Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,779 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
Britain leads the world in the gene editing of crops. This technology enables our farmers to produce disease and drought-resistant crops, reduce costs and increase food production. The UK-EU trade agreement means Britain has to follow EU rules on sanitary and phytosanitary laws. Will the Minister give the House an assurance that the agreement will not slow that technology in Britain?
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on the ratification of the UK-Mauritius treaty on the future sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory.
Thank you, Mr Speaker for granting this urgent question. With the 21-day CRAG process about to conclude, it is a disgrace that Labour has breached the parliamentary conventions and denied the House a meaningful debate and vote on ratification. The Minister says that we will get a vote on the Bill, but having a vote on the Bill is not the same as voting on a treaty under CRAG. Earlier this week, the House of Lords had a debate and vote, where the Lib Dems sided with Labour in backing this £30 billion surrender treaty, which is subsidising tax cuts in Mauritius. Why cannot we have a debate and vote in this House? What are Ministers afraid of? Are they afraid that their Back Benchers, now worried about benefit cuts and the impact of unpopular tax rises, will question why so much money is being handed over for a territory that we own and will force them into another embarrassing U-turn? Are they afraid that MPs across the House will do the maths even, and see that the actual amount of money going to Mauritius will be at least £30 billion and not the £3.4 billion accountancy valuation claim that Ministers talk about? Are they afraid that Labour’s barefaced hypocrisy and appalling treatment of the Chagossian community will be exposed? The Minister once said: “The people of Chagos must be at the heart of decisions about their future” —[Official Report, 28 October 2015; Vol. 601, c. 192WH.] but this surrender treaty betrays them. He has betrayed them, leaving any decisions on resettlement and support through the trust fund in the hands of Mauritius. With a legal case ongoing, will the Minister extend the CRAG process until all legal challenges have concluded? Will the Minister finally admit that Labour made October’s bad deal even weaker by giving up the unilateral right to extend the lease on the base and ditching the clause authorising the UK to exercise sovereign rights? The Prime Minister of Mauritius has said that it has done that, so will the Minister finally admit it? Will the Minister confirm that there are no guarantees that the current levels of marine protections will continue? There is too much ambiguity; we have not had clarity. There are no guarantees on security or on safeguarding, unanswered questions about notification requirements around the base, and no guarantees that Mauritius will not pursue further lawfare to stop operations at the base if it thinks they contravene international law, including trying to block nuclear weapons, as the Pelindaba treaty now applies to the Chagos islands. The Minister should scrap this treaty or at least have the courage to bring it here for a proper debate, full scrutiny and finally a vote in this House.
For the final contribution, I call Robin Swann.
We now come to the Front Benchers. I call the shadow Minister.
Order. Members will have noted from the Order Paper that this debate is only 90 minutes long—it has to conclude at 5.27 pm—which means Back Benchers will be on a speaking limit of four minutes to begin with and that only a few will get in before the debate has to conclude. I call the shadow Minister.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Order. I call Sir Iain Duncan Smith.
Order. I call Nadia Whittome.
Order. I can squeeze in one more speaker if they are brief.
Order. I think it is clear that at this point the Minister does not wish to give way. He has until 5.27 pm, so let us see how this progresses.
Mr McDonnell—[Interruption.] I am on my feet. This is a very tight debate that has to conclude at 5.27 pm. The Minister has time; he may wish to take your intervention shortly. Is your point of order really relevant right now?
That was not a point of order. The Minister may wish to respond—he has a few minutes in which to do so—but that was not a point of order.
Order. Minister, continue.
This is not a time for a point of order. Question put.
First of all, can I take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) on being the toady of the week, helping the Prime Minister? [Interruption.]
It has been a difficult week for the Prime Minister, so let us start with something simple. Can he tell the House how much his welfare Bill is going to save?
