Northern Ireland Troubles Bill
Order. I call Tom Tugendhat.
Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,750 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles Bill
Speaking limits have dropped to five minutes because too many Members want to contribute. I am doing my best to get everybody in.
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles Bill
We have, unfortunately, run out of time for Back-Bench contributions. I call the shadow Minister.
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles Bill
I call the Minister.
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles Bill
Is it absolutely relevant right now?
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles Bill
Order. I will decide whether it is a point of order. I do not need interventions from the Front Bench. Sir Julian Lewis, you are a Member of astounding experience, and you know better than most that that is most definitely not a point of order. It is up to the Member speaking whether they wish to accept or decline an intervention, and the Minister declined yours most positively.
- Hansard source
ExxonMobil: Mossmorran
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. The Chair is responsible for neither the content of Ministers’ answers, nor the quality—if only the Chair had such power—but the hon. Member has most definitely put his point on the record.
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles Bill
If the Bill is as good as the Secretary of State would have the House believe, why have nine very senior four-star officers—eight generals and one air chief marshal—written to The Times and described it as “a direct threat to national security”?
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles Bill
Thank you, ma’am. This has been a lively and, at times, impassioned debate, and rightly so, when we remember what is at stake. Some 300,000 British soldiers served in Northern Ireland on Operation Banner between 1969 and 2007. They were sent there by this House to uphold the rule of law during a decades-long sectarian conflict, often playing piggy in the middle between two warring sets of armed paramilitaries. Thank you for your brave service. One week on from Armistice Day, we should also remember that over 700 of those soldiers were murdered by both republican and so-called loyalist terrorists, and thousands more suffered life-changing injuries at the hands of the same terrorists who were responsible for some 90% of all fatalities during the troubles, most of them against innocent civilians, whether Catholic or Protestant. Many of those who deployed on Op Banner were recruited at a young age from tough northern towns in what we would today call red wall constituencies, from Bury to Bolton and Blackburn to Burnley, which are currently mostly represented by Labour MPs. Ministers reassure them that their commitment to our veterans is “unshakeable”, and yet, as the veterans have highlighted, in this 107-page Bill, with its 98 clauses and six schedules, the word “veteran” does not appear once. Moreover, the so-called six protections for veterans—which General Sir Peter Wall, a former head of the British Army, called a “meaningless insult” to them—also apply in the most part to paramilitaries, a fact that Ministers are now simply too embarrassed to admit. For context, for years Sinn Féin and its old comrades’ association, the IRA, have sought to use lawfare via a conveyor belt of coronial inquests and civil prosecutions to pursue our veterans through the courts. This is not just an attempt to punish those soldiers who bravely opposed them—much of it, ironically, taxpayer-funded. More broadly, it is part of a politically inspired campaign to rewrite history in the terrorists’ favour. It was this process that our 2023 legacy Act effectively ended, hence why republicans are so desperate to repeal it. The veterans can clearly see this, and they are genuinely mystified—and, indeed, extremely frustrated—that Ministers cannot. Moreover, the veterans are rightfully furious that Ministers are seeking to persuade their Back Benchers to support this benighted legislation by telling them they are doing it at the behest of service widows to “go after the IRA”. I do not know a single Op Banner veteran who actually believes that assertion. Indeed, the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement has condemned it—in its words, not mine—as “completely untrue”.
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles Bill
On Sunday, I read the Bill again carefully, and parts 3, 4 and 5, in very clear terms, are the conveyor belt that I was speaking about. However, for those who still believe Ministers’ claims, here are the reasons that they are simply untenable. First, unlike our veterans, who were never given letters of comfort by the Blair Government, hundreds of paramilitaries were. Before anyone says, “Ah, but those letters have no legal validity”, tell that to the families of the four soldiers killed in 1982, alongside seven horses, by the alleged Hyde Park bomber John Downey, whose subsequent murder trial at the Old Bailey in 2014 collapsed when he produced his letter in court and the judge promptly abandoned proceedings. Indeed, that is how the existence of those hitherto secret letters—written at the insistence of Gerry Adams—even came to light. Secondly, unlike with the British state, there is no IRA records office to conveniently trawl through in order to seek files and dossiers to help bring multiple cases to court. Such notes as the IRA ever kept were burnt or shredded long ago for obvious reasons. Thirdly, after the recent acquittal of Soldier F, where Judge Lynch KC, in a two-hour judgment, said the evidence from 53 years ago was “well short” of the standard required for a successful prosecution, the Northern Ireland Secretary himself admitted in the House on 3 November that it is “vanishingly difficult” to obtain convictions all these years on. Even he knows that it is not credible, yet for the veterans it is the process itself—the sword of Damocles hanging over their heads, often for years and without remorse—that is the punishment