debates/debates2025-11-18d conversation_22
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-11-18)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-11-18d conversation_22

Bob Blackman:In west London, the development of data centres, other industries and, indeed, much-needed housing is hampered by the fact that the national grid cannot supply enough power. Under the current plans, it will be many years before the grid will be able to cope. What action is the Minister going to take to make sure that west London can contribute to the growing of the UK economy? \p Michael Shanks: That is exactly why we are embarking on upgrading the national transmission system and investing in that. I would gently say that the hon. Member’s party seems to be opposing most of that action at the moment, but it is critical not just for future power sources, but to ensure that we can get power to demand centres where we know there are economic growth opportunities. It is hugely important, and that is why we are driving it forward. \p Jonathan Brash: Hartlepool has one of the largest clean energy economies in the north of England with thousands of local jobs—jobs that Reform would destroy. At the same time, we have one of the largest nuclear industries. We have signed the biggest deal in our history—jobs that the Greens would  destroy. Does the Minister agree that when it comes to energy policy, we’ve got clowns to the left of us and jokers to the right? \p Chris McDonald: As my constituency neighbour has said, the green energy industry in his constituency is delivering thousands of jobs. On this issue, certainly, I am very happy to be stuck in the middle with him. \p Luke Evans: 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. \p Martin McCluskey: The House recently discussed in Committee some of the regulations that will make fuel finder a reality. As the hon. Member said, it will be launched by the end of the year. It will enable people to see real-time fuel information, and we will produce an API to allow things like Google Maps to list it. That will be launched before the end of year. \p Linsey Farnsworth: Reform-led Derbyshire county council has recently abolished its climate change committee and scrapped its aim to tackle the causes and impact of climate change. Will the Minister outline the steps that his Department is taking to ensure that local authorities continue to address climate change effectively and meet national targets? \p Michael Shanks: That sounds like just another example of the chaos that Reform-led councils across the country are inflicting on communities. The truth is that we had just a few moments ago an example of why local councils thinking about the impact of climate change is so important, and we now have Reform councils dismissing the very action that would protect communities from devastating floods and other impacts of climate change. It is important that we stay the course, recognise that the climate crisis is important and do everything possible to protect communities. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Father of the House. \p Edward Leigh: Earlier, the Minister said that only 0.4% of land is being taken by solar, but he knows that in the Gainsborough constituency the number is far higher, because I went to see him—he was most gracious and reasonable. He will know that 14,000 acres around Gainsborough will be taken from some prime agricultural land. Just to be reasonable, will he have a look at this again and try to take all these solar applications together? \p Michael Shanks: Let me say that the Father of the House was also very reasonable in the meeting that we had; I am glad that we had that opportunity. If we hit the absolute ambition of the solar roll-out, we will have  0.4% of land, but as I said to him, I recognise that a number of projects in particular areas have not been strategically planned for a long time. That is why we are bringing forward the strategic spatial energy plan, so that we plan the system across the whole of Great Britain and so that communities feel that things are being done not to them, but with them. \p Melanie Ward: Today’s news that ExxonMobil is to close the Fife ethylene plant in Mossmoran is a devastating blow to many of my constituents. I am furious that contract workers appear to have been locked out of the site this morning. News reaching me suggests that ExxonMobil staff, many of whom have decades of service, have been told that they will lose their jobs but have no idea of the redundancy package they will receive. That follows months of attempts to engage with ExxonMobil in good faith, during which it was not forthcoming about its intentions or about what the Government can do to save the plant and the jobs. ExxonMobil continues to ignore my requests for clarity. Will the Government do all that they can to support a future for the plant and its workers? Will the Minister join me in calling on ExxonMobil to share vital information at this incredibly— \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. [Interruption.] I am speaking to the hon. Lady. This is a very important subject, and I really do think it matters—she is absolutely right. I think such issues should be heard and discussed in the Chamber. It might be worth thinking about putting in for an urgent question, because this issue is so serious. \p Michael Shanks: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

This is obviously a hugely concerning time for the workers in Mossmoran, their families and the wider community. The Government have been in regular contact with the company. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) met with the Business Secretary recently and has been trying to engage with the company as much as she possibly can. The company has faced significant global challenges, including closing a chemical plant in France. We stand ready to provide whatever support we can, but the issues she has raised are obviously deeply concerning. I know that the Business Secretary will look to speak to her and others to ensure that we have as robust a response as possible and that we support the workforce at what is obviously an extremely difficult time. \p Ellie Chowns: With just a few days of COP30 left, it is incredibly disappointing that UK climate leadership is at risk because of the Government’s decision not to contribute to the tropical forest forever facility to end forest destruction. Can the Minister please confirm whether reports that that decision is under review are accurate? Can he assure the House that the UK will play its part in contributing directly to taking its fair share of ending forest destruction? \p Michael Shanks: We are taking a leading role at COP and at home by driving forward the clean power mission, which requires the infrastructure that the Green party regularly opposes—the party talks on this issue, but it does not actually deliver it. We are at COP fighting for Britain’s interests and playing our part in leading the world and ensuring that collectively we can collaborate  to tackle the most existential crisis the planet faces, and we will continue to make that a key priority of this Government. \p Liz Twist: Polling by National Energy Action has shown that four in 10 adults with prepayment meters have found themselves without credit and unable to access heating or power in the past 12 months. Families often face immense distress as standing charges continue to accrue as a debt that must be cleared before energy can be accessed again. Does the Minister agree that Ofgem must explore practical reforms to ensure that households are not penalised for maintaining access to energy? \p Martin McCluskey: I know that my hon. Friend is fighting for her constituents on this issue, and I know of the burden that energy is placing on bills and, in particular, standing charges. My hon. Friend may be aware that Ofgem has announced proposals to require suppliers to offer their customers tariffs with lower standing charges, which will be on offer from early 2026, but further work needs to be done in this area. \p Alicia Kearns: Last year, 2,000 acres of farmland in my constituency were approved for solar by the Government, and now a further 2,000 are being eyed up immediately next door. Together, those plants will build the first UK solar city, bigger than the Vatican and Monaco put together. When will the Government bring forth the land use strategy, and when will they impose minimum compensation for those who are currently losing their countryside and their communities? \p Michael Shanks: I have always appreciated my engagement with the hon. Lady on these questions. The cumulative impact of applications is covered by the planning system, which considers all those impacts, but the hon. Lady is right to suggest that the land use framework and the strategic spatial energy plan are about taking a more strategic approach to the way in which we look at where such projects are sited. As for the question of community benefits, we have consulted on that and will say more shortly, but our general view as a Government is that communities should benefit from hosting infrastructure, particularly solar, which has often not produced the same community benefits as other infrastructure. \p Euan Stainbank: Last month the Energy Minister stated that the £200 million investment in Grangemouth from the national wealth fund that was secured by Scottish Labour Members has brought private investment to the table. Does he agree that we need an anchor industry in Grangemouth with a scale and skills profile similar to those of the former oil refinery, and that we also need the Government to take a partial stake and to make an announcement, this side of Christmas, on the direction of Grangemouth’s industrial future? \p Michael Shanks: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has worked extremely hard with the Government and with the national wealth fund to ensure that we are bringing projects forward. More than 100 projects came forward for that £200 million investment by this Labour Government through the wealth fund; we are considering all of them, and hope to make announcements soon.  However, as my hon. Friend will understand, given the substantial amounts of public money involved, we must ensure that due diligence in respect of all those businesses and projects is complete before we can make any announcements. \p Graham Leadbitter: In the light of the deeply damaging situation at Mossmorran, what is the Minister’s assessment of the potential impact on the Acorn carbon capture, utilisation and storage project? \p Michael Shanks: We are obviously still processing that news this morning, but I can say that I have had a number of conversations to ensure that the wider energy infrastructure as it relates to Mossmorran and to Grangemouth itself, and the pipelines that connect them, will not pose any risk to our energy system. As for the wider question of Acorn, I have taken that forward recently, having gained the carbon capture part of the brief, and I meet the company regularly. We have put money into that project because we want to see it succeed. \p Lillian Jones: XLCC’s project to build the UK’s first high-voltage direct current subsea cable manufacturing factory at Hunterston, with its headquarters in my constituency, represents a major opportunity for Ayrshire. It is exactly the kind of investment in renewable energy that we need to drive growth, create jobs and strengthen our energy security. What steps is the Minister taking to support firms such as XLCC to delivery these projects? \p Michael Shanks: One reason why we are so keen for the supply chain for the upgrade of our grid to be in the UK is our wish to ensure that there are opportunities for factories in constituencies such as my hon. Friend’s, and I recently met her, along with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and XLCC, to discuss those opportunities. XLCC is currently changing its business model but remains committed to being part of the supply chain for cables in the future, and we will continue to do everything we can to support it. \p Bradley Thomas: The oil refining industry employs tens of thousands of people and is crucial to our energy security. It is also a key part of the ministerial brief. The sector is under immense pressure, so can the Minister tell the House when he will meet industry representatives directly? \p Michael Shanks: I have met industry representatives, and when I did so they told me that it was the first time they had met anyone from the Government in 13 years. Many of the issues that are now emerging have been long in the making because of the last Government’s failure to recognise their importance. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that refineries are an important part of our energy mix and our economy. We will do all that we can to support them, and I continue to meet their representatives and those of Fuels Industry UK regularly. \p Jim Shannon: Here is a pithy question, which I hope will be important for us in Northern Ireland. Will Northern Ireland receive a dedicated share of UK-wide peatland funding schemes such as those covered by the Nature for Climate Fund? \p Martin McCluskey: I shall be more than happy to meet the hon. Member, as I am sure will the Minister for Climate, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Katie White), when she returns from COP30. \p Andrew Bowie: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given the very serious news coming out of the Mossmorran plant this morning, and given that the news broke after Members were able to submit an urgent question, might you inform me, and indeed the rest of the House, how it  might be possible for the Government to bring forward a statement on the situation today? Hundreds of workers, the entire community and the wider energy system need to know as soon as possible what the situation is and what the Government are doing to resolve it. \p Lindsay Hoyle: A lot of Members obviously have a keen interest in this matter, as it affects their constituencies. I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench have heard the request. I am more than happy to support that request if the Government bring it forward. \p Dan Jarvis: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on Chinese espionage targeting UK democratic institutions, and on the Government’s action to counter the breadth of threats posed by China and wider state actors.

Before I begin, let me first pay tribute to the crew member of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Tidesurge who is missing off the coast of the Republic of Ireland. I know that the whole House will join me in sending our very best wishes to the ship’s company, and to their families back home. This tragic incident is a reminder of the sacrifice that members of our armed forces make in the service of our country.

Earlier today, MI5 issued an espionage alert to Members of this House, Members of the other place and parliamentary staff to warn them about ongoing targeting of our democratic institutions by Chinese actors. Before I set out the threat and what we are doing to meet it, let me thank you, Mr Speaker, for your support in issuing the alert, and for your tireless efforts to safeguard the security of this place and the people who serve within it. I encourage all parliamentary colleagues to read the alert, and to get in touch with the Parliamentary Security Department if they have any immediate concerns.

Our intelligence agencies have warned that China is attempting to recruit and cultivate individuals with access to sensitive information about Parliament and the UK Government. MI5 has stated that this activity is being carried out by a group of Chinese intelligence officers—often masked through the use of cover companies or external headhunters. It is not just parliamentarians who should be concerned by this; parliamentary staff, economists, think-tank employees, geopolitical consultants and Government officials have all been targeted for their networks and access to politicians. I urge all parliamentarians and their staff to be wary that China has a low threshold for what information is considered to be of value, and will gather individual pieces of information to build a wider picture.

Let me speak plainly: this activity involves a covert and calculated attempt by a foreign power to interfere with our sovereign affairs in favour of its own interests, and this Government will not tolerate it. It builds on a pattern of activity that we have seen from China, with cyber-operations by Chinese state-affiliated actors targeting parliamentarians’ emails in 2021, attempted foreign interference activity by Christine Lee in 2022, and other more recent cases. We will take all necessary measures to protect our national interests, our citizens and our democratic way of life, including by working with our allies and partners.

The world has changed a great deal since I first stepped forward to serve our country almost 30 years ago, and while some things have changed, some things remain the same. In the various roles I have held since then, I have always believed in the importance of being clear-eyed about the nature of the threats that we face, and about the need to ensure that the tools we use to respond to those threats are kept up to date. This Government’s first duty is to protect our national security, and we will not hesitate to hold all state actors to account.

On 6 November, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary spoke with her Chinese counterpart, Director Wang Yi. She was clear with the Foreign Minister that any activity that threatens UK national security, particularly relating to the UK’s Parliament and democracy, will not be tolerated. Today, I am setting out a comprehensive package of measures that we are taking to disrupt and deter the threats posed by China, as well as by state actors more widely. We are launching a counter political interference and espionage action plan, which is supported by Ministers from across Government and co-ordinated by me. I will set out in detail to the House what that plan will entail.

First, we will strengthen the legislative tools available to Government to disrupt the threat. We will introduce the elections Bill, which will include measures to safeguard against covert political funding. They will include tougher risk assessment rules for donor recipients, and enhanced enforcement powers for the Electoral Commission. I can confirm that we are also working on new powers to counter foreign interference, including a proscription-type tool to disrupt proxy organisations that are undermining our security, and an extension to the maximum penalties for election interference offences.

Secondly, working with the parliamentary security authorities, we are launching a series of protective security campaigns, co-ordinated through the defending democracy taskforce. These will help all those who work in politics to recognise, resist and report suspicious state threat activity. The campaigns, which will build on the guidance that was launched by the National Protective Security Authority in October, will include tailored security briefings for the devolved Governments and for political parties via the parliamentary parties panel by the end of this year, as well as new security guidance in January for all candidates taking part in devolved and local elections in May.

Thirdly, we are building a campaign that uses all levers at the Government’s disposal to degrade the ecosystem of proxy cover companies, organisations and individuals that are being used by foreign states to facilitate interference and espionage targeting our democratic institutions. The National Protective Security Authority, building on its “Think Before You Link” campaign, will strengthen its engagement with professional networking sites to make them a more hostile operating environment for foreign agents.

As Security Minister, I am privileged to see the diligence of the security services, law enforcement and civil servants who work tirelessly, day and night, to keep the UK safe. Noting China’s low threshold for information gathering, this Government are providing the resources needed to protect our national interests. I can announce that the Government have committed to investing £170 million to renew the sovereign encrypted technology that our officials use to do their vital work. This programme of work will help to ensure that sensitive diplomatic, economic, trade, security, law enforcement and policy development arrangements are safeguarded from espionage by any state threat actor.

I can also announce that this Government have completed the removal of surveillance equipment manufactured by companies subject to the national intelligence law of the People’s Republic of China from all sensitive sites we maintain in the UK and around the world. Moreover, we will invest £130 million next year,  through the integrated security fund, in building the UK’s resilience against threats posed by states such as China. Among other projects, this investment will build Counter Terrorism Policing’s ability to enforce the National Security Act 2023, and fund the National Cyber Security Centre and the National Protective Security Authority’s work supporting our most critical businesses in protecting their intellectual property. Indeed, the National Protective Security Authority’s work is an important reminder that China poses threats not just to our democratic institutions, but to other sectors. Let me talk briefly about two other sectors in particular.

The first sector is education, which is one of the UK’s most important global assets, in part due to the UK’s steadfast commitment to academic freedom and excellence. There is value for the UK in engagement with China on education. However, operating in today’s uncertain international context presents many challenges for our great universities. It is because of their excellence that states like China are attempting to influence these universities’ independent research, and to interfere with activity on campuses. Ministers have already raised our concerns about this activity with their counterparts in Beijing, and the Office for Students recently issued new guidance to help universities protect the freedoms that their staff and students enjoy. I can announce that as part of our ongoing commitment to working collectively to address these risks, Ministers will host a closed event with vice-chancellors to discuss the risks posed by foreign interference, and to signpost our plans to further increase the sector’s resilience.

Secondly, on advanced manufacturing, the Department for Business and Trade is working to strengthen and scale our new economic security advisory service, which will help businesses navigate economic security issues, such as espionage and intellectual property theft. The service is already engaging with businesses in the advanced manufacturing sector, and as it matures, it will support other sectors of the economy. It will provide a new digital offer, and will assist businesses with complex economic security cases in navigating the support from His Majesty’s Government.

In October, I told the House that this Government remain steadfast in our commitment to disrupting and holding state actors accountable for widescale cyber-espionage operations. We stand ready to go further to disrupt, degrade and protect against the dangerous and unrestrained offensive cyber-ecosystem that China has allowed to take hold. Earlier this year, the NCSC, with international allies, called out three technology companies, based in China, for their global malicious cyber-campaign targeting critical networks. Just last week, we introduced the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill, which will help make it harder to target critical sectors of the economy and the public sector with cyber-attacks, including malicious cyber-activity emanating from China’s territory. The Government will continue to take further action against China-based actors involved in malicious cyber-activity against the UK and our allies. This will form part of a broader campaign that the UK is delivering to disrupt and degrade the dangerous cyber-ecosystem that China has allowed to take hold within its territory. Let me assure hon. Members that we will not shy away from using all the tools at our disposal, including sanctions, as necessary.

Our country has a long and proud history as a seafaring nation that trades with countries around the world that share our way of life, and with those that do not. China is the world’s second-largest economy, and, together with Hong Kong, is the UK’s third-largest trading partner. It is in our long-term strategic interests to continue to engage with China. We must co-operate on issues on which our interests align—climate, global health, trade, scientific research, illegal migration, and serious and organised crime, to name just a few—but we will always challenge any country, including China, that attempts to interfere, influence or undermine the integrity of our democratic institutions, and we will take all measures necessary to protect UK national security. That is why we have taken action today. I am clear that further steps can and absolutely will be taken to disrupt and deter China’s espionage activity, wherever it takes place. We will update our security powers to keep pace with the threat, help those who work in politics to recognise, resist and report the threat, and work with partners across the economy to strengthen their security against the threat.

Our strategy is not just to co-operate. We will engage China where necessary, but we will always act to defend our interests, and challenge where our values are threatened. I commend this statement to the House. \p Lindsay Hoyle: The Minister took 14 minutes. This is a very important subject, so I have no problem with that, but it may be helpful to say to the shadow Minister that if she needs more minutes, they are there. \p Alicia Kearns: My heart goes out to the missing crew member, their ship’s company, and their loved ones at home. Let us all hope for good news.

I thank the Minister for advance sight of this statement, and for his time last week, but the revelations today are no surprise. They are the latest in an ever-growing list of actions by the Chinese Communist party to interfere in our sovereign affairs and try to undermine our democracy and our country. The pernicious nature of this threat should not be underestimated. I welcome the Minister’s plans for a new proscription tool to counter foreign interference, and the fact that the Government have completed the work that we started of stripping surveillance equipment manufactured in China from sensitive sites. On education, however, the plans to discuss foreign interference with vice-chancellors are quite inadequate. I have had those discussions, and faced nothing but naivety and intransigence. They are also useless unless the Government are willing to use their teeth to defend those institutions that are under attack.

Earlier this month, Norway and Denmark alerted us to the existence of dual-use kill switches in Chinese-made electric buses. These switches allow China to switch off buses and bring chaos to transport systems. Can the Minister give an update on the investigation of our bus networks, and the chips that have been placed in Ministry of Defence vehicles, which require our members of the armed forces to be silent while travelling around our country in defence of our nation?

On academic freedom, Sheffield Hallam University was blackmailed by Chinese security services into cancelling research on state-sanctioned Uyghur slave labour. What  update can the Minister give on the police investigation into that, and the coercive campaign? Will he admit that it was a mistake for his party to cancel our university free speech provisions, and will he convince the Government to reintroduce them, now that the threat is on the front pages of our newspapers? It is only by drawing a red line and taking action to establish some form of deterrence that we will see threats abate.

In the face of this hostility, the Government appear to be delegating difficult conversations to officials. On the collapse of the case against Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry, the Government saw fit only to call in a senior official to have a conversation with a Chinese chargé d’affaires. Last week, Hongkonger Chloe Cheung said that the Government were not keeping her safe. The Government’s response to a bounty being put on her head, and to kidnap notes being delivered to her neighbours, asking them to take her to the Chinese embassy, was the same rhetorical tap on the knuckles. This is insufficient if the Government seriously want to deter further attacks on our country.

We Conservative Members recognise the threat from the Chinese Communist party, and we want to work with the Government, so we have a few suggestions. The Minister today stated that the Chinese Government are using proxy organisations to interfere in, and commit espionage against, our democracy. That is literally why we introduced the foreign influence registration scheme. Instead of carrying out their communications plan and holding the private, closed-door meetings announced today, we urge the Government to put China in the enhanced tier of the FIR scheme. In opposition, Labour supported our National Security Act 2023, yet in government, it refuses to use it as it was designed. That is perverse. Why vote for a defensive tool, only to leave it on the shelf when we are under threat?

The decision on the new Chinese embassy is expected shortly. We would refuse permission for that embassy. If the Government will not, will they at least require the Chinese Government to pay for sensitive underground cables to be re-routed away from the embassy? We hear that multiple Government visits to China are planned before Christmas and the new year. Will those now be cancelled? What message does it send when, despite an attack on this House and our Parliament, Ministers are happily jetting off to stride down red carpets with the Government responsible?

Finally, we need a comprehensive audit of our vulnerabilities across our society and our economy. The recent export controls on critical minerals demonstrate China’s willingness to weaponise its economic heft. We need to know where our vulnerabilities lie, and to increase our resilience accordingly. That means publishing the shelved China audit, because how can an entire civil service base its posture on a document that most will never be allowed to read? It needs to be published. Sensitive parts can be redacted. As for the possibility of the Chinese authorities taking any offence at its contents, the contents are down to their actions, not ours.

We face an acute threat to our democracy, and in the face of that threat, we have yet to see repercussions for the Chinese Communist party. To defend our nation, the Government must have a firm policy of deterrence. Justice was denied last month, but the Government  have the tools and the ability to act. When will they take action to make it clear to the Chinese Communist party that it will not get away with attacks on our democracy?

The Government can cancel the Joint Economic and Trade Commission talks, impose sanctions, cancel propaganda visits to China and put the Chinese Communist party in the enhanced foreign influence registration scheme tier. When they do any of those things, the Opposition will be here, ready to help. Until that time, the Chinese Communist party will think that our country is unwilling to deter future acts of hostility and unwilling to defend our democracy or our country. \p Dan Jarvis: It is good to see the hon. Lady in her place. I am grateful for her comments today and for the contact that we have had recently. I hope she knows that this is a conversation that I want to continue to have with her and colleagues on the Opposition Benches. We take very seriously the points she has made today and on countless other occasions.

Let me try to provide the hon. Lady with some reassurance; if I am not able to do so, I would be happy to meet her again in the very near future. As she will understand, there are sensitivities that mean it is more difficult to get into the detail of some things, but let me see what I can say to try to provide some assurances.

The package that we have announced today is, by any metric, comprehensive, although I have been clear about the Government’s willingness to go further when and where that is required. The measures we have announced today will help us to tackle economic, academic, cyber and espionage threats that we face from China and other state actors. The impact of the measures will be immediate, but, as I say, we will not hesitate to go further where necessary; when we say that national security is the first priority of this Government, we take that incredibly seriously.