I do not think the Prime Minister actually watched what happened in the House yesterday—his Bill was completely gutted. There was a U-turn in the middle of the debate, removing clause 5. Where on earth was he? He cannot answer the question because he knows his Bill does not save any money; it is going to cost millions. This is the first Prime Minister in history to propose a Bill to save money who ended up with a Bill that costs money. If the Bill does not cut welfare spending, can the Prime Minister tell the House how many people it will get into work?
I will tell the Prime Minister what we did on welfare. [Interruption.] Why are Labour Members laughing? They do not know. My party delivered the biggest reform of welfare in government. We got record numbers of people into work, including millions of disabled people, and we cut the deficit every year until covid. The fact is that we are not scared of doing difficult things. We got people back into work. What the Prime Minister forgets is that since the election—since he became Prime Minister—an additional 1,000 people a day are signing on to incapacity benefit. That is 50% more than under us. Astonishingly, because of the mess that the Government made yesterday—because there are no more savings—sickness benefits alone are set to rise to £100 billion on the Prime Minister’s watch. He cannot reduce that now—[Interruption.]
I will start again, Mr Speaker. [Interruption.] Yes, and louder for those at the back: sickness benefits are set to rise to £100 billion because of the Government’s mess. They cannot now reduce that, because after last night’s humiliating U-turn, we know that the Prime Minister cannot control his MPs. They are cheering now, but I can point out Labour Members who signed the amendment: you did, and you did. Over 100 people signed that reasoned amendment until the Bill was completely gutted. The Prime Minister said that he would take the difficult decisions, but is the reality not that he is too weak to get anything done?
The Prime Minister has got some brass neck. Has he read the papers this morning? That Bill will achieve nothing. It is a pointless waste of time, and it is absolute proof that he does not have a plan. Let me tell the House what is going to happen: in November, the Chancellor is going to put up our taxes to pay for the Prime Minister’s incompetence. We on the Opposition Benches know that you cannot tax your way to growth—[Interruption.] These are the same Members who cheered when they talked about the national insurance rise—the jobs tax; why are they complaining now? People out there are frightened. Can the Prime Minister reassure them by ruling out tax rises in the autumn Budget?
The Prime Minister talks about jobs. Unemployment has risen every month since Labour took office. Has he spoken to Nissan, by the way, and looked at what is happening there? This man has forgotten that his welfare Bill was there to plug a black hole created by the Chancellor. Instead, they are creating new ones. [Interruption.] The Chancellor is pointing at me, but she looks absolutely miserable. [Interruption.] They can point as much as they like, but the fact is that Labour MPs are going on the record saying that the Chancellor is toast. The reality is that she is a human shield for the Prime Minister’s incompetence. In January, he said that she would be in post until the next election. Will she really?
How awful for the Chancellor that the Prime Minister could not confirm that she would stay in place. He talks about his year in office. This week marks the first anniversary of Labour coming into office. [Interruption.] Yeah, yeah, let’s have it. The Whips cannot get their MPs in the Lobby, but they can get them to cheer at the right time. The fact is that the Prime Minister’s own MPs are saying that this Government are “incoherent and shambolic”—it was the hon. Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) who said that. I could go on and on, but the fact is that it has been mistake after mistake after mistake. There is no plan to get people into work, there is no plan to cut the welfare budget, and there is no strategy; there is just a series of humiliating U-turns, as with winter fuel and as with grooming gangs. What is really shocking is the fact that every other party in the House voted for even more welfare spending yesterday—yes, those MPs behind the Prime Minister, and the Liberal Democrats, and Reform. The Conservative party believes that this country needs to live within its means. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] We know what we believe, but this is a Prime Minister who has U-turned on everything he has done in office, including his own speeches, because he does not know what he believes. With left-wing Labour MPs now running the Government, is it not working people who will now pay the price?