as much as the eventual outcome. Fourthly, and crucially, under the post Good Friday agreement Northern Ireland (Sentencing) Act 1998, which this Bill does nothing to repeal, even if an alleged IRA paramilitary could be arrested, charged and successfully prosecuted many years on, even if their likely letter of comfort was discarded, and even if they were somehow eventually convicted, the most they could serve, even for murder of one of those soldiers, would be two years—and that is before they are given early release. Lastly, and most powerfully of all, the wives themselves have decried it. Helen Kelly, the wife of 2 Para soldier Ned Kelly, brutally injured by a bomb on Op Banner in 1994—four years before the Good Friday agreement—said this yesterday about the Government’s plans: “If Labour think I will be given closure, that’s a load of rubbish! This is opening up old wounds and setting anxiety off in families for whom this has never ended. Labour can’t hide behind us military wives saying we will get closure, because we won’t. It needs to remain in the past—stopping the tit-for-tat. We are the forgotten ones, still living out that nightmare.” What about the operational effects on recruitment and retention in today’s Army? Our armed forces already have more people leaving than joining, and this revival of lawfare will make that worse. Bluntly, fewer people will sign up and more will leave, especially among our special forces, which is a gift to our enemies and a worry to our friends. Indeed, General Lord Dannatt, another former Chief of the General Staff, said recently: “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, then why risk joining at all?”. Just last week, in an unprecedented move in my 24 years in this House, nine very senior officers, including three previous heads of the British Army, Generals Carleton-Smith, Sanders and Wall, wrote an open letter to The Times heavily criticising the Government’s proposals and this associated Bill, which they powerfully described as a “direct threat to national security”. If time permitted, I could read out literally dozens of quotes, from more generals, commanding officers and a former regimental sergeant major of the SAS, down to junior non-commissioned officers—all of them criticising Labour’s proposals and their adverse effect on our armed forces, whether past, present or future. And yet still, the Northern Ireland Secretary knows better than all of them and he ploughs on regardless. When our elderly veterans, some of them in their 80s, some in failing health, and some who are literally Chelsea pensioners, for goodness’ sake, end up in court again, perhaps as early as next year, who do they think the public will believe? That is why even prominent Labour figures are now breaking ranks to tell the Government to change course. Lord West, a former Labour security Minister, has publicly cautioned Ministers over Labour’s proposals. Lord Glasman, founder and chairman of Blue Labour, recently said of Labour’s legacy plan: “We must reverse it as soon as possible”. The Royal British Legion has expressed its concerns about the Bill and its effects on veterans, as have Help for Heroes and the three veterans commissioners. This is a virtually friendless Bill. In conclusion, no other country on earth would treat its own brave veterans in this way—none. This is a truly wretched Bill, supported by Sinn Féin but opposed not just by Members on the Opposition Benches but by thousands of veterans and their highly experienced former commanders, who really do know better. I say to all those veterans tonight that, if we get the chance, we will do whatever it takes to rescind Labour’s Bill and stand by them, just as we sought to do with our original legacy Act of 2023. Even the public oppose Labour’s pernicious plans, and a parliamentary petition entitled “Protect Northern Ireland Veterans from Prosecution”—it has been referred to—has amassed over a fifth of a million signatures, and led to a heated debate in Westminster Hall. The sketch writer Quentin Letts said that he had never seen Westminster Hall so packed before, and neither had I. Division lists last forever, and certainly until the next general election. I genuinely caution Labour Back Benchers not to be seduced by the blandishment of the Whips—I should know; I used to be one—into blithely following their Ministers, who I believe are acting akin to Lenin’s wise fools and helping to revive Sinn Féin’s vile campaign of lawfare against the British Army. When all is said and done, it is a straightforward choice this evening, and a matter not of microdetail but of principle. It is the No Lobby to stand with our veterans, and with Private Tommy Atkins, without whose brave service there would never have been any Good Friday peace agreement in the first place. Or it is the Aye Lobby, for two-tier justice and lawfare for years, largely at taxpayers’ expense, and against our own troops who had the courage to deploy to Northern Ireland and oppose the terrorists in the first place. To put it another way, when the Division bells ring in a few minutes, and for the avoidance of doubt, we stand four-square with our veterans. Who now will stand with us?
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles Bill
Will the Minister give way on that point?
- Hansard source
China Espionage: Government Security Response
Is it not clear that the threat from China is becoming deeper, wider and more serious? While I welcome the Security Minister’s statement, it does not have a single deterrent in it, as was highlighted by the shadow Security Minister. I want to be helpful to the Minister. He mentioned the encrypted system that he will introduce and fund. Will he consider reviewing Government security classifications policy, so that we can have a review of Government papers that are classified but also of the threat to this place? He mentioned China’s low threshold. Would he consider reclassifying confidential, pre-publication Select Committee inquiry documents, so that any leaking of those documents—as with the leaking of Government documents by civil servants—has a far tougher sanction?
