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·Charlie Dewhirst

   Engagements

   The Prime Minister may be aware that my local authority in the East Riding of Yorkshire is the lowest-funded per pupil for children with special educational needs and disabilities, and his local authority in Camden is the highest—an inequality that he has repeatedly pledged to end. Well, the results are in: next year, children in my local area will receive just under £1,000, and children in his local area will receive over £3,800. The gap is getting wider. Will he explain to the House why he thinks that children in my constituency are worth so much less than children in his?

   Hansard source
2. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

   National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill

   I remind Members that, in Committee, Members should not address the Chair as “Deputy Speaker”. Please use our names or “Madam Chair”, “Chair” and “Madam Chairman”. Clause 1 Employer pensions contributions pursuant to optional remuneration arrangements: Great Britain

   Hansard source
3. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

   National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill

   With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment 7, page 2, line 26, leave out from “as” to end and insert— “the amount calculated under subsection (5) for a tax year (but subject to any provision made in reliance on subsection (6C)(a) or (b) of that section). (5) In 2029-30 the contributions limit must be set at a figure equal to £2,000 uprated by any percentage change in the consumer price index between 2026-27 and 2028-29. (6) In subsequent tax years the contributions limit must be uprated by the same percentage change as that applied to the consumer price index that year.” This amendment would uprate the £2,000 cap by the percentage change in the consumer price index during the period before 2029-30, and would require the cap to be uprated by the same percentage as the change in the consumer price index each year thereafter. Clause 1 stand part. Amendment 6, clause 2, page 2, line 38, after “income tax” insert— “at the higher or additional rate”. This amendment would exempt basic rate taxpayers in Northern Ireland from the £2,000 cap. Amendment 8, page 3, line 39, leave out from “as” to end and insert— “the amount calculated under subsection (5) for a tax year (but subject to any provision made in reliance on subsection (6C)(a) or (b) of that section). (5) In 2029-30 the contributions limit must be set at a figure equal to £2,000 uprated by any percentage change in the consumer price index between 2026-27 and 2028-29. (6) In subsequent tax years the contributions limit must be uprated by the same percentage change as that applied to the consumer price index that year.” This amendment would uprate the £2,000 cap in Northern Ireland by the percentage change in the consumer price index during the period before 2029-30, and would require the cap to be uprated by the same percentage as the change in the consumer price index each year thereafter. Clause 2 stand part. Clause 3 stand part. New clause 1—Review of impact on SME recruitment and retention— “(1) The Treasury must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report assessing the effect of its provisions on small and medium-sized businesses with regard to the— (a) recruitment of staff, and (b) retention of staff. (2) The report under subsection (1) must also consider the cumulative impact of changes to employer’s national insurance on businesses affected by this Act since July 2024.” This new clause would require the Treasury to review and report on the impact of the Bill’s provisions relating to National Insurance contributions on the ability of SMEs to recruit and retain staff. New clause 2—Review of impact on small and medium-sized business tax liabilities— “(1) The Treasury must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report assessing the effect of its provisions on small and medium-sized businesses with regard to— (a) businesses’ overall tax burden, (b) employment costs, and (c) business solvency. (2) The report under subsection (1) must also consider the cumulative impact of changes to employer’s national insurance on businesses affected by this Act since July 2024.” This new clause would require the Treasury to review and report on the impact of the Bill’s provisions relating to National Insurance contributions on the overall tax burden and employment costs faced by SMEs. New clause 3—Review of impact on employee marginal tax rates— “(1) The Treasury must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report assessing the effect of its provisions on the number of employees brought into a higher marginal rate of income tax. (2) The report under subsection (1) must give particular regard to the impact of the freezing of income tax thresholds between April 2022 and April 2031.” This new clause would require the Treasury to review and report on the impact of the Bill’s provisions relating to National Insurance contributions on the number of employees who move into a higher tax band due the increase in their taxable income due to the effects of this Bill. New clause 4—Reviews of the impact of the Act— “(1) The Treasury must, before March 2029, lay before Parliament an assessment of the impact of the changes made under this Act. (2) The assessment made under subsection (1) must consider— (a) the adequacy of pension contributions made by or on behalf of individuals affected by this Act, (b) use of salary sacrifice schemes and optional remuneration arrangements, and (c) any effects on the investment capability of UK pension funds. (3) The Treasury must lay before Parliament a follow-up assessment of the impact of the changes made under this Act before March 2034.” This new clause would require the Treasury to undertake an impact assessment of the effect of the change made under this Act, before they take effect, and again five years later. New clause 5—Calculation and publication of lifetime pension values— “(1) The Treasury must calculate and publish the projected lifetime value of an individual’s pension before and after the changes made by under this Act. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the projected lifetime value is the total amount of pension income an individual is expected to receive over their lifetime. (3) The calculations made under subsection (1) must— (a) be based on clearly stated assumptions, and (b) include illustrative examples covering different pension entitlements.” New clause 6—Assessment of changes to pension saving through salary sacrifice schemes— “(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within 15 months of the provisions of this Act coming into effect, lay before Parliament an assessment of the effect of this Act on the amount saved into pensions through salary sacrifice schemes. (2) The assessment made under subsection (1) must include an— (a) estimate of the total amount saved into pensions through salary sacrifice schemes in the 12 months preceding the provisions of this Act coming into effect, (b) estimate of the total amount saved into pensions through salary sacrifice schemes in the 12 months following the provisions of this Act coming into effect, and (c) an assessment of the difference between those amounts.”