The hon. Lady is right that the threats we face from China require actions not words, but I gently reiterate some of the announcements that we have confirmed today. The work that we are taking forward will be co-ordinated by the Cabinet Office and me as part of a new counter-political interference and espionage plan; that will be the fulcrum point for co-ordinating activity right across Government and across law enforcement. She will have heard what I have said about the new guidance briefings that will be issued to Members of this House, the devolved Assemblies and candidates standing for election next May.

We are also putting our money where our mouth is. We have announced £170 million specifically towards renewing our sovereign encrypted technical capability and another £130 million on projects such as building the capacity of counter-terrorism police, working with the NCSC and the NPSA to protect intellectual property.

I have also referenced, as the hon. Lady did, the removal of surveillance equipment manufactured by companies subject to China’s national intelligence law—work that I absolutely acknowledge began under the previous Government. I am pleased to confirm that we have completed that process today. I have issued a written ministerial statement with further detail on that. There is also an important legislative angle to all this, which is why we introduced the new Cyber Security  and Resilience Bill just last week, and why I give an assurance that we will introduce the elections Bill at the earliest available opportunity.

All these measures are important in their own right, but they are more important when they are brought together. In the end, though—I think the hon. Lady will agree with this—what really matters is our mindset, and our mindset is born of an absolute desire to work collaboratively across this place to protect our country and all the people who live here. Will that involve making some tough choices? Yes; the truth of the matter is that it will involve making some tough choices. The previous Government made some tough choices, and this Government will have to make tough choices. Like all our G7 counterparts, we will engage with those choices in a clear-eyed way. I do not think any serious Member of this House thinks that we should not be engaging with China—the debate is around the nature of the engagement.

The hon. Lady made some important points, and if I am not able to address them adequately, I will come back to her. She raised the importance of education and academic freedoms; I completely agree with her on that. She referenced Sheffield Hallam University specifically. She will understand that because of ongoing active inquiries into the matter, it would not be appropriate to comment on the specifics of what has allegedly happened at Sheffield Hallam. However, her points are well made, and I give her an absolute assurance that we take them incredibly seriously.

It did not come as a huge surprise to me that the hon. Lady also raised the issue of FIRS. She will remember that FIRS is a product of the National Security Act 2023. Some Members of this House said that we would not introduce FIRS at all; then, when we confirmed that we were going to introduce it, they said that we would not be able to do so by 1 July. I gave a categorical assurance that we would introduce it by 1 July, and we did. We are looking closely at whether it is necessary to make further additions to the enhanced tier, but I can say to the hon. Lady that no decision has yet been made with regard to China specifically.

The hon. Lady also asked me about the embassy. There has been much discussion about that matter in this place, and we are moving towards a point of decision. She will understand that that is not a decision for me; it will be made by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government in a quasi-judicial capacity. As a consequence of that, I am limited in what I can say. However, as I have said previously, I can say that national security has been the core priority throughout.

The hon. Lady spoke about visits to China. I would take a different view to her characterisation of those visits: I think it is important that members of this Government—Ministers and senior Ministers—engage with our counterparts in China, as it is only by engaging that we are provided with an opportunity to deliver tough and consistent messages. I can categorically assure her that any Minister or official who travels from this country to China will deliver a series of strong and coherent messages aligned with the messages that I have delivered to the House today.

The hon. Lady also asked about the audit. She will know that the previous Foreign Secretary gave a statement in this House about the China audit, but I will look carefully at the specific points she has made.

In concluding my response to the hon. Lady, I hope that she knows how seriously we take these matters, and I assure her categorically that I am very happy to work collaboratively with her and colleagues on the Opposition Benches to ensure that we secure the right outcome for the country. \p John Martin McDonnell: I, too, send my condolences to the family of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary member who has been lost. The RFA is unique in that it is largely civilian-crewed by members of the RMT trade union, working alongside Royal Navy personnel. They work as a very professional, tight family; any loss like this will be a real blow to them.

I wish to raise the issue of the security of Chinese nationals and others in this country. Two weeks ago I was at a demonstration on behalf of Lee Cheuk-yan—our colleague, the former general secretary of the Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions and founder of the Labour party in Hong Kong—who has been in prison now for four years. At those demonstrations, there is always a fear of the monitoring of demonstrators and particularly for the security of Chinese nationals in this country. I would welcome the Minister’s view on what further action could be taken to reassure people that, in the exercise of their democratic rights in this country, they do not become vulnerable to any actions by the Chinese state here. \p Dan Jarvis: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, not least for his opening remarks, which I know will have been shared by the whole House. He raises an important point about transnational repression. The Government take these matters incredibly seriously. We have relatively recently completed a very significant piece of work looking at the issue of transnational repression through the defending democracy taskforce. The Government are absolutely crystal clear that it is completely unacceptable for China—or any other country, for that matter—to target individuals resident in this country.

I recently met members of the Hong Kong community, who raised significant concerns about their being targeted. I was clear to them, as I am clear to my right hon. Friend, that none of that activity is remotely acceptable to the Government, and that we will do everything we can to ensure both that the individuals he refers to are kept safe and that they feel as though they are being kept safe. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I come to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, who obviously has some extra time allocated as well. \p Lisa Smart: I am grateful to the Minister, as always, for advance sight of the statement. The news that the CCP is waging a campaign to infiltrate our Parliament is deeply offensive to our sovereignty, though perhaps it is not surprising to those who have been paying attention to the recent collapsed espionage case and the uncovering of interference at a UK university. The attempts to corrupt our democracy and Government must be rooted out.

We therefore welcome the counter-political interference and espionage action plan as a first step. It is absolutely right that the Government implement those measures to challenge Beijing’s espionage capabilities in the UK and the transnational repression it exports to our shores. New measures to disrupt proxy organisations, new penalties  for election interference and the removal of potentially compromised surveillance equipment have our full backing. However, in the face of persistent, flagrant transgressions by the CCP, the plan by itself is not sufficient.

Beijing has tried to bully our Government, most recently on permission for the proposed new Chinese embassy at Tower Bridge, warning of consequences if the Government do not approve the plans. Beijing has oppressed and intimidated British nationals. We cannot afford to shy away from this challenge and leave key, pressing issues unresolved. I note the Minister’s comments about the Chinese mega-embassy. May I put on record my party’s repeated call to urge the Government to block the plan, to show that attempts to intimidate will be firmly rebuked? I further note the Minister’s comments about FIRS. Will he update the House on his current thinking about when he might come back with a decision to add China to the scheme’s enhanced tier?

The Minister said that the forthcoming elections Bill will include measures

“to safeguard against covert political funding…tougher risk assessment rules for donor recipients and enhanced enforcement powers for the Electoral Commission.”

This is a good opportunity. Will the Minister confirm that that will include donations via cryptocurrency and the associated transparency concerns? Will he also confirm that there will be new risk assessment rules and enforcement powers for donations funnelled through third-party organisations such as think-tanks? \p Dan Jarvis: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her broad welcoming of the plan. She makes a number of points, including several about which she has consistently raised concerns in the Chamber and with me outside it. Let me say to her and to other Members that, with regard to the embassy and any other area of policy, nobody will intimidate members of this Government to do anything other than what is in our country’s national interests.

I understand why certain hon. Members want to refer to the embassy as a “super-embassy” or by other descriptive terms. The judgment will have to be made by the Secretary of State, but I, along with other ministerial colleagues, have been crystal clear that national security is and will remain a core priority throughout this process. There have been various comments and points made by people inside and outside this House on the national security implications of the embassy that are not correct. It is a quasi-judicial matter and I am limited in what I can say, but I reiterate the assurance about the importance of the national security elements underpinning any decision.

On the elections Bill, the hon. Lady made some important and valid points. She will understand that that piece of legislation sits with another Government Department. I am sure the Department will have heard her points, but if it has not, I will represent those points on her behalf. \p Abtisam Mohamed: Sheffield Hallam University in my constituency is home to internationally respected researchers, including Professor Laura Murphy, whose excellent work on forced labour in China has been met with coercion, intimidation and attempts at interference linked to the Chinese state. At a  time when universities are increasingly financially vulnerable due to a sharp decline in international student numbers, the risk of hostile states exploiting that vulnerability is growing. I welcome the closed event for vice-chancellors to address those concerns. Will the Minister explain whether that event will explore how academics such as Professor Murphy will be protected from being silenced, and will more robust support be provided to universities that are left exposed to pressure, intimidation and undue influence? \p Dan Jarvis: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Sheffield is a great city, and she will know better than anyone that it is blessed with two outstanding academic institutions. She knows that as the local MP, and I know that from my time spent as the regional mayor. For reasons that I know she will understand, because there remain active inquiries into this matter, I am limited in what I can say about the specifics. I can say more generally that any attempt by any foreign state to intimidate and coerce universities to limit free speech and academic freedoms in the UK will not be tolerated. The Government made that clear to Beijing after learning of the case.

The new Office for Students recently issued guidance to make it explicit that universities should not tolerate attempts by foreign states to suppress academic freedom. I am pleased that she welcomes the closed event with vice-chancellors. We will make sure that both the vice-chancellors from the city of Sheffield are invited to attend. I am happy to discuss these matters further with her. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee. \p Karen Bradley: Does the Minister consider that China represents a current threat to this country? Will he also expand on the work his officials are doing with the Members and Members’ Staff Services Team to remove potential security weaknesses, not just from this building but from MPs’ constituency offices and our homes? \p Dan Jarvis: I am grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee, as I always am. On her second point, let me come back to her. She raises a valid concern and, rather than give her a response now, let me consider the facts of the case and I will come back to her with a more considered response.

On her first point, I fear that I will disappoint her and maybe some other Conservative Members by not diverting from the policy that the Government have previously confirmed in this place. The Government fully recognise that China poses a series of threats to UK national security in the form of cyber-attacks, foreign interference and espionage targeting our democratic institutions, including the transnational oppression of Hongkongers in this country. That is why we have made the announcements that we have and why we will continue to do everything that we can to guard against that threat. \p Alex Barros-Curtis: I thank the Minister for his statement and put on record my tribute to the missing crew member, those searching for them and all those who keep us safe.

I welcome the package of measures that the Minister has set out today. With the news about the networking sites, while not new, it is important to keep the risk  elevated and to remind those potentially affected of that. He knows, because we have conversed about this regularly, that I take an interest in the defending democracy taskforce. Will he therefore say a little bit more about the series of protective security campaigns that will be co-ordinated through it? I suggest that as part of the outreach to all the different stakeholders that he has mentioned, the taskforce gives thought to some sort of centralised toolkit that pulls together all the guidance and information, which is evergreen and constantly updated, to ensure that all affected stakeholders, in and outside this place, have it at their fingertips so we can keep ourselves safe from people who are a threat to us. \p Dan Jarvis: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments today and for his previous points about the importance of the defending democracy taskforce. It was not a given that the Government would necessarily continue in the way that the previous Government and the previous Security Minister, the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), had invested in the taskforce. However, I took the view, on good advice from my predecessor, that that was the best way—the fulcrum—to co-ordinate that activity across Government. I think he was right about that. That is why we have really invested in it as a process, that is why it is truly wired across Government and law enforcement, that is why the Prime Minister recently renewed its mandate and that is why I personally invest a significant amount of time in it every single day. I believe in its work and I believe that it provides the right forum to lead that work, including the kind of work that my hon. Friend mentioned.

The protective security campaigns are really important because, while most right hon. and hon. Members are sensible and diligent Members of this House, we have to ensure that everybody who might be at threat or at risk has the information that they need in order to make informed decisions. That is why, on a number of fronts, we will up our game and ensure that all the necessary information is provided to the people who need it. My hon. Friend’s point about the toolkit is a really good one, and I will take it away, consider it and come back to him. I am grateful to him for his contribution. \p Thomas Tugendhat: I shall begin, if I may, by saying to the Minister: you’re welcome. It is a pleasure to hear his statement today and to hear the areas where he is taking things forward. I particularly welcome the update on connected devices. There are a few other areas where connected devices are very real. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) spoke from the Dispatch Box about vehicles, which are intelligence-gathering platforms on wheels when they are made in Beijing and shipped over here, and there is a whole series of other areas where we are seeing this level of threat continue and deepen.

The Minister also spoke about the fact that we need a relationship with China, and I do not disagree with him on that, but it is somewhat insulting when the Chancellor goes to Beijing and comes back with £600 million of investment over five years. Frankly, that is peanuts. Chinese foreign direct investment in the UK is less than 0.2%, according to the Government’s own trade and investment figures. We need to look at where we can compensate for that dependency, perhaps by increasing  US FDI by 1%, which would be almost double the Chinese investment. We need to look around the world at alternatives. We also need to be clear eyed about the threats, and I reiterate the point that my hon. Friend made from the Dispatch Box: we need to place China on the enhanced tier of FIRS. \p Dan Jarvis: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his points and the advice that he has offered previously. His points about connected devices and vehicles are well made, and I can give him an absolute assurance that we consider them very carefully. He made a point about engagement and referenced the Chancellor’s visit. I can assure him that all Ministers and officials who visit China will deliver a coherent and strong set of messages about our concerns with regard to our national security. I said earlier that the Foreign Secretary had spoken specifically about these matters with her Chinese counterpart on 6 November. She was absolutely clear with the Foreign Minister that any activity that threatens UK national security would not be tolerated, so I can give the right hon. Gentleman and the House an absolute assurance that, even where there are engagement activities that might, on the face of it, relate to other areas of Government business, there will be a consistency about the messaging.

The right hon. Gentleman will know, though, from his time in government that in addition to the areas of co-operation and areas where there is a requirement to engage that I listed earlier, both within departmental responsibilities that sit in the Home Office, there is often merit in engaging with China on a range of matters that are not necessarily particularly well understood. We need to have that constructive engagement with the country, but it needs to be underpinned by a desire to enhance and preserve our national security, and that is the approach that I will always take. \p Emily Darlington: First, I thank the Minister for the strength of his message about our efforts to stop the transnational repression of our constituents, including the Hongkongers in Milton Keynes. Can we continue to have a dialogue about how my constituents continue to feel unsafe in the UK? I want to raise an issue that goes alongside the Speaker’s Conference, which is how we protect and defend our democracy in the online world, particularly from foreign state actors and their proxies and non-state actors who use the online environment to destabilise our democracy. Will the Minister meet me to talk about the amendments that I am preparing for the elections Bill to ensure that we protect ourselves from online threats just as much as we do from offline threats? \p Dan Jarvis: Let me reiterate what I said previously about how completely unacceptable it is that any transnational repression takes place in this country. The Government will continue to stand with and support members of the Hong Kong community who have relocated here to the UK. My hon. Friend is right to raise the important work done by the Speaker’s Conference. At the most recent meeting of the defending democracy taskforce, we looked carefully at the recommendations. A lot of positive work has been done, and we want to work closely with Mr Speaker to deliver where we can on the recommendations.

My hon. Friend is also right to raise the importance of the online environment, and these are conversations that I am having with colleagues across Government, including in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. On her point about a meeting, she will understand that that particular piece of legislation is a Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government lead, but I will make sure that she gets a meeting with the relevant Minister, whether that is myself or a colleague in the other Department. \p Clive Jones: In Wokingham, we have a really strong Hong Kong community, and they tell me regularly how concerned they are about the growing threat of Chinese espionage and China’s influence in our politics. Many of them have bounties levied on their heads. What is the Minister doing to ease the concerns in our Hong Kong community, especially among my constituents, and what is he doing to protect them and our institutions? \p Dan Jarvis: That is an entirely fair and reasonable point. Let me give the hon. Gentleman a reassurance, further to what I have already said today and on other occasions. The Government will continue to stand with and support members of the Hong Kong community who have relocated here to the UK. I recently met members of that community myself, specifically to discuss their concerns. The defending democracy taskforce is doing a lot of work on our response to transnational repression, but if the hon. Gentleman has any further concerns, I would be happy to meet him to discuss them further. \p Julian Lewis: Do the Government accept that China is a bad faith actor whose basic technique can be summed up by a single phrase: buy influence and build dependency? Is that not exactly what has happened in our universities? \p Dan Jarvis: The right hon. Gentleman speaks with great authority on this matter, and he will know that I am limited in the way in which I can describe the nature of the relationship. I have given him the characterisation that I think is appropriate. We have to be pragmatic in the world that we live in. We have to do what we can to secure our national security, while at the same time ensuring that we are engaging in a way that is advantageous to our country and our economy. Any Government—the previous one and this one—have to balance those sometimes competing interests, but this Government will do it in a way that always ensures that we safeguard our national security. \p Iain Duncan Smith: I have great respect for the Minister. However, listening to what he has said today about the China espionage case, which follows the collapsed spy case, the Christine Lee case and the other spying that took place here in the House, does he not look back and think that it is peculiar? We now have Hongkongers here in the UK with bounties on their heads who are being threatened daily by China and dragged into illegal police stations. He talked about all the other things: threats to our democracy, threats to our industry, cyber threats through the internet of things, threats to our universities, and threats to our MPs who are sanctioned  and who have to face these challenges daily. Does that not make a mockery of the idea that China is not a continuing threat, and of the fact that it is not in the upper tier of FIRS, as my hon. Friend the shadow Minister called for? Surely it is time for that to happen. The No. 1 priority for a Government is the defence of the realm. Balancing priorities does not trump defence of the realm. \p Dan Jarvis: I have a lot of respect for the right hon. Gentleman, who has engaged with these matters consistently for a number of years, and rightly so. We have today announced a comprehensive set of measures, but I have been clear about the Government’s willingness to go further where required. I have also been clear on this and previous occasions about the nature of the threat and the Government’s concerns about it. He is right that the defence of the realm is the most important job of any Government, but we must also be honest about the fact that we need to engage with China. We must therefore engage on our terms and in a way that is advantageous to us.

I know that the right hon. Gentleman has a long-standing interest in the embassy, and he knows what my response about that will be. I understand his point about FIRS; he will have heard the response that I have already given. I hope that, despite the concerns he has expressed, he acknowledges that we take these matters seriously and are doing everything we can to address the nature of the threat. \p Jeremy Wright: I welcome a great deal of what the Minister said in his statement. As I am sure he agrees, just as we know that China can simultaneously represent a national security threat and economic opportunity, China knows it too. That means that—even if it were not the right thing to do in and of itself, which of course it is—standing up for our national security is unlikely to prejudice any international trading relationship that we seek to pursue with China, because China respects strength.

May I ask the Minister for help on one specific question in relation to the embassy? I know that he respects the role of the Intelligence and Security Committee. He knows that that Committee is relied upon by this House to provide judgment on matters in which intelligence is involved and the House cannot do so itself. The embassy is clearly one such matter. If the Government seek to make a decision on that before Christmas—he may not be able to say whether that is still the case—will he ensure that the ISC has all the material we need to make a judgment on behalf of the House? As yet, we do not have it. \p Dan Jarvis: I often find myself in violent agreement with the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who makes good points in a reasonable way. It is not necessarily for me to talk about the nature of our diplomatic relationship with China, because, as he will understand, that is an issue on which the Foreign Office leads, but he is right in his characterisation of our approach. I believe in being straight with this House and with the countries that we deal with. He is right that it does not in any way disadvantage us to be straightforward and strong. That is why I have chosen the language that I have used today very carefully to indicate the strength of feeling about the nature of the threat that we face.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman made an entirely reasonable point about the embassy. I will not bore him and the House with further discussion about it being a quasi-judicial decision that will be made by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, although that is clearly the case. There is an important role for the ISC in considering the nature of the decision. At the appropriate moment, when we are able to do so, I will ensure that his Committee is properly briefed on that issue. \p Christine Jardine: I welcome the Minister’s comments and repeat the calls for China to be added to FIRS. I have specific concerns about Edinburgh and Scotland in general. One relates to our energy security given the continuing lack of clarity about what is to happen to Mingyang and whether, if it is to take part in the construction of the offshore wind farm in the North sea, mitigations will be in place to prevent it from having on/off switches.

We have a large Chinese consulate in Edinburgh West. My constituents are concerned about the size of the dishes on the roof and about activity there. Having myself been subjected to filming while speaking at a Hong Kong rally, I am concerned about the security of Hong Kong nationals in Edinburgh. With the Scottish elections coming up next year, can the Minister reassure me that there have been discussions with the devolved authorities to ensure that they are aware of the continued and increasing threat posed by Chinese espionage? \p Dan Jarvis: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who makes important points about her great city. I can give her an assurance that there is such engagement, but I will reflect on the points that she makes and consider whether we need to do more. She will acknowledge that I referred specifically to the devolved Assemblies in my opening remarks, but if she thinks that we could and should be doing more, I would be very happy to have that conversation with her. \p John Hayes: This is a welcome statement from the Security Minister, whom I hold in high regard, as does the House. He will be familiar with the report on China produced by the ISC—of which I was and remain a member—which dealt with exactly the matters that he has described: the widespread penetration of our universities, the theft of intellectual property and the attempt to compromise our democratic institutions. Will he add to his list a review of contracts with China—public sector contracts, Government contracts and so on—particularly those relating to sensitive matters? He said that he was a plain-speaking man, so, mindful of the collapse of the recent trial, will he do the simple task of saying from the Dispatch Box that China is a threat to our national security? \p Dan Jarvis: I am always grateful to the right hon. Gentleman—one of my predecessors—for his contributions, to which I listen very carefully. On his final point, he knows precisely what the Government’s line is with regard to China. He makes a good point about the contribution of the ISC. I hope that members of that Committee understand and recognise the importance that we attach to their work. We intend to have regular contact with the Committee, including in the near future.  He makes an entirely reasonable point about contracts; I will take that away, undertake to look at it and come back to him privately with a response. \p Andrew Murrison: 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? \p Dan Jarvis: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, as I always am. I am conscious that I have now been joined on the Treasury Bench by the Foreign Secretary, so I will have to be extremely careful about how I characterise the relationship with China. I hope it will provide some reassurance to the right hon. Gentleman if I say that the Government will bring forward a critical minerals strategy. It will be led by the Department for Business and Trade but there will be significant input from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. I hope that he understands how seriously we take these matters. I understand why he characterises the relationship in the way that he does, but I know that, as a former Minister himself, he will understand that there is a degree of practical reality about how we manage that relationship. Yes, we ensure that we underpin our national security, but we must engage in other areas. It is important that we do that in a clear-eyed way, and that is how the Government will proceed. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. I encourage the remaining Members to ask short questions and the Minister to give short answers. There is an important statement and a very heavily subscribed debate to come. \p Chris Law: Our devolved nations, local authorities and educational institutions are not being made adequately aware of the risks that China poses, as is evidenced in Sunday’s report by David Leask. The Minister has mentioned briefings with devolved Governments, guidance for candidates and a closed event with university vice-chancellors, but will he ensure that those are not one-off events, and that they will be continual and offer up-to-date information from this day forward? Will he meet me and the SNP group urgently? \p Dan Jarvis: I can give the hon. Member the assurance he seeks in terms of our desire to work closely with the devolved Administrations. That is absolutely the way in which I want to proceed, as I said in response to the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) a moment ago. Of course I would be happy to meet with him and his group. \p Mark Pritchard: 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? \p Dan Jarvis: The right hon. Member makes an important point about leaking, which is something I take very seriously as the Minister responsible for the Government security group. I can give him an assurance. I hope that the package of measures we have brought forward conveys the strength of feeling and how seriously we take these issues. As he always does, he made a number of other really useful and constructive points. Rather than come back to him now, I will look carefully at them and consider them further. \p Richard Tice: It is not a coincidence that, just a few weeks after the collapse of the China spy case, MI5 is issuing this major espionage alert. China smells weakness. With regard to the embassy, while the Minister says it is a decision for another Minister, the reality is that it is a strategically important decision by this Government on behalf of the British people. Does he understand that the British people will be shocked if planning consent is granted, and China will again smell weakness? \p Dan Jarvis: This is a strong package of measures we have announced today, but I have also been crystal clear about our determination to act further where necessary. That is the right approach. It will mean we are best able to guard our national security, while at the same time engaging with China on other areas of policy, including illegal migration. \p Alison Griffiths: The Minister stresses the importance of mindset, so can he tell me whether it was a failure of mindset that underpinned the failure to secure the prosecution of two alleged Chinese agents? Why should parliamentarians now trust that he has the mindset to keep us safe? \p Dan Jarvis: As I said in the House yesterday, and as I hope the hon. Lady and other Members will understand, those decisions were not taken by the Government; they were taken independently by the Crown Prosecution Service, which is rightly independent of Government. The Government have today brought forward a strong package of measures, and I hope that she and her colleagues will support them. \p Tom Gordon: I have previously mentioned that the Joint Committee on Human Rights report on transnational repression specifically singled out China for having the most comprehensive TNR campaign in the UK of any country.  The report called for China to be on the enhanced tier of FIRS. If all the actions the Chinese Government are taking—the espionage, the bounties on people’s heads and the clear attempts to subvert democracy—do not qualify them to be on that enhanced tier, does that not undermine the scheme? \p Dan Jarvis: First, let me say that I very much appreciate the work of the hon. Member’s Committee, and specifically the report it published on transnational repression, to which we responded fully. I understand why he makes the point about FIRS. He knows what the Government’s position is at this particular moment, and I spelt it out earlier: FIRS is an important tool, and we will carefully consider how best to use it. \p John Cooper: 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? \p Dan Jarvis: Sun Tzu said a number of things, and perhaps they lend themselves to a debate all of its own. I am not aware of the specific point the hon. Member made, but I am happy to look into it if that would be helpful. \p Richard Foord: According to media reports, administrators at Sheffield Hallam University told a professor of Chinese studies that she would have to abandon her research. That followed a separate defamation lawsuit against Sheffield Hallam University, as was reported by the BBC. I appreciate that the Minister cannot comment on the specifics of that case, but will the Government do more to support universities in resisting so-called SLAPPs—strategic lawsuits against public participation? \p Dan Jarvis: It is worth my being clear about the importance this Government attach to academic freedom. We are incredibly proud of our universities, and as a Yorkshire MP, I am incredibly proud of Sheffield Hallam University, as I am of Sheffield University. That is, in part, why we made these announcements today and why we will be holding an event that provides a very good opportunity to engage with vice-chancellors, look carefully at the nature of the challenges they are facing and support them in responding to those challenges. \p Ben Obese-Jecty: Madam Deputy Speaker,

“The hon. Gentleman knows the answer: we are looking carefully at whether other countries should be added to the enhanced tier, but we will take that decision in due course and bring it forward in the normal way.”—[Official Report, 20 October 2025; Vol. 773, c. 638.]

