5,750 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
May I join in with the tributes of my fellow Cambridgeshire MPs? In her statement, the Home Secretary indicated that she was receptive to the deployment of facial recognition at railway stations. Can she clarify, on the current timeline, the earliest date on which that would be deployed more widely? Given some of the early lessons coming out of this case, what scope is there for the Government to accelerate that timeline?
I echo tributes to the train staff and emergency services, and to the Home Secretary and her team, who I am sure were working flat out all weekend. The case is being investigated, but given the events of Saturday and in the run-up to Saturday night, can I urge her to bring together police chiefs to talk about information sharing and any further resource that they require? I am happy to admit that we should not have diluted stop and search, but can I urge her to look again at that? Northern Ireland is much more permissive, and section 60 needs to be reviewed.
As we build up towards Remembrance Sunday, does the Secretary of State agree that it is appropriate for us to remember the circumstances in which two world wars began, when democracies were relatively weak in the face of armed autocracies? Therefore, does he agree that the help we give to Ukraine is the best possible guarantee that aggressors will not be emboldened to attack other countries as well?
Does the Secretary of State envisage any circumstances in which an IRA terrorist could be prosecuted after he had received a letter of comfort, and if so, what are those circumstances?
I will be very brief. When the Home Secretary undertakes lessons learned and recommendations for the future, will she look into the question of whether there is any protective equipment, or even disabling equipment of a non-lethal nature, that could be issued to staff for use in such an emergency?
I recognise the strength of the case that the Prime Minister is making. He will understand the interest that the Intelligence and Security Committee has in clause 6 of the Bill, which provides for certain exemptions for those who work for the intelligence agencies. It then says that those people should report internally within their organisation any information that may be of use to an inquiry or investigation. Will he give some thought to how the Government might develop a concept of what then happens to that information, about which the Bill is broadly silent? He will understand that many will be concerned to ensure that when information is reported internally within the intelligence agencies, it none the less finds its way to those who should have it, in order to give reassurance about what the Government are seeking to achieve more broadly in this Bill.
As the Secretary of State knows, I have brought a company over from Ukraine to show us what it can do with drones. Us getting hold of that technology from Ukraine helps us to supply Ukraine, as well as ourselves. However, the key issue I want to ask about is that of rare earth minerals. They are normally discussed in a business context, but they are critical to the defence of the United Kingdom, and having a supply here in this country, directly owned by us, must surely be a critical issue. Has the Secretary of State looked at this issue, talked to his colleagues in Government and said, “We need a supply that we produce in our own country and use here”?
As someone who served in Northern Ireland, I just remind the House that this was the most peculiar operation that we could ever expect soldiers to do—patrolling streets in this United Kingdom, defending people against terrorists here in the UK, against a very strict rules of engagement booklet. They had to make complex decisions in a split second. Some of them were 18 years old, on the streets, petrified. In that context, I simply say to the right hon. Gentleman that he talks of equivalence, but more than 700 British soldiers in Northern Ireland were killed by paramilitaries. Not one single paramilitary has been arraigned and taken to court for any of those murders that were committed against the British Army and the British forces. The Secretary of State talks of equivalence, but this is not equivalence, because it is those soldiers who will be persecuted for the rest of time, and not one single member of the paramilitaries, who kept no records, will ever go in front of a court. That is not fair.
The Minister has heard what an amazing set of mid-sized and large businesses we have in the west midlands supporting defence, but we also have some amazing research universities. What more is the MOD looking at doing to work more closely with our universities, getting them geared towards supporting our move to rearming this country?
Whatever the wrongs committed on that day, does the Secretary of State understand that it beggars belief that a former IRA man can, in his old age, be lolling on a sofa, despite all his torturing, kneecapping and executions? I am thinking of Captain Nairac, who was abducted, tortured and killed; his perpetrators were never brought to justice. Does the Secretary of State realise that this whole process is deeply wounding to the morale of the British Army? He can take refuge in independent prosecution, but he can give his own opinion and say that it is surely time that Northern Ireland moves on into a better age.