   Hansard source
4. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

   National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill

   Order. I remind Members that the scope of this Bill is very narrow indeed, and we really ought not to be bringing in new concepts.

   Hansard source
5. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

   National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill

   Order. First, I have not raised anything. Secondly, we are not here to debate the welfare budget. This is a very narrow Bill with limited scope. The Minister can listen to the same strictures I have given to other Members.

   Hansard source
6. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

   Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

   Order. This is a very long intervention. Many speakers wish to get in this afternoon, so I urge Members to keep interventions short.

   Hansard source
7. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

   Waste Collection: Birmingham and the West Midlands

   I apologise for missing the first moments of the debate. This situation is having a profound impact, and what is going on is a travesty. There is a complete failure of leadership. This is bleeding out into the wider area. My constituency borders Birmingham, and we have streets of two halves—one half is in the Birmingham city council area, where the bins are piling up, and the other half is in Bromsgrove, where the bins are collected. We are seeing an acute rise in fly-tipping. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a failure of leadership, and that there is no excuse for a global city in a developed G7 country to be facing a leadership failure this acute?

   Hansard source
8. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·Aphra Brandreth

   Engagements

   Q14.   My constituents are deeply concerned by proposed cuts to police community support officers across Cheshire. The Labour police and crime commissioner, Dan Price, was silent on the issue, seemingly content to see numbers slashed across the county until residents and local MPs spoke out. Now he seeks to present himself as campaigning to save police community support officers, while proposing to substantially increase the precept, and all at the same time as planning to increase spending on his office by £513,000 next year. Does the Prime Minister agree that that represents a failure of leadership, and that that money would be far better spent on increasing the number of PCSOs on our streets?

   Hansard source
9. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·Andrew Bowie

