saying this: today’s remedial order will allow the IRA to further its campaign of rewriting the history of the troubles, portraying our brave soldiers as state-sponsored killers, and falsely representing themselves as victims and heroes, neither of which is true.

    Hansard source
37. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·Damian Hinds

    Dementia Support: Hampshire

    In a similar vein to the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), it is important that families know where to access these voluntary sector services. The East Hampshire dementia services directory is a great initiative, as are voluntary groups such as Dementia Friendly Petersfield and Dementia-friendly Alton. The Alton group now has its own dedicated building and a full programme of activities; I have invited the Secretary of State to visit, as it is an interesting initiative to see. Will the hon. Lady join me in commending all the wonderful voluntary sector groups?

    Hansard source
38. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·Damian Hinds

    Local Government Reorganisation: Referendums

    It is a great pleasure to see you presiding over these proceedings today, Ms McVey. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) on securing this important debate; it is good to have an opportunity to discuss these issues openly. It is also a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott). He made a lot of the fact that there are hundreds of Labour MPs and the great mandate that that has given this Government. I find it vexing that, with a majority as large as the one this incoming Government have, that they should choose as priorities things such as digital ID, attacking jury trials, taking away school freedoms, trying to ban vaping in pub gardens and trail hunting, and a costly reorganisation of local government. I am relatively agnostic when it comes to the structure of local government. Some people say that they are in favour of unitaries or of two-tier authorities; I always find that a peculiar position. It is possible to give a decent argument in favour of almost any structure of local government. The one thing I dislike is the upheaval when they are changed. Sometimes there is a good argument for change and we must do it, but we should never pretend that there is no cost to that change. There is a financial cost to reorganisation—what happens to buildings and all sorts of other things—and an effectiveness cost when any organisation is in a state of flux. In the case of Hampshire, we will be moving from a two-tier system to a single tier of unitaries. There will be some economies of scale and benefits that come with that; for example, bin collections will be on bigger scale, and we should be able to get that at a lower unit cost. There will also be diseconomies in those services that are moving from the county level to the smaller level, for example adult social care and aspects of children’s social care and so on. We do not know—unless the Minister is able to intervene and tell me—what the net effect will be. I have tabled some written questions to ask what the Government’s assumption is on the net effect, and we do not have an answer to that. If there is a net benefit from the mixture of those economies, diseconomies and costs of transitions, I guarantee that it will not come in year one. All of these plans end up being a classic hockey-stick sales projection—“Of course things are going to get better, but first we have to invest to make that happen,” so the curve goes down before it goes up. I am afraid that, for many sales projections, years one to three turn out to be accurately predicted, but the out years much less so. There are big choices to be made in reorganising to unitaries—as was alluded to a moment ago in the context of Surrey and Suffolk—in terms of the number of different unitaries in a particular area. That can make a very practical difference to residents. Big-cost items are going to move from county level—the upper tier—into these unitaries. As everybody knows, the two biggest costs are adult social care and high needs children’s social care in education. They are going into the unitaries, so it will make an enormous difference for a district council, depending on which other areas it goes in with. To fund all that expenditure requires income—from business rates, for example. The overall age structure in the broader footprint of the area also matters. People of working age are net contributors. Retired people and children need cash support. There is also the question of housing, which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire put accurately and succinctly. There is a lot of controversy about the current targets for housing in rural areas, which have gone up under this Government by an average of 71% in new areas and 100% in areas such as mine—East Hampshire. Some people feel that reorganisation and merging with nearby councils will solve that problem—all that housing will not have to go in the countryside after all; it can go in brownfield sites and developed areas, as it should. I fear that the opposite may be the case. We look to councillors to understand—as they do—the areas they represent. The further away decisions are made on things that really matter to local people, the less likely they are to be good for them.

    Hansard source
39. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·Damian Hinds

    Local Government Reorganisation: Referendums

    I am grateful. I was talking about housing development and planning, which in Hampshire is decided by East Hampshire district council, not by Hampshire county council. There is also the question of identity. Counties and parishes are anciently formed areas. Districts are quite often not; they are modern constructs in many cases, sometimes dating back only to 1974. How does that affect people’s sense of identity? That is half a century ago. I know that makes us all feel a little depressed; I was born in 1969. Over time, they acquire more of an identity, which we should think about. The hon. Member for Ipswich was right when he said that local government reorganisation is complex, consequential and long-lasting. He also made a lot of having a mandate for change. There were loads of things about change in the Labour manifesto—it said “change” on the front cover. It did not say that the change would include this precise type of local government reorganisation, involving moving specifically to unitary councils. Because it is complex, consequential and long-lasting, it warrants a steady and sober assessment of the implications for all our residents.

    Hansard source
40. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·Charlie Dewhirst

    Animal Welfare Strategy for England

    My right hon. Friend has long been a doughty champion for animal welfare. The strategy includes other measures around slaughter, such as on the use of carbon dioxide stunning. The industry has looked at various ways to reform that, but it would be very challenging and potentially very costly. Like a number of other measures in the strategy, we must ensure that transition is done with the industry and does not impact British food production or our food security.

    Hansard source