Northern Ireland Troubles Bill
I do not think it is a poor point, because we all have to make judgments in this place and to vote with our conscience.
Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,578 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles Bill
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. She is right, of course, that there is not one homogeneous group, but the closest we can approximate to that is the veterans’ organisations that have come together and spoken with one voice, saying that they do not think there are sufficient protections in the Bill for them not to suffer the rinse and repeat. For that reason, I will be supporting new clause 21.
- Hansard source
Draft Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2026 Draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2026
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. The Opposition support both sets of regulations. These schemes provide financial support to people facing serious illness and to families who have lost someone. Many of those affected worked in some of the toughest industries. Others were exposed to asbestos through a family member’s work or in the environment around them. The central change is welcome. Both sets of regulations bring the rates paid to dependants into line with those paid to those suffering themselves. Putting them on the same footing is an obvious and fair change. A family’s need for support does not disappear because their loved one died before being able to make a claim. These changes recognise that, and we support them. I will turn first to the regulations on the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979—or, using the Minister’s helpful language, the 1979 Act scheme. I welcome the practical changes. References to medical boards that no longer exist are being replaced by a reference to an appointed medical practitioner. The regulations also clarify which date is used to determine a person’s age and the payment rate that applies. That should make the rules clearer for claimants and their families. The second set of regulations, on the 2008 Act scheme, concern mesothelioma, a devastating cancer that is linked to asbestos exposure. For those affected and the people caring for them, financial support needs to be accessible and timely. Bringing payments for bereaved dependants into line with those for people living with the disease is an important improvement. Both instruments also clarify what happens when someone makes a claim but dies before payment is made. They provide for payment to the person’s personal representatives—the people responsible for dealing with their estate—once the required legal evidence has been supplied. That clarity is welcome. However, it needs to work in practice for people who are already dealing with bereavement. There are four matters on which I would be grateful for the Minister’s reassurance. First, the explanatory memorandum says that dependants will benefit from the higher basic awards when the existing top-ups are removed. However, the workers’ compensation regulations also remove a tuberculosis-related top-up paid to sufferers themselves. Can the Minister confirm whether anyone in that group could receive less under the new arrangements—and, if so, what protection has been considered?<span id="6" class="column-number" data-column-number="6"></span> Secondly, what steps will the Department take to avoid delays where payment must be made through someone’s estate? The regulations will require evidence of probate, or the equivalent legal authority. What practical support will be available, and how quickly will payments be processed once that evidence is received? Bereaved families should have clear information about what they need to provide and what happens next. Thirdly, how will these changes be communicated? The explanatory memorandum for the workers’ compensation regulations says that “no bespoke guidance is being produced”, although internal instructions for staff will be updated. Will the Department work with specialist nurses, clinicians and support organisations so that eligible people understand what they can claim and how to apply? The organisations closest to patients and their families are often best placed to help them access support. Fourthly, I would like to ask about the transition. Under the workers’ compensation regulations, the changes apply where the person first meets the conditions of entitlement on or after 31 October 2026; under the regulations on the 2008 Act scheme, the increased dependant rates apply where the person suffering dies on or after that date. What consideration has been given to people who fall just before those cut-offs, but whose claims are still outstanding? They may remain entitled under the existing rules but will miss out on the improvements. Can the Minister explain the approach taken and whether any transitional protection was considered? As I said, we support these changes. We want to see them delivered clearly and promptly so that people facing serious illness and families dealing with loss receive the support they are entitled to.
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
A moment ago, the Secretary of State for Defence said that the Government would set out a path to spending 3% of GDP on defence, but he forgot to say by which year that would happen. Will he take this opportunity to confirm that this is 3% defence spending by 2030?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
As it is the first time we have debated, may I begin by welcoming the new Secretary of State to his position? On 26 July, he appeared on the Camilla Tominey show on GB News and was asked, “If the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not stump up enough defence spending, will he resign?” The Secretary of State replied, “Absolutely.” Is that still the case?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
The Chancellor resigned then to go to 3% on defence. Bearing that in mind, on the same day, the Secretary of State also appeared on Times Radio and was asked by Adam Boulton if a failure to deliver on defence spending would be a resignation issue for him, as it had been for the now Chancellor. The Secretary of State replied: “It is. It is absolutely, for me, a matter of principle.” It begs a simple question. If the Budget does not deliver 3% for defence by 2030, will he resign?