- Hansard source
Gaza and Sudan
May I, too, welcome the passing of UN resolution 2803? The Foreign Secretary mentions a two-state solution. Given that the Prime Minister of Israel does not seem particularly keen on a two-state solution, is that not a problem for a permanent and lasting peace in the region? On Sudan, is it not the case that Russia is deliberately destabilising that country, and that it has a self-interest in that the Wagner Group, or the so-called Africa Corps, is seeking to mine gold and take out oil? What action can the British Government take against those supplying the supply chain to get those minerals out?
- Hansard source
Points of Order
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. While I am sure the whole House is grateful to the Foreign Secretary for coming here today and making that important statement, there does seem to be a pattern whereby the Government combine two very, very important subjects, as was pointed out earlier by the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). These issues are of real concern to all our constituents, and I think that they merit and are worthy of individual statements from the Foreign Secretary or somebody else on the Treasury Bench. I seek your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker.
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles Bill
The Defence Committee recently visited Canberra in Australia. For Members who do not know the geography of the place, the old Parliament building looks down a row of trees and across a lake to the national war memorial. When the new Parliament building was built in the 1980s, it was pushed back so that it had exactly the same view. The implication was that the decisions made in that Parliament ended up down at the war memorial—it was a sense of focus, and I hope that we can have that focus today. The curator of the national war memorial said that it is quite the thing to find—with no cameras and no fuss—the Prime Minister and members of the Cabinet on their hands and knees scrubbing the tomb of the unknown Australian soldier. I did four tours of Northern Ireland. My first was in 1992. I served three and half years there, trying to bring peace to that place. In the first week of my first tour, I was manning a checkpoint just by the Divis flats. My road man called me over because a Hilux van had driven in. He called me over and said to the driver, “Say to the platoon commander what you’ve just said to me.” I looked into the driver’s eyes and he said, “I’ve got a bomb in the back of this van.” I knew immediately that he was lying. I had no experience there, but I knew he was lying because I had been trained. As my grandmother used to say, an ounce of experience is worth a ton of enthusiasm. I know that there is no one in the Cabinet with any experience in government. I know that there is no one in the Cabinet with any experience in the military. If only we had some people with experience who could send the message to the Cabinet that what they are doing is wrong. Maybe it could be the 210,000 people who filled in a petition in record time and got a Westminster Hall debate. Many of the veterans who were there then are here today. I thank them for the presence, and have enjoyed meeting them again in Parliament Square today. Maybe it could be the 2,512 veterans in my Spelthorne constituency who have written to tell me that the Government are making a mistake. Maybe it could be the nine four-star generals who have written an open letter to the Government to tell them that they are making a mistake. I have tried to get my head around why the Government so glibly are ignoring them. What if nine former chief constables or nine former senior bishops wrote to the Government and said, “You really need to think again”? I find it bewildering that the Government think they know better than those nine four-star officers who wrote saying that this Bill does not offer sufficient, proper protection to those who were doing their duty in good faith. The problem is—and the Secretary of State knows this—that this piece of legislation is part of the proxy war that answers the question, “Who won?” It is a shot being fired, and our veterans, I am afraid, are being used as chess pieces in that disgraceful proxy battle in order to relitigate and answer the question, “Who won?” When we last spoke about this in Westminster Hall, I begged the Secretary of State to listen to the advice of the previous Veterans Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns). I can only assume from this Bill that he has not done so, and I will be voting against it tonight.
- Hansard source
Gaza and Sudan
I am afraid that the Foreign Secretary has neatly illustrated the problem with the British Government’s position in the conflict between Israel and Palestine. She mentioned the welcome return of Israeli hostages, but made no mention of the Palestinian detainees who have been returned to their families. She mentioned the return of the bodies of Israelis, but made no mention of the dozens of bodies of Palestinians that have been returned to their families. Can she not see that until we value both people equally and bring accountability to both peoples, we will make little progress in this appalling situation? Specifically to avoid accusations of illegitimacy, how will the Palestinians be represented on this board of peace? Secondly, the UN resolution puts significant conditions on the Palestinians to ensure compliance. What conditions are being put on the Israeli Government to ensure their compliance in this project? Thirdly, the situation in the west bank is not just “appalling”, as the Foreign Secretary said in her statement, but the worst it has ever been, as the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith) said. Will the Foreign Secretary fall into the same trap as her predecessor of being all talk and doing the bare minimum to keep those on her Benches from open revolt, or will she step forward and bring accountability for the daily acts of violence and terrorism that are taking place?