I rise as Chair of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. I am pleased to report that this statutory instrument passed our scrutiny. We checked the legal drafting and whether the instrument is intra vires and going through the proper legislative procedure. We deal with 1,200 or 1,500 instruments a year, but this one passed with flying colours. Measures from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs do not always pass with flying colours. We produced a report last month showing DEFRA had produced 69 such regulations; 9% required further explanation, and three of them—4%—required us to request changes in drafting, which shows that this very obscure and unsung Committee does very important work to make sure that regulations such as these are properly elucidated. I support the hon. Member for Putney and her injunction that people should stop flushing wet wipes down toilets. Unfortunately, this statutory instrument does not address that. I think the Minister could have taken the opportunity to impress upon the public that they must stop flushing wet wipes down into the sewage system. They cause incredible blockages, which cost millions of pounds to clear, put our water bills up, and pollute the environment. Even if there are no plastics in them, they will continue to cause that nuisance. We must not let it get into the consumer’s mind, “Oh, these are plastic-free, so I can flush them down the loo.” I put it to the Minister that that is a great danger.
I am most grateful to the hon. Lady. They say that in Parliament you should never ask a question to which you do not know the answer, but I am going to ask one. I notice that the EU is also moving towards this kind of ban, although I do not know whether it is the same. In Wales, the Welsh Labour Government have already introduced a ban. Would we have been allowed to do this without the EU’s permission? Would it have been regarded as a restriction on the free movement of wet wipes if we had introduced it while we were still in the EU? I hope that moving forward with this measure, for which I commend this Government and the previous Government, in this country will encourage the rest of the EU to follow suit. I do not suppose that this falls under the definition of “reset” or “alignment” or anything complicated like that, but could the Minister explain whether we could have done this if we were still in the EU?
Can the Minister describe what he is doing within his own Department so that his own officials actually reward, recognise and engage with innovation? The acquisitions system in the MOD is notoriously bureaucratic, incredibly risk-averse and makes it impossible for small companies, in particular, to engage with innovative projects in the Department. What is he doing to get a wholesale transformation of the culture within his Department? Otherwise, all this money will just be wasted.
I am listening carefully to the right hon. Gentleman, and the whole premise of his case is that it is somehow in the public interest for people in that community to carry on trying to find people to blame and prosecute on both sides of the argument. Is the real case here not that it is not only an extraordinary injustice for people to be prosecuted for having done their duty as members of Her Majesty’s armed forces, but it does not serve the interests of peace and reconciliation to allow and encourage people to carry on reopening wounds, when so much time and money has already been spent on trying to explain what happened to their loved ones? Nothing must detract from that sympathy, but it is a monstrous injustice that people in the line of duty who bear the scars of that conflict are paying the price for this almost politically correct process, instead of drawing a line.
EKA Ltd in my constituency is a supplier to Ministry of Defence service recovery vehicles that have to be deployed with our tanks, but an issue that it and other service personnel have highlighted is the absence of the provision of robust spare parts in the event of a breakdown or damage. The Government are spending millions on these assets but leaving them completely unprotected. Is the MOD reviewing the provision of spares as part of its procurement, and would the Minister meet me and EKA Ltd to discuss the matter further?
The Minister rightly promotes our world-class maritime sector in the south-west, where considerable private investment is being made, including a new resilience factory opening in my constituency next week. Such innovative young companies live or die on the pace of Government contracting, but we continue to wait for the latest defence investment plan. How will the Minister reassure the new tech companies in my constituency that the pace of their private investments is matched by the urgency of MOD contracting to ensure that economic growth through defence becomes a reality?