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles Bill
I was chuntering.
- Hansard source
Travellers' Allowances (Amendment) Order 2026
It is a pleasure to see you in the chair, Mr Stringer, and to serve on this Committee. I thank Minister for his explanation of the Government’s intentions in relation to the order. As the Minister outlined, the order builds on the changes made by the previous Government in the Finance (No.2) Act 2023. Incidentally, they were brought in by a particularly impressive Treasury Minister—I cannot remember his name—while the official Opposition spokesman at the time left a lot to be desired, I have to say. I am pleased to see amendments that aim to simplify the system. As the Minister said, for those who are travelling to Great Britain and for the businesses that sell to them, the order makes a frankly welcome change to some of the regulations I have been responding to since 2024, which have a very different impact on British consumers and businesses. The Opposition will not oppose the measures today, but I have a few questions for the Minister. First, how many people will be impacted by the measure? Secondly, which ports in particular are likely to be affected? Thirdly, the measure is pegged to cost around £500,000, but no explanation has been provided on where that money will be spent, so where will it be spent?
- Hansard source
Travellers' Allowances (Amendment) Order 2026
I apologise, but I am specifically interested in those who already maximise their allowance. What is the Government’s assessment of the impact on those individuals, to whom this measure will be detrimental?
- Hansard source
Draft Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector and Social Rented Sector (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 Draft Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I welcome the opportunity to sit opposite the Minister again, and I appreciate his remarks. I also welcome the opportunity, on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, to address the regulations. I will make my remarks in reverse order to the Minister. The concern in the first set of regulations, regarding electrical safety, is broadly technical, and they are uncontentious in terms of legislative change. It is vital that all homes meet the necessary electrical safety requirements that tenants, landlords, registered providers and others rightly expect. However, I do have some questions about the regulations. As one of my noble Friends highlighted in the other place, the legislation requires that such standards be monitored by local authorities. Given all the uncertainty surrounding local government at the moment and the lack of action taken by the Government to allay such concerns, on whom will the monitoring responsibilities fall during the transitional periods? What impact will local government reorganisation have on this and on their innumerable small-scale but vital responsibilities.<span id="6" class="column-number" data-column-number="6"></span> Secondly, in the other place, the Opposition and the Liberal Democrats raised the important point that extra responsibilities for landlords do not always match up with the expected compliance of tenants. What plans does the Minister have to enforce responsibilities and compliance on not just the landlord’s side but the tenant’s side? Turning to the other set of regulations, regarding hazards in social housing, I want to start by acknowledging the critical importance of ensuring that every tenant has a safe, hygienic and sturdy home in which to live. It was that very concern that led the previous Conservative Government to introduce the original Awaab’s law. As the Minister said, the sad and untimely death in 2020 of Awaab Ishak was a shock to all of us in this place and up and down the country. It showed that there clearly was and still is more to be done to ensure safety for all residents in social housing. These regulations go further than the original Awaab’s law, as the Minister said, by extending the same principles to cover other hazards, such as excessive heat or cold, hygiene hazards, structural hazards and more. Those are real and pressing concerns for some tenants, but the regulations are not a perfect response to the issue in hand. It is important that the valid concerns of industry groups are also noted in this debate, because they highlight that, when considering any new regulatory requirements, we must remember the added financial cost and extra time that must accompany their enforcement. For example, the National Housing Federation has raised concerns about the substantial additional cost to housing associations. We hear in our constituencies up and down the nation that many housing associations are stretched, with some already struggling to cover their costs. New requirements can take away money earmarked for other repairs and maintenance, forcing unwelcome choices on housing associations. Homeless Link has also warned that, at present, no Government funding exists to help providers that find themselves on the brink and operating on tight margins. As the hazards for consideration expand in scope, so do the pressures on cost and time. The Government’s impact assessment shows that that is the case, with an estimated increase in costs of £213.6 million. Importantly, that covers only the administrative costs, so the true figure is likely to be considerably greater. It is important that the Government engage closely and meaningfully with the sector as the regulations come into force. I call on the Minister to commit to that when he sums up, both to ease concerns and to help us understand the true nature of the costs not included in the impact assessment. I hope he will make that promise in this debate, and support tenants, landlords, housing associations and registered providers alike.