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles Bill
We rely on British soldiers to keep our country safe—they put their lives on the line to defend our country, putting themselves in harm’s way to do so. However, a shadow hangs over our armed forces today, which is this Bill. As a member of the Petitions Committee, back in July I had the privilege of opening the debate on the petition to protect Northern Ireland veterans from prosecution. It was inspirational to see so many veterans come to Parliament for that debate. Again, here today in Parliament Square and in the Gallery, we see veterans gathered in opposition to this dreadful piece of legislation. By the time the petition closed, it had over 200,000 signatures. I had the honour of meeting the creator of the petition, Ian Liles, who spent 36 years in the Army, including 13 in Northern Ireland. It was his palpable anger at this Bill that caused him to start the petition. The decision of this Labour Government to repeal the legacy Act is one that will shame our country for generations to come. No matter what the Secretary of State has said, this Bill means one thing: veterans face being dragged through the courts in politically motivated witch hunts. In fact, the Prime Minister’s own Northern Ireland veterans tsar has said that this is “immoral”, that it is “two-tier justice”, and that it will lead to “vexatious lawfare” against former soldiers. I was struck by the comments of Lieutenant General Nicholas Pope, who was forced to correct the Secretary of State for claiming that he supported the Bill. This Bill sets a dangerous historical precedent, too. Are we really saying that if the Government today sent our troops to Ukraine—or to any other country, for that matter—they could be held to account in years to come for simply following instructions given to them by the Government of the day? If that is the case, why would anyone choose to serve our country again? Decades on, people sit and judge events in retrospect with little new evidence, and come to conclusions that are entirely at odds with the legal investigations carried out at the time.
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles Bill
My hon. Friend makes an excellent pint. It is the fear—the prospect of being dragged through that process—that is causing so much anxiety. I suspect that is why so many veterans are so strongly opposed to this Bill. We should also be clear about the difference between the actions of soldiers and those of terrorists. When terrorists get up in the morning, they go out with murderous intent—to use violence to attack our democracy and our nation. Soldiers do not; they put themselves in harm’s way to keep people safe and protect our nation. The difference is the intent. Soldiers serving our country, whether in Northern Ireland or in any other conflict, are forced to make instant, life-or-death decisions. They are not lawyers sat behind a desk, able to gather a team and spend days deciding whether or not to act. The legacy Act was by no means perfect, but it is better than the disgraceful spectacle of veterans being dragged through the courts. There are nearly 2 million veterans across our country, and the sad truth is that many feel their service is no longer respected. Veterans are only demanding protection for following orders from high command, and from vexatious, politically charged lawsuits. Our armed forces are made up of extraordinary men and women who keep us safe—who go on difficult missions in dangerous and challenging places. We must defend those who defended us, which is why I oppose this Bill so strongly.
- Hansard source
China Espionage: Government Security Response
The Chinese general Sun Tzu said that “the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself.” Are we not presenting an opportunity for defeat when members of our military ride around in Chinese cars, and why on earth are this Government facilitating secretive trade trips to Beijing for members of the Scottish Government?
- Hansard source
ExxonMobil: Mossmorran
On the Business and Trade Committee, we hear all the time that energy costs in this country are unaffordable, and it puts industry of every kind at a disadvantage. We are seeing the results of that today. The other issue is the perverse carbon border adjustment mechanism, which actually makes imports of ethylene cheaper. The Minister referred to imports. Is it not the case that we need to look at all these policies in the round? We are crippling British industry.