   Warm Homes Plan

   I thank the Secretary of State for the advance copy of his statement. Today’s announcement is long overdue—overdue by an entire year, to be exact. During the general election, the Labour party claimed that it would cut household bills. This announcement should be part of that, but in that time, since the general election and on this Secretary of State’s watch, energy bills have not fallen; they have gone in the opposite direction. Energy bills are up by £200 since the election, partly as a result of the Secretary of State’s own political choices. We believe that there is a greater role in our energy system for home batteries, we support a more technology-agnostic approach to air-to-air heat pumps, and, of course, we believe that rooftop solar is much better than carpeting the countryside in huge solar farms, but the Secretary of State is ignoring the core problem. We are in an electricity price crisis of his own making. Even if we are as charitable as possible and accept that the Government will reach the 5 million households who they say will benefit from this plan, it will do nothing to cut bills for 83% of the country. However, all those households will pay much higher taxes because of Labour’s Budget, including taxes to fund the Secretary of State’s £15 billion plan, and they are struggling with their energy bills now because of the choices of the Secretary of State. Let me now turn to the specific measures in the plan. The Department’s own figures show that the public are becoming more sceptical about heat pumps. Between winter 2024 and spring 2025, the proportion of people saying that they were unlikely to install an air source heat pump increased from 38% to 45%, and if you ask anyone why they do not want a heat pump, they will say it is because of the high up-front costs. [Interruption.] Yes, they will—but it is also because of the high ongoing running costs, which often make heat pumps more expensive to run than gas boilers. There is a serious risk that the Government’s legally binding targets are forcing them to push people into buying heat pumps, but all those families will be locked into sky-high running costs, because the Government have a political target that is pushing up electricity bills at the same time. This plan does nothing to address those high ongoing running costs. Indeed, last week the Government announced that they were locking the country into higher energy prices for decades through their botched wind auction. Just imagine that there was a plan on the table to cut the cost of running a heat pump by 20% instantly: a cheap power plan that would not involve raising taxes on working people to fund handouts; a plan that would axe the carbon tax, and scrap the Secretary of State’s rip-off wind subsidies to cut bills for every family in the country. Would that not be a far better approach to making make heat pumps much more attractive? What steps will the Department take to ensure that low-interest loans will provide good value for money? How many homes will benefit from the low-interest and zero-interest loans scheme, and how will it be determined who gets a low-interest loan or a zero-interest loan? As for the changes to the minimum energy efficiency standards for rented homes, the Secretary of State will know that the previous Government did more than any other to improve energy efficiency standards, with half of all homes having an energy performance certificate rating of C or above when we left office, compared to 14% when the Secretary of State left office in 2010. Has his Department carried out any impact assessment of what the 2030 deadline will cost landlords, and how much of the cost will be passed on to renters? His own Government’s data shows that it will cost more than £12,000 to upgrade a home from EPC E to C—£12,000 that will then be passed on to families in increased rents. We cannot ignore all the costs that this Government are imposing on the housing sector, and the impact that they will have on the cost of living for families. The Government are going to set up a new quango, the warm homes agency, to administer these schemes. Can the Secretary of State tell us how much this quango will cost the taxpayer, how it will be held accountable, and why he decided to spend money on setting up a new quango rather than those functions being delivered by his own Department, which he controls? The Secretary of State has already been forced, by this House, to ban Great British Energy from spending taxpayers’ money on solar panels when there is evidence of forced labour in the supply chain, and of course we welcome that, but can he assure the House that he will apply that same ban on slave labour to solar panel installations funded by the warm homes plan? When will he publish details of how that mechanism will work, so that it can be scrutinised by the House? The Government are ignoring the fact that the affordability crisis that the Secretary State talks about is a crisis of his own making. They are ignoring the fact that they are locking the country into paying higher bills for far longer. If they truly want to encourage people to adopt green technology, like heat pumps or electric vehicles, they need to make electricity cheap. They could adopt the Conservatives’ cheap power plan to cut everyone’s electricity bills by 20% and scrap the reckless clean power 2030 target, which is locking everyone into paying higher bills for far longer.

   Hansard source
10. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·Alicia Kearns

    Engagements

    The Bertie Arms is a fantastic family pub, but because of the Chancellor’s tax raid on local business, it faces a 2,000% increase in its business rates by 2029. That means that the Treasury will lose £200,000 in tax take and Uffington will lose the heart of its community. The Prime Minister promised not to put up taxes on working people, so how does he justify a 2,000% tax attack on working family businesses like this pub?