- Hansard source
Controlling or Coercive Behaviour: Sentencing
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for opening the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. I join everyone who has spoken so far in paying particular tribute to Paris Shears, who is in the Public Gallery. She started the petition, which has now secured an extraordinary more than 105,000 signatures. In my time as a shadow Justice Minister, I have had the privilege of working with several victims of crime, particularly female victims of crime, and they all pay a price for the campaigning they do. It forces people to relive their experiences and to talk about them in a way that can be deeply traumatic. I am deeply grateful to everybody who does that, Paris included. In telling us her story, in which her abuser changed his plea at the very last minute, she described how she felt “silenced again”. She said that “it meant he controlled the narrative again”.<span id="281WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="281WH"></span> It took more than 530 days for Paris’s case to reach trial. That is 530 days of sitting, waiting, reliving, expecting and worrying, just to find at the very last minute that he takes back control by changing his plea and still manages to secure a discount in his sentence. It is worth highlighting, as others have done, how the system works. A defendant who pleads guilty will normally receive a reduction in their sentence. That principle is long-standing, and the reason often given is one of cost and logistics, but the other reason, which is particularly important to me, is that it potentially spares victims and witnesses having to give evidence and be cross-examined. I have met victims who have found that process very distressing. The detail of exactly how the reduction process works is determined by the Sentencing Council, not by Parliament, and the courts are required to follow its guidelines, under which the maximum reduction is a third. Unusually for me, I congratulate the Government on at least ignoring the plea in the Leveson review to increase the discount even further to 40%, which I think would be wrong and against the interests of justice. After the initial reduction of a third, the discount is a quarter, falling on a sliding scale to a maximum of one tenth for a plea on the first day of trial. If the plea comes during the trial, the reduction should normally be reduced even further, and can even be zero. The court also has to explain whether it has applied a reduction and by how much. It is fair to say that the system already recognises that a late plea causes additional distress, and therefore secures less of a discount to the sentence. As I read it, Paris’s law, for which the petition asks, would mean that someone charged with controlling or coercive behaviour who pleads not guilty and then changes their plea receives no reduction in any circumstances. I want to lay out my guiding principles. One of the main reasons why I wanted to become an MP was that I felt that our justice system did not provide sufficient punishment for all sorts of offences. Morally, I hate to see any person receiving any kind of reduction whatsoever. However, the Government’s response to the petition makes the important point that even when an offender pleads guilty very late, that can still spare a victim from having to give potentially traumatic evidence. If a is victim spared cross-examination, even at the last minute, that should be worth something. As Paris’s campaign has pointed out, there is a real risk, in these particular types of case, of creating an incentive for a perpetrator who has every intention of ultimately pleading guilty to drag the process out. As the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), pointed out, and as others have said, that can also happen as part of an attempt to wear down a potential victim to encourage them to drop their evidence. Both those reasons should cause us to pause when considering discounts. I gave this matter a great deal of thought when considering the petition, because it is a question of how we weigh up two potential public goods, and something done in the interest of victims. Ultimately, how do we decide on the level of distress, discomfort and worse for people who have to wait and then see a discount with a last-minute plea, versus another group of victims who will perhaps benefit from the fact that they have not had <span id="282WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="282WH"></span>to endure a trial? It is not easy to reach a firm conclusion on that. It has certainly given us all a lot to think about, in relation not just to the specific cause the petitioner has brought to our attention but to the general issue of coercive and controlling behaviour and violence against women and girls. As other Members have mentioned, we know that every week women are killed—murdered by men—and we still have an epidemic of violence that should trouble everybody in this country and certainly troubles me. It is helpful to consider how the position has changed over time. The previous Government made coercive and controlling behaviour a criminal offence for the first time through the Serious Crime Act 2015. They also passed the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which wrote coercive control into the statutory definition of domestic abuse. In 2023, new