That is what the Security Minister said when I asked him for the fourth time last month why China is not included within the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. So I will ask the Minister for the fifth time in as many months, and I am hoping he will offer some clarity this time. Given the range of measures  he has just announced, what would it take for the Government to deem China to be a threat, and when will he assess whether China should be added to the enhanced tier? \p Dan Jarvis: I admire the hon. Gentleman’s perseverance and patience on this issue. Unfortunately, I am going to disappoint him by referring him to the answer I gave previously. \p Jim Allister: May I take the Minister back to devolved issues? In the case of Northern Ireland, international trade, quite rightly, is a reserved matter, yet last Wednesday in Belfast, the Chinese Government, no less, hosted a major investment conference in collaboration with the local Department for the Economy, with 120 Chinese companies, including Huawei, ZTE and BYD. At the conclusion of it, they signed a strategic co-operation framework agreement with Invest NI. How is that possible when international trade is a reserved matter? Will this Government finally closely examine the operation of the Stormont Executive and their collaborations with China? \p Dan Jarvis: I was in the hon. and learned Member’s part of the world just a couple of weeks ago. We take very seriously the importance of engaging with the devolved Administrations. I will look carefully at the points he has made and reflect on them, and if he wants to discuss them further, I would be happy to do that. \p Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for his statement; we are greatly encouraged by the steps the Government are taking. I chair an all-party parliamentary group—some Members here are members of it—and we had our website hacked and stories replaced. I have also had conversations that were under surveillance by the Chinese Government while in Northern Ireland, so I am glad the Minister has acknowledged this wide-scale threat. While pouring moneys into security is good, there must be a ramification for trade outcomes where Chinese agents are involved in espionage. The mishandling of the recent court case can never be repeated, and the Government must send the message that our language is set, our defences are raised, and we are not to be trifled with by any foreign powers, certainly not by the Chinese Government. \p Dan Jarvis: I am grateful to the hon. Member, as I always am. I hope he sees the commitment this Government have to ensuring that we are best equipped to engage with the nature of the threats we face. That is precisely why I brought forward this package of measures and why I have been crystal clear about the requirement potentially to go further in certain areas. I hope he sees—if he does not, let me give him an assurance—how seriously we take these matters and our desire to work with Members right across the House and with the devolved Administrations, to do everything we can to guard against the nature of the threat, while at the same time ensuring we engage in a way that is in our national interest. \p Caroline Nokes: I thank the Security Minister for his statement. \p Yvette Cooper: I want to update the House on two of the world’s gravest conflicts—in Gaza and in Sudan—following recent resolutions in the UN and discussions at the G7, and on the action that the UK Government are taking to pursue peace.

First, I turn to Gaza. After two years of the most horrendous suffering, the ceasefire agreement led by President Trump with the support of Qatar, Egypt and Türkiye has been in place for six weeks. Twenty hostages are now home with their loved ones, and the remains of 25 more have been returned so their families can grieve. More aid trucks are entering Gaza. But the ceasefire is highly fragile, and there is still a long journey ahead to implement the commitments made at Sharm el-Sheikh and to get to a lasting peace.

Last night, the UN Security Council passed resolution 2803. The UK voted for this important resolution, which authorises the establishment of an international stabilisation force for Gaza, and transitional arrangements including the board of peace and a Palestinian committee. It underscores the essential need for humanitarian aid and reconstruction, and points the way to a path to Palestinian self-determination and statehood. Crucially, it is supported by the Palestinian Authority, and Arab and Muslim partners in the region and beyond. The resolution is a critical staging post that sustains the unity around President Trump’s 20-point plan.

Momentum must now be maintained. It is essential that an international stabilisation force and trained Palestinian police can be deployed quickly to support the ceasefire and to avoid a vacuum being left that Hamas can exploit. We will also need the urgent formation of a Palestinian committee alongside the board of peace. As we made clear at the UN last night, these transitional arrangements must be implemented in accordance with international law, and respecting Palestinian sovereignty and self- determination. They should strengthen the unity of Gaza and the west bank, and empower Palestinian institutions to enable a reformed Palestinian Authority to resume governance in Gaza, because Palestine must be run by Palestinians.

The work to implement the first phase of the ceasefire agreement must continue. That means work so that Hamas releases the bodies of the remaining three hostages taken in the terrorist attack on 7 October, so that their families can properly grieve. We urgently need a major increase in humanitarian aid, because aid into Gaza is still a trickle rather than a flood. Two weeks ago, I visited warehouses in Jordan holding UK aid for Gaza, including one run by the World Food Programme with enough wheat to feed 700,000 people for a month; yet it still sits there because the Jordanian route into Gaza is still closed. People there told me that there were 30 more warehouses nearby, with food, shelter kits, tents and medical supplies—less than 100 miles from Gaza but still not getting in.

I welcome the very recent improvements in aid flows, and that one more border crossing, Zikim, is now partially open. But it is not nearly enough. We need all land crossings open—including the Rafah border with Egypt—   with longer and consistent hours, and urgent work is needed immediately in all parts of Gaza to rebuild basic public services and to provide shelter as winter draws in. Medical staff must be allowed to enter and leave Gaza freely, and international non-governmental organisations need certainty that they can continue to operate. I spoke to the King of Jordan and to doctors in Amman about a maternity and neonatal field hospital unit that stands ready to be moved into Gaza—but, again, they cannot yet get it in. The Israeli Government can and must remove the restrictions and uncertainty now.

As well as working with the US and others, we are drawing on distinct UK strengths to support a lasting peace. We are providing expertise on weapons decommissioning and ceasefire monitoring, based on the Northern Ireland experience. We are supporting on demining and unexploded ordnance, including with £4 million of new UK funding for the United Nations Mine Action Service, and we are funding to surge in experts, including from British organisations such as the HALO Trust and Mines Advisory Group, whose impressive work I recently saw at first hand. On civil-military co-ordination, we have UK deployments into a dedicated US-led hub for Gaza stabilisation efforts.

Beyond Gaza, stability in the west bank is essential to any sustainable peace, and I am concerned that the PA faces an economic crisis induced by Israeli restrictions that are strangling the Palestinian economy. The Netanyahu Government should be extending, not threatening to end, the arrangements between Israeli and Palestinian banks—arrangements that are crucial to the everyday economy for Palestinians. This is crucial for stability, which is in Israel’s interests too.

The pace of illegal settlement building continues. We have seen further appalling incidents of settler violence during the olive harvest. While I welcome Israeli President Herzog’s expression of concern, the response of the Israeli authorities is still completely insufficient—practically and legally. Tackling settlement expansion and settler violence is vital to protecting a two-state solution, in line with the UK’s historic decision to recognise the state of Palestine.

Let me turn now to Sudan, where the worst humanitarian crisis in the 21st century is still unfolding, right now. The UN humanitarian chief, Tom Fletcher, who has just visited the area, has described it as:

“the epicentre of suffering in the world”

and he is right. Over 30 million people need lifesaving aid. Twelve million have been forced from their homes. Famine is spreading. Cholera and preventable disease are rampant. In El Fasher, following advances by the Rapid Support Forces, there are horrifying scenes of atrocities, with mass executions, starvation, and the systematic use of rape as a weapon of war—horrors so appalling they can be seen from space.

As the United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs has put it, El Fasher is a crime scene. Satellite pictures show discolouration of sand consistent with pools of blood, multiple clusters of objects consistent with piles of human bodies, and the apparent burning of bodies and operations to dispose of bodies in mass graves. Further horrors will yet unfold unless greater action is taken.

A year ago, Britain tabled a resolution at the UN Security Council demanding humanitarian access and civilian protection, but it was shamefully vetoed by Russia. Six months ago, at our London-Sudan conference, the UK brought together international partners and secured £800 million in funding, but the situation continues to deteriorate, including with North Kordofan now under threat and fighting moving to El Obeid.

We need a complete step change in efforts to alleviate the suffering and bring about peace. That means more aid to those in need. The UK has committed over £125 million this year alone, delivering lifesaving support to over 650,000 people—treating children with severe malnutrition, providing water and medicine, and supporting survivors of rape—but the challenge is still access.

The RSF still refuses safe passage to aid organisations around El Fasher. The Sudanese armed forces are bringing in new restrictions that stand to hinder aid. Both sides must allow unhindered passage for humanitarian workers, supplies and trapped civilians. We are urgently pressing for a three-month humanitarian truce to open routes for lifesaving supplies, but aid will not resolve a conflict wilfully driven by the warring parties, so we desperately need a lasting ceasefire underpinned by a serious political process.

At the Manama dialogue conference in Bahrain two weeks ago, I called for the same intense international efforts to address the crisis in Sudan as we have seen around Gaza. At Niagara last week, I joined our G7 partners in calling for an immediate and permanent ceasefire, for the unimpeded access of humanitarian aid, and for external actors to contribute to the restoration of peace and security. We are engaging intensively with the Quad countries—the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United States—which have now together called for an immediate humanitarian truce, and an end to external support and arms that are fuelling conflict. I strongly support Secretary Rubio’s latest comments regarding the need to end the weapons and support that the RSF is getting from outside Sudan.

Last Friday, the UK called a special session of the United Nations Human Rights Council, in which a UK-drafted resolution was passed, securing international consensus for an urgent UN inquiry into alleged crimes in El Fasher, because impunity cannot be the outcome of these horrifying events. We need to ensure that teams can get in to investigate those atrocities and hold the perpetrators to account, and I have instructed my officials to bring forward potential sanctions relating to human rights violations and abuses in Sudan.

The UK will play its full part to ensure that it is the Sudanese people, not any warring party, that determines Sudan’s future. Wars that rage unresolved do not just cause untold harm to civilians; they radiate instability, undermine the security of neighbouring states, and lead migrants to embark on dangerous journeys. We are striving to meet those urgent humanitarian needs, and striving to secure not just the absence of conflict, but the presence of lasting peace. From Gaza to Sudan that can only be done through international co-operation, and through countries coming together for peace. I commend this statement to the House. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the shadow Minister. \p Andrew Rosindell: I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of her statement. His Majesty’s Opposition welcome the passing of the US-drafted resolution at the United Nations Security Council yesterday. The US has shown consistent leadership on the middle east, and for that we are grateful. Hamas must now release the final three deceased hostages. We keep their loved ones, and the families of all the deceased hostages, in the forefront of our thoughts. We cannot even begin to imagine what trauma they have endured.

Key to yesterday’s resolution was a mandate for the International Stabilisation Force, but can the Foreign Secretary set out exactly what Britain’s contribution will be to that force? The Government speak about the need for the force to be deployed quickly, to avoid a potential power vacuum being filled by Hamas. What is Britain’s contribution? Are we looking at technical assistance, the sharing of expertise or intelligence, funding, action on the ground, or all of the above? It is important that the Foreign Secretary is clear and precise about those details. Will she also update the House on which countries are expected to participate, and say what their contributions will be?

Of course, the removal of Hamas from power and their full disarmament are vital if we are to turn this ceasefire into a sustainable end to the conflict and the cycles of violence. Following yesterday’s vote, what practical contribution will the UK make to those efforts? The Foreign Secretary will be aware that there are several points in the US President’s plan specifically on that, so where does the UK dock into those initiatives? Has she identified which areas the UK will focus on as a contribution to the broader transitional day-after plan? Can she at least confirm that a fundamental curriculum and education overhaul in Gaza, and indeed the west bank, will be a key focus? We have seen huge strides elsewhere in the middle east in that domain, and this must now be a moment of reckoning for the curricula in the Occupied Palestinian Territories—that is vital if we are to build a sustainable peace.

On the immediate humanitarian crisis in Gaza, what practical actions is the Foreign Secretary undertaking with the Government of Israel to achieve the surge in aid for innocent civilians that we all want to see? Specifically, which crossings does she believe will need attention? What is the quantum of designated British aid that is not getting over the border into Gaza? Have specific proposals and solutions been conveyed by the British side to Israeli Government counterparts on how to address the bottlenecks that we all want to see resolved?

Turning to the situation in Sudan, in El Fasher and elsewhere we continue to witness atrocities, suffering and human misery beyond words, all in plain sight of a watching world. Accountability must be administered. In the immediate term, the UK should be trying to spearhead a step change in the level of pressure on the warring parties to agree a comprehensive ceasefire. As my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary has argued, we need heavy new sanctions on key operators, and action to deter entities, individuals and businesses whose support continues to sustain the conflict. Will that be forthcoming, and what discussions is the Foreign Secretary having on that with counterparts in the US, the EU, the Sudan quad and others? Will she also  update the House on the Government’s response to US efforts to bring about a humanitarian ceasefire, and say what role Britain is playing in that?

On the dire humanitarian conditions, it was confirmed at the Dispatch Box earlier this month that the shifting of frontiers in the conflict is affecting aid delivery. How has the situation evolved in the past two weeks, and what levers can be pulled to try and smash through obstacles to aid delivery? Finally, on day-after planning, will the Foreign Secretary update the House on efforts to build up the capacity and capabilities of organic civilian political groups, to give Sudan the best chance of moving to stable civilian government after a ceasefire? We have seen what the US has achieved through the UN Security Council on Gaza this week, and I hope that similar initiatives will be possible with regards to Sudan. As penholder, the UK Government have a special responsibility, so will the Foreign Secretary confirm her next steps on the UNSC? As the conflict moves from bad to worse, we must shift gear. \p Yvette Cooper: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his response to the issues relating to Gaza and Sudan, and I will take his points in turn. We do not expect the UK to contribute troops to the international stabilisation force, but we are already providing military and civilian deployment into the civil-military co-ordination committee that is led by the US. It is drawing up practical arrangements for implementing the 20-point plan. On the nature of the role that we expect to continue to play, we already provide training for Palestinian police, for example, and I have met US military forces who are involved in that training. I met them in Jordan, and other countries are also offering to provide such training for Palestinian police, which will be critical to maintaining security and safety. We have also offered expertise on decommissioning. That is an area where, through the Northern Ireland experience, we have experience and expertise, mostly immediately around de-mining capabilities in terms of both funding and expertise.

The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of curriculum reform, which I agree needs to take place. That is a crucial part of the Palestinian Authority reforms, and I have discussed that directly with President Abbas. The importance of maintaining the commitments that the Palestinian Authority has made to curriculum reform must be central in both the west bank and in Gaza. On practical issues about the opening of crossings, we want to see all the crossings opened and restrictions lifted. The co-ordination committee, which has a UK presence, is working directly with the Israeli Government to seek to improve access and monitoring, and to improve arrangements to get more aid through. I continue to urge swifter action to get that desperately needed aid in place.

On Sudan, I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support for sanctions. I have had personal direct discussions with all members of the quad, including most recently the US Secretary of State Marco Rubio last week, and I know how strongly he feels about the terrible, horrendous atrocities that are taking place in Sudan. We will continue to offer our support to that process.

On aid delivery, based on what the UN and Tom Fletcher have been saying, it looks as though some of the routes into the region are currently completely inadequate, so security and infrastructure need to be  provided to get the desperately needed scale of aid into the area. We will need to look at air routes as well as truck routes. He is right to point to the need for the organic support for Sudanese civilian organisations. It is crucial that ultimately we have a transition to a civilian Administration in Sudan and an end to the horrendous fighting, abuse and sexual violence that we have seen, with reports on all sides of those sorts of atrocities taking place.

Finally, US leadership has been incredibly important in achieving the ceasefire agreement and the peace process so far in Gaza, but it has also depended on the international community coming in alongside the US and working together to deliver the progress so far. We need that same international commitment for Sudan and we need the whole international community to pull together to deliver progress in the same way. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Chair of the International Development Committee. \p Sarah Champion: This morning, Members received a private briefing on Sudan, at which one of the academics stated:

“El Fasher is a slaughter house. Our low estimate is 60,000 people have been killed there in the last three weeks.”

That would make it the biggest atrocity crime since the 1990s. These are civilians, not soldiers, and this is not about conflict; it is about genocide. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has been briefed on the likelihood of a mass-casualty event for years. In November 2021, the FCDO was publicly warned of a likely genocide. The recent Independent Commission for Aid Impact report concluded that last year, officials took “the least ambitious option” on civilian protection. I say to the Foreign Secretary that scrutiny and diplomatic surge can slow down this slaughter, so are we leading the 25 states who signed the joint statement on 11 November to work together to put pressure on the United Arab Emirates? Why has our atrocity prevention team not been surged? Tawila now needs to be our focus of our protection. What are the evacuation plans to protect up to 650,000 people from genocide? The Sudanese civilians need a champion. As UN penholder, will that be us? \p Yvette Cooper: I thank my hon. Friend for her work and that of her Committee on this issue. She is right to point out the truly horrendous nature of what is happening in Sudan and the atrocities that we have heard about. People have been executed in the middle of a maternity hospital and lives are being lost at scale, and the fact that so few people are emerging from the area makes it deeply troubling to consider what more we may discover. Because I am so deeply concerned, I have raised the issue not just at the Manama dialogue, but at every international discussion that we have been having with foreign ministers, and directly with all members of the Quad, including the UAE and the US, as well as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, as we need urgent action. I agree with my hon. Friend that this is also about preventing further atrocities, which are at risk of happening at any moment if we do not have that urgent action. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Calum Miller: I thank the Foreign Secretary for advanced sight of her statement, which I welcome.

The Foreign Secretary is right that the scale of the humanitarian catastrophe in Sudan is horrendous, as are accounts of systematic murder, rape and torture, often targeted at civilians from specific ethnic groups, and, in particular, the widespread use of sexual violence towards women and girls. The UK has a special responsibility as the penholder for Sudan at the UN. We must be relentless in pursuing true protection for civilians, so will the Foreign Secretary update the House with her assessment of the role of external actors in supporting the warring parties? Will she lead efforts at the UN to secure and implement a country-wide arms embargo? How will the UK ensure that the UN inquiry that she referred to can gather evidence, so that those actors, both inside and outside Sudan, who are responsible for these atrocities are held to account?

Turning to the middle east, last night’s UN Security Council resolution marks an important step forward, and I hope that it will reinforce the fragile ceasefire in Gaza. However, vital details are missing from the resolution. What will be the remit and scope of the international stabilisation force? How will Hamas be disarmed? How will those responsible for atrocities in Gaza be held accountable, and how does the Foreign Secretary envisage that a Palestinian committee will ensure that Palestinian self-determination is respected?

The resolution focuses on Gaza, but we desperately need a clear road map to securing a two-state solution. That requires an end to illegal settlements in the west bank and East Jerusalem, and reform of the governance of the Palestinian Authority. How is the UK supporting reforms to the PA, and will the Foreign Secretary today commit to banning all UK trade with illegal settlements? \p Yvette Cooper: I welcome the response by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. I agree with him about the importance of an arms embargo around Sudan, and about ensuring that it is properly implemented. It is deeply disturbing that weapons are still being supplied to the RSF, despite the atrocities, and that there are still weapon flows to all sides. That means that there are immensely serious issues, including around borders, access and routes, that we need to continue to pursue through international pressure.

The hon. Gentleman raised a point about the investigations. The UN Human Rights Council resolution that the UK drafted with partners provides for the UN-led investigation of these atrocities, but that will be scant comfort to anyone if there is not also the urgently needed action to prevent further atrocities. There must be accountability, but there must also be urgent action to prevent atrocities in the first place.