    Hansard source
11. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·Alex Burghart

    Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

    It is an honour and a privilege to speak in this important debate. It is particularly important because there are some people watching this afternoon who themselves were on the line of action in what was surely one of the most difficult operations that British armed forces have ever had to deploy in. I know that some veterans are with us today in the House, and some are sitting on these green Benches. One of the things that all Members have a duty to keep in mind throughout this debate is our responsibility to them, the people who ultimately enabled peace to happen in Northern Ireland. As we have discussed at a number of parliamentary events, we are opposed to the Government’s approach. We think that the Government have options that they are not taking, and that they are both compromising veterans’ peace of mind and endangering our military capability into the future. I noticed in The Telegraph today an important letter from some retired Special Air Service officers, who said that “peace requires compromise, restraint, and the decision to stop refighting the past”. The legislation that the previous Government brought in was specifically designed to try to draw a line under all of the events that had happened—not so that information would not be provided to families and victims, because the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery enabled that to happen, but so that we could move on from a new phase of the troubles conflict that was being fought in the courts. We will obviously have a chance to go through what we are debating today in greater detail when the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill returns to the House for consideration in Committee of the whole House. With the legislation that we are debating, which seeks to delete parts of the 2023 legacy Act following the ruling of the Belfast Court of Appeal last year, the Government are saying that they have no choice but to act as they have and no choice but to try to change the legislation by means of remedial order. We do not believe that is the whole story. When they came to power, they had the option of appealing that decision by the Court of Appeal in Belfast. We know that, because the previous Conservative Administration had received legal advice saying that not only was a legal challenge possible, but had a high chance of success. Indeed, many legal experts outside of this House, in think-tanks such as Policy Exchange, set out why that might be the case. The Government have implied two reasons why they dropped their appeal. The Secretary of State said in the House today, I think, and also on 17 December, that he believed that there was a moral outrage at the idea of immunity and a need to respect human rights law. On their own grounds, those are respectable positions, but they are also clearly not quite true. In the first instance, the human rights argument cannot stand on its own merits, because there were grounds to appeal, and the Government chose not to. The Government never found out what the actual position on human rights might have been, had they gone to the highest court in the land. On the idea that immunity is a moral outrage, I fear that the Labour party is being at best disingenuous. I say that because the Secretary of State and other Labour Members often refer to the immunity in our 2023 Act. There was immunity under that Act, but it was conditional on people giving up information to ICRIR. That was not a novel concept. Indeed, that concept was a cornerstone of the legislation introduced after 1998. There are plenty of examples, such as the legislation around decommissioning of weapons, which actively allowed for the destruction of forensic evidence that could have led to prosecutions. The victims’ remains legislation allowed people to come forward and tell the authorities where victims were buried without fear of prosecution. We might call that immunity in return for information. We have already discussed the letters of comfort. There can be no doubt that John Downey effectively received immunity for the Hyde Park bombing case by dint of his letter of comfort, and so with the royal prerogative of mercy and so, most significantly of all, with the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill, which Peter Hain—now Lord Hain, then Secretary of State—brought to this House in 2005. That Bill explicitly created—or would have, had it been passed—immunity for terrorists. That was immunity for terrorists, not for everyone. It was only when, under pressure from families and the Conservative party, the Government agreed to bring veterans into that legislation that it was dropped, because Sinn Féin ceased to support it. I say that respectfully, because the now Secretary of State was in the Cabinet at the time and would have been bound by collective responsibility on this issue.