guidance was brought forward to protect people who do not live with their abuser from threats and intimidation. The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 then introduced the powers that this Government have now used so that offenders who are convicted of controlling or coercive behaviour and sentenced to 12 months or more are managed under multi-agency public protection arrangements, which are used to monitor someone’s risk to other people when they are not in prison. I welcome the Government’s use of those powers, but there is clearly more to do. There are several issues that it is important to consider, even if we do not all agree that the proposal in the petition is quite ready to be supported universally. What are the Government seeking to do to encourage earlier guilty pleas through other mechanisms? I have frequently heard that allowing the defendant better access to earlier advice, whereby someone can make it clear to them face to face that their chances of getting away with an offence are pretty slim, can encourage earlier guilty pleas. The Lib Dem spokesperson mentioned pre-trial hearings; I visited Liverpool Crown court, which instituted further preparatory hearings to encourage earlier pleas in either direction. Those are things that could be done without interfering with the existing arrangements in respect of early guilty pleas. I am sure I am right in saying that even if the perpetrator in Paris’s case had got the full sentence, Paris, like many victims, would still not have been satisfied that it was anywhere near long enough, given the impact of these crimes on women. That is what I have drawn most strongly from my work with victims across the board, which is why I was particularly vociferous in my opposition to the Government’s reduction in jail time for a sweeping range of offenders. As has been mentioned already, the vast majority of domestic abusers who have been convicted for common assault will now serve just a third of their sentence, whether it was reduced or not. It was only because of vociferous campaigning from victims like Paris that a whole range of rapists, paedophiles and terrible abusers of women and girls will not be released after a third of their sentence instead of two fifths. Is the offence of coercive and controlling behaviour excluded alongside the exclusions that we managed to secure from the Government for rape and other offences? One of the reasons the Gauke review was such a travesty in terms of dictating sentencing policy in this country is that it gave almost no thought whatsoever to what victims want to see or whether they think sentences are sufficiently just. My former Justice Committee colleague, <span id="283WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="283WH"></span>the right hon. Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle), talked about concurrent sentences; they are the norm in our judicial system, yet I do not think I have ever met a victim who thinks they makes sense in the vast majority of circumstances. Some people are convicted for hundreds of offences, but even though sentences are ramped up when someone has that many convictions, they are still nothing like what they should be if they were not served concurrently. We are committed to recognising that we did not do enough in government to ensure sufficient prison capacity so that we can actually engage with these issues. We want to undo all the damaging shortening of sentences we have seen under this Government and go further. On discounts, there might be better acceptance of them if victims at least felt that the ultimate sentences, even with a discount, were closer to what they consider justice, which in my experience they do not at the moment. Even if we are not quite there on this issue, as Paris says on her website, “Paris’s Law was never about one petition, one debate or one event. It’s about creating lasting change.” There are many ways in which we can do that across the board when it comes to the abuse of women in all its forms.
- Hansard source
Controlling or Coercive Behaviour: Sentencing
It seems that the Minister has moved on from responding to my questions, one of which was whether coercive and controlling behaviour is excluded from the early release programme.
- Hansard source
Controlling or Coercive Behaviour: Sentencing
It is a basic question.
- Hansard source
Controlling or Coercive Behaviour: Sentencing
Will the Minister give way?
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles Bill
Will the Secretary of State consider extending the remit of the commission to include September 1998, and thus the Omagh bombing? He will know that the Irish agencies, and the Irish Government specifically, will have quite a lot to say on the subject, given the events of September 1998, but as things stand, there will be no way for victims and families to get the answers that he has mentioned in his preamble.
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles Bill
The Secretary of State is characteristically generous in giving way. Clauses 4 and 5 govern the appointment of members of the commission and directors of investigations, and mandate that some of those should be drawn from people with experience outside Northern Ireland. Can he explain why that is, who these people will be and of which countries he believes they will have experience? I assume that means the Republic of Ireland.