I congratulate the hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson) and everyone who has intervened. I will keep my remarks even briefer than I said I would. We have already heard a huge amount about supported lodgings, and that is what I wanted to speak about briefly, as much as anything to highlight the cross-party support for what they represent, and the role that they can play for our care-experienced young people. Supported lodgings—a family-based form of supported accommodation for young people aged 16 or over—play a vital role. They accommodate predominately care leavers, but also young people at risk of homelessness. In supported lodgings, a young person lives in the home of a host who offers not only a room but guidance, encouragement and belonging. According to research from Home for Good, which runs the supported lodgings national network, 84% of young people say that supported lodgings feel like home, 89% had a positive relationship with their host, and 90% feel more confident about living independently as a result. As one young person put it, “Being in supported lodgings allowed me to take the college course I wanted to take and ultimately the career path I wanted to follow.” Supported lodgings can make a transformative difference. Further research from Home for Good found that when young people live in supported lodgings for six months or more, we see an average 44% decrease in the number of those not in education, employment or training. Supported lodgings also cost only a tenth of what residential provision costs, while delivering far stronger long-term outcomes for young people. However, despite what we have heard this evening, awareness remains low. Only 30% of the public have even heard of supported lodgings, and most local authorities report difficulties in recruiting new hosts. That is why I am proud to support the launch of the first National Supported Lodgings Week, which takes place next week, during Care Leavers Month; over 60 local authorities and independent schemes are taking part. My asks of the Minister are simple: I ask him to allocate dedicated funding to expanding supported lodgings; to reduce reliance on high-cost residential placements; and to improve national data collection, so that we can properly evidence the scale and impact of this vital provision. We are all agreed this evening that every young person, whether in care, leaving care or facing homelessness, deserves not just a place to stay, but a home where they belong.
23. What steps he is taking to reduce the time taken to procure drones for the armed forces.
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The Minister may be aware of Domo Tactical Communications, a drone manufacturer in my constituency that I have raised in written questions before. Will he uphold the visit that was due to take place by his predecessor before the reshuffle? What proportion of drones purchased for UK armed forces are procured from UK-based drone manufacturers, and what can be done to increase that proportion?
7. What steps he is taking to reduce the time taken to procure drones for the armed forces.
I thank the Minister for his answer. The biggest drone manufacturer in Ukraine, Ukrspecsystems, is investing £200 million in Britain, opening a factory in Mildenhall in the west of my county and creating 500 jobs directly and through the supply chain. However, like all manufacturers, it is facing rising energy costs and a tax bill that is likely to go up. If the Minister wants greater drone capacity in Britain, what conversations is he having with his colleagues in the Energy Department and the Business Department to ensure that the whole Government are pulling in the same direction?
Order. We are running out of time, so I ask for questions, and answers, to be shorter.
Order. That is the end of the statement on the response to the Huntingdon train attack. I will give the Front-Bench teams a few moments to shuffle over.
I thank the hon. Member. The correction is now duly on the record.
Order. That is very important, but we cannot continue the statement, which has concluded.
The shadow Home Secretary has most definitely got that on the record.
Order. I was trying to pay close attention, but I may have missed it; we do not accuse each other of giving misleading information at the Dispatch Box. One should be mindful of the language that one is uses.
Members can see that the debate is heavily subscribed, so when I get to Back Benchers, speeches will be limited to six minutes. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
As General Lord Dannatt, the former Chief of the General Staff, said at the weekend, “if potential recruits to our Armed Forces do not believe that their government will stand by them when performing their duties in a lawful manner, why risk joining at all?” He was speaking about Labour’s new Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, which could see Northern Ireland veterans, without whom there would never have been a Good Friday agreement in the first place, in the dock again by next year. The Minister called opponents of this “naive”. What is her response to the former head of the British Army and the brave soldiers he led—were they all naive, too?
The former Labour Security Minister Lord West said recently that we “shouldn’t be doing” this. Lord Glasman, the founder of Blue Labour, said: “We must reverse it as soon as possible.” The hon. Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer) said that “to continue this against one side makes no sense.” With a Labour rebellion clearly brewing, and given that many Northern Ireland veterans were initially recruited from red wall seats, why are Labour Ministers insisting on driving their Back Benchers into the Division Lobby just to do Sinn Féin and their old comrades in the IRA a favour?