I rise to address the Lords amendments, following yet another Government defeat in the other place. As I said last month when we last debated this important Bill, His Majesty’s official Opposition are driven by a commitment to ensure that our brave servicemen and women receive the robust, transparent and fair support they deserve. The Bill, which aims to establish an independent Armed Forces Commissioner with Ofsted-like powers to gain access to military sites and information, holds the potential to improve the welfare and accountability framework for our armed forces. If implemented effectively, it could significantly enhance public confidence in the way in which the concerns of service personnel are addressed. I believe that this vision enjoys broad support across the House—although yet again I have to place on record that when we are discussing important legislation that affects the welfare and wellbeing of armed forces personnel and their families, no Reform Member of Parliament is in the Chamber of the House of Commons. They cannot spend the whole of their lives on TikTok, particularly as it is a Chinese system. Our duty as His Majesty’s Opposition is to ensure that the Bill delivers on its promises without introducing unnecessary complexity. We must scrutinise the way in which the commissioner’s role integrates with the existing complaints systems, and what it means for those navigating them. Today we focus again on the key issue of whistleblowing, which was debated extensively in the other place and which now lies before this House yet again. Our amendments, championed by Baroness Goldie, sought to empower the commissioner to investigate whistleblowing concerns related to welfare and service issues, while guaranteeing anonymity for those who come forward, be they service personnel, their families or others. This is not a radical proposal but a reasonable compromise, incorporating the exact wording of the Government’s Commons amendment on anonymity in reports, alongside our whistleblowing duty. The Government argue that existing mechanisms—a confidential hotline, investigation teams and improved complaints processes—are sufficient, and that our amendment does not confer additional powers. That stance is, I am afraid, both inconsistent and unconvincing. The Minister’s own “Dear colleague” letter of 30 May generously acknowledged that Baroness Goldie’s amendments had sparked an important debate, yet the Government resist embedding a clear, statutorily protected whistleblowing function. Such a provision is essential to ensure that vulnerable service personnel can raise concerns without fear of reprisal. Lord Coaker, speaking for the Government in the other place on 11 June, claimed that the terms “whistleblower” and “whistleblowing” might deter individuals from coming forward, citing Cabinet Office guidance. That suggestion is plainly daft. If the term “whistleblowing” is truly a barrier, why does the national health service successfully operate its “Freedom to Speak Up” policy, which explicitly uses the term? Why does the Children’s Commissioner issue an annual whistleblowing report? Those examples demonstrate that the term is not a deterrent, but a recognised and effective framework for protecting those who expose wrongdoing. To argue otherwise undermines the very concept of whistleblowing regimes across multiple sectors and public services in the United Kingdom. The Government further contend that whistleblowing lacks a clear legal definition. That is simply untenable. Section 340Q of the Armed Forces Act 2006 is entitled “Investigation of concerns raised by whistle-blowers”, and section 29D of the Police Reform Act 2002 provides another clear statutory precedent. Those Acts show that including whistleblowing in legislation adds tangible value, ensuring protections for those who raise concerns. If whistleblowing is robust enough for the Police Reform Act and for the very Act that this Bill amends, how can the Government claim that it lacks clarity or value in this instance? That is totally inconsistent. The Government’s position is riddled with contradictions. In Committee, our broader amendment to empower the commissioner was dismissed by the Ministry of Defence as being too wide-ranging. In a spirit of compromise, we narrowed it to focus on welfare and service issues. Now the Government claim that the revised amendment is too narrow and lacks sufficient powers. Lord Coaker argued that our amendment, if passed, would limit the commissioner’s investigations to the same scope as current powers, without enabling access to sites, information or documents, or requiring the Secretary of State to co-operate or report to Parliament. If the Government believe that our amendment does not go far enough, why do they not support it and propose their own broader amendment to enhance the commissioner’s powers, which would almost take us back to the status quo ante? This inconsistency suggests a reluctance to engage constructively, as if arguments were being plucked out of thin air to block progress. Lord Coaker—with whom I dealt when he was in this place, and for whom, for the avoidance of doubt, I have immense respect—also claimed that our amendment excluded family members and terms of service issues, and would apply only to those subject to service law. That is incorrect. Our amendment defines a whistleblower as a person “subject to service law or…a relevant family member.” Thus a corporal’s sister, for example, could raise a whistleblowing concern if the corporal faced abuse or bullying by a military colleague. This provision ensures that family members have a voice, directly contradicting the Government’s assertion to the