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles Bill
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles Bill
We have heard some extraordinarily powerful speeches this afternoon. They have all been first rate, up to this point. I will start by laying out what I am. I am the Member of Parliament for a part of Wiltshire that has, I suspect, as many servicemen and ex-servicemen as any other part of the south of England—probably rather more so. I am proud to represent them. It is important I say that, because my perspective is probably very different from that of the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood), given the people he talks to and the people I talk to, and we will differ. But that in no way takes anything away from my respect for the hon. Gentleman and the thoughts and sympathies that he has expressed.
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles Bill
I accept that point and I appreciate the way in which the Secretary of State framed Mrs Jones, and it is perfectly reasonable that he does so. My point is that we do ourselves and Mrs Jones a great disservice if we suggest that this process will bring answers, when answers there may very well come none—because of the passage of time, because of fading memories, because of people who have passed away, or because of evidence that has degraded or been deliberately or unwittingly destroyed.
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles Bill
That is not what I am saying at all, and the hon. Gentleman knows it. What I am saying is that with the passage of time, undoubtedly, memories fade, material is not available, and people, unfortunately, decease. Trying to recreate reality 50 years on is extremely difficult. When you do so, you need to ensure you have a margin of error. You have to admit that what you have come up with may not actually have more than a fleeting reality with what actually happened at the time. That is all I am saying.
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles Bill
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his intervention. Indeed, the phrase “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” is reasonable. I would say the 2023 Act was perhaps imperfect in the eyes of the lawyers and the ECHR, but I regret very much that it was set to be repealed by the incoming Government, since it was the basis of a measure that would bring solace and would <span id="839" class="column-number" data-column-number="839"></span>also protect those who might otherwise find their collar felt—well represented today here and in other places. I think that was a mistake, if I may say. It was a mistake, but we move on. Our purpose today is to make this Bill a better Bill. I hope very much that in the other place they will pick up on many of the comments that have been made today and be able to improve it. The right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) bemoaned the fact that Committees of the whole House are basically a re-run of Second Reading debates—I think that was the essence of what he was saying—and rarely deal with the specifics, so I will touch on one or two specific amendments. But before I do so, may I make a brief comment about immunity? The Government appear to be allergic, in bringing forward the remedial order, to the issue of immunity. Really, it is not a new concept. The Good Friday agreement itself was pretty much founded on establishing immunity. I remember it very well—I was intimately involved with the events in Northern Ireland at the time. It was through gritted teeth. It was extremely difficult for people on both sides of this great divide, but the idea of immunity was very much at the heart of the 1998 Belfast/Good Friday agreement. Since then, we had Peter Hain with his 2005 Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill, which tried to establish immunity for one side of the divide—not for soldiers and not for police. I am very pleased that at that time the Opposition, with others, knocked that back and it was withdrawn. In contrast, immunity in the 2023 Act was highly conditional on information being handed over that might help to deal with some of the concerns of people like Mrs Jones. It was important that that immunity was conditional. I think that is where the difference is—in the idea that we cannot give immunity. The right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn) has said before that his concern was that he did not want to have immunity. I understand that; it is a noble concept. However, the fact of the matter is that 1998 was built on immunity, Peter Hain tried it in 2005 and in 2023 the immunity that was being talked about was highly conditional.
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles Bill
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. When I intervened on the Secretary of State, he said that the commissioners and directors of investigation who are not from Northern Ireland and are not used to investigating matters in Northern Ireland will probably be taken from the rest of the United Kingdom.
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles Bill
The question is how we can best recover the information—how we can extract it—even at this late date, so that we can give some solace and comfort to those who have been wrapped up in these terrible events, from whatever side of the divide they hail. In the spirit of the comments of the right hon. Member for Belfast East, I would like to address one or two specifics on clauses 4 and 5, relating to the appointment of the commissioners and the directors of investigations. Clause 4(2) states specifically: “In exercising the power under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must so far as practicable ensure that one or more of the Commissioners have experience gained outside the United Kingdom”. That was not what the Secretary of State told me. He is quite right that, under clause 5, one director of investigations should have “experience of conducting criminal investigations outside Northern Ireland”, so it is perfectly reasonable to infer that they may be drawn from people operating in the rest of the United Kingdom, but that appears not to be the case in relation to the commissioners. I would be very grateful if the Secretary of State, when he makes his winding-up remarks, was able to clarify that for me—or now, if he wants to.