    Hansard source
12. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·Alex Burghart

    Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

    My right hon. Friend could not be more correct. It has always been one-way traffic, and whenever the Conservative party has tried to create equivalence for veterans, the Labour party has backed down. We saw that with the 2005 legislation, and I am afraid that it is what we are seeing now. When we introduced conditional immunity for veterans in the same way that conditional immunity had been used time and again after 1998, the Labour party opposed us. There is an incredibly selective memory over the issue of conditional immunity. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) made a point about the unlevel playing field. I was discussing that with my noble Friend Lord Caine, who served with a Northern Ireland brief for very many years. He reminded me last night that the IRA bombed a major forensic laboratory in Belfast in 1992. A 3,000 lb bomb, one of the largest ever planted, damaged about 1,000 houses, and obliterated an enormous amount of forensic evidence that had been kept on the IRA. To that extent, the IRA gave itself a form of immunity by destroying evidence in a way that the British state never would have done. We have to ask ourselves this: why did the Government really drop their appeal? The Secretary of State says that it was because of immunity, but I am afraid I cannot believe that, because the Labour party supported immunity in the past. He also says that it was because of a lack of support for our legislation in Northern Ireland, and that is true. There was certainly not cross-party support for our legislation in Northern Ireland. However, I hate to break it to the Secretary of State, but there is not party support for his legislation in Northern Ireland either—and if this is really the case, I am not sure that the Secretary of State should be proceeding with what he is doing.

    Hansard source
13. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·Alex Burghart

    Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

    My right hon. Friend has always had a very good head for what is popular. I will check his figures, but I am sure they are correct, and he has made an important point. We cannot pretend that there was no support for what we were doing in Northern Ireland, because there are plenty of people in Northern Ireland who would like to move on. There are plenty of people who respect the decision to draw a line and move on.

    Hansard source
14. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·Alex Burghart

    Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

    No, I do not acknowledge that. I have met victims, and people whose families were heavily affected by terrorism, who supported our legislation.

    Hansard source
15. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·Alex Burghart

    Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

    My right hon. Friend has very succinctly summarised the central argument behind the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023: drawing a line does not mean covering up the past; drawing a line was an opportunity to open the past in a way that the adversarial system was never going to allow. Incidentally, I do not believe that the adversarial system will bring justice for very many people. We must remember that the peace process concluded in 1998, which is 28 years ago, and the troubles, by most reckonings, are deemed to have started in 1966, which is 60 years ago. We have recently seen the case of soldier F, in which one of the longest public inquiries in British legal history presented the most forensic evidence that could be imagined, but the court was unable to reach a conclusion. This means that the chances of any prosecution reaching a conclusion are very limited. That does not matter, because for many veterans it is the process that is the punishment. We saw that in October last year, when a former SAS veteran, who was accused of having behaved wrongly in 1991, was dragged through the courts. Eventually, the judge in Belfast said the case was “ludicrous” and should never have come anywhere near him, but that individual had been pursued for four years. There are many such cases. If the process is the punishment, the fear of the process is a punishment for so many people.

    Hansard source
16. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·Alex Burghart

    Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

    Again, I agree with my right hon. Friend. In some quarters, there is an industry that I fear is allowing victims to believe that their chances of success are far greater than they are in practice. That is not pleasant, so we have to ask ourselves why the Government dropped their appeal.

    Hansard source
17. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·Alex Burghart

    Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

    I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, who has great experience of these matters. The truth is that, for some people, this is the continuation of the troubles by other means. It is time to draw a line. If the Government did not withdraw their appeal because of conditional immunity, which they supported in the past, and if they did not refuse to appeal because of views in Northern Ireland on their own legislation, it must be for another reason. I do not know what that reason is, and I suspect that we will never know, but I wonder whether it is connected with the desire of this Government to have a close relationship with the Irish Government as part of the European reset.

    Hansard source
18. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·Alex Burghart

    Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

    That is exactly one of the reasons why the next Conservative Government will leave the European convention on human rights.