contrary. Let me give a brief theoretical example. Let us consider the possibility of a whistleblower being someone who served in the British Army in Northern Ireland under Operation Banner. That is an extremely topical issue at present, as the Minister will know, given the Government’s appalling remedial order to excise key parts of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. I do not know whether all armed forces personnel who served in Northern Ireland have privately signed the parliamentary petition entitled “Protect Northern Ireland Veterans from Prosecutions”, but I can say that as of today, more than 164,000 people have signed it. We therefore look forward very much to a debate in Parliament on 14 July on exactly that matter, which I am sure will be followed closely by the veterans community and their families. This is not an “angels on a pinhead” argument. It is actually quite important. The Government’s assurances about anonymity and communications campaigns to promote the commissioner’s role are welcome but insufficient. A campaign can be no substitute for a clear, statutory whistleblowing provision that service personnel can trust—to be fair, I should add that when we debated the Bill before, the Minister talked about the issue of trust repeatedly. The other place recognised that, delivering another cross-party defeat to the Government in the last fortnight by amending the Bill to include a robust, anonymous whistleblowing route. Our amendment represents a reasonable compromise, aligning with the Government’s own wording on anonymity while embedding a vital whistleblowing duty. To block it would signal that the Government are not serious about working constructively with the Opposition to improve the welfare of our armed forces personnel, so I urge them to accept this compromise in the interests of all who serve. I will listen closely to anything further that the Minister has to say, but if the Government persist in offering assurances without statutory weight, I will have no choice but to test the opinion of the House. Our service personnel deserve a system that hears their voices and protects their concerns, and if we carry on playing ping-pong—well, that is a sport that I was once quite good at.
I have listened very carefully to what the Minister has said, but I am afraid I remain unconvinced. I think he used the phrase “flip it to see it”. I could offer him another one: jaw-jaw is better than war-war. Baroness Goldie has done a great job in the other place in bringing together people from across the political spectrum to concentrate on this very important matter. I recommend that the House votes against the Government today in order to send the Bill back to the other place, where there should be all-party negotiations, including with Government Ministers, to see if we can find a way through. As things sit here and now, I am afraid we must press this into the Division Lobbies. Question put.
One of the fundamental tenets of the strategic defence review, as the Minister is now broadening this out, is that we should be prepared to fight and defeat a peer enemy by 2035, which is 10 years from now. Why, after all the hullabaloo about the much-vaunted defence review, have this Government returned to what in the 1920s was known as the 10-year rule?
The purpose of this instrument is to provide for the continuation in force of the Armed Forces Act 2006, which would otherwise expire in mid-December 2025. In essence, the measure provides for the 2006 Act to continue in force for a further year, taking us up to a deadline of 14 December 2026. For those with an historical interest—among whom I include myself—the principle of the legislation dates back to the Bill of Rights 1688, as the Minister intimated, which, given that it followed on from the civil war, declared the “raising or keeping of a standing army within the United Kingdom in time of peace, unless with the consent of Parliament, to be against the law.” This provision has resulted in the requirement, since 1688, that all legislation on discipline in the armed forces be annually renewed, hence this order. As the Minister stated, this instrument should have support across the House, and I am sure that it does. However, yet again, when we are debating defence—when we are debating an order that is fundamental to the discipline and integrity of our armed forces—there are no Reform MPs in the Chamber. Why? It is because Reform does not do defence. The Minister and I have seen that time and again over the past year—so there is a point of consensus, if he wants one. While this order might appear to be a mere formality, albeit an important one, it gives me the opportunity to ask my opposite number, the Minister for the Armed Forces, four important questions, but before I do, I will just report to the Minister that the cadets, who are an important part of the armed forces family, are indeed well disciplined and in good heart. I attended an Armed Forces Day event in Basildon on Saturday, as I have done for years, and was honoured to be invited to inspect the Air Cadets on parade. When I asked one very smart cadet why he had decided to join the Air Cadets, he replied, “Because my mum made me, Sir, although three years in, I’m very grateful that she did.” I also managed to grab a quick drink with some veterans in a local hostelry. However, mysteriously, all four MPs in the Basildon borough—none of whom are Labour MPs—appear not to have been invited this year. I can only presume that our invitations were lost in the post. I say gently to the Minister, more in sorrow than in anger, that playing silly partisan games like this is demeaning for the Labour-led council.