On Gaza, work is under way to constitute the International Stabilisation Force. Some countries are prepared to come forward and contribute, and crucially the mandates were provided last night. The ISF must operate in line with international law. Further details of how the new Palestinian committee will operate need to be developed, and we want it to be constituted as rapidly as possible. Also, we must see an end to illegal settlements. We need to rebuild the connections between the west bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, so that we can  have a Palestinian state, in which people live in peace and security, alongside the Israeli state. That is the only way that we will get to peace for both. \p Anneliese Dodds: On Sudan, I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s comments about potential additional sanctions and aid access, but surely, given the nightmarish reports, we need to go far further if we are to do what she has committed to doing—if we are to prevent further atrocities, and prevent impunity for perpetrators. Will she push the Quad to pressure the RSF to do two things: first, to allow International Criminal Court forensic teams and the media into El Fasher and on to other key sites; and secondly, to allow the International Committee of the Red Cross access to detainees, given that they seem to be routinely subject to torture and mass execution? \p Yvette Cooper: My right hon. Friend has been raising her deep concerns and championing these issues for some time, including in her work to deliver the London Sudan conference, which took place last year. She asks a series of questions about the ICC forensic teams and the ICRC, and I agree with her. \p Andrew Mitchell: I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement, but she will know that, in plain sight of the international community, a slaughter of immense proportions is taking place in El Fasher. There have been clear and present warnings and evidence that this is ethnic cleansing, far worse than anything that took place in Srebrenica, and as the Foreign Secretary made clear in her statement, it is spreading outwards. This is a specific UK responsibility at the United Nations. Does she agree that it is essential that she and the Prime Minister hit the phones, speak to those at the African Union and in senior UN countries, and use our position to lobby President Trump to act? On solemn occasions each year, we piously intone—including in this place—“never again”. Does she agree that it is happening again, in plain sight before our eyes, and there is no effective plan to end it? \p Yvette Cooper: The right hon. Member has been a champion of the people of Sudan in the face of the most intense suffering for a long time. I agree that there is simply not yet the kind of urgent plan for Sudan that we desperately need. Bluntly, for far too long, the international community has failed and turned its back. The UK put forward the resolution, which has now been fully agreed at the Human Rights Council; when we sought to put a resolution on similar issues to the Security Council a year ago, it was vetoed by Russia. We have sought to increase aid, but that is simply not sufficient if aid cannot get in because of the continuing conflict. When it comes to Sudan, we need the same sustained, intense effort across the international community that rightly went into securing peace in Gaza. It can at least start with a humanitarian truce. That is urgently needed. I can assure the right hon. Member that this is a topic in every phone call that I am having, not just with those in the Quad, but more widely. \p David Taylor: I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), the Chair of the Select Committee—of which I am a member—and the remarks of others who have spoken about the horrors  unfolding in front of our eyes. We have heard reports that Tawila is next. There are 650,000 people there, including desperate civilians, and probably also aid workers who are British citizens. I also associate myself with the remarks made by the former International Development Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell). What more can we do to help protect civilians from harm right now? I hope that the ceasefire negotiations that the Foreign Secretary is doing so much to try to bring about include us looking seriously at some kind of peacekeeping force to protect civilians from harm. \p Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend has championed this issue for a long time, and I thank him for his continuing work on the Select Committee. Like him, I am deeply worried that Tawila will be next if there is not concerted action to pull the warring parties back from the brink, halt the RSF advances, and ensure a humanitarian truce that is at least long enough to get humanitarian aid in and civilians out. Frankly, though, we need an end to this horrendous conflict. As we have seen in Gaza, it is only when a huge international effort comes together that we can make progress. We urgently need to ensure that happens. \p Richard Foord: Earlier this month, the Foreign Secretary announced additional funding for Sudan, including £2 million for survivors of rape and sexual violence. However, yesterday, this House debated ending spending £2 billion on asylum hotels in the UK—that is what they cost the UK taxpayer. When might we get back to spending less official development assistance in the UK, and more of it in the region, where it would help more people in desperate need, and keep them from fleeing to Europe? \p Yvette Cooper: As the hon. Member knows, we have already taken steps to make savings on asylum hotels, and yesterday the Home Secretary announced further reforms to the asylum system. We clearly need to end asylum hotels altogether, and to stop spending taxpayers’ money on this broken system. We need to make sure that we can invest in aid and prevention. The Italian Prime Minister has talked about ensuring that people have a “right not to migrate” by preventing conflict closer to home. Most immediately, though, the hon. Member referred to survivors of rape and sexual violence. This has escalated in the most horrendous way in recent years, and we are funding additional action to tackle rape and its use as a weapon of war. We will need to increase that work. \p Afzal Khan: As the fighting has engulfed El Fasher and severe food insecurity has spread across Darfur, women and girls have experienced extreme hunger, displacement, death, and sexual and gender-based violence. What steps is the UK taking with its regional and international partners to protect and support civilians and, in particular, women and girls who are at risk? \p Yvette Cooper: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is deeply disturbing that despite the UK having raised the issue of sexual violence in war over very many decades, we have seen it increase in recent years. We want to strengthen the work being done internationally, both through the UN and more broadly, to tackle sexual  violence in conflict. Most urgently, though, that means action to prevent this conflict, and calling for all parties to the war in Sudan to respect international law. \p Julian Lewis: On Gaza, will the Government consider making representations to the Israelis about the fact that it does Israel’s reputation no good, and does not help the BBC World Service to report accurately, if external journalists are not allowed into the Gaza strip? Now that the fighting has diminished, the excuse for not allowing that access has disappeared.

Turning to the RSF, I note that the Foreign Secretary referred to Secretary Rubio’s comments about the need to end the supply of weapons and support to the RSF. Can she explain to the House who mainly is supplying those weapons and that support? \p Yvette Cooper: On Gaza, I agree completely with the right hon. Member. Journalists must be allowed into Gaza; we need accurate reports. I am worried about the scale of devastation that we will then see, but it is essential that journalists are able to get in and verify that.

On the issue of the RSF, work done by the UN has identified a range of different routes and sources for arms. It is important that not only the Quad members, but other players, of whom the right hon. Member is probably aware, are held to account and involved in ensuring that arms do not get into Sudan. \p Laura Kyrke-Smith: I thank the Foreign Secretary for her work, and for the update on Sudan and Gaza. I was really glad to hear her talk about the west bank, because while we hope that a fragile peace is taking hold in Gaza, the opposite is true on the west bank. Last month, the UN recorded 260 attacks by settlers on Palestinians, including olive farmers. That is the highest rate of settler violence we have seen since the UN started collecting records in 2006. The Foreign Secretary rightly said that the Israeli Government’s response has been completely insufficient, but what more will she do to press them to rein in these deadly, illegal attacks? \p Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right. The olive harvest is particularly important to the Palestinian people, both economically and culturally, and we are clear that the settler violence must end. As she knows, we have introduced sanctions on particular Israeli Ministers as a result of some of the things that we have seen around the west bank. We will continue to maintain pressure and take action against settler violence and illegal settlements on the west bank. \p Brian Mathew: I welcome the statement, but why is the FCDO’s atrocity prevention team not working with the Sudan team? Our briefing this morning gave a minimum estimate of 60,000 murdered thus far by the RSF in El Fasher, with bodies being buried by bulldozers. El Obeid is likely to be next, and Tawila camp is expected to be attacked on Christmas day. This is the worst human atrocity since Rwanda. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary need to call it out for what it is—mass murder—engage with the UAE to see it stopped, and end trade if it is not. \p Yvette Cooper: Like the hon. Gentleman, I am worried about El Obeid and Tawila and preventing further atrocities. I have discussed the issues in Sudan and the huge humanitarian risks with the UAE and other members of the Quad. It is essential that we maintain maximum pressure through the Quad and beyond from the whole international community. I know that the US, which is also part of the Quad, is extremely keen to do that. \p Rachael Maskell: I thank the Foreign Secretary for the focus she is putting on Sudan. We know from the horrific bloodshed in El Fasher that the RSF has got its sights, as we have heard, on Tawila and then on Khartoum itself. We have got to stop those atrocities from occurring. We know that the conflict is being fuelled by the supply of mercenaries and weapons via the UAE, including Chinese drones. Can she set out a bit more detail on the talks she is having with the UAE to stop that supply? \p Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right that we need to look at the issues around the weapons, but this is not just about addressing the weapons supplies; we also must put pressure on the warring parties. I have held discussions with all the members of the Quad: the UAE, the US, which is seeking to drive the process around peace, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. It is hugely important not just that all the Quad countries are involved, but that other countries, including neighbouring countries that have borders with Sudan, are involved. We have seen issues with weapons being transferred from those countries. We must involve countries much more widely across the world, ensure an international concerted effort on weapons and put pressure on the warring parties to refrain, to abide by international law and to agree to the humanitarian truce. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. Given that the next debate is heavily subscribed, I thought it would be helpful to indicate to Members that I will finish the statement at about 3 pm. \p Kit Malthouse: 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? \p Yvette Cooper: I just point out to the right hon. Gentleman that this Government are the first to take the historic decision to recognise the state of Palestine. That was taken exactly because for too long successive Governments have supported a two-state solution and yet recognised only one state. We believe it is right to change that and to recognise the state of Palestine. It is why we have been in continued discussion with the Palestinian Authority, who have welcomed the UN resolution and the peace process and have been involved in detailed discussions with the Arab states, too.

The right hon. Gentleman is right to talk about the detainees, those who have lost their lives and the tens of thousands of Palestinians who have lost their lives in Gaza as a result of the war over the past two years. It is also right that we recognise the huge damage that Hamas have done, including through their terrorist attack on 7 October. We need to address all the suffering that has taken place across Gaza and across the region if we are to bring people together to deliver a lasting peace. That is what the current process is working to do, and it is what we are working to do as part of it. There will be difficulties and challenges ahead. It will be complicated, but we need to continue that work. \p Harpreet Uppal: Given the reports of thousands of civilians being prevented from fleeing El Fasher by the RSF and allied militias, what urgent steps are the Government taking to ensure that there are safe humanitarian corridors to support unimpeded access for aid agencies? That is a particular issue we heard about this morning in the private briefing. What more can we do to ensure that we are holding international backers to account—not only the UAE, but across the region? \p Yvette Cooper: The UN Human Rights Council resolution that the UK drew up and that was passed on Friday includes the urgent need for humanitarian access, as well as the investigation of the atrocities and the ability to hold people to account. The other important issue is that the Quad—the US, the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Egypt—has now committed to the humanitarian truce, to a ceasefire and to ending external support to warring parties. It is essential that we all work to implement the commitment that the Quad has set out and ensure that there is huge international pressure to get that peace in place. \p Brendan O'Hara: This morning, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on international law, justice and accountability, I hosted a briefing for parliamentarians on the crisis in Sudan, at which Nathaniel Raymond of the humanitarian research lab at Yale described El Fasher as a slaughterhouse, where 60,000 people have been murdered in just three weeks. Those same Yale scholars now forecast that by Christmas, the RSF will be in Tawila, where hundreds of thousands of civilians could face a similarly appalling fate. Everybody at the meeting agreed that what has been missing is the Prime Minister’s personal leadership on this issue. Will the Foreign Secretary encourage the  Prime Minister to become personally involved and show that vital international leadership which could prevent Tawila becoming another slaughterhouse? \p Yvette Cooper: I am not only worried about Tawila; I am also deeply worried that the full scale of the atrocities in El Fasher may yet prove to be even worse than has been reported and commented on so far.

On the Prime Minister’s engagement with this issue, I say to the hon. Gentleman that when I was appointed to this role, as well as in the months before that, the Prime Minister personally highlighted the importance of Sudan as one of the central areas that needed UK Government and FCDO focus, because of the scale of the atrocities. That included the work to lead the London Sudan conference in April this year. Before many people were raising concerns about Sudan, this Government were consistently highlighting the humanitarian risks, but the situation is still getting worse and we need international support for action. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. Please may I encourage short questions from Members, as well as short answers from the Foreign Secretary? \p Stella Creasy: I thank the Foreign Secretary for her strong and principled leadership about conflict resolution. Can she update us on the international stabilisation force? She will be aware of the heavy rains and flooding in Gaza. She is absolutely right about the importance of getting food in, but there are reports that the Israelis are blocking mobile homes and tents. Could she say more about what we are doing when they say that a dry night is a luxury? On the investigation of war crimes, clearly the future of Gaza will also be about a truth and reconciliation process. Will the ISF play any role in that? \p Yvette Cooper: The need for shelter is becoming particularly acute as we move towards winter. Some of the warehouses I saw in Jordan, for example, have winter supplies in them, including tents and shelter. Of course, a much bigger reconstruction effort will be needed to restore homes properly for Palestinians across Gaza. We continue to urge the lifting of restrictions on tents and equipment, and we will continue to do so. This is an issue that the Civil-Military Co-ordination Centre is also raising.

My hon. Friend is right to raise issues around accountability, but I am sure she will agree that the most immediate issue is to ensure that the peace is in place. The immediate task of the international stabilisation force will be to sustain and monitor peace in Gaza, so that the IDF can withdraw from Gaza. \p David Mundell: I very much welcome the Foreign Secretary’s proactive statement, and I hope that will be the pattern of engagement with Parliament going forward. In addition to the horrendous atrocities that she and others have detailed, the World Food Programme has identified that 700,000 people face catastrophic hunger conditions in the coming months in Sudan, so we really need that step change, but we need some evidence of it.  Can she be clear that the exchanges with the UAE have been robust and that there are real efforts to engage the African Union? \p Yvette Cooper: The right hon. Member is right to talk about the extreme hunger—the famine—taking place. In fact, I have seen worse figures suggesting that 8 million people are at risk of famine in Sudan. That is the equivalent of the population of London; there are that many people at serious risk. That is why he is right to talk about the issues in terms of the RSF and humanitarian access. The SAF has also been restricting humanitarian aid access and trying to introduce greater restrictions, so we need all sides to understand the vital importance of all those civilians across Sudan being able to get basic food. \p Martin Rhodes: I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s reference to the west bank in her statement. Others have made reference to the highest levels of attacks by settlers on Palestinians in the area. Will the Government now consider taking the step that other European countries are taking of banning all trade with illegal settlements? \p Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend will know that my predecessor had already taken steps to halt the free trade discussions that were under way and to introduce sanctions for particular Israeli Ministers as a result of some of the things that were happening in the west bank. We need to ensure that the peace process under way now for Gaza includes a broader strategy for the west bank. We want to see that as part of this peace process, and as part of the work of the board of peace, and that is where we will be pursuing action. \p Layla Moran: I am struck by the number of my constituents who, unprompted, will raise how weak international law seems to be at holding those accountable in Gaza, Sudan and elsewhere to account for the atrocities they commit. This is a moment where we must bolster international law, not undermine it. My question to the Foreign Secretary is this: what has happened to the UK response to the International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the occupation? She herself in her statement pointed out the stranglehold on banks, that the Palestinian economy is on its knees and that the illegal settlements continue to grow. This is not new; this has been happening for decades. What are we doing about it? We must abide by that opinion. \p Yvette Cooper: The hon. Member will know that we take the advisory position from the International Court of Justice immensely seriously, and we will always look at any issues around international law, including advisory positions. The greatest progress we can make in upholding international law right now is to ensure that the peace process for Gaza, and more broadly for the west bank, remains on track and that we can have a process towards a two-state solution. We made clear as part of our representations at the UN last night that all of this needs to be implemented in line with international law. \p Helen Hayes: The Foreign Secretary spoke in her statement of Israeli restrictions strangling the Palestinian economy. These are not restrictions; they are strategic attempts to undermine the viability of Palestine by illegal settlement, harassment, intimidation, murder and displacement of Palestinians from their land. Illegal settlements are still being fuelled by UK funds through trade in illegal goods and services produced there. That is completely unacceptable. I call on the Foreign Secretary to introduce a full ban on trade in goods from illegal settlements in the west bank, and to extend the sanctions already introduced on organisations like the Israel Land Fund to halt the flow of resources that are making this illegal activity possible. \p Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right to raise the concerns about the scale of the illegal settlements and the way in which they have been expanding, but also about settler violence. I would add to that the withholding of funds to the Palestinian Authority, which are desperately needed. As I say, we have introduced additional sanctions and the restriction of the free trade agreement process. It is critical that, just as progress is being made on Gaza, we ensure that we have a broader process to include the plans for the west bank and a two-state solution. We have continually raised this as part of the discussions, and will continue to do so. It is important that the UN resolution provides clearly for that journey towards Palestinian statehood. It is important that that process has the support of so many countries now, including the US. \p Mark Pritchard: 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? \p Yvette Cooper: On the position of the Israeli Government, we clearly strongly disagree with the Israeli Prime Minister on this. However, I would also say that Israel has signed up to President Trump’s 20-point plan, and it is important that that plan is implemented, which includes recognition of the importance of Palestinian statehood.

On the right hon. Gentleman’s other point, we saw the most overt example of that when Russia vetoed the UK’s resolution on Sudan 12 months ago, which it did openly in the UN. He will know of our continuing concern about Russia’s engagement in a series of  conflicts. \p Paul Waugh: I welcome the leading role that the UK has played at the United Nations, both in trying to corral international action on the slaughter and sexual violence in Sudan, and on the international leadership we have shown in recognising the state of Palestine—an historic recognition, as the Foreign Secretary has acknowledged. I thank her for her personal commitment and action in getting sick and   injured Palestinian children to British hospitals. Given the NHS’s expertise, can she tell us what more the UK can do to rebuild healthcare in Gaza itself? \p Yvette Cooper: I strongly welcome my hon. Friend’s point. In Jordan, I went to the hospital and met some of the doctors who were helping with the transfer of the patients medevaced from Gaza, through Jordan, to the UK, and I thanked them for their support. We will continue to provide that support for sick and injured children. We are working with other neighbouring countries on how best we can support the rebuilding of healthcare in Gaza. That is urgently needed, and it is an area in which we have considerable expertise. \p Shockat Adam: I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement. With regard to Sudan, I agree wholeheartedly that both sides must allow the unhindered passage of humanitarian supplies. However, I do not share her confidence in the US-led plan, simply because the US is directly responsible for and a participant in the war crimes and genocide happening in Gaza. It supplied more than 10,000 tonnes of weapons, and more than 69,000 Palestinians have been killed. Does she agree that this is nothing more than the imposition of an illegal occupation through coercive methods? If this plan is adopted in its present form, it will be a mockery of the entire international legal system, and the United Nations will be acting in direct contradiction of the fundamental tenets of international law. \p Yvette Cooper: It is because of the US-led plan, which is widely supported, including by countries such as Qatar, Türkiye and Egypt in the mediation talks, that we have a ceasefire in Gaza after two years of the most horrendous suffering. President Trump’s leadership and the US’s determination to take the plan forward are immensely important. The UN resolution passed last night had the support of and has been welcomed by the Palestinian Authority and neighbouring Arab and Muslim states. It is important to maintain that unity; we will not get progress if we do not. Ultimately, it is important that we can deliver the two-state solution that this Government are committed to, but we need everyone to work together to deliver that. \p Rebecca Long-Bailey: My constituent was separated from her five-year-old son during the horrors of displacement in Sudan. By a sheer miracle, he made it to Saudi Arabia; he is now staying there temporarily until 1 December, after which time he will be forced to return to Sudan. What can the Foreign Secretary do to support families such as that by way of evacuation pathways or humanitarian schemes? \p Yvette Cooper: I will happily look into the particular case of the constituent that my hon. Friend raises, but there is an urgent need to get humanitarian aid in and to provide safety for those who face the most horrendous circumstances at the moment. She is right that in a situation such as this, with such terrible conflict, families get separated and need the support to reunite. \p Ben Lake: I echo the Foreign Secretary’s horror at the slaughter in El Fasher, and I share her concern that further atrocities will take place unless the international community can secure decisive  intervention. With that in mind, what response has there been to Friday’s resolution from the warring parties? How do the Government, in conjunction with their international partners, intend to apply pressure on the parties to comply with not only the resolution, but international law? \p Yvette Cooper: I say bluntly that the response from the warring parties has been wholly inadequate. Both sides still refuse to deliver the ceasefire that we urgently need or even a humanitarian truce to let aid get in. Words have been put forward, but it is still completely inadequate, given the scale of the humanitarian crisis we face. We will need continued pressure on all warring parties to act. \p Mohammad Yasin: I thank the Foreign Secretary for the increased aid to Sudan and for confirming that no UK military equipment is known to have entered the conflict. As the UN penholder on Sudan, what early discussions have the UK Government had with the ICJ to ensure that those responsible for war crimes—especially against children and women, and including the use of rape as a weapon of war—are brought to justice? \p Yvette Cooper: I welcome the points that my hon. Friend makes about aid and the restrictions on weapons. On the approach we have been taking, let me say that earlier this year we secured the renewal of the UN fact-finding mission, because the first stage is to ensure that there is evidence. Most recently, there is a Human Rights Council resolution on enabling a full UN investigation into the atrocities. It is crucial that we have those investigations so that the international courts can hold people to account. \p Ellie Chowns: I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement. What further concrete steps will she take to increase pressure on Israel to allow humanitarian access for the more than 30 humanitarian NGOs that have been blocked from delivering urgently needed relief and to stop Israel supporting settlement expansion and settler violence? On Gaza, what new concrete actions will the Government take to press those who support the warring parties to stop the slaughter? Specifically, how will she persuade the UAE to put more pressure on the RSF to stop the slaughter? \p Yvette Cooper: In terms of the steps we are taking to get Israel to allow the aid agencies in, we have raised that directly with the Israeli Government and through the CMCC as part of the peace process. Bear in mind that the flooding of Gaza with humanitarian aid was a crucial part of the 20-point plan and the ceasefire agreement that the Israeli Government and Hamas signed up to, so we need to ensure the implementation of that as well as having direct pressure. We continue to raise issues around the settlements.

On Sudan, we continue to engage with all the nations that can have any possible influence on the warring parties in order to seek the peace we desperately need. \p Sarah Smith: I welcome the news of the UN security resolution passed last night, the establishment of the international stabilisation force and the arrangements that will follow for the board of  peace and the Palestinian committee. With a record 260 Israeli settler attacks on the west bank taking place in October alone, does the Foreign Secretary agree that failure by Israel to punish such attacks is inconsistent with international law? What further steps will she take to put pressure on Netanyahu and his Government to stop these attacks? \p Yvette Cooper: I welcome the points that my hon. Friend makes. We obviously have deep concerns about illegal settlements—they are illegal and should not be taking place—and the escalation of settler violence. There is a need for strong Israeli law enforcement action against the settler violence and a withdrawal from this approach to settlements. \p Jeremy Corbyn: May I ask the Foreign Secretary not to link two statements together in one in future, so that we can seriously examine one subject? Is she satisfied that the British arms and equipment sales that go to the United Arab Emirates do not end up in the hands of the RSF or as part of the ghastly conflict in Sudan, which is fundamentally about people trying to grab the mineral resources of that country? Will she assure us that no more British arms are being sold to Israel and that there is no security sharing with Israel while it continues the illegal activities, killings and destruction—even since the so-called ceasefire—of 1,500 buildings in Gaza, until such time as there is a real ceasefire and real peace? \p Yvette Cooper: The right hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the importance of both Sudan and Gaza. I felt that it was urgent to bring both matters forward so that the House could have an update and respond. He will know that we have very strong restrictions on arms sales, but I take this issue immensely seriously. When allegations were raised about three pieces of equipment in Sudan—a seatbelt, an engine part and a shooting target—I ensured that thousands of licences that the UK has were reviewed. There was no evidence of any of the parts that were identified or had allegations made about them being covered by any UK licences. I will continue to ensure that if any concerns or allegations are ever raised, there will be reviews of the licences, because it is immensely important that those restrictions are maintained. Let me also say that we are continuing the restrictions on arms sales to Israel that were set out by my predecessor, the current Deputy Prime Minister. \p Mary Foy: I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement, and for her ongoing efforts to pursue peace.