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles Bill
I do not expect the Secretary of State to comment on special forces, but I do suggest that he look at special forces specifically, which is what I was talking about earlier. If he wants to heap laurels on me, as a former Minister for defence people, since these things take a very long time, I am perfectly happy to take some of the credit. I am grateful to him for that, but I do not think that it was the intent of his remarks. My question to him was about clause 4(2). He satisfied me in relation to the directors of investigations, but it is the commissioners about whom I am concerned. I think that, unwittingly, he may have conflated the two, and I should be grateful if he could clarify that for me at some point.<span id="841" class="column-number" data-column-number="841"></span> Government amendment 259 and new clause 34 concern, respectively, commissioners and members of the victims and survivors advisory group. There is a mandate that commissioners cannot have been convicted of an offence “anywhere in the world”. That needs a bit of further thought, because in some parts of our benighted world today, people are convicted by jurisdictions for which I do not think we would have a great deal of respect. When I was a Minister in the Foreign Office, I dealt with Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, who was convicted and imprisoned falsely—but convicted nevertheless—in such a jurisdiction. I feel that we may need to revise the wording, either here or in the other place, to be clear about the Government’s intent. Neither is there any mention of the rehabilitation of offenders. New clause 34 does at least place a limit of three months on a custodial sentence for members of the advisory group, but I think that this part of the Bill needs a bit of redrafting so that it makes more sense. Government amendment 162 touches on the provision of information via a remote link, which is a positive, but it also provides a get-out for inquisitors in the form of an impracticability test. What I am not sure about, and what I seek clarification on, is what circumstances would make it “impracticable” for a person to provide information through live audio or video links. Comments have been made about the part that the Irish Government play in all this through the framework agreement. There is a lingering suspicion that Dublin has had an undue influence on the Bill, and we have heard—particularly in relation to Omagh—why that should be. I entirely accept the Secretary of State’s assertion that the Irish Government have not been involved in the drafting of the Bill, and, indeed, had not seen the amendments before their publication, which is reassuring. However, it would be useful to know when the Secretary of State expects the Irish Government to implement, through their legislative channels, the reciprocal arrangements that are necessary to provide some chance of recovering information that may be sequestered in the Republic. As the hon. and gallant Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) has pointed out, that repository is likely to be vast. Up to this point it has been untapped, and until it is tapped, questions will be asked about the candour of Dublin in trying to provide answers to many of the problems about which we have heard today. The hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) was right to say that this is all about victims. It is also about veterans, many of whom I have the honour and privilege to represent. There must be a way through this that will satisfy both parties, even through the prism of so many years. There is a wall of misery associated with the troubles, and it is our job to do what we can to remedy that, difficult and imperfect though the process may be. I appreciate the Secretary of State’s endeavours—he approaches this matter in good faith, as did his predecessor —but I fear that what we have at the moment simply will not do.
- Hansard source
Glasgow School of Art: Mackintosh Building
Would the hon. Member agree that the SNP Government need to play a role in this? So far, they have been silent on the subject.
- Hansard source
High North: British Interests
I was pleased to see the Defence Readiness and Industry Minister welcoming HMS Protector home to Devonport, although judging by the three tugboats, I suspect she was rather less enthusiastic about the reunion than he was. With growing Russian activity in the High North and renewed chest beating from Argentina over the Falklands, Britain’s only naval ice patrol ship faces an <span id="753" class="column-number" data-column-number="753"></span>uncertain future. How can a single replacement sustain a credible presence at both poles, while allowing for maintenance and refits, and how will the Minister prevent a gap in capability?
- Hansard source
Controlling or Coercive Behaviour: Sentencing
Order. The shadow Minister should not intervene from a sedentary position.
- Hansard source
Glasgow School of Art: Mackintosh Building
I very much commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this issue forward, because Glasgow School of Art is a national institution and Charles Rennie Mackintosh was a national figure across the United Kingdom. That is why, when I was in the Scotland Office, I argued that the UK Government should intervene after the first fire, which they did. I had the opportunity to see some of the renovations that took place after 2014, which were so tragically lost in the fire of 2018. I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that, given the national significance of the Glasgow School of Art, the UK Government have a role to play in its renovation.