The Bill is the result of decades of campaigning and struggle by families fighting for answers. The thoughts and hearts of all of us in this House, regardless of party affiliation, are with the 97 victims of the Hillsborough disaster and their families. The tireless work of those families is ultimately responsible for uncovering the truth about Hillsborough and delivering an element of justice for the victims, whose memory was tarnished by the unwillingness of some individuals in authority to tell the truth. The Bill is also testament to the valuable work done by Bishop James Jones and his independent panel, for which we are truly thankful. The Bill is in no small part down to the effective campaigning of the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne); he has fought for those who joined him in going to Hillsborough on that terrible day in April 1989, but who lost their life, due to the terrible decisions made by the stadium operators and South Yorkshire police. Hillsborough stands as one of the most obvious and harrowing examples of the British state’s failure to remain accountable, truthful and candid. Unfortunately, it is not the only such example in recent years. We have had the Post Office Horizon scandal, the infected blood scandal, the families of pub bombing victims in Birmingham and Guildford denied justice following police misconduct, and the failure of the British state to properly acknowledge and tackle the rape and grooming gangs that have terrorised communities across the country. Each and every one of these failures undermines the British public’s faith in their Government, and each was a scandal made worse by institutions’ attempts to hide from responsibility, and to put their reputations and interests ahead of transparency and justice in the clearest possible examples of abuse of power. Calls for greater candour and accountability are legitimate and welcome; those of us in this place must always remember that our sole duty is to serve the interests of the British people and to do right by them. I thank all those hon. and right hon. Members who have contributed to this Second Reading. I welcome the Prime Minister’s confirmation that the Government will table an amendment to extend the duty of candour to cover local inquiries, which was a clear gap in the Bill as introduced. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) spoke about the often heard cry of “never again”. We must make sure that when this Bill enters the statute books, it turns that cry into a reality. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) expressed legitimate concerns about the effectiveness and administration of some public inquiries, and I know those concerns are shared by some Ministers in the Government. The hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) spoke about the need for a change in culture that goes beyond legislation, so that taking responsibility, rather than covering up failings, becomes the norm, and not just a legal requirement. The hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) reminded us of the outrageous experimentation on disabled pupils at Treloar school and the lengths that authorities went to hide responsibility. Hopefully some of the Bill’s measures will be of some help to those pupils. The hon. Members for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge), for Glasgow East (John Grady) and for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale) spoke movingly about how failings in the NHS were made worse by a lack of openness, and about families simply not feeling heard. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) reminded us of the long battle fought by nuclear test veterans. As noble as this Bill’s intentions may be, we must be ever vigilant for the unintended consequences of well-intended laws. As this Bill proceeds through the House, we will scrutinise it closely to minimise the harms that may arise. In particular, we must make sure that the Bill does not inadvertently create a situation in which Government and public services can no longer function effectively, not because they are falling foul of the Bill, but because they fear that they may fall foul of it if its provisions are applied in ways that the Government did not intend. We must clarify how this Bill will interface with legal and disciplinary frameworks, including the civil service code. We must clarify how new standards of ethical conduct will interface with those and other frameworks, and we must have a clear definition of what it means to mislead the public. Under the Bill, that charge of misleading the public carries a criminal sanction. We obviously recognise some of the safeguards that have been included, but they are not as tightly defined as they might be. If politicians are to be able to represent the public effectively, we must be absolutely certain that this definition is watertight, because otherwise the Bill may give rise to a situation whereby legitimate decisions made by Ministers are subject to politically motivated lawfare. We rightly expect our parliamentarians, officials and Ministers to speak honestly, truthfully and with integrity, whether in the Chamber or outside, but clause 11(3)(a), by defining dishonesty in terms of “falsehood, concealment, obfuscation or otherwise”, risks leaving Prime Ministers, other Ministers and even constituency MPs at constant risk of vexatious complaints. We may differ about the adequacy, and even the accuracy, of some of the responses that the Prime Minister gives us at Prime Minister’s questions, but those disagreements must be a matter for the ballot box rather than the courtroom. We must also have a clear definition of the public interest, which is the idea on which so much of the Bill rests. In our political system, the public interest is not for bureaucrats or judges to decide. The public express their will through the democratic process, and elect Members of Parliament to implement that will on their behalf. Can the Government be sure that the definition of the public interest in the Bill will not conflict with efforts made by future Governments to implement those democratic wishes? It would be profoundly dangerous for any single Government to attempt to define the public interest in a way that would bind future Governments without giving sufficient weight to the role that the public themselves play in determining and articulating that interest. At their best, public inquiries offer opportunities to genuinely learn rather than to seek retribution; to establish what happened and how, so that action can be taken to stop such events being repeated, more harm being done to more people, more lives being lost unnecessarily, and more futures being stolen away, so that the oft-repeated words “never again”, of which the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough spoke so well, can actually have some meaning. However, that can only happen with honesty, openness and a degree of trust—in short, with candour from all those involved. If this Bill can help to achieve that, it is well worth supporting. That is why, although we will work to tighten some parts at later stages to ensure that it operates properly, we will support it tonight.