The rebuilding of Gaza must be Palestinian-led. Civil society and communities in Gaza have led the efforts on the frontline in the face of two years of genocide and   decades of Israeli siege, occupation and military violence. They are the leaders, the experts, and the only ones who can determine their future. Does the Foreign Secretary accept that any initiative that bypasses Palestinians in Gaza in favour of externally imposed initiatives will always fail? \p Yvette Cooper: We continue to take the view that Palestine must be led by Palestinians; that is immensely important. It is therefore important that the Palestinian Authority has supported and welcomed the resolution that was passed by the United Nations, and that the resolution provides for the transfer of Gaza to the Palestinian Authority alongside the west bank. We have also pressed for the Palestinian committee to be set up as swiftly as possible as part of the transition arrangements, so that, again, that Palestinian voice and expertise is heard. \p Sammy Wilson: Let me first draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

The Foreign Secretary is right: peace is fragile in Gaza. The Israeli Government have agreed the 20-point peace plan and the UN resolution, and—despite what she has said—have allowed more than 20,000 truckloads of aid into Gaza since the ceasefire, while at the same time Hamas have refused to accept the resolution, continue to terrorise individuals in the Gaza territory, stockpile weapons and have refused to give up their own weapons. What can she do to ensure that Israel is encouraged in its path towards peace, and Hamas are discouraged in their resolve to continue the conflict? \p Yvette Cooper: As the right hon. Member has said, we have a 20-point plan that both the Israeli Government and Hamas signed up to. It includes the decommissioning of weapons, an issue about which the UK Government feel strongly. It also includes ensuring that Hamas do not play a role in the future governance of Gaza or of Palestine and the Israeli Government ensuring that humanitarian aid is properly restored to Gaza, and also that the IDF can withdraw fully from Gaza. This is an ambitious 20-point plan. We know that there will be difficulties in implementing it, but we also know how incredibly important it is. Only through the international community coming together, and the Israeli Government and Hamas respecting the commitments that they have signed up to, will we make progress, and keep the desperately needed peace for Palestinians and Israelis alike. \p Caroline Nokes: I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement. \p Mark Pritchard: 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. \p Caroline Nokes: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order, and for giving advance notice of it. He will of course be aware that the combination of statements is not a matter for the Chair—the Government determine statements—but I am sure that the Foreign Secretary has heard his comments. \p Alicia Kearns: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Scrutiny in this House requires timely and meaningful engagement by Ministers with shadow Front Benchers, but, disappointingly for me, as the shadow Safeguarding Minister, responses from the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), have been woeful. There has been an average 48-day wait per letter written to her, and, at worst, the longest wait for a response was 97 days. When I chaired the Foreign Affairs Committee, my own Government responded within 10 days to all letters received. What advice can you kindly give, Madam Deputy Speaker, on how we, as Front Benchers, can receive responses in a dutiful and timely manner? \p Caroline Nokes: I thank the hon. Member for her point of order. Members should receive timely responses to their correspondence with Ministers, and it is disappointing to hear that the hon. Lady has experienced such a significant delay. Ministers themselves are responsible for the timeliness of their responses, and I hope that those on the Treasury Bench have heard her concerns and will pass them on to the relevant Department. Members may also wish to raise their concerns with the Leader of the House during business questions every Thursday. \p Seamus Logan: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice. Responses to a number of my written questions from Ministers in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are currently overdue. In total there are 15 written questions—14 to which responses were due by the end of October, and one to which a response was due on 5 November. Six of the 15 were tabled as named day questions. Given that written questions are one of the ways in which Members can hold the Government to account, and with perhaps as many as 100,000 civil servants based in  London, may I ask whether you have any advice on what Members can do when replies from Departments are not forthcoming? \p Caroline Nokes: I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. He is right to say that written questions are an important way in which Members may hold the Government to account. As he will have heard me say earlier, Ministers themselves are responsible for the timeliness of their responses, but I hope that those on the Treasury Bench have heard his concerns and will pass them on to the relevant Department, in this case DEFRA. Both the Leader of the House and the Procedure Committee may also take an interest in these matters, so the hon. Member may wish to raise his concerns with them. \p Helen Maguire: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During my remarks last week I said that Queen Elizabeth’s Foundation for Disabled People had entered administration, but the process has not yet begun. I also noted the loss of 48 NHS beds, although those beds belong to the charity and are occupied by patients referred to it by the NHS. I apologise for any confusion, and take this opportunity once again to share my disappointment that Queen Elizabeth’s Foundation for Disabled People will be closing after 90 years of delivering its vital service.—[Official Report, 13 November 2025; Vol. 775, c. 317.] \p Caroline Nokes: I thank the hon. Lady for giving advance notice of her point of order. She has corrected the record, as she did this time last week, and I hope she will not see this as a regular method and opportunity to reiterate her political points. \p Adnan Hussain: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I seek your guidance, please? This is the second occasion on which I have sought to contribute to discussion of this extremely important and urgent matter, and have not been called to speak. I fully appreciate the pressures of time and the number of Members wishing to contribute. However, given both the significance of the subject and the contributions that I had prepared on behalf of my constituents, may I ask for your advice on how I can ensure that I am able to take part, and be heard, during future debates on this topic? \p Caroline Nokes: I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. I think that he has raised two points. As we heard in an earlier point of order, the combination of statements does not help, and those on the Treasury Bench will have heard my comments about that; it is a matter for the Government when they decide to schedule statements, and, indeed, the issues and subjects to which they will pertain.

As for the second point, regarding the timeliness and the length of statements, I do think it important. It is always regrettable when not all Members can get in during a statement. However, on regular occasions throughout the statement, I exhorted Members and, indeed, the Foreign Secretary to make questions and answers short. We would have been able to accommodate many more Members if others had listened to that guidance. \p UNKNOWN: Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23) \p Sonia Kumar: I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a report on access to finance for women in business; to make provision about the publication of data relating to access to finance for women in business; and for connected purposes.

The Bill seeks to confront—[Interruption.] \p Caroline Nokes: Order. The hon. Lady has an important ten-minute rule motion, and there are far too many private conversations preventing me—let alone the rest of the House— from hearing her comments. \p Sonia Kumar: The Bill seeks to confront one of the most urgent and entrenched inequalities in our economy: the persistent barriers that women in business continue to face. Despite the entrepreneurial spirit and innovation demonstrated by women across the United Kingdom, they remain significantly under-represented among recipients of capital and public financial support.

The evidence is stark. In 2024, just 2% of UK equity investment went to female entrepreneurs—a decline on the previous year. Over 80% of venture capital funding is allocated to male-dominated businesses, despite research confirming that women-led businesses deliver, on average, a 35% better return on investment. However, women typically start businesses with 53% less capital than men do, and the loans they receive are, on average, 68% smaller.

Approval rates for funding are lower for women, and too often they must pitch to all-male investment panels. Evidence from early-stage equity markets shows that male investors express less interest in female founders, whereas female investors are more likely to back them. For black female entrepreneurs, the challenge is even greater: between 2009 and 2019, a mere 0.02% of venture capital funding went to black women.

This is not just a disparity issue; it is an economic one. The 2019 Rose review estimated that £250 billion could be unlocked for the UK economy if women were supported to start and scale businesses at the same rate as men. Adjusted for inflation, the figure now stands at a staggering £310 billion. That is the scale of the opportunity we are failing to unlock.

Even in challenging economic circumstances, women in my constituency of Dudley continue to lead the way, against the odds. For example, Iron & Velvet, the UK’s only manufacturer of eco-friendly, water-soluble cleaning sachets, is headed by a truly inspirational woman. Debra McDonald, its chief executive officer, told me:

“Investors frequently undervalue or question the ambition of female leaders.”

According to the Black Country chamber of commerce, just 20% of member companies are led by women, and such businesses are even rarer outside London. We cannot allow this to persist. The injustice goes beyond numbers; it holds back potential in every community, from the west midlands to every region of our country.

I welcome the Government’s recent commitment of £400 million to support under-represented fund managers, and the doubling of their investment in female-led venture capital funds to £100 million through the Invest in Women taskforce. Compared with our international peers, though, the UK is simply losing ground. The United States of America stands out globally as the leading country for women-led businesses in 2025. Over the past two decades, female-owned businesses in the US have grown dramatically, with a 100% increase. Between 2019 and 2023, these businesses contributed a whopping 1.4 million new jobs and generated $500 billion in revenue.

Meanwhile, Sweden and Poland are surpassing the UK, with more targeted strategies to improve women’s access to finance. In Sweden, 4.6% of all venture capital funding is now allocated to female-only founded businesses, outpacing the UK’s rate. Poland ranks first in the EU, and fifth worldwide, for female entrepreneurship. The progress in those countries is no coincidence; it reflects deliberate and sustained efforts to empower women in business.

I have a vision for a country where prosperity has no barriers, and where every individual has the opportunity to fulfil their potential—a nation where access to finance is not a privilege but a right, and where women entrepreneurs, small business owners and innovators from every background can turn their ideas into action. This is about fairness, ambition and unlocking the full promise of our people, so that no one is held back simply because of who they are or where they come from.

In this Bill, I propose three core measures, backed by experts, to begin dismantling the barriers. The first pillar mandates transparency and accountability within financial institutions. The British Business Bank would lead this transformation to ensure genuine equity in access to finance. Banks, venture capital firms and public funding bodies would be required to publish gender disaggregated lending data, review their practice on bias, and embed anti discrimination measures across every stage of investment and loan assessment. For too long, a lack of data has hidden the barriers for women entrepreneurship, and this measure brings the inequalities into the light. By exposing where decisions fall short of equity, institutions will be compelled to act—not out of obligation, but because inclusion strengthens our economy. The Bill would ensure that capital is allocated on potential and performance, not prejudice. As Becky Cotton, a pioneering woman in business and the co-founder of Lumino, told me:

“Sunshine is the best disinfectant.”

Secondly, the Bill would direct the British Business Bank and related Government-backed schemes to expand their outreach and set measurable targets. At least 30% of all finance provided should support female-led businesses, and the percentage of equity finance for female entrepreneurs must increase from 2% to 10% by 2030. This reflects a key recommendation from the Women and Equalities Committee’s groundbreaking report on female entrepreneurship.

Thirdly, the Bill would require the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a report on access to finance. I have already laid out the inequality that exists in this area, but mandating the Secretary of State to produce a report is essential for transparency, accountability and  progress. Without the clear reporting that this Bill is calling for, the scale of inequality will remain hidden. From that report, we can begin to develop other policies to unlock investment for women and other disadvantaged groups, finally bridging the gap between men and women in finance.

This is not just a Bill for women; it is a Bill for our economy, our communities and our collective future. It recognises that fairness and prosperity go hand in hand, and it will remove the barriers to women’s economic participation. We will all benefit from increased innovation, job creation, stronger families and a more resilient society.

This is a critical moment. Unlocking £310 billion of growth by investing in female-led businesses is not just the right thing to do; it is smart economics. Empowering women and women-led businesses is among the most effective investments we can make as a nation. This Bill is about the fixing the system, not fixing women.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Sonia Kumar, Liam Byrne, Sarah Edwards, John Cooper, Dan Aldridge, Gurinder Singh Josan, John Slinger, James Asser, Rachel Taylor, Matt Western and Ms Polly Billington present the Bill.

Sonia Kumar accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 November, and to be printed (Bill 330). \p Desmond Swayne: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Further to your earlier observation that if hon. Members had asked shorter questions during the previous statement, so many would not have been disappointed, there was a time when if a Member read from a piece of paper when asking a question, there would be a chorus across the House of “Reading!” May I suggest that if hon. Members were required to remember their questions, they would obviously be shorter? May I ask you to discuss with Mr Speaker the possibility of returning to former habits? \p Caroline Nokes: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. He is of course right, and were Members to refer to the guide on courtesies and behaviours in the House, they would find advice on whether questions, and indeed interventions, should be read, particularly from telephones. \p UNKNOWN: Second Reading

[Relevant documents: Oral evidence taken before the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on 5 November and 22 October, on the Government’s new approach to addressing the legacy of the past in Northern Ireland, HC 586; Written evidence to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, on the Government’s new approach to addressing the legacy of the past in Northern Ireland, HC 586; Correspondence from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, on the Government’s new approach to addressing the legacy of the past in Northern Ireland, reported to the House on 11 June.] \p Caroline Nokes: The reasoned amendment tabled by the official Opposition has been selected. \p Hilary Benn: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

On 11 June 1966, a 28-year-old storeman, John Patrick Scullion, was shot dead on the doorstep of his home in west Belfast by the Ulster Volunteer Force. It is regarded by many as the first sectarian killing of the troubles. By 10 April 1998 and the signing of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, the death toll from this horrific period of violence in our country had risen to over 3,500, including almost 2,000 civilians and over 1,000 people who were killed while bravely serving the state, and 90% of those who lost their lives were killed by paramilitaries.

Some of the incidents—Warrenpoint, Bloody Sunday, the Kingsmill massacre, the Miami Showband killings, the Birmingham pub bombings—are, sadly, all too well known. Many others are less well known, although for each family, their grief, privately borne, has been just as strong and just as painful—fathers and brothers, mothers and daughters, children, people from all walks of life—and each one is a tragic and needless loss of a loved one. I say “needless” because there was always an alternative to violence, an alternative made real when the Good Friday agreement was signed.

Some found that agreement, which included the early release of prisoners convicted of troubles-related offences, very hard to accept, but over 70% of voters in Northern Ireland backed it in a referendum, because they knew that this was the moment to lay a foundation for peace that could give hope to citizens right across these islands for a future free of violence. \p Gavin Robinson: I think it is appropriate that the Secretary of State opened his speech in the way that he did, but he should recognise that when he gave dates for when the troubles started and concluded, he finished on 10 April 1998. He knows well that that means he did not include the largest atrocity of the troubles, which occurred four months later in the town of Omagh, and he knows that nothing in this Bill will make provisions available for those families. Although an inquiry is ongoing into the Omagh atrocity, that does not answer the questions relating to the Irish Republic. Will he consider extending the dates to include the largest atrocity from the troubles? \p Hilary Benn: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that point, which we have discussed in the House before. As he has acknowledged, there is currently a public inquiry, set up by the last Government, into the terrible events that occurred at Omagh. I think the right and proper thing to do is to let that inquiry proceed with its work and, I hope, provide the answers that families are looking for.

Northern Ireland is now a largely peaceful place, but many people—including those I have had the privilege of meeting and who have shared with me their grief, their pain, their anger and their loss—still live with the effects of those decades of violence. Far too many have still, all these years later, been unable to find an answer to the simplest of questions: what happened—how did my loved one die? \p Jim Shannon: Further to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), the Republic of Ireland Government and the Garda Síochána have to respond on the things on which they fell short. For instance, when my cousin was killed and others were killed, the killers crossed the border to sanctuary and safety. There was collusion between the Garda Síochána and the people responsible for those murders. Those are some of the things we need within this process. Can the Secretary of State assure all of us, on behalf of our constituents, that the justice we all seek will happen through this Bill, because I am not quite sure of that at the moment? \p Hilary Benn: I say to the hon. Member, for whom I have enormous respect, that I hope very much that that is the case, because one of the consequences of the agreement reached between the British and Irish Governments, which was published on 19 September, is that the Irish Government will move once our legislation has been put in place. They will move from their current position, which is that they will not co-operate with institutions that we know have failed—I shall come on to that point in a moment—to the fullest possible co-operation with the Legacy Commission and, by doing so, will open up the possibility of people seeing information they have not seen for too long.

The architects of the Good Friday agreement knew that the suffering of victims and survivors needed to be addressed, but they were not able to do so. If we are honest with ourselves, we know that this unfinished business falls to us—to all of us—because time is running out. I want to say directly to all the families—some are here in the Gallery today, and others are watching our proceedings—that we have heard their call, as I hope has the whole House, for us to do more to help them get the answers they seek.

What is this Bill aiming to do and why is it needed? It seeks to put in place a means of dealing with legacy that can actually command broad public support in Northern Ireland, in particular for families who have been trying to find answers for so long. It is needed because the previous Government’s legislation—the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023—whatever its intentions, fundamentally failed. It failed because it has been found in many respects to be incompatible with our international obligations, so creating a legal quagmire of uncertainty. \p Desmond Swayne: How confident is the Secretary of State that his provisions for preventing compensation for interim custody orders will withstand challenge in the courts, and would the Government’s case be undermined in any way by their decision not to challenge the original ruling in the High Court? \p Hilary Benn: If the right hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I shall come to his question a bit later.

Crucially—this is something that the House has to recognise—the 2023 Act failed because it did not command any support in Northern Ireland among victims and survivors, or the political parties. That was no basis for progress or reconciliation. That point has to be acknowledged. One of the principal reasons for that lack of support was the Act’s attempt to offer immunity from prosecution, including to terrorists who had committed the most appalling murders. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), who is intervening from a sedentary position, needs to go back and read the legislation that his Government passed. I have it here. Immunity was a false promise. It appeared to offer soldiers something that was completely undeliverable. The measures were never implemented, and were struck down by our courts. Families who had endured unimaginable suffering through paramilitary violence were simply not prepared to see those responsible given immunity. \p Jessica Toale: I have spoken to many veterans in my constituency who are understandably concerned about the repeal of that law, and the vacuum that it leaves. Can the Secretary of State set out how the Bill supports our veterans? \p Hilary Benn: I shall do that. If my hon. Friend will bear with me, I shall come to that directly. \p Julian Lewis: On what I hope is a non-contentious point, will the Secretary of State explain to Members in all parts of the House something that not everybody realises, which is that the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 means that no matter how heinous the crime, and no matter whether it was committed by a member of the armed forces—unlikely, but possible—a republican terrorist or a loyalist terrorist, no one will serve more than two years in jail? People need to realise that. Compromises have had to be made—and they have to be made by those on both sides, equally, if international law is not to strike them down. \p Hilary Benn: The right hon. Gentleman is indeed correct. That was, in part, the basis on which the Good Friday agreement was reached, and 71.7% of the people of Northern Ireland gave their support to it. Compromise, of course, is essential in the interests of peace.

There was anger from many of those who served in Northern Ireland, who saw immunity as an affront to the rule of law that they had sought to protect, and as implying some sort of moral equivalence between those who served in our armed forces and terrorists. There is no moral equivalence whatsoever between those members of our armed forces who acted lawfully in carrying out their duties, and paramilitaries who were responsible for barbaric acts of terrorism. We owe our Operation Banner veterans an enormous debt of gratitude. I say to those watching, and to those in the Gallery: your service  and your sacrifice will never be forgotten. We have a duty to care for all those who served. That is precisely why we are putting in the legislation new measures that are designed specifically to protect veterans, and why the Ministry of Defence always provides legal and welfare support to any veteran asked to participate.

The safeguards that we are supplying have been designed specifically for veterans, following close consultation with veterans. Some will necessarily apply to others, including former police officers, while others will apply only to veterans. Veterans will be protected against repeat investigations. Part 3 places a duty on the Legacy Commission not to do anything that duplicates any aspect of previous investigations or proceedings unless it is essential. That is a very high threshold. If a veteran is asked to give evidence publicly to an inquest, or in the commission’s inquisitorial proceedings, they will not be forced to travel to Northern Ireland. They will be able to do so remotely. \p Luke Evans: Will the Secretary of State just clarify: essential for what? \p Hilary Benn: The commission is an independent body established— \p Luke Evans: Ah. \p Hilary Benn: The hon. Gentleman says “Ah”. It was established by the previous Government’s legislation. They argued very strongly that the body had to be independent. “Essential” is a very high bar. It is for the commission to make that judgment. \p Andrew George: I am very grateful to the Secretary of State for clarifying a number of issues already, but I think that the veterans I have spoken to will be looking for clarity that they cannot and will not be placed on trial simply for carrying out orders. \p Hilary Benn: I shall come on to this point, but decisions about prosecutions are made by prosecutors independently—that is the absolute foundation of our independent legal system—based on the evidence. If one looks at the facts, in the 27 and a half years since the Good Friday agreement, one veteran has been convicted for a troubles-related offence; going back to the point made by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), that veteran received a suspended sentence.

If asked to give evidence to an inquisitorial proceeding, any veteran will be entitled to seek anonymity, as is already the case for public inquiries and inquests. The commission and coroners will have to consider the health and wellbeing of elderly witnesses, and whether it would be appropriate for them to give evidence at all. A new statutory advisory group will provide an opportunity for victims and survivors of the troubles, including those from a service background, to be heard during the commission’s work. This group will, of course, not include anyone who has been involved in paramilitary activity. \p Jim Allister: The Secretary of State says that the group will not include any former paramilitaries, but where in clause 8—or elsewhere—is  there a prohibition on such participation? The clause is about victims and survivors, and those terms are undefined. Under our current iniquitous definition, a victim could be somebody who made themselves a victim by blowing themselves up with their own bomb. According to the clause, such a person could serve on the advisory panel. \p Hilary Benn: I would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to reflect on what I have just told the House: anyone who was previously involved in paramilitary activity will not be appointed to the victims and survivors group. I am giving the House that assurance as the Secretary of State.

These measures will be complemented by other commitments to ensure, for instance, that no veteran is cold-called. The Defence Secretary and I will continue to work with veterans, the Royal British Legion, the Veterans Commissioners and others to ensure that we get this right. \p Ben Obese-Jecty: rose— \p Hilary Benn: I will give way, and then I will make progress. \p Ben Obese-Jecty: Whereabouts in the Bill does it say what the Secretary of State said about the victims and survivors group? If it does not say what he told us, will he amend it to ensure that it does? \p Hilary Benn: I have given the House a very clear assurance on this point. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that nowhere in the legacy Act, which is the previous Government’s legislation, is there such a prohibition. Indeed, nowhere in that legislation does the word “veterans” appear. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Hilary Benn: I will make progress.

There are those who have claimed, wrongly, that this legislation will somehow lead to a huge increase in prosecutions of veterans, or that it is only veterans who have been prosecuted in recent years, or that on-the-run letters have given IRA members an amnesty—an issue we have discussed in the Chamber. None of those things is the case. As I have just said to the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), just one soldier has been convicted since the Good Friday agreement, and the majority of those who have been convicted, and indeed of those facing live prosecutions, are paramilitaries, including republicans. As for the on-the-run letters, Prime Minister David Cameron could not have been clearer when he said in 2014:

“There was never any amnesty or guarantee of immunity for anyone, and there isn’t now.”

What is more, the legacy Act also shut down more than 1,000 police investigations into unsolved troubles-related killings, including the deaths of 264 members of our armed forces who were murdered by terrorists. A great many families have spoken of the distress that this caused them. Mary Moreland, who was widowed when her husband John, a reservist in the Ulster Defence Regiment, was killed by the IRA nine days before Christmas in 1988, says:

“As a veteran and war widow I strongly believe in accountability and the rule of law for all and take pride in the fact that the British Armed Forces are the finest in the world. Like many others I have always been opposed to the Legacy Act. It was legislation that was fundamentally flawed. I tentatively welcome the process of repealing and replacing the Legacy Act…the new legislation must be balanced, fair, rights-based and capable of delivering meaningful outcomes for victims and survivors.”

