Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,731 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 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
2. 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
3. 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
4. 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
5. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·David Reed

   Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

   That is exactly what it is.

   Hansard source
6. 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
7. 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
8. 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
9. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·David Davis

   Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

   Would my hon. Friend give way on that point?

   Hansard source
10. 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
11. 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
12. 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
13. 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
14. 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
15. 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
16. 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
17. 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
18. 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
19. 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
20. 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
21. 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
22. 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
23. 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
24. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill

    I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

    Hansard source
25. 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
26. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill

    Order.

    Hansard source
27. 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
28. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill

    I call the shadow Minister.

    Hansard source
29. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill

    I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

    Hansard source
30. 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
31. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

    I call the shadow Secretary of State.

    Hansard source
32. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation

    Order. Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman has reached the time limit.

    Hansard source
33. 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
34. 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
35. 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
36. 21 Jan 2026·Parliament·Andrew Bowie

    Warm Homes Plan

    The bills have gone up!

    Hansard source
37. 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
38. 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
39. 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
40. 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