No. Armed Forces Day is too important for this sort of silly nonsense, which embarrasses Basildon council in the eyes of the public and, indeed, its local MPs. In all seriousness, perhaps the Minister could have a word with his colleagues on the council and make sure that this unfortunate oversight does not happen again. Defence is traditionally a bipartisan issue. We all believe in the defence of the realm, and I have always believed that it is the first duty of Government. However, I say to the Minister, on the Floor of the House, that he cannot have it both ways. He cannot on the one hand plead for unity between the Government and the Opposition and then, when it suits, imply that Opposition spokesmen are Russian, Chinese or Iranian fellow travellers just because they had the temerity not to agree with the Government on their bonkers Chagos deal. My honest advice to the Minister is to make up his mind and be consistent; he will then receive the respect that he asks for. I turn to the order. Armed Forces Acts are normally subject to quinquennial review. We had Armed Forces Acts in 2011, 2016 and 2021, and we can expect a further Act before the instrument expires in December 2026. Given the vagaries of parliamentary life, few things are certain, but assuming for a moment that it will be the Armed Forces Minister and I who will take this legislation through on behalf of our respective parties, this seems a good opportunity to ask the Minister two questions. First, what are the latest timings for that legislation, and when can we expect to see a Bill? Secondly, could he give the House some idea of the likely key themes of that Bill, and the areas, if any, in which the legislation is likely to differ materially from the Armed Forces Act 2021? In fairness, he dropped a hint a few moments ago that there will be service justice provisions; perhaps he could expand on that slightly, if he has the opportunity. I ask because there will be a large number of interested parties, including the armed forces themselves, obviously, the armed forces families federations, military charities and others. From previous experience, I can say that they will take a close and important interest in the Bill. Giving them as good a heads-up as possible is clearly desirable. Perhaps the Minister could assist the House with that. As the explanatory notes that the Minister referred to point out, were this order not to be passed, “The key effect…would be to end the provisions which are necessary to maintain the armed forces as disciplined bodies. Crucially, the 2006 Act confers powers and sets out procedures to enforce the duty of members of the armed forces to obey lawful commands. Without the 2006 Act, those powers and procedures would no longer have effect; Commanding Officers and the Court Martial would have no powers of punishment in respect of a failure to obey a lawful command or any other form of disciplinary or criminal misconduct. Members of the armed forces would still owe allegiance to His Majesty, but the power of enforcement would be removed.” Clearly, that would be very undesirable, and for the avoidance of doubt, we will most certainly not vote against this order in a few minutes’ time, but there is an important point here about members of the armed forces being required to obey lawful commands. That brings me on to my third question for the Minister. As recently as Defence questions on Monday, we debated in the Chamber the fate of the 300,000 or so British Army veterans who served in Northern Ireland on Operation Banner. They were lawfully commanded to help uphold the rule of law in support of the Royal Ulster Constabulary GC, now the Police Service of Northern Ireland, and to protect all people in Northern Ireland, of whatever tradition, from heinous acts of terrorism, whether by bomb or by bullet. As the Minister will be well aware, the Government have tabled a so-called remedial order that would cut out elements of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, thus potentially opening up some of those veterans to an endless cycle of investigation and reinvestigation. The order also makes it easier for the likes of Gerry Adams and his compadres to sue the British taxpayer for hundreds of millions of pounds. According to a press report in The Daily Telegraph yesterday and an associated answer by the Northern Ireland Secretary to a parliamentary question, the Government have decided to drop the part of the remedial order that would assist Mr Adams and his associates in suing the British taxpayer. If that report is true, we Conservative Members would warmly welcome it. However, it does not solve the problem of our brave veterans who served in Northern Ireland often being persecuted at the behest of Sinn Féin.