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles Bill
Will the Secretary of State give way?
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles Bill
Our exchanges on fondness will get the Secretary of State into trouble. He talks about balance; who has that balance or who governs that balance is important. Will he tell the Committee how many of the substantive amendments were either shown to or discussed with the Irish Government before they were brought to the Committee?
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles Bill
On that point, will the Secretary of State give way?
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles Bill
The Secretary of State, with every good intention, talks about preventing “rinse and repeat”, yet the moment we introduce this situation into a coroner’s inquest, the opportunity for judicial review arises—multiple stages of judicial review. As we have already seen with inquests, “rinse and repeat” cannot be stopped, so a soldier may be going through three or four judicial processes, all of them painful, whatever the Government say.
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles Bill
Where he is coming from.
- Hansard source
Procurement: Dudley
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Boxer is vital to defence procurement across the west midlands, including for those constituents in Dudley who work at Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land. The MOD has now confirmed that earlier this year it cut nearly £2 billion from the £7 billion allocated to the mechanised infantry programme—a cut that included three new variants for the Army, including the critical repair and recovery variant. What will the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers light aid detachments be equipped with, given that there is no longer a plan to procure those vehicles, and how will the Army repair and recover damaged Boxer vehicles without a repair and recovery variant?
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles Bill
On that point, will the Secretary of State give way?
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles Bill
<em>indicated </em><em>assent</em><em>.</em>
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles Bill
The Secretary of State talks about protections for those who served our country. One key achievement of the legacy Act was stopping new inquests that could threaten to expose those who served our country to vexatious claims, particularly in the case of Loughgall, which is one of the best known cases. Do his amendments definitively stop any such vexatious claims coming forward again?
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Programme) (No.2)
I promise not to detain the House for more than a few minutes, but I think it is important to put on record the Opposition’s unhappiness with how Committee stage is being handled. Although we of course welcome a Committee of the whole House, which allows hon. Members from Northern Irish parties to contribute, the amount of time set aside is wholly inadequate for the task. This is one of the most complex and controversial pieces of legislation that the House will debate during this Parliament. It is a 98-clause Bill to which over 300 amendments—including, I think, 144 Government amendments—have been tabled, and the amendment paper is now longer than the legislation itself. The consequence of the scheduling is that this House will have very little time to spend on detailed scrutiny, or indeed on detailed discussion of the amendments tabled. Most concerningly, the programme motion makes <span id="765" class="column-number" data-column-number="765"></span>it clear that we will have only about an hour for Report, and that hour will almost certainly be entirely ridden over by overrun.
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Programme) (No.2)
I entirely agree with the right hon. Member. It looks as though we will get no Report stage at all. The idea that there is not time available to the House to debate this Bill properly is laughable. On Wednesday the House is confining itself to the Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill. On Thursday we have a general debate. This House will not get to vote on any of the Government’s 144 amendments directly, or on any of the Government’s 98 clauses individually. The new Administration have done one good thing here, for which they should take credit: they have rolled the remedial order into this legislation. We strongly support that. It is something that those on the Conservative Benches have been calling for throughout the progress of the Bill, but we think that, as the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) said during the carry-over debate, it would have been far better for the Government to have adopted their own amendments and created a new Bill, and brought that to Second Reading. It would have presented a far more coherent picture of what the Government are now up to. The extremely messy way in which this legislation has evolved means that that would have presented the House with a clearer picture of what was going on, and there could have been greater time to consider the new Bill in its entirety. As it is, and as the right hon. Member for Belfast East has pointed out, the main scrutiny will have to be done by the upper House. Although their lordships excel at such work, this practice is becoming far too common.
- Hansard source
Drought Conditions: England
The Minister is doing her best in very difficult circumstances. Does she agree that one of the problems is that over recent years the Government have given insufficient subsidy and support for adaptation measures and been obsessed with subsidising windmills and solar panels, which will not do anything to deal with the real problems on the ground that we are experiencing?