I agree. Or there is Paul Crawford, whose father was murdered in 1974 by the UVF. He says:

“I understand that British Army veterans are an important constituency, but so are we…victims and survivors of the conflict. Our voices matter too. Our experiences of loss, pain and trauma are very real. Many of us have been waiting for more than fifty years for truth and justice and none of us are getting any younger. The legacy of the conflict needs to be addressed, and this legislation needs to be passed.”

I agree.

Or there is Paul Gallagher, who shared his response with WAVE, which does such important work supporting victims, survivors and families. In January 1994, Paul was 21 years old. He was a civil servant. There was a knock on the front door of his family home, and paramilitaries took him and his family hostage. He was shot six times as they left, and has spent the rest of his life using a wheelchair. He is a campaigner who I have had the privilege of meeting several times. WAVE writes:

“What the party opposite proposed in 2023 enraged Paul. He is not naïve. He knows that securing a prosecution against the people who did this would be difficult. But offering an amnesty to these people so they could walk forever free. That to Paul is a moral outrage. How can someone like Paul, who has been betrayed by the system, believe once again in the rule of law.”

The troubles Bill seeks to right the wrongs of the legacy Act, so that together with the remedial order, which we have laid before Parliament under the Human Rights Act 1998, the Bill returns us to the broad principles of the 2014 Stormont House agreement negotiated by the last Conservative Government. It seeks to achieve greater confidence among communities across Northern Ireland. As for those families who have already approached the commission for help, their cases will transition seamlessly under the new arrangements, when the troubles Bill hopefully becomes law.

We announced a joint framework in September. The Irish Government have made important contributions to that, including by co-operating fully with the reformed commissioned by sharing information that, for far too long, far too many families have not been able to see. Let me be clear, however, that it is simply untrue for anyone to suggest that the Irish Government have been given any control or veto over the work of the Legacy Commission.

I turn to the contents of the Bill. The first part provides for the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery to be renamed the Legacy Commission. It also repeals part 2 of the legacy Act in its entirety, and confirms the meaning of “the troubles” and other terms. Part 2 outlines the structure of the Legacy Commission, its principal functions, and how appointments will be made. It will establish an oversight board, led by an independent non-executive chair, to hold the commission to account, and the Secretary of State will consult when making appointments. There will be two co-directors for investigations, of equal standing, one with experience of conducting criminal investigations in Northern Ireland, and one with experience of conducting such investigations elsewhere. \p Preet Kaur Gill: May I raise the issue of the Birmingham pub bombings? The Secretary of State says that the reformed Legacy Commission will have greater fact-finding powers. Can he set out why the families, including those who are part of the Justice 4 the 21 campaign, should have confidence in the reformed commission to get to the truth of the Birmingham pub bombings? \p Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend raises an extremely important point. It is for the simple reason that the commission has the power to see all the information and evidence—everything. It is already investigating the Guildford pub bombings, the M62 coach bombing, and the Kingsmill massacre, and I hope that others— \p James Cartlidge: Warrenpoint. \p Hilary Benn: And Warrenpoint, indeed. It is already investigating those terrible incidents, and I encourage anyone who is looking for answers to approach the commission and see the changes that we will make.

I shall now finish my description of what is in the Bill and bring my remarks to a close. All public appointments made by the Secretary of State must follow consultation with relevant persons, a list of whom will be published before the beginning of the appointments process. Part 2 will fulfil our commitment to create a fairer disclosure regime, ensuring that the commission has access to any and all information it requires and is able to publish as much of that as possible, subject to proportionate safeguards, which are necessary because even historic information can pose a direct risk to life and safety today or threaten our national security. However, the Bill ensures that any decision to prevent public disclosure is subject to a balancing exercise—with reasons given where possible, akin to the Inquiries Act 2005—and can be legally challenged. Part 2 also includes provisions on reviews into the performance of the commission’s functions, and for the winding up of the commission.

Part 3 deals with the conduct of both criminal and fact-finding investigations, and expands the referral process to enable family members, surviving victims and certain public authorities to request investigations. In all cases, following a case review, the director of investigations will decide whether the investigation is to be carried out as a criminal investigation or a fact-finding investigation. The commission will be able to refer any relevant conduct to prosecutors, as is already the case with the legacy Act, so there is no change in that respect. In the conduct of its investigations, the commission must comply with the statutory conflicts of interest duties set out. Each investigation will conclude with a report produced by a judicial panel member.

Under part 4 of the Bill, inquisitorial proceedings will be established to handle cases that would otherwise have been inquests but are transferred to the commission. These proceedings will draw on the Inquiries Act. They will be chaired by a judicial panel member and be able to consider evidence in public. Crucially, unlike inquests, these proceedings can also consider sensitive information in closed hearings. With that in mind, the Bill provides the Secretary of State with the power to direct inquisitorial proceedings in respect of the small number of cases that were halted prior to 1 May 2024 due to the exclusion of relevant sensitive information. \p Mark Francois: 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”? \p Hilary Benn: I do not agree with that assessment. There is nothing in this Bill that can be described as a direct threat to national security. I also note—[Interruption.] It would be good if the right hon. Gentleman would acknowledge this point. I note that those generals did not call for immunity. Maybe those on the Opposition Front Bench would like to reflect upon that. \p Fleur Anderson: Will my right hon. Friend give way? \p Hilary Benn: No; I am going to have to finish, because many people want to speak.

Part 5 makes provision for the inclusion of personal statements, allowing families to describe what the death meant to them. The commission will have the power to refer troubles-related criminality by police officers to the ombudsman for Northern Ireland. Part 6 puts in place the necessary provisions to set up, on a pilot basis, the Independent Commission on Information Retrieval, as originally proposed in the Stormont House agreement. This will be an international body established jointly with the Irish Government to give families an additional means of retrieving information. Any information disclosed by individuals to the ICIR will be inadmissible in criminal and civil proceedings. Part 6 also includes provisions to ensure that the work of the ICIR does not impede on criminal investigations.

The Government have long been committed to restoring the troubles-related inquests that were halted by the legacy Act, which is why, under part 7 of the Bill, the inquests that were in progress prior to 1 May 2024 but subsequently halted will resume. Inquests that had been directed by the Attorney General but were not in progress will be subject to an independent assessment by the Solicitor General as to whether they are most effectively progressed in the Legacy Commission or the coronial system, and the Solicitor General will have regard to three statutory criteria.

I turn to part 8 and to the point raised earlier about interim custody orders. In short, these provisions seek to address the interpretation made by the UK Supreme Court in R v. Adams, regarding the application of the Carltona principle, with which this Government—and indeed the previous Government—disagreed. That principle is vital for Government, and it is right that it should be protected, including by dealing with what are considered incorrect inroads into it. Clauses 89 and 90 put it beyond doubt that the Carltona principle applied in the context of interim custody orders, by stating that any order made by a Minister of State or Under-Secretary of State is to be treated as an order of the Secretary of State. I refer the House to a written ministerial statement that I have today laid in Parliament setting out in greater detail the Government’s position on that matter.

The Bill will leave in place part 4 of the 2023 Legacy Act, meaning that the important provisions relating to oral history, academic research and the memorialisation of the troubles remain intact. Those measures stem  from the Stormont House agreement and have been widely supported in principle. Part 8 of the Bill will also require the commission to produce and publish a historical record.

Separately, part 8 also allows any conduct that does not meet the definition of serious or connected troubles-related offences in the Bill to be investigated by the relevant police force. As a result, potentially serious offences, including sexual offences, will always have a route to investigation should evidence come to light.

Part 9 deals with general matters in relation to the Bill such as various definitions and its commencement.

I will bring my remarks to a close. I am acutely conscious that, for many families in Northern Ireland, time is running out. With every year that passes, memories fade, witnesses are lost and crucial evidence grows weaker. That is why the Government have to fix the mess that we inherited. But what is this really about? It is about those who continue to live with the pain of what happened to them or to someone they loved. We know that the overwhelming majority of those who were killed died at the hands of paramilitaries, and, as the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) so powerfully reminded us just over a month ago, the people who died were not in the wrong place at the wrong time; it was the terrorists who were in the wrong place doing the wrong thing.

We must be clear that terrorism is always wrong. Although we must recognise that the vast majority of those who served in Northern Ireland did so with distinction and bravery, in the words of apology offered in this House by the former Northern Ireland Secretary Brandon Lewis following the Ballymurphy inquest,

“it is clear that in some cases the security forces and the army made terrible errors too.”—[Official Report, 13 May 2021; Vol. 695, c. 277.]

I believe that this legislation represents our best and possibly final chance to fulfil the unrealised ambition of the Good Friday agreement. I accept that nobody will like everything contained in the Bill, as is inevitable given the differing views held by many. If fixing legacy was easy, we would not be discussing it 27 years later.

Let me read from a letter that the Commissioner for Victims and Survivors for Northern Ireland has sent me about our approach, which he says has been received

“with cautious optimism by victims and survivors.”

He goes on to say that we—he is talking about all of us—should

“get a move on rather than waste more precious time”,

and encourages all of us as parliamentarians

“to continue to show courage and determination to deliver for victims and survivors.”

It is no wonder that he refers to caution, because victims and survivors have been let down so many times before. That is why it is now our responsibility to take this forward.

I will continue to talk to victims and survivors, veterans and others, and colleagues in all parts of the House, during the passage of the Bill to consider where amendments might further improve it. Equally, I hope that all who seek a fair and effective way forward will recognise that the Bill represents a fundamental  reform of current arrangements, and that it should be given a chance to succeed. I commend the Bill to the House. \p Nusrat Ghani: I ask those on the Front Benches to keep their opening statements short, because it eats into the time for contributions from Back-Bench Members. \p Alex Burghart: I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:

“this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill because, by removing the conditional immunity scheme introduced by the last Government in the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, and reintroducing inquests and restoring civil claims for Troubles-related incidents halted by that Act, the Bill will lead to veterans once again being dragged before the courts facing potential prosecution for incidents that happened decades ago, while former paramilitaries are largely untouched; because the Government’s published list of so-called protections for veterans remains unclear and not fulfilled by this Bill; because the Government has not confirmed which of these protections will also apply to former paramilitaries; because the Bill does not prevent former paramilitaries holding key roles associated with the Legacy Commission; and because the Bill risks undermining the morale of, as well as both recruitment to and retention within, the armed forces at a time of significantly heightened international tensions and threats to the national security of the UK.”

I would like to start by paying tribute to those brave souls who served in Operation Banner—the longest and, surely, one of the most difficult operations that our military forces ever undertook. I know that some of them are in the Gallery today, and some of them are sitting behind me. I would like to thank them with my whole heart for the service they gave and extend that same thanks to the brave men and women of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The generations who have come after cannot fully understand what they went through, what they saw and what they did for peace.

The last Government chose to draw a line under the litigation of the troubles, and today that line is being erased. Our legacy Act was a response to the emerging legal reality—no less true than it was three years ago—that the legal system was ceasing to provide meaningful answers to victims, while dragging veterans through the courts in clearly vexatious cases. The process itself had become a means of punishment, and time is reducing the chances of convictions.

We created a new means of providing victims and their families with information—one that offered the opportunity to claim conditional immunity in return for information retrieval. That process is now up and running, and thanks to the excellent work of Sir Declan Morgan, to whom I pay tribute, I understand the ICRIR is currently considering about 250 cases and is taking on more every month. Confidence is growing; it is working. But the Bill before us today strips out the conditional immunity introduced by the legacy Act and reopens the door to vexatious litigation against veterans, while leaving it very unlikely that terrorists will be prosecuted. The Secretary of State himself has confirmed that there have been only five terrorist convictions in the past 13 years, and as time passes, the chance of successful prosecutions will reduce further and further.

In the past year alone, we have debated the manifest failings of the current system in this House: the terrible decision in the Clonoe inquest; the 1991 incident in court in Belfast last month, where a special forces soldier was acquitted by a judge, who said the case was “ludicrous”, but not before the man in question had been investigated for four years; and, of course, the case of soldier F, where no conviction was possible, despite one of the longest inquiries in British political history.

The legislation before us today will perpetuate disappointment for victims and despair for veterans. The Government are claiming that they have no choice but to legislate. They are making that claim for three reasons. The first is that they object to conditional immunity. The second is their belief that the legacy Act is incompatible with the European convention on human rights, and the third is the fact that the legacy Act lacked cross-party support. \p Alex Ballinger: Does the hon. Member recognise that the immunity that was promised never came into action because the British courts rejected it? Does he accept that we are not taking away immunity, because it was never possible in the first place? \p Alex Burghart: It was never given a chance because this Government dropped their appeal—something I will return to shortly. \p Colum Eastwood: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? \p Alex Burghart: No.

Let me start with conditional immunity. The legacy Act provided immunity to individuals in return for their providing an account to the commission that was true to the best of their “knowledge and belief”. That is the immunity to which the Government are now opposed, but I am afraid that that objection is born of acute political amnesia. This House will know that the Blair Government accepted that the price of ending the conflict was a departure from the norms of criminal justice in Northern Ireland. They gave us the early release of 483 prisoners, 143 of whom were serving life sentences, including, it must be said, the man who in 1984 tried to kill the entire British Cabinet; the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), which limits prison terms to two years; the decommissioning of weapons legislation, which allowed for the destruction of forensic evidence that would have led to convictions; and an effective amnesty for all those who provided information to the Independent Commission for the Location of Victims’ Remains—in short, immunity in return for information.

We also had the controversial letters of comfort—156 of them. One was received by John Downey, thought to have been the Hyde Park bomber, the case against whom collapsed on the production of his letter. It had apparently been issued in error, but nevertheless that letter effectively granted him immunity from prosecution. Even if, as Labour now claims, the on-the-runs were not intended to grant immunity, the use of the royal prerogative of mercy on at least 13 occasions certainly was.

Even if that was not enough, it was very much the intention of the last Labour Government to create a scheme for immunity. We know that because in November   2005, Peter Hain, now Lord Hain—the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—brought legislation to this House in the form of the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill, which was explicitly intended to create immunity from prosecution for terrorists. That was on the face of the Bill. The now Secretary of State was in the Cabinet at the time; he will have been supportive of that legislation—legislation that he now refers to as a moral outrage. That Government eventually dropped the legislation, not because of opposition in this House, but because of the opposition of Sinn Féin, who withdrew their support once they discovered that the scope was being extended to cover the security forces and the police. \p Colum Eastwood: Let me take this opportunity to refresh the shadow Secretary of State’s memory. Sinn Féin actually supported that piece of legislation. Gerry Adams is on record as supporting that piece of legislation—I wonder why. Sinn Féin also supported, at one point, amnesty for everybody because it suited them. Why was that piece of legislation overturned? Because the Bloody Sunday families pressurised Sinn Féin, who in turn pressurised the Government, to drop it. That is what happened. \p Alex Burghart: I hate to disagree with the hon. Gentleman, but if he goes back and looks at the news stories from the time, he will discover very clearly that Sinn Féin withdrew their support for the Bill once the Labour Government decided they would extend the scope of the Bill to cover security forces and police officers. The republicans never wanted equity; they wanted a one-sided agreement that would privilege only the terrorists and not the Army. I say all that to highlight the absurdity of Labour’s opposition to our legislation, and to remind the House that the proposals presented to us today are the opposite of what Labour believed was necessary, in the words of Peter Hain, to complete the peace process 20 years ago.

No doubt the Government will say, as the Secretary of State already has, that they have no choice but to change our legislation because it was found to be incompatible with the European convention on human rights. But that is only partially true. While it is the case that the High Court in Belfast found that conditional immunity was incompatible with the ECHR, I am sure that the Secretary of State knows that that court, despite its considerable strengths, is not the summit of the UK legal system. The last Conservative Government were appealing the court’s finding, but when the Labour Government came into power in July 2024, they dropped that appeal and they have never explained why. They had every opportunity to take it to the highest court in the land, and they declined to do so.

In legal circles, the finding of the High Court in Belfast is considered highly disputable. Why? Because the law strongly suggests that if the same logic was applied to the peace process legislation that I have already mentioned—the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997, and the Northern Ireland (Location of Victims’ Remains) Act 1999—then all of that legislation would be deemed incompatible with the European convention and would have to be struck down. \p Desmond Swayne: Even if the Supreme Court had opined on the matter and judged it to be incompatible, that would not have changed the law. This House is not required to respond in any way to a declaration of incompatibility by a court. This House remains supreme. \p Alex Burghart: As ever, my right hon. Friend is entirely correct. The courts have no power to strike down statute; they can advise this House to remove legislation. \p Julian Lewis: My hon. Friend says that it is highly likely that an appeal would have succeeded. In support of that, I cite the fact that the Defence Committee took evidence in great detail from four professors of law in 2017. They were not talking about that specific legislation, but they all agreed that it was possible and legal to combine a statute of limitation, providing that there was a truth recovery process. A range of people gave evidence, from Professor Richard Ekins on the right of centre, shall we say, to Professor Philippe Sands on the left of centre. It was possible, it was legal, and even if that law was struck down, something similar could have been put in its place. \p Alex Burghart: I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention; I remember that he made a similar intervention in 2017, and again in 2023, on just that point, based on the work his Committee had done.

The Secretary of State has now introduced a draft remedial order to eliminate those parts of the Bill that are deemed to be incompatible. As he knows—I have written to him twice on this subject—the official Opposition do not believe that that remedial order is appropriate, and certainly not yet. That is because earlier this year the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement was granted permission to intervene in the case of Dillon before the Supreme Court, specifically on the issue of compatibility. On 15 October that intervention was heard, and if those arguments are accepted, the Supreme Court has the power to quash the declarations of incompatibility.

That means that the Secretary of State has no legal basis at this time for that remedial order. He has acted—or rather, if he pushes it to a vote, he will be acting—ultra vires, because under section 10 of the Human Rights Act the Government can only issue such an order unless and until all appeals in relation to the declarations of incompatibility have been “determined or abandoned”. In this case, they have not been, and the Government must not call a vote on the order unless and until they have been. I hope that the Minister will offer some clarity on the next steps during his closing remarks.

The Conservative party has been clear: the European convention on human rights should no longer be considered an obstacle to doing the right thing. It is not a holy text, and its jurisprudence is forcing Governments to do unholy things. Since legal advice of the highest order has now twice shown that the United Kingdom can leave the convention without breaking the 1998 agreement, this is what the next Conservative Government will do.

The current Government have previously said that they have to legislate because the legacy Act did not have cross-community consent, but where is that cross-community consent today? It does not exist. If there had been a cross-community solution on legacy, Stormont would have found it. I suspect that no solution is to be found, which means it is the responsibility of this  House to protect those now abused by the system. The Bill will fail to do that. It will not help victims to find out the truth. It will not give comfort to our veterans. It will reopen old wounds and allow infection to come in. \p Fleur Anderson: The hon. Gentleman has talked about doing the right thing, but is not doing the right thing getting justice for over 1,000 families, including 200 veteran families, who have waited too long for answers about their loved ones? Putting victims at the heart of this process would be doing the right thing—getting on with legislation that will deliver the justice needed, instead of the delays and dithering that the Conservatives’ legacy Act provided? \p Alex Burghart: With all due respect to the hon. Lady, who I enjoyed working opposite, the last Government did not offer delay and dithering; we offered firm legislation. What she outlines, I am afraid, is an unrealistic view of the future. We have seen many cases come forward and very few convictions, and the people who suffer in that process are veterans. They are veterans like the gentleman I referred to a moment ago, from a case in 1991—four years of investigation, with a ludicrous case at the end. What is happening today is that victims are being promised something that will never be delivered, and veterans are being told that they do not matter. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Alex Burghart: I am going to make some progress. We will have plenty of time in Committee to discuss our particular concerns with this legislation, but I will raise a small number of them today. First, the Bill deliberately shifts the focus towards criminal prosecutions. Clause 36 states that investigations are

“to be carried as a criminal investigation unless…there is no realistic prospect of information obtained…being provided to a prosecutor.”

I suspect that those most likely to be prosecuted will be veterans.

Secondly, the Bill creates a five-year time limit for family members and victims to request an investigation, but there is no such time limit for public authorities. Can the Minister tell us why not? This could rumble on forever.

Thirdly, the Bill pays lip service to not repeating previous investigations, as the Secretary of State said, by saying that the Legacy Commission will do so only when repetition is “necessary”—that is in clauses 30, 31, 36, 51 and 84—or when “duplication is essential”, as in clause 36. I imagine and I fear that some lawyers will have a great deal of fun with those words. How long before every attempted reinvestigation becomes “necessary” or every attempted investigation becomes “essential”? I believe and I fear that this is no protection at all.

Fourthly, the protections for our veterans here are a mirage, not just because they are largely available already, but because they clearly apply to terrorists as well as veterans.

Fifthly, in the past few days I have received a lot of communications from veterans about the role that Ireland will play in the new commission. I am sure that they will be reassured by the Secretary of State’s remarks in his opening speech that Ireland will have no formal process within the Legacy Commission. But what is clear that  the Bill makes provision for the involvement of international figures. Will those international figures be given access to national security information? Will the Minister please be clear about that in his closing remarks? \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Alex Burghart: I will give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) and then to the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). \p Alicia Kearns: I thank my hon. Friend for setting out the wrongs of the Bill so clearly. A number of veterans called my office yesterday in great distress. One of their concerns is what the Bill means for future recruitment to the armed forces, which so far has not really been covered in this debate. They believe that if people sign up willing to give the ultimate sacrifice, their country should stand behind them. Will my hon. Friend set out why the Bill risks so heavily future recruitment to the armed forces, and therefore why that is another reason that this Bill is absolutely wrong? \p Alex Burghart: I concur greatly with my hon. Friend’s remarks, and I will return to them in a few moments. \p Sammy Wilson: The shadow Secretary of State pointed out that the Secretary of State assured us that there will be no input from the Irish Government set out in the Bill. Yet, first, the Irish Government were the only ones consulted. Secondly, there will be appointments made. Does he see the possibility that a Government who have acceded to the demands of the Irish Government in this Bill could also accede to suggestions for people to be nominated to the advisory committee, meaning they could therefore have Irish proxies under the Bill, despite the assurances given by the Secretary of State? \p Alex Burghart: The right hon. Gentleman raises interesting and important points. We are concerned about the question of who will have access to sensitive national security information within the legacy commission’s framework? It would be good to have clarity on that from the Minister later.

Sixthly, there was some confusion on the Labour Front Bench recently about whether former IRA personnel would be able to serve as a legacy commission officer or as a member of the victims and survivors advisory group. Perhaps when we get to Committee the Minister could clear that up and provide legal guarantees that that will not be the case. \p Colum Eastwood: Will the shadow Secretary of State remind the House who is actually in Government in Northern Ireland and if there are any former paramilitaries involved at all? \p Alex Burghart: The Labour party is in power in Northern Ireland—it has formed the Government of the United Kingdom.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) said, it would be good to get legal guarantees about who will be able to serve on the legacy commission and the victims and survivors advisory group.