    Hansard source
19. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·Alex Burghart

    Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

    I believe that we almost got a scintilla of insight into how my right hon. Friend feels about the latest Joint Committee on Human Rights report. I am grateful to him for pre-empting some of what I am about to say. I do worry that there is a bigger game going on in Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) said that veterans are being used as pawns in lawfare, but I wonder whether the case against veterans is a pawn in a bigger game that the Government are playing with the European Union. The Secretary of State says he has no choice, but of course His Majesty’s Government do have a choice. They have options. The first option the Government had was to appeal, but they did not. The second option they have is to wait. On 15 October last year, the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement, represented pro bono by Lord Wolfson KC, was heard by the Court, and allowed to give oral and written evidence, which the Court is now considering. It is perfectly in scope for the UK Supreme Court to find that elements of the legacy Act are not actually incompatible with the European convention on human rights. However, if the Secretary of State’s remedial order has gone through both Houses by that time, we will be presented with legal chaos, because the Government will have used an order that they had no authority to use in order to remove primary legislation that should still be in place. The Government can avoid this: all they need do is wait and see what the Supreme Court says. In fairness, the Secretary of State thinks he knows what the Supreme Court will say. In reality, I am not sure that he does—but he has that option.

    Hansard source
20. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·Alex Burghart

    Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

    Once again, my hon. Friend is quite right, because if the remedial order goes through both Houses and the Supreme Court has not opined, from the next day civil cases will reopen and military veterans will be involved in such actions.

    Hansard source
21. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·Alex Burghart

    Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

    I am delighted to have the support, on a matter of pure legal substance, of my right hon. Friend—

    Hansard source
22. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·Alex Burghart

    Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

    Yes, my right hon. and very learned Friend. The truth is that, if one looks back at the debates on the Human Rights Act, one can see that the purpose of section 10 is to make sure that the Government cannot use a remedial order—an incredibly powerful tool, a statutory instrument that can strike down primary legislation—unless the case is fully decided. In this case, it clearly is not; it is open. That is why the Government are acting ultra vires. Let me return briefly to the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), who represents the best part of the New Forest.

    Hansard source
23. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·Alex Burghart

    Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

    I meant to say, “the joint first best part of the New Forest”. The Secretary of State has invoked the Joint Committee on Human Rights, but it is my understanding that when it wrote its report, it was unaware that the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement was being heard in the Supreme Court, and I rather think that that may have had a profound effect on what it wrote.

    Hansard source
24. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·Alex Burghart

    Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

    I am not doubting that the Committee examined all the evidence available to it; I am disputing what evidence it had available to it. We are faced with a situation in which the Government do not really have a legal basis or a moral basis for what they are doing, and there are real-life consequences to their decisions.

    Hansard source
25. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·Alex Burghart

    Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

    I suspect very strongly that the hon. Gentleman is right. I suspect that this is bound up in the agreement that the Secretary of State made with the Irish Government. He can correct that later if he wishes to. There were some things in that agreement that I welcomed at the time and which I welcome again now. If it leads to the Irish Government opening their books and being clear about collusion between the Garda and the Provisional IRA, I would welcome that. What I cannot welcome, thought, is the fact that there was an opportunity in that agreement to ask the Republic of Ireland to open its own inquiry into the Omagh bombing. At the time, it was recommended to the British Government that we should have our own full inquiry, but it was deemed to be pretty much a necessity for a similar inquiry to be conducted on the other side of the border, so that there was the opportunity to compel witnesses to give evidence under oath about what was known and about what, if any, collusion took place. I am very sorry that that opportunity was missed.

    Hansard source
26. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·Alex Burghart

    Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

    I would have been very open to that idea, but I believe that the previous Administration did not feel that there was the opportunity to proceed in that way. If we are thinking about the future, I think what the hon. Lady proposes is a perfectly sensible idea.

    Hansard source
27. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·Alex Burghart

    Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

    If my right hon. Friend will allow me, I will respond to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) briefly and then allow my right hon. Friend to supplement my answer. The hon. Member for Strangford has very deep personal and professional experience of this matter. Of course, he is right that, just as the inquiry into the truth has been one-sided within the United Kingdom, it has also I think, for large periods, been unequal without it as well.

    Hansard source
28. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·Alex Burghart

    Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

    Indeed. Those are all things that we would all love to get to the bottom of. As I draw my remarks to a close, I say to Labour Back Benchers who are considering how they might vote, not just this evening but also when we get to the Bill proper, that this does not have to be done in this way.

    Hansard source
29. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·Alex Burghart

    Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

    I am happy to give way to the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.