More generally on knife crime and on magistrates, is there a disconnect between the fact that under the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959, someone can be given a custodial sentence of 51 weeks, and the presumption under the Sentencing Bill that a 12-month custodial sentence will not be required? What might the Home Secretary do to get around that and ensure that magistrates have more sentencing powers? Possession of a knife is not use of a knife, but sadly one so often leads to the other. There is clearly a legislative disconnect, and I hope the Home Secretary will look at that.
Now that the Secretary of State has warmed up a bit by calling the SNP a threat to our national security, will he have another go and say whether China is a threat to our national security?
The Secretary of State baulked at the word “equivalence”, so I will have a go with another one. Does he believe that Northern Ireland terrorists should be treated equally to Northern Ireland veterans? If he does, why does he not issue letters of comfort to those Northern Ireland veterans?
T7. Last month, the SNP Government in Edinburgh released their latest independence propaganda paper. Unbelievably, it said that nuclear weapons would have no place in an independent Scotland. Does the Minister agree that Scottish independence would be a gift to Britain’s enemies and would put at risk the hard work of our armed forces in keeping us safe at home?
On Saturday 15 April 1989, I visited my grandfather. I was a 15-year-old boy, and he had been taken into hospital a week or so before after a heart attack. He was a former chief constable in Wiltshire police. His immediate and clear response to what had happened that day was to say that the police were at fault. Two days later he died and we never followed it up, but that conversation had a profound effect on me. Over the years since, as I aspired to come to this place, I have seen what has happened. It is truly lamentable that the British state failed to come to terms with what happened. I have listened to the speeches from the Prime Minister and the right hon. Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle) with a degree of humility at their determination to change what has happened in this country over many, many scandals. I want to make a small contribution this evening to reflect on my exposure to the infected blood scandal when I was in office as a Minister until last year. I also want to pay tribute to my successor, the Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), who has done an excellent job in taking forward what was required in the spirit of the cross-party consensus that exists on this issue. I completely support the principle of the legislation before the House this evening, and I am totally clear about the inadequacy of the existing mechanisms for holding public officials to account. Over 18 days I visited 40 groups who have been affected and infected as part of the infected blood scandal, and every one of those people I spoke to had had a negative experience with officialdom at some point during their time seeking justice for themselves or their loved ones. It was profoundly depressing to think that, despite all the apparent determination of Government after Government and Minister after Minister, we were still dealing with this 40 or 50 years after the scandal occurred. It is a tragedy that we can no longer rely on common law offences and have to move to a statutory regime that codifies expectations, but I do believe that this legislation will bring greater scrutiny and interrogation of the acts and omissions of public bodies. I want to make a point about public inquiries. They have grown significantly in number in recent years. As of last month, a record 25 public inquiries are open. Between 1990 and 2025, 87 public inquiries were launched, compared with just 19 in the previous 30 years. Despite their proliferation, inquiries often fail to deliver timely justice or to prevent future tragedies. In fact, they are taking longer than ever to conclude. I do hope that, as part of the response to those facts, we collectively examine what we think should happen in public inquiries. Public inquiries cannot be shut down by accountable Government Ministers; they rely on the chair to shut them down. I was looking at the infected blood public inquiry, and I am not casting any doubt over the integrity of the chair, Sir Brian Langstaff, but upwards of £150 million has been spent on that inquiry. I feel that it is wrong that we in this House, sent here to do a job of work in whatever area of Government, have got into the habit and practice of delegating more and more responsibility for resolving matters to arm’s length bodies and public inquiries in the belief that it will create a more virtuous, correct and timely outcome.