My right hon. Friend chaired the Select Committee on which I served some years ago, when it produced a very good report on this issue, so he is an expert on this. All I will say is that when it comes to legacy issues, Labour often provides legal support, but not necessarily always to veterans. If the Minister wishes to maintain morale in the armed forces past and present—this order is clearly necessary for doing that—perhaps he will take this opportunity to clarify the Government’s position. Do they still intend to table a remedial order, or to move straight to what the Labour manifesto describes as new legislation in the field of legacy matters? Which is it?
I certainly hope there is. I very much hope that MOD Ministers are fighting tenaciously in private, even if they cannot say so in public, to have this mad order scrapped, and to defend the Northern Ireland veterans, just as the Northern Ireland veterans defended all of us. The Minister understands exactly what I mean by that, and I think that he and some of his ministerial colleagues may have been working on this. If they have, then we in good faith wish them Godspeed. I have one more question on this matter, and then I will move on. If it is the Government’s intention to still go ahead with the remedial order—again, the House would really welcome clarity on this—despite the fact that it would have disastrous consequences for recruitment and retention, which the Minister mentioned a few minutes ago, can he confirm exactly what the Government’s policy is? Is it to go down the remedial order route, or down the route of introducing new primary legislation, and if it is the latter, what are the timings for that new Bill? Fourthly and finally, the Minister for the Armed Forces has signed a formal statement to the effect that, in his view, the provisions of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (Continuation) Order 2025 are compatible with the European convention on human rights. However, there is a question: were British troops to be deployed to Ukraine as part of some coalition of the willing—perhaps following a ceasefire in Ukraine—what would happen to those British troops if they were to be involved in combat with Russian forces, or Russian acolytes? What guarantee could the Ministry give that if soldiers fired their weapons in anger, they would not subsequently be subject to lawfare under the Human Rights Act 1998, even decades after the event, as is the case in Northern Ireland? This is not an idle point. I understand that the issue of lawfare and its effect on recruitment and retention in the British Army has been raised at the most senior levels in the Army, including in recent meetings with the Chief of the General Staff. This is very much a live issue that deserves to be raised in Parliament, not least for the soldiers who might have to take these actions for real. Given all this, would it not be helpful—as suggested a number of times by my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), the shadow Defence Secretary—for the Minister to issue a formal declaration that we would derogate from the European convention on human rights in relation to any British military operations related to Ukraine, so that soldiers who served in that conflict would be excluded from any lawfare prosecutions, even decades later? The Minister will know that the issue is materially affecting morale in the armed forces, and especially in the special forces community, so any reassurance he can give regarding a derogation would no doubt be gratefully received. To summarise, we obviously support this order to continue the operation of the Armed Forces Act 2006 until December 2026. It would be helpful to have some idea of timings, and even of the content of the prospective Armed Forces Act 2026, as it is likely to be, to allow interested parties to plan. To maintain morale and discipline in our armed forces, perhaps the Minister could also confirm whether the Government would countenance derogation from the ECHR during future military operations, potentially including those in defence of Ukraine. Moreover, perhaps he could update the House on where we are on the Government’s proposed new legislation on legacy matters, and on the fate of the proposed remedial order under the Human Rights Act 1998. Are the Government contemplating removing clauses from that remedial order, or are they abandoning it altogether, and instead relying on new primary legislation to achieve their aim? The Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), gave us all very wise advice: we should increase defence spending. We certainly should, in this increasingly dangerous world; we can argue about by how much and how quickly. We Conservative Members want to work constructively with the Government and the Ministry of Defence, for the defence of the realm—but do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
We have had a good debate—lively at times—about an important subject. Again, for the avoidance of doubt, we will loyally support the order, which I am sure the House will pass without the need for a Division. We have had some very good speeches, including from my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty). He recalled his time serving as an infantry platoon commander. I had that same honour, although in my case it was as a cold war reservist rather than as a regular, like him. My hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) asked a number of questions about the future of the Royal Marines now that the Government have flogged off most of our amphibious shipping. He asked for confirmation about timings on the MRSS class and about what happens to the Royal Marines now in their amphibious role. Perhaps the Minister will provide the House with some reassurance. If it is true that the Royal Marines will lose their amphibious role, at least in the short term, will he say whether the Parachute Regiment was consulted on that decision? [Interruption.] I see that Hansard must record that the Security Minister is chuckling at this point.