Lastly, veterans have been asking publicly for the inclusion of the word “veteran” in the Bill. They do not consider themselves victims or survivors; they consider themselves veterans, and they hope that the Government will recognise them as such in legislation. \p Claire Hanna: Many in this House believe in the rule of law and in the equality of every person in front of the law. Between 30,000 and 40,000 people were properly convicted of paramilitary offences, and 300,000 soldiers served under Operation Banner. Can the shadow Secretary of State outline how many of those have been in court? \p Alex Burghart: rose— \p Claire Hanna: The answer is 20. \p Alex Burghart: I think the hon. Lady is misunderstanding my point. The point that I am making is that when it is clear that vexatious complaints and vexatious investigations can begin, then everyone who served feels under threat—[Interruption.] For the benefit of Hansard, the hon. Lady said from a sedentary position, “Are they vexatious?” It is very clear that the case that was heard in Belfast last month was a vexatious complaint. The judge said it was “ludicrous” and that it should never have come anywhere near the court, but for four years a member of the special forces was pursued, and all his comrades and colleagues thought that if such a thing could happen, they might have the same legal action brought against them in future. \p Iain Duncan Smith: The way in which the last intervention was made suggested that this is a numbers game based on the numbers who were out there in Northern Ireland. The fact is—[Interruption.] No, with respect, I actually served out there, and I can tell you something about this. The reality is that the British Army was sent to hold the peace against terrorists who set out to kill people deliberately for their own political ends. Is it not wrong to equate the two as though the numbers were ridiculous? \p Nusrat Ghani: Before Alex Burghart responds, let me say that it is important that we keep the debate well-tempered. The term “you” should not be used by a senior Back Bencher. \p Alex Burghart: As ever, my right hon. Friend is a bastion of good sense. He reminds us that there is no moral equivalence between the people who were sent to try to keep the people and services of Northern Ireland safe, and the people who were terrorists.

Finally, we note that, under the terms of the agreement, the Republic of Ireland has committed to legislate to enable the fullest possible co-operation of the relevant Irish authorities with the Legacy Commission. We sincerely hope that this is true, as there are many secrets of the troubles that are yet to be disclosed from sources south of the border. From the huge number of extradition requests that Dublin refused between 1973 and 1999 to the long, long list of cases of collusion between the Garda and the Provisional IRA that have not been properly dealt with, it is clear that the south has never taken full responsibility for the blind eyes turned and  the bad acts abetted. The test of this Government’s approach will be whether Dublin delivers, or whether this—as one representative of victims has said to me in the past few days—turns out to be another case of “tea and sympathy” with no action to follow. For the record, it is my party’s strong view that if this Bill receives Royal Assent, the Secretary of State should not commence the legislation until this House has at least seen the Irish legislation.

In conclusion, this Bill contains no meaningful protections, it has no cross-party support, and there are no legal barriers to continuing what the last Government began. We find ourselves in a situation where retired generals, SAS veterans and the like are all telling this House not to proceed. They are telling us that there will be consequences—for recruitment, for retention and for national security. This morning in a statement, Soldier Z said that

“the damage being done to the morale and fibre of UK special forces and armed forces…must be understood by the public, because it’s very well understood by the SAS.”

When such people speak, this House has an obligation to listen. \p Nusrat Ghani: All Back-Bench contributions will be limited to six minutes. \p Paul Foster: The peace process in Northern Ireland was hard-won, and tough compromises had to be accepted by all parties. The Good Friday agreement was never going to have the wholesale support of all, but it brought about an end to the horrendous violence. However, it did not include a mechanism for dealing with unresolved killings during the troubles—either by terrorists or by the security forces—and nor did it provide an amnesty for crimes that had not yet been prosecuted.

Let us also not forget that, according to data from the House of Commons Library, around 3,520 people lost their lives during the troubles. They included 1,441 British service personnel, 722 of whom died at the hands of paramilitaries. Three hundred RUC officers were killed, and 301 individual deaths were the responsibility of the British military. Of those, 121 were republican terrorists, 101 were loyalist terrorists, and the remainder were all civilians. We therefore have a duty to ensure that all legacy issues arising from the troubles are dealt with compassionately, diligently and legally.

The previous Government’s legacy Act has been found to be unlawful by both the High Court in Belfast and the Court of Appeal. The High Court found several provisions of that Act to be incompatible with the European convention on human rights, and it was therefore deemed unlawful. It also found that it was incompatible with article 2 of the Windsor framework and should therefore be disapplied. The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, and also found additional aspects of the legacy Act to be incompatible with the ECHR.

There are many separate elements of the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, but I will keep my contribution to two specific areas: immunity from prosecution for historical crimes, and the concerns of my fellow veterans moving  forward under the new legislation. As a veteran, I have never sought or agreed that, as a British serviceman, I should ever be permitted immunity from prosecution for my actions during service. We work within the law of armed conflict, the Geneva convention and the laws of the United Kingdom when serving here, to name but three. We are trained to undertake operations within strict legal protocols, whatever the provocation we are experiencing or the hostile environment we are in.

There has been much opposition to the immunity offered within the legacy Act. The three veterans commissioners in July said:

“This is not a call for immunity from the law, but for fairness under it”.

Ben Wallace, the former Defence Secretary, said that the British Army is “not above the law.” Brigadier John Donnelly, who served in Northern Ireland and is now chair of the Centre for Military Justice, said only last week:

“You cannot have a system of law that applies to some groups and not to others. It is vital that soldiers operating in support of the civil powers are held fully accountable to the laws they are required to enforce. That is the difference between the soldier and the terrorist.”

We must also understand that it is not just British service personnel who were granted immunity from prosecution under the previous legislation; it was also terrorists who murdered civilians and British servicemen and servicewomen. More than 200 investigations into deaths of Operation Banner soldiers were shut down upon the enactment of the legacy Act, against the wishes of those soldiers’ families.

Immunity from prosecution is dangerous, because it invalidates the justice system, sacrifices victims’ rights, weakens deterrence, violates international law and undermines long-term peace and trust in our institutions. I will never agree that immunity is the appropriate solution. It sets an awful precedent. If it were to be implemented by foreign Governments currently in military conflicts, we would be rightly appalled. \p Thomas Tugendhat: Does the hon. Member have any views on the South African truth and reconciliation commission that did exactly that? \p Paul Foster: I have plenty of views on that, but it does not change my view on immunity. I believe immunity is wrong, particularly for soldiers.

Moving on, I understand the concerns of my fellow veterans that any investigations into historical deaths have previously disproportionately focused on the actions of the armed forces and former police officers, rather than the paramilitaries. The Government have recognised that and introduced a number of key protections for anyone asked to provide information. Those include protection from repeated investigations, a right to stay at home, a right to anonymity, protection from cold calling, protection in old age and the right to be heard. \p Sammy Wilson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? \p Paul Foster: I am almost done.

Another important issue is that we must and will protect our veterans from vexatious and unwarranted investigations. The creation of a reformed Legacy Commission must not only provide for accountability,  but provide the protection of the innocent. Legacy cases have dominated the inquest system in Northern Ireland, where coroner legislation dates back to 1959 and desperately requires modernisation. The 1959 legislation was never created to deal with the numerous and complex types of legal issues the system now faces. Coronial law in Northern Ireland is a devolved matter, but a modernised inquest system could dictate new rules of procedure, change evidential standards, affect disclosure processes and reshape how article 2 is applied, thus providing multiple additional layers— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Paul Kohler: Although I have not held this spokesperson role for long, I have met veterans, victims and survivors, academics and Members from across this House and the other place. Those conversations have been humbling and instructive, reminding me of the horror that Northern Ireland endured and the courage of those who lived through and served during the troubles.

I begin by recognising the Secretary of State’s work in bringing forward this Bill. Dealing with the legacy of the past requires legislation and practical action that the public can trust. I want to make it clear that the Liberal Democrats welcome the intent to repeal and replace part 2, and certain aspects of part 3, of the Conservatives’ failed legacy Act. That legislation was a profound misjudgment. It commanded no confidence in Northern Ireland, was opposed by every major party and placed the UK in breach of its human rights obligations. Not only did the Tories provide conditional immunity for serious troubles-related crimes, but they offended victims and—the shadow Secretary of State seemed to forget this—alienated veterans by appearing to equate them with terrorists.

This Bill rightly removes those provisions, ends immunity and restores the principle that no one is beyond the law. Clause 1 confirms that the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery will continue under a new name—the Legacy Commission—with reformed governance and functions. That recognises the need to rebuild the process to have one that the people of Northern Ireland can trust.

We support the Government’s intention to reform the commission, but expectations are high and confidence is fragile. Any effective legacy process must also ensure that the narratives of the troubles remain accurate and that victims of terrorism are neither forgotten nor morally equated with perpetrators. At the same time, they were victims of lawful, and occasionally unlawful, acts by the state, whose right to truth is equally important. Only a system founded on transparency, independence and fairness can command confidence across all communities, which previous actions, such as the letters of comfort issued to paramilitaries in the past, did so much to undermine.

Clause 3 sets out the Legacy Commission’s structures and functions, including investigating deaths and serious harm, holding inquisitorial proceedings, producing a full record of deaths and securing public confidence—a requirement I strongly welcome. It also establishes an oversight board to provide strategic direction and scrutiny,  but with a board drawn from within the organisation, the real test of its effectiveness will lie in the independence and integrity of those appointed to lead the commission in the first place.

Clauses 4 to 6 give the Secretary of State power to appoint commissioners, directors of investigation and judicial panel members. Even with the consultation requirements under clause 9, that concentration of powers risks undermining trust. Appointments through the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission or a similar independent mechanism would surely strengthen public confidence. My concern is heightened as the Secretary of State also appoints the victims and survivors advisory group under clause 8. When one person controls both the commission’s leadership and its advisory body, independence is difficult to discern.

Turning to the fundamental issue of veterans protections under the Bill, those amount to the following. Unsolicited contact would be limited to official channels, which is clearly important. There will be an end to repeat investigations, but the undefined caveat of “unless it is essential to do so” leaves the scope unclear. Veterans will have the ability to seek anonymity, although a provision to that effect already exists under the Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Act 2008. Veterans will have the right to give evidence remotely, but there will not be a default presumption to do so. Veterans’ welfare will have to be considered, which is at best vague, and veterans will be represented on the ministerial advisory group, which while welcome does not in itself offer protection.

Veterans are surely right in arguing that this is not enough. This has implications not just for them, but for our current service personnel and potential future recruits. As the nine four-star generals who wrote to The Times last week made clear, the provisions of the Bill have profound implications for both service morale and future recruitment. \p Angus MacDonald: My family has served in the Army for many generations, including myself in the troubles in Northern Ireland, and indeed my son is serving now. We have seen and deeply admired the Army’s core values of courage, discipline, respect, integrity, loyalty and selfless commitment. Would my hon. Friend accept that the retired generals and the many serving friends of my son make an extremely pertinent point when they say that the Bill will negatively impact retention and recruitment in the British Army, and at a time when we are desperate to bolster our armed forces? \p Nusrat Ghani: Before Mr Kohler resumes his speech, let me say that we must keep interventions short. Many Members wish to contribute. \p Paul Kohler: I absolutely agree. The Bill will have profound implications for both service morale and future recruitment, particularly with respect to our special forces. That is why it must go further.

With more than 10% of the Lib Dem Benches made up of former members of the armed services, my parliamentary party is acutely aware of the risks that veterans talk about and the sacrifices they and their fallen comrades made. Our concern is fairness, not shielding wrongdoing.

Under this Bill, many veterans will remain exposed to uncertainty, possible retrospective judgment and scrutiny of sensitive personal data and service records. That concern is heightened by the stark disparity in record keeping. The actions of veterans were documented in detail, whereas the activities of those engaged in terrorism were not. That results in an imbalance in documentary evidence that must be acknowledged and addressed. It is noteworthy that while the state has protected itself through the Secretary of State’s discretion over the handling of sensitive information, the Bill gives veterans no such safeguards. \p Andrew Rosindell: The IRA’s campaign of terror against the British people was one of the darkest chapters in our history; the shields of Airey Neave, Ian Gow, Robert Bradford and Sir Anthony Berry demonstrate that. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the armed servicemen represented here today defended us, and it is the job of this Parliament to ensure that they are now defended? \p Paul Kohler: I absolutely agree. We must never equate our armed forces with the paramilitaries and terrorists on both the nationalist and Unionist sides.

Veterans deserve assurances that their service rights and data are treated fairly, securely and proportionately. That is why we call on the Government to come forward with binding statutory safeguards, including a clearer presumption against repeated investigations without objectively certified new and significant evidence; an expanded duty to consider operational context; strengthened welfare protections; and a presumption of remote participation.

It is important that the voices of not just veterans, but all victims and survivors are heard. Clause 8 does that by establishing a group to advise both the Legacy Commission and the Secretary of State. However, its members will be appointed by the Secretary of State, with its numbers limited to as few as three and no more than seven, which risks its voice being limited and its independence being compromised. By concentrating sweeping powers in the hands of the Secretary of State, the Bill risks creating an opaque system that offers little genuine parliamentary oversight or scrutiny.

As hon. Members are aware, there is already a Commission for Victims and Survivors, which has for almost two decades ensured that those most affected by the troubles are heard. There is a danger that the proposed victims and survivors ministerial advisory group, despite its separate function, might trespass into the existing forum’s domain, which, with its wide range of perspectives, including veterans from both Unionist and nationalist backgrounds and those who have served in the Crown forces, has the all-important cross-community legitimacy. Trust is so important.

Capturing that breadth and establishing that trust in the newly proposed and much smaller advisory group will be difficult. I therefore ask the Government to clarify how the new advisory group will interact with the existing forum. Will the Commissioner for Victims and Survivors have a formal role in the advisory group? Otherwise, how will the voices of veterans and former security personnel, who are both victims and key stakeholders, be heard? \p Gideon Amos: Does my hon. Friend agree that veterans who served in Northern Ireland and were then pursued by the IRA to Germany and attacked there deserve more reassurance than the words that duplication will not occur unless “the duplication is essential”? \p Paul Kohler: I absolutely agree. We must go further and do more for veterans. The Bill does not go far enough at this stage.

My party has always opposed the legacy Act, but we are clear that its replacement must address the legitimate concerns of veterans. As one can see from the joint statement issued last night by the veterans commissioners of the devolved nations, that is not currently the case. They have expressed concerns, which are shared on the Lib Dem Benches, that the Bill does not provide sufficient safeguards for veterans, nor does it provide sufficient safeguards against lawfare, historical narrative revision or disparities between how ex-security personnel and others will be treated.

That is why my party has submitted a reasoned amendment, and will support the Conservative reasoned amendment, to deny Second Reading of the Bill until the fundamental issue of sufficient protection for veterans is addressed, along with enhanced parliamentary oversight, safeguarding of the independence of appointments, clarification on the role of the victims and survivors advisory group, and measures to ensure that no Government can use ministerial discretion to shut down the search for the truth. I realise that that will disappoint the Secretary of State, but I reiterate what I said at the beginning of my speech. My party commends him for all his hard work in seeking to move on from the Tories’ failed legacy Act. Its successor, however, must command genuine confidence across all communities while ensuring our veterans’ peace of mind. I pledge on behalf of my party to do all we can to help him to achieve that goal. \p Tonia Antoniazzi: In December last year the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, which I chair, launched an inquiry into the Government’s emerging plans. Since then, we have received nearly 80 pieces of written evidence; held eight evidence sessions with representatives of victims and survivors, veterans, retired police officers and human rights groups; and heard twice from the Secretary of State—and I thank him for that. Importantly, we have visited Northern Ireland to hear at first hand from the people directly affected by the troubles. We met victims and survivors from all communities and none, hearing their concerns, their requests and, most movingly, their stories.

Because of the timing of the announcement of first the joint framework and then the Bill, we have been working apace to gather new evidence on the Government’s plans and have yet to consider and agree a report following our inquiry, but I hope we can do so shortly, and before the Bill returns to the Floor of the House for its Committee stage. The points that I shall make in my speech are based on the evidence that my Select Committee has taken, but any conclusions I draw or recommendations I make about the Government’s proposals are my own.

One question that we consistently asked those to whom we spoke was, “Have the Government consulted you on their plans or proposals?” The answer from  many was that they had felt listened to, but not heard. I know the Secretary of State’s response has always been to say, gently, “They will not know whether we have listened to them until they see our proposals,” but previous consultations—for example, the one on Stormont House—were much more comprehensive than this one. It now seems from many of the provisions in both the framework and the Bill that Ministers have indeed been listening, and I thank the Secretary of State for that. The fact remains, however, that if these proposals are to gain the confidence of as many communities as possible, including veterans, the Government will need to listen more, bring them along and enable them to take ownership of what is being put forward, and confidence will be key.

The Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery has been unable to garner the kind of trust and authority across the communities that would enable it to carry out its work effectively. We have seen evidence of that, but it is no fault of the chief commissioner, Sir Declan Morgan, or of any other senior commissioner or commission officer. We took evidence from ICRIR representatives in May and met them privately, and we became very aware of the professionalism, integrity and decency with which the commission has approached its work. Unfortunately, however, its roots in the legacy Act hampered it from the beginning. Some people thought that its investigations were too light-touch, while others thought that it was not doing, or able to do, enough to address potential conflicts of interest between investigators and their investigations. We heard that its investigations were rigorous and could lead to prosecutions, and that it was introducing its own robust conflict of interest policy, but we know how it is when trust is lacking: root-and-branch reform seems inevitable.

Many Committee members, including me, have been greatly moved by listening to the families we have met. I would personally urge the Secretary of State to ensure that the decision on the sensitivities and prejudice of documents held will be the decision of the Legacy Commission, and not that of the agencies who currently hold that information and need to pass it on.

In respect of case referrals, stakeholders have submitted supplementary evidence to us on many of the Government’s proposals. For example, the Government’s plan to widen the range of people and organisations who can refer a case to the new Legacy Commission seems sensible, but there are potential changes that could be made to the definition of “close family member” which would make it more inclusive and reflective of the reality of modern family life, and of the time that it has taken for some families to gain an investigation. As we know, trauma, and the search for truth, can be passed down the generations.

I have to skip a large part of my speech, but one of the things that I must address is resourcing. The ICRIR has pointed out the increase in demand for its services—something that will only continue under the new commission. Given that it has greater responsibilities, including taking on coronial cases through its enhanced inquisitorial mechanism, its funding will need to be under continuous review. It is to be noted that the resourcing of organisations such as the Police Service of Northern Ireland and others, which have new demands on their records, will also need to be considered.

I will draw my comments to a close. There is much to be commended in the Bill, but there is also much that still needs to be worked on. I look forward to bringing the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee’s inquiry to a close. \p David Davis: This is a terrible Bill. Its central failing is that it will lead to the persecution of patriotic, innocent British soldiers whose only sin is defending our democracy with heroism and skill. What it will do is recreate a circumstance in which soldiers are treated unfairly by the law.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) referred to the case of Soldier B and the judge’s dismissal of it as a “ludicrous” challenge funded by legal aid. I have known Soldier B for 30 years; I count him as a friend. He is tough and clever yet, even for him, being dragged through the courts for four years and more, on what is effectively preparation for a murder charge, would have been unbelievably stressful. The point my hon. Friend made is that the process is the punishment: four years of stress and wear and tear.

In Operation Banner, our soldiers assiduously obeyed the yellow card rules, but in Northern Ireland the courts have sometimes interpreted those rules as requiring our soldiers to take almost suicidal risks. We are dragging men in their 70s and 80s through coroners courts in Belfast, and judging them by a standard that makes no sense in a military context. To illustrate this, let me share with the House a single case that highlights what can happen to soldiers under these circumstances.

On 16 March 1978, in the middle of the night, two SAS soldiers were manning a covert observation post. They saw two men in combat clothing moving toward them. One of our soldiers, David Jones, stood up and challenged the men. The IRA gunman immediately shot him down in a burst of gunfire. That story would have been at the back of the mind of every soldier who subsequently served in Northern Ireland. They made their decisions in the face of the risk of immediate death. It is a measure of their professionalism that hundreds of terrorists were arrested alive under the circumstances, given that the soldiers could have been killed.

Today’s debate is actually about morality. It is about whether this House chooses justice over political convenience, truth over revisionism, and loyalty over the cynical rewriting of history. The Government claim that today’s problems arise from legislation passed by the previous Government, which allegedly created an amnesty for terrorists. Really? What are the facts?

Labour, under Blair, effectively gave a de facto amnesty—maybe it is challengeable in law—to at least 650 terrorists, who had carried out more than 3,000 killings. Early release schemes, on-the-run letters and the royal prerogative of mercy collectively created a vast secret system of de facto immunity. It was secret because the Government knew that people would not accept it. \p Alex Ballinger: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? \p David Davis: No. I am sorry, but I do not have time.

People knew that the system would not be accepted, which is why Gerry Adams asked for an “invisible system” for dealing with on-the-runs. Why are they on the run? They are on the run because they are criminals, and this was a secret system to deal with it.

In contrast, 300,000 of our soldiers defended democracy in Northern Ireland. They defended law and order, democracy and the innocent citizens of Northern Ireland, whom we often forget in this. They acted as the direct opposite of the IRA, the gangster organisation that terrorised all communities in Northern Ireland. By the way, I mean “all communities”; remember that the IRA killed a very large number of Catholics to terrorise that community. Yet today those who upheld the law face relentless legal pursuit, while those who broke the law received leniency, letters and legal shelter.

Let us not forget that the IRA are also protected by the fact that witnesses, or would-be witnesses, against them know that they risk murder if they turn up. I was in Omagh a few weeks ago, and I met a policeman who was shot—six times, I think—only a couple of years ago by the Real IRA, or the New IRA or whatever label they have today. Instead of attacking those who served, we should honour them, their service and their patriotism. We should not treat them worse than the killers they defeated. This House must say, “Enough. Enough moral inversion, and enough rewarding of terror, while hounding those who defended the public.”

We are told that the Bill is necessary because Northern Ireland will not support alternatives, but when real leaders must choose between consensus and justice, they choose justice. This Bill must not rest on appeasement. The world watches while Britain chooses today. Its allies watch with concern, and its enemies with enthusiasm, as they plan future decades of lawfare against our best soldiers. If we do not speak up to protect both our current service personnel and our veterans, the innocent will suffer in future, and we will find ourselves unable to defend our nation. \p Claire Hanna: Time is short, but I hope that we can consider why, as well as how, pain is to be addressed in Northern Ireland. The Social Democratic and Labour party approaches legacy from a basis that considers the rule of law, equality before the law, and the impact on reconciliation. We recognise that this is not a sterile debate, taking place only in this Chamber or in Committee Rooms, and it is not a knockabout for a headline or a tweet; it is a daily reality for many thousands of families. While the issue of legacy remains unresolved, it is like a fog around us in Northern Ireland, shaping the tone of our politics, and affecting how communities interact with one another, our policing, and the ability of Government to deliver. This Bill is not perfect—legislation rarely is—but we cannot miss the opportunity to deal with legacy. This is not about an obsession with the past. Getting this right is about an obsession with a non-violent and reconciled future.

It is positive that we are discussing a bilateral agreement between the Irish Government and the Government in London. This is a much-needed departure from the unilateralism pursued by the last Government. Despite clear warnings, they pressed ahead with a deeply flawed legacy Act, which was not only struck down by the courts, but rejected by every single party in the north or south of Ireland, and by more or less every single victim or survivor who spoke on the record. They exploited the  fiction that we had to draw a line under the past because nothing else was working, while fighting and stalling the processes that were in place. The Conservative party’s approach to legacy diminished the rule of law, disregarded bilateral communities and, worse, wasted the time, the years and the energy of so many blameless victims and survivors.