I absolutely do, and I sincerely believe that it is likely to achieve that, but we must not miss the opportunity to reflect on what is going wrong with this principle of not taking more proactive responsibility for wrongs that have happened. My exposure through the infected blood compensation scheme taught me that over 40 years there had been deliberate attempts to slightly change the emphasis in responses, to give a concession of a little bit of compensation here or there. The truth is that those delays—most importantly—made things massively worse for the victims, but they also cost the public purse enormous sums of money. I welcome this legislation, but I ask the Minister to address that point when she responds. Bishop James Jones referred in 2017 to: “The patronising disposition of unaccountable power”. What a powerful phrase, and one that should humble all of us and help us all to ensure that whatever provisions, whatever definitions, and whatever “candour, transparency and frankness” means, the legislation is enforceable and meaningful and that we can avoid some of the absolutely appalling outcomes, which have been so horrendous in undermining the general public’s confidence in this place and in our Government.
The F-35 Lightning II aircraft is a cutting-edge system, the helmets for which come from my constituency, but the Public Accounts Committee has the MOD in missile lock over the cost of introducing the new nuclear freefall bombs with the F-35A. Can the Minister give the House some reassurance that the decision to bring in tactical nuclear weapons is not going to cost us a bomb?
It is important that we in this House remember that terrorists killed Members of this House, including Airey Neave only a few hundred yards from where we stand today. The Secretary of State on previous occasions has indicated that something like nine inquests could now restart. He has said that Loughgall, an exemplary special forces operation in which brave men stood up against terrorists and nullified them, will be one of those. He has not said which other eight will be reopened. Can he take this opportunity to do that here today?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I am grateful to the Members who have spoken passionately about this issue, in particular the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough), who led the debate, and to the people who signed the petition. Video games are a significant part of the entertainment and creative industries and give pleasure to millions. As we have heard, they have a cultural relevance today that was perhaps not seen in previous generations. The lazy stereotype of a sector dominated by teenagers is far from reality: research has found that one in six adults in the UK regularly plays video games. If we include under-18s, there are currently 40 million gamers across the UK. Franchises such as “Call of Duty”, “FIFA” and “Assassin’s Creed” attract millions of players and have production values and graphics that earlier generations of gamers could barely dream of. The UK can be proud of its video games industry, which is the largest in Europe. “Grand Theft Auto” and “Tomb Raider” are just two of the most significant examples to come out of the UK games creative industry. Some estimates suggest that the UK games market could reach £8 billion by 2027, which would be more than the UK film industry today. That is why the previous Conservative Government took measures to support the video games industry and created the £13.4 million UK games fund, which supported the acceleration of growth in the UK games sector between 2022 and 2025. An independent 2025 review of the UK games fund estimated that overall, “the current three-year iteration of the UKGF will generate in the range of £30m to £58m in productivity benefits for the UK economy due to salary uplifts for supported video game developers.” The previous Government also set up the right economic environment to create the conditions for growth, including the announcement in the spring 2023 Budget that video games expenditure credit would be introduced from 1 January last year. VGEC is calculated directly from qualifying expenditure and has a credit rate of 34%, which provides a greater benefit than the earlier video games tax relief. Turning to the issue raised by the petition, the Stop Killing Games campaign did a tremendous job of raising awareness of video games publishers disabling, discontinuing or removing access to parts, or in some cases the entirety, of their games. Some Members in this Chamber have a favourite video game, some of which we have heard about, and they in particular will understand just how frustrating and disappointing it would be not to be able to play that game again. In a perfect world, everyone would have access to their favourite games forever, but this is not a perfect world. We need to strike a balance between consumer interests and the burdens on some video games producers. We need to tread carefully, and in particular avoid introducing changes that would increase the cost to successful video games companies of supporting older games with a declining number of players. That money might otherwise be spent on developing newer, better games. However, we have heard anecdotal evidence today of games being withdrawn without obvious reason, despite seeming to generate considerable profits and have a considerable number of consumers.