    Hansard source
30. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·Alex Burghart

    Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

    I take everything the hon. Lady’s Committee does incredibly seriously. There is a good deal of experience on it and she always has interesting witnesses. I was very interested in the remarks made at her Committee the other day by experts in the Police Service of Northern Ireland. I hope to have the opportunity to talk to her about that, as well as to the people who were giving evidence. I am afraid, though, that none of that takes away from the fact that there is a choice before this House. We do not have to go down the route of erasing the line we have attempted to draw under the troubles. I say to Labour Members that there is not just a moral risk; there is also a political risk for anyone who has doubts. Simply put, the Prime Minister has, over the course of the past few months, U-turned 12 or 13 times—which is it? [Interruption.] Oh, 14 times—I lose track. There is every possibility that, just as there was a U-turn 24 hours ago on social media for young people—because of representations that were made, I believe, by 60 Labour Back Benchers—so there is the opportunity to stop the Government in their tracks on this incredibly serious issue.

    Hansard source
31. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·Alex Burghart

    Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

    I am very pleased that my hon. Friend had the opportunity to put on the record. Sadly, there are not many Labour Back Benchers here to hear the debate. I wish there were, because, as I say, there is an alternative. I do believe that if Labour Back Benchers were to mount significant pressure in private, the Government would think again. If they did, they would create the opportunity, once again, for many of our brave veterans from Operation Banner to be able to sleep peacefully at night. As I draw my remarks to a close, I remind all hon. Members to be mindful of the past and the future. The Conservatives sought to draw a line. This Government are erasing that line and in so doing dredging up the past in a way that will allow the troubles to be fought again and again in the courtroom. This continuation of the conflict by other means—by legal means—ultimately undermines and reduces the opportunity we have for reconciliation. It also undeniably comes at an operational cost. We know that because those who know most about military operations tell us it is so. General Sir Nick Parker and General Sir Peter Wall—both of whom have served our country at the very highest levels—write today in the Telegraph: “Those currently serving, particularly in operations where judgement is exercised under extreme pressure, are watching closely. If lawful decisions taken in good faith can be re-examined endlessly decades later, confidence in command, willingness to serve and trust in political backing inevitably suffer. Enemies and allies notice this as well.” Let us remember the generals’ words.

    Hansard source
32. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·Alex Burghart

    Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

    The right hon. Gentleman is generous in giving way. Does he accept that conditional immunity, which is all that was in the legacy Act, is the very foundation of all the legislation passed after 1998? For the Labour party now to pretend that it is in some way morally abhorrent is utterly inconsistent.

    Hansard source
33. 20 Jan 2026·Parliament·Wendy Morton

    Gaza and the West Bank: Humanitarian Situation

    The House needs the full facts regarding aid entering Gaza and why the Government are not more engaged with the Civil-Military Co-ordination Centre. What steps is the Foreign Secretary taking to support the disarming of Hamas and secure the immediate release of the remaining hostage? Following White House announcements on the board of peace, including the involvement of Tony Blair, can she confirm what UK input there has been and whether any UK Ministers will be involved, and give a clear assurance that the UK would reject President Putin being on the board, given his illegal invasion of Ukraine and alliance with Iran?

    Hansard source
34. 20 Jan 2026·Parliament·Wendy Morton

    Support for Ukraine

    The Foreign Secretary will have heard President Zelensky’s warnings last week about the supply of air defence missiles—we must heed them. Will the Government make more weapons available, scale up production immediately or broker new military aid packages with our allies to ensure a constant supply of missiles?

    Hansard source
35. 20 Jan 2026·Parliament·Stuart Anderson

    Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

    It is not as if the President of the United States has not expressed disapproval; he says it is an “act of great stupidity” to do this deal. Does my right hon. Friend think that it is ironic that the Secretary of State for Defence made the first statement to the House on the subject last May, but with less than 12 hours to go until what could have been the final stage of the Bill, the President has absolutely trashed the deal?