- Hansard source
UNESCO: 80th Anniversary
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) on securing this debate. I am pleased to salute the 80th anniversary of UNESCO, an organisation born from a world in ruins after the second world war, yet built on the very best intentions of peace, co-operation and shared progress. The founding of UNESCO was a cross-party British achievement in London in 1945, led by Conservative Minister Rab Butler. The second world war had left its impact. As well as the horrific human sacrifices and loss of life, there had been the destruction of books, cultural heritage and education systems. This led to endeavours to foster a hopeful and forward-looking spirit of international co-operation. Eighty years later, that founding spirit still runs through UNESCO’s mission. It owes its durability to its ambition—196 nations united around a common purpose. As a country, the UK is rooted in cultural and artistic traditions. For centuries, we have led the world in creativity, scholarship and heritage protection. Today, the UK’s 60 UNESCO designations form a national network that covers more than 15% of our landmass, spans over 170 parliamentary constituencies and is home to roughly 9 million people. They are invaluable cultural, economic and diplomatic assets. Across that network, we have 35 world heritage sites, from Stonehenge to the Tower of London, 10 global geoparks, seven biospheres, from the Isle of Wight to the Isle of Man, 14 creative cities, and 10 learning cities. These designations are not ornaments; they are engines of local pride, international co-operation and economic activity. They showcase British leadership, soft power and the value of working together. It is important, therefore, that the Government play an active role in supporting state parties and encouraging international collaboration to safeguard our shared heritage. Economically, heritage has an enormous value. The annual visitor attraction survey showed that in 2023, seven of the 10 most visited paid attractions in England were heritage sites. A study by the UK National Commission for UNESCO found that UNESCO designations generate more than £151 million in additional revenue each year across 76 sites. They attract investment, boost tourism, support apprenticeships, strengthen volunteering and foster global partnerships. Yet the tourism sector remains fragile. Rural and independent operators in particular are already managing tight margins and cannot simply absorb additional costs. I am proud that the previous Government secured the UK’s ratification of the 2003 convention for the safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage. On the Isle of Wight, we have pottery craft traditions, and across the UK we have stonemasonry, blacksmithing and thatching—skills that are cultural treasures, but that are also essential for repairing historic buildings. The Government must do more to support them and to leverage philanthropy effectively for cultural institutions. On the Isle of Wight, where my constituency is, we are home to one of the oldest carnivals, the Ryde carnival, and to a UNESCO biosphere reserve that extends across the Solent into Hampshire. Our biosphere is a model of how to address ecological decline, productivity stagnation and demographic inversions. Two opportunities sit within our biosphere: strong creative and cultural production through the Arts Council, and expertise in environmental science and emerging strengths in green finance. This combination offers opportunities for new economic activity, regeneration on our island and deeper collaboration with other biospheres across the world. However, there is currently a lack of meaningful Government engagement with UNESCO policy. Despite a UNESCO presence in more than 170 constituencies, these sites are not integrated into levelling-up missions or used as anchors for regional development. They are not part of any cross-departmental co-ordination and the Government have no strategy for utilising UNESCO designations as innovation infrastructure. These assets remain underused. Will the Government commit to taking a cross-departmental approach to UNESCO sites and recognise these designations as core national assets for innovation, regeneration and economic growth? The UK is also a signatory to UNESCO conventions on behalf of our overseas territories, yet it is unclear how the Government are supporting those territories in applying for intangible cultural heritage recognition, or navigating the process of achieving world heritage status. Several territories have no designations at all. In the spirit of co-operation, how are the Government sharing their expertise to assist countries and territories with no UNESCO sites? We have five UK assets on the tentative list for future UNESCO designation. What steps are the Government taking to ensure those applications remain active and properly supported? On the topic of UK expertise, three of Iraq’s four UNESCO world heritage sites are currently on the list of world heritage in danger. I would welcome an update from the Minister on how the Government are supporting the stewardship of endangered world heritage sites worldwide and how British expertise is being deployed, again in the spirit of co-operation. On a broader point, I would appreciate clarification on whether reductions in the development budget will affect UNESCO programmes. With public finances under pressure, how are Government ensuring that UK contributions to UNESCO deliver maximum value for taxpayers? Of course, UNESCO is not entirely without controversy. The UK and the United States have both withdrawn from it in the past and concerns have been raised about political manoeuvring within the organisation, including disproportionate attention on certain countries while overlooking others with significant human rights or cultural heritage issues. Between 2009 and 2017, UNESCO adopted 60 resolutions concerning Israel, but none concerning several states with far more severe cultural violations. In this respect, UNESCO occasionally mirrors the trajectory of the European Court of Human Rights, another institution in the creation of which a Conservative Government played a central role, but the remit of which has sometimes stretched beyond what its founders intended. As UNESCO enters its ninth decade, we must monitor its focus, ensure UK funding is used effectively and guard against the organisation unduly creeping into politics. If we do so, the UK can continue to lead by example, honouring our heritage, strengthening global co-operation and investing in the next generation’s cultural, ecological and educational future.
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles Bill
Warrenpoint.
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles Bill
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
- Hansard source
Clean Power: Energy Sovereignty
Energy sovereignty and energy security are vital, and gas will play an important role in that for years to come, but our domestic production is falling because of this Government’s policies. Imports of liquefied natural gas are up by 40% this year, and domestic production is meant to get to 25% by 2030. We must support domestic production, and to do that the Government must scrap its policy of an increased energy profits levy and open up new licensing. When will the Government do that, and when will they support jobs, investment and domestic production from the North sea?
- Hansard source
ExxonMobil: Mossmorran
Exxon has said that the plant’s closure “reflects the challenges of operating in a policy environment that is accelerating the exit of vital industries, domestic manufacturing, and the high-value jobs they provide.” When are the Government going to take responsibility for the decisions that they are making? We see no prospect of energy prices reducing, while the ethane supply from the North sea is reducing at a huge rate. That is leading to these job losses and it will continue to lead to more and more job losses across Scotland, as the Minister knows, until policy decisions are changed and until the North sea is supported.