I think the RAF Regiment has had other things on its mind lately. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) on raising the important issue of Northern Ireland. That takes me to the point on which I would like to conclude. I hope that the Minister will answer some of my questions about what will happen to our Northern Ireland veterans. Again, for the avoidance of doubt, I think I know where his heart lies on this. I cannot recall whether the Security Minister served in Northern Ireland—
He is nodding—I know that he served with great distinction in Afghanistan, so he too will understand this. We on these Benches have to believe that in the privacy of discussions between Government Departments, they are doing the right thing. Perhaps the Minister can give some assurance to those of the 300,000 veterans who served in Op Banner who are still with us that the Government will remove the sword of Damocles that hangs over them, and allow those people who served our country so bravely and with such distinction in incredibly difficult circumstances to sleep safely in their beds, as they deserve.
I was watching Northern Ireland questions and, from memory, the Northern Ireland Secretary said that the Government would address this through primary legislation, but he gave no indication of any kind as to what will happen to the outstanding remedial order. If Ministers cannot answer that today, perhaps the Minister or the Northern Ireland Office could write to us and tell us where we stand.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Cramlington and Killingworth on bringing forward this Bill, which replicates, in many ways, the provisions of a similar Bill that was introduced before the election and taken through the House of Commons stages by my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson). As the hon. Lady says, secure 16-to-19 academies are fundamentally different to other schools, so it is appropriate that different requirements apply to them. This is a sensible Bill that modifies part of the framework around academies and disapplies some requirements that are simply not relevant to secure 16-to-19 academies. Therefore, as the official Opposition, we are very happy to support the Bill and look forward to it progressing.
Contrary to what the Secretary of State has just told the House, two weeks ago, the Federation of Small Businesses in Northern Ireland published a report suggesting that a third of small businesses that move goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland have ceased supplying customers or partners either in Great Britain or in Northern Ireland. Under the Northern Ireland protocol, if the UK experiences diversion of trade, we are entitled to take unilateral action to safeguard our internal market. Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether he thinks that a third of small businesses ceasing trade in that way amounts to a diversion of trade? If not, perhaps he could tell us what would.
It is a please to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cramlington and Killingworth on bringing forward this Bill. I have only one question for the Minister to answer in his summing up. On reducing the notice given to providers from seven to two years, I agree with the characterisation. In respect of the existing contract, however, has that had to be renegotiated— from the service provider’s point of view, obviously the Bill represents a significant change in the terms of the contract—and has that renegotiation cost the taxpayer any money?
I want to add to the hon. Gentleman’s list something that the Government could do. In the main Chamber we are busy proscribing two Russian supremacist organisations. Does he think it would be appropriate for the Government to proscribe settler organisations who, as President Biden said, are perpetrating terrorism upon a defenceless Palestinian people?
1. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the adequacy of the A75 and A77 roads leading to Cairnryan ferry port on the Northern Ireland economy.
There cannot be a person in Northern Ireland who has not either been along the A75 or the A77 or had something delivered to them that has been driven through the ferry port at Cairnryan. We in Dumfries and Galloway and people across Scotland know that these are the highways from hell. This morning, even as we speak, the A75 has been closed by another overturned lorry. We are crying out for improvements. Can I count on the support of the might of the Northern Ireland Office to get the Department for Transport here to engage, as well as the Scottish Government?