    Hansard source
36. 20 Jan 2026·Parliament·Steve Barclay

    Chinese Embassy

    Does the Minister believe that the approval of this Chinese mega-embassy makes the British people safer?

    Hansard source
37. 20 Jan 2026·Parliament·Steve Barclay

    Holocaust Memorial Bill

    I rise briefly because I agree with both the tenor of the debate and the tone in which colleagues across the House have quite rightly highlighted the sheer horror of the Holocaust, the importance of remembering its sheer scale and the challenges particularly, as the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) highlighted, in the context of rising antisemitism, and as the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) mentioned, in having fewer survivors with lived experience here to share their stories. I want to address two points raised by the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). First, he raised a point that I surmise was on security, and I say to him that I simply do not know where the best site would be from a security perspective. It may be that somewhere between Parliament, which is obviously heavily secured, and MI5 would be an appropriate location for a site that will always carry security risks. It may be that other sites are better, and I defer to those with far more expertise than me. I note that the current Father of the House—like the previous Father of the House— has spoken about his concerns with the design of the memorial, which I think reflects the fact that he is a former Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, but I always have a slight concern. We obviously all agree on the principle, because it is important, and as the Member for Chelmsford said, after 11 years there is a need to make progress. I am not calling for delay—I certainly am not—because this is important, and we need to get on with it and to deliver it. However, it is fair to say that when the House is agreed on an issue, there is a danger that that issue is not sufficiently scrutinised. As I have said, the current Father of the House, like the previous Father of the House, has raised concerns. He speaks as a former Chair of the PAC; I currently chair the Finance Committee. The Finance Committee is not responsible for restoration and renewal—the House will come on to debate that—but I have already seen very serious concerns emerging around the challenges of the programme. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, have huge experience of the programme. Indeed, the programme has been repeatedly delayed and seen significant cost overruns. The design before us includes a significant proportion of construction underground in a very constrained site. I think the Minister opened the debate extremely well and I agreed with much of what she said, but it seemed to me that she is giving the trustees quite a lot of discretion, so I simply want to say how important it is, on this programme, that there is very real transparency about some of the challenges that I fear will emerge with the design, the construction, the risk of cost overruns, the constraints and the compromises. Can I bring that alive with one example? This site was constrained, and Parliament, as is its right, chose to vote to remove that constraint. On the R and R programme, I am told that the children’s education centre has to move because of an identical constraint. I suspect that the interaction of this programme with the R and R programme will come before the House in due course and raise some challenges. Indeed, the House has not even decided about such matters as what will happen to the education centre under the R and R programme. The importance of remembering the unbelievable horror of the Holocaust cannot be overstated—

    Hansard source
38. 20 Jan 2026·Parliament·Steve Barclay

    Holocaust Memorial Bill

    If the hon. Member will let me, I would like to finish. When all in the House agree on something, the question is whether the designs have been sufficiently scrutinised. Therefore, my plea to the Minister is to make a commitment to transparency and to communicating the pressures, which I foresee will emerge, in a very timely way.

    Hansard source
39. 20 Jan 2026·Parliament·Sir Oliver Dowden

    Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

    The Minister makes an important point. The key thing about the negotiations is that they were predicated on the United States’ concern about the continuing operation of the base in the context of concerns around international law. The position set out by the President of the United States last night is that he is not concerned about this—in fact, he is concerned about the deal the other way around. Moreover, I do not think that any of us would think that there is a concern around international law vis-à-vis the President of the United States. We are talking about two material changes. Surely in the face of these material changes, now is the time to pause and reconsider the implementation of the treaty. The circumstances have changed.

    Hansard source
40. 20 Jan 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Support for Ukraine

    I am sure the entire House endorses what the Foreign Secretary has just said. In a week when the Government are sadly letting down Hongkongers in London, Chagossians in exile and Northern Ireland veterans in retirement, can we absolutely rely upon continued support for Ukraine’s gallant resistance to atrocious Russian imperialism?

    Hansard source