- Hansard source
Draft Unmanned Aircraft (Offences and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. As the Minister acknowledges, the regulations are contingent on the Unmanned Aircraft (Amendment) Regulations 2025, which have been laid before Parliament under the negative procedure. I can offer His Majesty’s Opposition’s broad support for the instrument before us today. If we are to implement changes to regulations on unmanned aircraft use, we must ensure that there are appropriate penalties for their misuse. The fact that the penalties outlined here are largely comparable to those already established under the Air Navigation Order 2016 highlights the fact that they are in line with the modern, proportionate enforcement regime that already governs this sector. More broadly, we must acknowledge that the principle of altering our regulation to ensure that hobbyists can go about their business while maintaining the safety of others is important. As the CAA recognised in its consultation, finding the balance between cutting red tape and implementing key safety measures is essential. Recent European discussions on the risks that unmanned aircraft pose to the aviation sector remind us that those dangers are significant. It is in the direct interests of public protection and national security to ensure that they are properly mitigated. In my constituency of Mid Buckinghamshire, innovation in this sector is not theoretical; it is happening now. Companies such as Flare Bright and Skyports at Westcott Venture Park are at the forefront of cutting-edge unmanned systems, developing technologies that support our industrial strategy, national security posture and wider aerospace capabilities. That is why clarity, stability and practicality in the regulatory regime, such as the instrument before us today, matter. Real jobs, real investment and real technological leadership depend on it. Regarding some of the specific changes that underpin the draft regulations, it appears sensible to improve the protection of restricted airspace using new technologies available to us. My understanding is that the proposals put the UK ahead of the European Union in areas such as geofencing—an example of where safety is being prioritised while enabling innovation. The Government’s analysis, including their de minimis assessments of geo-protections and remote ID, makes it clear that these steps can be taken in a proportionate manner that minimises unnecessary burdens. I recognise the strong feelings about the shift from defining aircraft on the basis of weight to the new approach around toys, for example, about limits on legacy UASs and about the shortened transition period for remote ID. I appreciate that the Government have extended the transition period to mitigate the costs that could otherwise have fallen on low-risk users, in particular model aircraft flyers. The British Model Flying Association acknowledged recently that none of the new requirements will take effect for model aircraft until 2028 and that it is optimistic about a minimal impact on its members. That is an important reassurance, but does the Minister think the problem will persist after the transition period? Does he feel comfortable that the period provided is sufficient to address these concerns, and that we will not simply return to the same issue once the period expires? I would like to raise the ongoing question of divergence from and conformity with European Union regulations. I understand that the new UK class marks will use different prefixes to ensure clear differentiation as standards evolve while maintaining broad alignment with the existing European class marking structure. Has the Minister engaged with the CAA on ensuring that lessons from other jurisdictions, particularly the United States of America, which has taken a markedly different regulatory path in several areas, are being fully considered? Alignment for its own sake cannot be the goal. Rather, we must ensure that our regulatory framework is the most effective for the United Kingdom’s safety, security and technological leadership. I appreciate that this instrument is, by its nature, focused on offences and enforcement, and that the underpinning policy is found in the parallel amendment regulations. However, we must consider the whole framework together. Ultimately, enforcement must be effective and proportionate, but the regulations that sit beneath it must also be practical and allow the full spectrum of legitimate users, from companies pioneering advanced autonomous systems to long-standing model aircraft clubs, to continue benefiting from the extraordinary advances that we have seen in unmanned aircraft technology.
- Hansard source
Large-scale Solar Farms
I agree with the Minister that rooftops are the place to put solar. Indeed, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) made clear when she was Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, agricultural land should be protected from ground-mounted solar installations. The campaign group Stop Oversized Solar has found that operational sites and solar facilities in the planning pipeline alone are set to replace an area of farmland bigger than Merseyside, and that overall up to 5% of UK cropland is at risk from solar, so why do the Government persist with their claim that land take will be 1%? When Labour said that food security is national security, did the energy team not get the memo?
- Hansard source
Flood Risk and Flood Defence Infrastructure: North-west England
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate the hon. Member for Warrington South (Sarah Hall) on securing this important debate and allowing us to address the important issue of flood risk and flood defence infrastructure in the north-west. We have heard powerful contributions from across the House today: from the hon. Members for Warrington South, for Cheadle (Mr Morrison), for Burnley (Oliver Ryan), for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt), for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) and for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane). The hon. Member for Warrington South started off by highlighting the key points about the mental health impacts of flooding and the anxiety and trauma that people face. As we face ever more extreme weather, it is right that we discuss the Government’s role in flood prevention, preparedness and management. The devastation brought in the past two years by Storms Babette, Kieran and Henk is a grim reminder that vigilance and forward planning remain essential. When thinking about the north-west, we remember the catastrophic impacts of Storm Desmond in 2015. Across the north-west and beyond, families, farmers and business owners know all too well the havoc that flooding brings to bricks and mortar but also the livelihoods and mental health of those living in fear of the next storm. Just this weekend we have had another named storm: storm Claudia. My thoughts go out to the people affected by the flooding, especially in Monmouth. As I said in the Chamber in the urgent question to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, we cannot overstate the mental health impacts of flooding events and on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, I pay tribute to our emergency services, the Environment Agency, local authorities and volunteers who demonstrate extraordinary dedication time and again. However, our compassion for those affected must be matched by decisive action. The previous Conservative Government took the responsibility of flood resilience extremely seriously. Between 2010 and 2020, four Conservative-led Governments protected more than 600,000 properties from flooding. Our record includes a £2.6 billion investment in flood defences between 2015 and 2021, followed by a further £5.2 billion commitment in 2020. We introduced the £100 million frequently flooded allowance and set out a comprehensive policy statement containing 40 practical actions and five ambitious policies for a more flood-resilient Britain. Equally, the establishment of Flood Re created an essential safety net, making insurance viable for hundreds of thousands of homeowners. Today, I urge the Minister to build on that by expanding the eligibility. Many small businesses remain excluded, particularly where people live above their shop, and properties built after 2009 are ineligible. Will the Minister commit to reviewing those restrictions to enable fairer access to affordable flood insurance? We Conservatives recognise that in our rural communities, flood management and environmental stewardship go hand in hand. Through the environmental land management schemes, we rewarded farmers for natural flood management. Farmers across the north-west and across the country have embraced these schemes, restoring wetlands and investing in sustainable land management, which not only reduces flood risk, but improves biodiversity, captures carbon and enhances soil health. Innovative tree-planting programmes, with the right tree in the right place, and river re-wiggling are brilliant examples of natural flood management. I ask the Minister to confirm that these actions will continue to be funded under ELMS and that this Government remain committed to supporting nature-based solutions as part of our national flood defence strategy. Regrettably, many farmers and communities are now anxious and uncertain. They have been watching this Labour Government abolish the farming resilience fund, which was a lifeline for mental health, and introduce their heartless family farm tax—all at a time when many are still repairing the damage from last season’s storms. The flood resilience taskforce was designed to co-ordinate national response and readiness, yet the answer to my parliamentary question shows that it has met only infrequently since Labour took office. Can the Minister tell us what tangible outcomes the taskforce has achieved so far? Given the increased frequency of severe storms, the taskforce must be proactive. Will it start to meet more regularly than at quarterly intervals? I want to acknowledge the charities that provide vital support to those affected, such as YANA—You Are Not Alone—and the Royal Agricultural Benevolent Institution, Yellow Wellies and the Farming Community Network. The impact of flooding is not only physical or financial, but deeply emotional: the anxiety of waiting for the next storm, the trauma of seeing homes and businesses lost and the long path to recovery all leave scars that last for years. Too often, that is ignored. I ask the Minister what steps the Government are taking to deliver holistic support for flood victims not just in the immediate aftermath, when the water subsides and the blue lights leave, but for the long term. In summary, communities who face the threat of flooding need certainty. They need reassurance that preventive measures will be sustained, that robust support is available when disaster strikes, and that their physical and mental wellbeing is taken seriously. I very much hope that the Minister will use this debate to provide that clarity and to guarantee that the Government will stand by our rural and urban communities, protect funding for flood defence and address the toll, both physical and mental, that flooding continues to inflict on our country.
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
In October 2024, I asked the Secretary of State about the previous Government’s idea of pumpwatch. He said, “I will not comment on the Budget, obviously. We are very sympathetic to pumpwatch”.—[Official Report, 8 October 2024; Vol. 754, c. 159.] The Competition and Markets Authority has looked into this, and the Government seem to be bringing something forward called fuel finder. It is apparently due to be launched at the end of the year. Can the Minister update us on what that will mean and how the public will know about it? Cheaper fuel at the pumps is really important.
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles Bill
Will the Secretary of State just clarify: essential for what?
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles Bill
Ah.
- Hansard source
Draft Online Safety Act 2023 (Priority Offences) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. This statutory instrument represents an important development in the obligations on platforms regulated under the Online Safety Act to protect people from encountering illegal content online. The OSA was enacted by the last Government with the primary aim of safeguarding children and removing serious illegal material from the internet. Tackling the most harmful content, such as that which is the subject of today’s discussion, goes to the heart of the Online Safety Act’s aims. His Majesty’s Opposition therefore welcome and support the draft regulations. The experiences and opportunities offered by the online world change rapidly. It is right that legislators are responsive when new risks emerge or when certain types of unlawful content proliferate on the internet. Under the last Government, the OSA amended the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to criminalise several forms of sexual misconduct and abusive behaviour online. The new offences included cyber-flashing and the sharing of or threatening to share intimate images without consent. The amendments were made to keep pace with novel threats and forms of abuse, the victims of which are too often women and girls. Baroness Bertin’s independent review of pornography, which was published in February this year, highlighted the damaging impact on victims of intimate image abuse, ranging from physical illness to mental health effects such as anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and suicidal thoughts. The effects of cyber-flashing and intimate image abuse on victims is severe. It is therefore right that this statutory instrument brings cyber-flashing within the scope of the priority offences in schedule 7 to the Online Safety Act, while retaining as a priority offence the sharing of or threatening to share intimate images. We also strongly support the addition as a priority offence of encouraging or assisting serious self-harm, which is the other important component of this statutory instrument. Desperate people who contemplate self-harm need early intervention and support, not encouragement to self-harm. Under this SI, regulated services will be obliged to proactively remove the material when they become aware of it on their platforms and take measures to prevent it from appearing in the first place. One can only wonder why it has taken so long to get to this position. I am sure we will have a unanimous view not only in the House but in society of the importance of removing such material. The regulations will work only if they are adopted by the industry and subject to rigorous oversight, coupled with enforcement when platforms fail in their obligations. That is a necessity, and why we had to introduce the Online Safety Act in the first place. It is right that Government regulators should look to identify obstacles to the implementation of the OSA and take action where necessary. Since the introduction of Ofcom’s protection of children codes in the summer, important questions have arisen around the use of virtual private networks to circumvent age verification, as well as data security and privacy in the age-verification process.
- Hansard source
Draft Online Safety Act 2023 (Priority Offences) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
I thank my hon. Friend for his question on a very important point, which was raised just last week in Department for Science, Innovation and Technology questions by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and others. The Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted, also raised questions about the importance of the scope of regulations for chatbots. The Government seem all over the place as to whether the large language models, as we understand them, regulate the content that comes into scope. Given the response we received last week, it would be helpful to have some clarity from the Minister. Does he believe that LLMs are covered by the OSA when it comes to encouraging self-harm material? If there is a gap, what is he going to do about it? I recognise that he is commissioning Ofcom to look at the issue, but in his view, right now, is there a gap that will need someone to fix it? What are his reflections on that? This is increasingly becoming a priority area that we need to resolve. If there is a gap in legislation, we need to get on and sort it.
- Hansard source
Draft Online Safety Act 2023 (Priority Offences) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
I hope the Minister takes this in a constructive spirit. Concerns have been raised across the House as to the scope of the OSA when it comes to LLMs and the different types and variations of chatbots, which are being used by many people right now. Is he not concerned that he as the Minister, and his Department, are not able to say at the Dispatch Box whether they believe LLMs are completely covered in the scope of the OSA? Has he received legal advice or other advice? How quickly will he be able to give a definitive response? Clearly, if there is a gap, we need to know about it and we need to take action. It surely puts the regulator and the people who are generating this technology in an invidious position if even Her Majesty’s Government think there is a lack of clarity, as he put it, on the scope of the applicability of the OSA to new technologies.
- Hansard source
Land Use Change: Food Security
I will begin calling the Front Benchers at 3.28 pm, so hon. Members need to be aware of time. I am sure that Chris Hinchliff will be an exemplar.
- Hansard source
Flood Risk and Flood Defence Infrastructure: North-west England
Order. I shall begin calling the Front Benchers at 5.08 pm, so colleagues might like to titrate their contributions accordingly.
- Hansard source
Flood Risk and Flood Defence Infrastructure: North-west England
I call Sarah Hall to wind up extremely briefly.
- Hansard source
Flood Risk and Flood Defence Infrastructure: North-west England
That was commendably brief. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered flood risk and flood defence infrastructure in the North West.
- Hansard source
China Espionage: Government Security Response
I welcome the package and the Minister’s commitment to continued engagement with Beijing, but does he share my view that one cannot reason with a tiger when one’s head is in its mouth? We are rapidly approaching that position because of the stranglehold that China has on this country by virtue of our reliance on critical minerals and rare earths. As he seeks to strengthen our position, will he ensure that we diversify our ability to gain access to those critical elements, thus ensuring that China respects this country rather than sees us as weaklings—a situation that would of course deteriorate further in the event that, God forbid, China controls Taiwan?
- Hansard source
ExxonMobil: Mossmorran
The company has been absolutely clear that this is the result of the economic and policy environment that it found itself in—it is as plain as a pikestaff. The Minister said that he has been in discussion with Exxon, including today, when presumably he discussed what it meant by “policy”. Will he please say clearly what policy issues Exxon has had that has led to this decision?