The joint framework allows both Governments to begin meeting their responsibilities for dealing with the past. We acknowledge the journey and the effort of the Secretary of State and his officials. Although we will seek by amendment to make the final legislation robust enough to withstand less well-intentioned political oversight, I understand that people are working closely on this across the Irish sea, and that Dublin’s legislation will be published swiftly once this Bill has made its way through the House, so that its architecture is compatible with the arrangements we have at the end of the legislative process here. It is right that these things be delivered in parallel, and right that it is a partnership. When people make lurid claims about what the Irish Government have or have not done, but cry foul at any attempt to address it, I can view that only as cynicism.

The SDLP does not pick and choose which victims we support. We do not pick and choose who we demand accountability from. Every death was a tragedy, and every murder was wrong. Publicly and privately, we will push Dublin, as we will push everyone else, on its obligations and its omissions from this framework, and on the Omagh inquiry. We will not tolerate or dignify the distortions and the revisionism of those, including many on the Opposition side of this House, who attempt to draw an equivalence, from London, between the Government of the Irish Republic and the murder machine of paramilitaries, or the systematic involvement of paramilitaries.

From the early days of the conflict, victims have borne the most—including lacklustre investigations and the release of prisoners—and asked the least, which we accept was a hard pill to swallow. To go far outwith the Good Friday agreement, they have had that compounded by an uneven transition for paramilitaries, on-the-run letters, decades of cynical memorialisation, and the immunity scheme that was in place under the previous Government.

Unlike others, the SDLP does not accept that violence was either inevitable or justified. Regardless of context, for military commanders and IRA commanders, violence was a choice. Planting bombs in busy town centres was a choice. Arming paramilitaries was a choice. Opening fire on innocent civil rights marchers was a choice. Brushing all those crimes under the carpet, as the previous Government attempted to do, was also a choice.

The deaths of far too many innocent people were treated as collateral. Decisions were made that some lives were worth less, having been expended for a goal that could never have been achieved that way. That has never been properly acknowledged. The IRA has never needed a legal process to admit that truth, and it made that futile and brutal choice many times. Loyalist paramilitaries have never acknowledged that their war was with innocent Catholics, and that their victims were selected purely on the basis of the family or faith that they were born into. They do not need legacy legislation to acknowledge that point. Likewise, the running of state agents by security   forces was not a “necessary evil”; it was reckless and morally corrosive, and it should shame those who conducted it, and those trying to pretend it did not happen.

Uncomfortable as it may be for many, including in this House, we must address disclosure in order to understand how non-state actors also operated with impunity. For many, directing terrorism had very little to do with political ideals and more to do with power, control and dominance over the communities they claimed to defend.

Legacy processes need to shore up confidence in the rule of law. How this House legislates on legacy will have an effect on confidence in policing. There is no perfect way to address our troubled past. We have to be honest that there is not a pathway to justice, or even truth, for every family, but we have to deliver on promises made to so many over the years.

As for those who suffered loss, I hear daily their dignity, fortitude and the wisdom that can emerge from pain. We should hear and heed those voices, and we should proceed with the Bill. I will finish with the words of a fine Ulster poet, John Hewitt:

“Bear in mind these dead:

I can find no plainer words.”

He asked us not to differentiate between people, depending on how they died, but to offer truth and justice for all of them. \p Gavin Robinson: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna). We do work with each other on these issues, although we do not always agree.

It is fair to say that our history is sorrowful. It is pitiful and painful, and grounded on a corruption of justice. While we listen to the politics and the back and forth between Labour and Conservative in this Chamber, we have to go back to 1998 to find that corruption of justice: the release of prisoners, the litany of failures, and the lamentable approach to those who terrorised our communities across society in Northern Ireland. The on-the-run scheme was not the same as letters of comfort; it was a royal prerogative of mercy, and a de facto amnesty to paramilitaries. Only two weeks ago, a Minister from the Northern Ireland Office met 25 victims, one of whom, a member of our party, was shot in 1981 in Aughnacloy by a member of the Provisional IRA, a champion within the Sinn Féin movement until he fell out with them. He sought sanctuary in Switzerland and Sweden. Only when he became an opponent of the peace process was he ever amenable to justice. He stood as a dissident representative in the 2007 election, and was arrested at the count. He was convicted for 20 years for the attempted murder of one of my colleagues. That was a de facto amnesty for as long as he was brought into the political process.

The innocent victims of Northern Ireland have heard the Government promise to repeal and replace, yet that is not what they are seeing. They have heard a promise to protect veterans; that is a mirage. There is no specific protection for veterans in this piece of legislation—none. Last week, when the Minister for Veterans was asked on the radio four times whether she could rule out a member of the IRA being on the victims advisory forum, she could not. That the Secretary of State has not taken the  opportunity to say that he would accept an amendment to ban paramilitaries from that advisory board is, I think, a shame, but shame runs throughout the legacy of our past, and Governments’ approach to it.

Does the Bill work for innocent victims? I have to tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that innocent victims are sick, sore and tired of people from across this Chamber—maybe even those on these Benches—pretending to speak for them. Yes, it is true that some innocent victims want truth and to know what happened, but others want justice. They have not received it.

Does the Bill contain protections for veterans? No. Does the word “veteran” feature in this legislation at all? No, it does not. Victims and veterans are sick of the gaslighting and psychological torture of having their own beliefs, understanding and memory challenged and questioned to the point that they think they have got something wrong.

What about paramilitaries? Paramilitaries were invited to Lambeth Palace to create the amnesty scheme that the Conservatives brought through. They will be satisfied enough that their concerns have been listened to by this Labour Government.

I have raised with the Secretary of State time and again his lamentable failure to support the commissioner for investigations, solely because he has a history in the RUC. What is the answer to that? The answer is to create an equal position to sit alongside him. We have a human rights commissioner in Northern Ireland. Even though the High Court has attested the independence of the commissioner for investigations and the ICRIR, the Secretary of State has decided at the behest of the Irish to create an equal position, for fear of contamination. That is outrageous. It is not legally sustainable or legally required, and it cuts to the heart of the professionalism and integrity of not only that individual, but all who served in the Royal Ulster Constabulary, 302 of whom were murdered by paramilitaries in Northern Ireland.

We hear about protections for veterans, but what about those who served in the PSNI, or the RUC before them? What about those who served and were deployed alongside members of the armed forces? Where is their support, Secretary of State? It is not in this legislation. Whenever the Northern Ireland Retired Police Officers Association had to go to court, who paid its bills? It did. Retired police officers had to raise tens of thousands of pounds to challenge the Police Ombudsman, who was rewriting the past and asserted “collusive behaviours”—a legal phraseology that does not exist. Those retired police officers have had to defend their honour by themselves, because no Government of any hue have stood by their side and defended them. They defended us, Secretary of State, and we should defend them.

The Secretary of State has sullied himself and this Parliament by the engagement with the Irish Republic. I have it on good authority that the Irish Republic has cautioned against amendments to the legislation. The Irish Government construed a memorandum of understanding on the Omagh inquiry to mean that they would assist only in answering the question of what the UK authorities could have done to prevent that atrocity; they will not say what they could have done, yet for decades they harboured terrorists, refused extradition and supported and financed terrorism in Northern Ireland. Has the Secretary of State put them under any pressure? No, he  has not. What legal obligation is there, if the Bill passes, to see that they adhere to the European convention on human rights? None. \p Colum Eastwood: Fifty years ago this month, Columba McVeigh was taken away by the IRA. He was murdered and his body was disappeared. His family are still searching for his remains. Two years later, the same happened to Captain Robert Nairac. Before that, there was Jean McConville, who we know about—a widowed mother of 10, disappeared by the IRA. Eventually, many years later, her family were reunited with her remains.

The people who carried out those tragic murders—those despicable war crimes—would, if the Conservative party had its way, be free from any concern and from prosecution. Majella O’Hare was 12 years old when she was shot by a British soldier on her way to chapel in Armagh. The same goes for Majella. Patsy Gillespie was chained to a van by an IRA unit and made to drive the van with a bomb into an army base on the Buncrana Road in Derry. Patsy was killed along with five other soldiers, and the people who murdered them would be free from prosecution if it were up to the Members on the Opposition Benches.

I have to say that as I sat with the families of Bloody Sunday in a court last month and looked at their devastated faces after 53 years of searching for justice, I expected better from some of our leaders and politicians. I did not expect tweets with the Parachute Regiment insignia being put out by some senior Members of this House and I did not expect fulsome support for Soldier F from others. Let me just put this on the record, because it is important. It seems to me that lots of people who talk about Bloody Sunday never actually bothered to read the Saville inquiry—an inquiry that was, of course, set up by a British Government, led by a British judge and supported by subsequent British Prime Ministers.

Soldier F, by his own admission, killed five people on Bloody Sunday. He killed Michael Kelly and William McKinney. He shot James Wray in the back and while Wray was lying face down on the floor in Glenfada Park, Soldier G came over and finished him off, standing on top of him and shooting him in the back. Soldier F then shot Paddy Doherty, who was crying out that he did not want to die alone, so Bernard McGuigan crawled to him waving a white handkerchief. What did Soldier F do to Bernard McGuigan? \p Jim Allister: Will the hon. Member give way? \p Colum Eastwood: I am going to finish this. What did Soldier F do to Bernard McGuigan? He shot him in the head, killing him instantly. He then tried to kill an Italian journalist who was looking through a window in the Rossville flats. Soldier F shot six bullets into that window and by a miracle Fulvio Grimaldi survived. Soldier F then went on to pervert the course of justice by lying through his teeth, claiming that four of the people he shot, who were subsequently proven to be innocent civilians, were engaged in riotous behaviour. He went to Fort George army base, where the people who were arrested that day were being held. He assaulted  several civilians, including a Catholic priest, Terence O’Keeffe. He then stood a 16-year-old boy, Denis McLaughlin, up against a gas blow heater until he fainted and collapsed. What did he do then? He kicked the young fella to his feet and asked him whether he wanted a drink. When the young man answered that he did, he spat in his mouth.

A few months later, on 7 September 1972, Soldier F went to the Shankill Road—we do not hear that from Unionist politicians, by the way—and admitted shooting a Protestant man called Robert Johnston. He lied again, saying that Robert was a gunman. He was not, and the coroner’s court made that absolutely clear. Robert Johnston was totally innocent as well. I have never once heard a Unionist politician, or anybody in this House, stand up for Robert Johnston and the other man killed on that day. \p Jim Allister: Is the hon. Member saying to this House that the evidence of the person just described, Soldier G, who he has described as a liar and a perjurer, should have been used to convict Soldier F? Does the hon. Member not accept the verdict of our court? He appeals for justice. Our courts have given a verdict on Soldier F. Does he accept it? \p Colum Eastwood: There was one reason that I and the Bloody Sunday families accepted the verdict. It was because the point was made absolutely clear: between 1970 and 1974, the British Government, the British Army, the Royal Military Police and the RUC were engaged in a cover-up of mass proportions, when any single member of the British Army who was arrested was questioned without legal representation and not under caution. That meant that any of those cases were doomed before we even got started.

What I am laying out in this House today—and the hon. and learned Member might not like it—is not whether or not there was a conviction in the court; I am laying out the truth, not as I see it but as Soldier F admitted it, and as was found by an international inquiry of truth that was set up by the Labour Government and accepted by them as well. It was also accepted by Prime Minister Cameron, who said that what happened on that day was “unjustified and unjustifiable.” Then, we see the British Government and the MOD paying at least £4.3 million to defend somebody whose actions they knew were unjustified and unjustifiable. That is the truth. Those are the facts. He got far more legal representation than anybody would under legal aid, and if anybody wants to check those figures out, they are available for all to see.

What has happened in this debate is that people seem unable to come to the simple fact that every single murder was wrong, whether it was committed by the IRA or by the British Government, and that not one single person should be free from prosecution. They should not be allowed impunity. As for those people who stand in this House and talk about how great the British Army was and how much they care about the British Army, if that is your position, why then are you accepting and supporting people who committed mass murder? \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. How many times do I have to remind colleagues about the use of “you” and “your”? There is not much time left. \p Colum Eastwood: Why are those Members supporting people who, by their own admission, murdered innocent civilians—civilians who should be seen by anybody in this House as citizens of the United Kingdom? Everybody can see the hypocrisy that has been on display in this place many times. I know that many people in this House served in Northern Ireland. Well, there are lots of people at home watching this who live in Northern Ireland and they are sick, sore and tired of this. If this legislation has any chance of giving people some truth and justice, it should be allowed to proceed. We of course have issues with the Bill. We have issues around the national security parts of it and around sensitive information, and we will table amendments in that regard in the process, but we have to give this a chance. We have to give our victims a chance, and all this— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. I call Tom Tugendhat. \p Thomas Tugendhat: I welcome the speech that the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) has just given, and the reason I welcome it is that he recognised correctly, fully and truthfully that almost all those who were victims in those terrible years of the troubles were UK citizens. They deserve the same recognition, respect and protection as any other citizen of the United Kingdom. One of the foundational reasons that I am a Unionist is that I believe that we are all equal on these islands—or rather, on that part of these islands.

I understand where we are, but we can look back a lot at history. We can look back a lot at what has got us to the position we are in, but if I may, I want to drag the Government’s eyes forward. The reality is that what we are doing here, in reopening and ending our own version of the South African truth and reconciliation committee—with all the problems, failures, lacunas and gaps that that necessarily has—is ending the opportunity to move on, with all the pain that that brings. We are reopening wounds that, sadly, we all know will never close.

I can look at the agreements that were made in the 1990s. I can speak about the deals that Tony Blair did, and like everybody here, I can be deeply critical about the injustices that he allowed, but I cannot then welcome the peace that he brought. I cannot welcome the peace if I am critical of the process that he and others needed to make it happen, so I am very cautious about those who would go back and criticise and call out. I understand the pain of so many, but if we want peace we have to move forward, and that is where this Bill is really difficult. It does not just affect the peace of these islands, important though that is; it also affects the peace of Europe and the wider world, because it is telling people across these islands that their service when they sign up will not be for five or 10 years, or whatever it says on the recruitment contract, but for as long as our enemies and those who seek to do us harm wish to bring prosecutions against us. I wrote about this for Policy Exchange in 2013 and again in 2015, in two papers: “The Fog of Law” and “Clearing the Fog of Law”.

The fundamental point is that we think this is about us. We in this Chamber have the idea that, somehow or other, the law, the justice system and what we shape and decide here is all about us, but I am afraid it is not. You do not need to take my word for it. Read the Mitrokhin archive. Read what the KGB was doing  using instrumentalising. There were many honourable people in the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, but there were also some who were willing to co-operate with the KGB. Members should read what the KGB and its successor organisations have been trying to do around the world, using the law as a way of continuing actions against British forces and a way of disarming our forces before they get into conflict.

I have a lot of respect for the Minister—he and I have always got on very well, and I admire his dedication—but the tragedy is that, for all the well-meaning aspirations of this Government, and although he, the judges and inquiries have a responsibility to the past, the system that was set up had inquiries and an ability to find justice and the truth. Yes, it made a compromise that many of us did not like, and yes, it gave conditional immunity that many of us found pretty abhorrent, but it also gave the possibility of moving forward. It sent a message to our enemies that we would simply not tolerate our soldiers being dragged through the courts ad infinitum, because all that does is demonstrate weakness.

Let us look at the numbers. This country has a population of roughly 65 million people, and we have security forces numbering maybe 350,000. The equations and challenges are pretty clear. We also have enemies mustering at our gate, as we know very well. Our friends in countries such as Denmark and Sweden are reintroducing conscription, because they realise the threat from the east. Countries such as Poland are spending much more on defence than we do, because they know that Russia is a real threat. We will simply not be in position to stand with them and defend ourselves and our values if we are not willing to stand behind those who risked everything to serve our country.

I have fought on the frontline and know what the heat, dust, confusion and fear can be like. There is a difference between that and having to explain oneself in a courtroom 20 years later, when all we have is gossip and rumour—because nobody else was there, nobody else was telling the truth, nobody else witnessed the reality of the difficult decisions that were taken. All we are doing in holding lance corporals, corporals and commanders all the way through the process is abdicating our responsibility for choosing to send them. \p Michael Wheeler: I will keep my remarks brief, because many valued voices are yet to be heard in this debate. I welcome the Bill. Northern Ireland has a special place in my heart. It gave me my mum and treasured memories of time with family, and it will always feel part of me, but it also left the younger version of me with many questions, such as why kerbstones were painted red, white and blue in some places, and why the police had guns and their cars looked like tanks.

As I said after the Secretary of State’s statement last December,

“Nothing can be allowed to jeopardise the progress that has been made in Northern Ireland.”—[Official Report, 4 December 2024; Vol. 758, c. 425.]

I have seen that progress at first hand. The streets of Belfast are a fundamentally different place compared not just with the stories my mum tells of her youth, but with what I remember from mine. However, progress is not finished and peace should never be taken for granted.

We must make sure that we get this right, so I welcome the measures in the Bill to build a clear, robust and fair system with which justice and closure can be sought. Creating a reformed Legacy Commission with strengthened governance, giving the Legacy Commission the powers that it needs so that answers can be provided to families— including those of servicemen and women—and taking a new approach to inquests and coronial cases will all help to provide answers that are sought and needed by grieving families.

However, we must also ensure that the system itself is not used as a weapon. I genuinely believe that, as a package, the Bill’s six measures to protect veterans should provide significant reassurance to those who served. There can be no equivalence drawn in this or any other process between those who served in our armed and security forces to protect life and promote security and stability, and terrorists, whether loyalist or republican.

The thing that was too often forgotten during the troubles were the ordinary people—those who found themselves caught in the middle and who, on too many occasions, lost their lives because of it. We must not forget them now. I thank those who served to protect people —our veterans, who found themselves in communities not too dissimilar from the ones they grew up in, having to do an immensely difficult job. I also thank those who saw that peace was the way forward. As we debate this Bill, it is incumbent on us all to remember where we have been and just how fragile progress can be. Let us get this right and provide justice for grieving families and protections for those who served. \p Julian Smith: I want to thank all the military servicemen and women who served on Operation Banner. It was not just the military. On every visit to a police station in Northern Ireland, I saw the long lists of officers who were lost. I pay tribute to members and family members of the RUC and to our security services, agents and staff. I also pay tribute to parliamentary colleagues past and present who served in Operation Banner.

I condemn utterly the mindless and needless violence of the IRA, who were, in the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois),

“one of the most ruthless and vicious terrorist organisations the world has ever seen.”—[Official Report, 14 July 2025; Vol. 771, c. 46WH.]

I also pay tribute to innocent victims of the troubles. The list of atrocities is long, and the IRA principally is responsible for the vast majority of them, along with loyalist paramilitary groups. Neighbours, sons, daughters, husbands—thousands of families were impacted in this smallest part of the United Kingdom.

Given that broader legislation on legacy has been so long awaited, it is important to emphasise the regulations I brought in as Secretary of State on behalf of the last Conservative Government on victims’ payments, which were the first stage of the legacy process. Many people have applied successfully for those payments, but I urge the Secretary of State to promote them to military and other victims and veterans, because I understand that  many more people could apply for them. I also urge him to consider what could be put in place for the bereaved, using some of the principles that we adopted to exclude anybody who was injured by their own hand.

I would like to make a number of observations. I pay tribute to those on the shadow Front Bench for representing and standing up for our soldiers and for articulating the clear dangers of lawfare and the rewriting of history. Perhaps our party and this House should have listened earlier to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) when his inquiry presented the option of a statute of limitations, but that would have had to be done as part of a much bigger reconciliation process.

We need to be so careful, when debating the issue of amnesties, to recognise that these were often British citizens killed by the very limited number of armed forces who behaved badly. It was an amazing achievement for David Cameron to have his speech shown in the Museum of Bloody Sunday in Derry. He acknowledged through his tone the wrongs that were committed. They were limited, but they were committed, and we have to admit that that happened.

I urge the Secretary of State to look at further options during the passage of the Bill for strengthening protections for veterans. First, the noble Lord Caine has suggested amending the Criminal Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 in order to deal with cases where a soldier thought they were acting in legitimate self-defence. Secondly, there are significantly larger volumes of legal aid paid out in Northern Ireland. Can that be looked at? The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) has raised the roving mandate of many inquests. Can that be looked at, to focus those inquests that are coming back under this Bill?

On the commitments from Ireland, I worked very closely and positively with the Irish Government to restore Stormont in 2020 and in 2024, but I remain sceptical as to how far Ireland will go, or will be able to go, in the provision of information to families. Will the Irish Government really be able to open everything up on Omagh? We have to be frank that, given the political headwinds they face, there is limited incentive for them to do that. It would be useful to understand what commitments have been made. We also need to be honest about our security services; there are going to be limits to what they can release—we have to be honest with families about that.

There are various statutory commitments in the Bill, but none on funding. The Omagh inquiry will cost about £15 million, and Finucane about £20 million. There is a risk that day-to-day policing in Northern Ireland loses out in the absence of that funding. On memorialisation and reconciliation, the clauses from the previous legislation remain. Again, who will pay for this, and how will the impossible task of getting consent on these matters be achieved?

I know that many families in Northern Ireland and beyond still want answers, and will hope that they can get them through this Bill. The lack of closure for so many leaves the next generation taking on the baton of grief and grievance. The issue for them is that time has not healed matters, nor has it lessened their pain. I hope that they can be front of mind as the Bill is debated here and in the other place in the weeks and months ahead. I think of the many individuals and families, some of  whom are in the Public Gallery today, and I hope, in what is probably going to be the last piece of legacy legislation, that we can all bear those families and individuals in mind. \p Nusrat Ghani: Speaking limits have dropped to five minutes because too many Members want to contribute. I am doing my best to get everybody in. \p Liam Conlon: May I start by thanking the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) for his thoughtful contribution?

Ever since the Northern Ireland legacy Bill was introduced by the previous Government in 2019, thousands of innocent victims’ families have waited to see this day. Of the many reckless things the Conservatives did to our relationship with Northern Ireland in their 14 years in government, I struggle to think of a more egregious example than that legislation. It was a direct attack on the Good Friday agreement, it undermined accountability and the rule of law, and it has caused significant pain to thousands of victims’ families. Indeed, in the bringing forward of that Bill, there was no consultation with any victims’ groups or families. The right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) referenced the South African truth and reconciliation commission, but a key difference is that that commission put families’ and victims’ voices at its centre.

For people across Northern Ireland, the legacy of the troubles is not a chapter in history, but something carried in every family and community to the present day. I know this from my own family. I am a relative of Father Hugh Mullan, one of 11 innocent victims of the Ballymurphy massacre, which took place in 1971—one of the worst atrocities of the troubles. Hugh was a Catholic priest, and was trying to help another victim and offer the last rites when he was shot and killed unlawfully by a member of the Parachute Regiment. He was shot first in the abdomen, and then again in the back as he lay on the ground.

What is often missed in discussions of troubles-related cases is that what followed often compounded families’ grief. Hugh was labelled as a gunrunner, and there were attempts to smear him that could not have been further from the truth, but it would take 50 years for the words “entirely innocent” to appear on public record in a ruling by Mrs Justice Keegan.

I have had the pleasure of working with victims’ groups right across Northern Ireland, on a cross-community basis, and I want to remark on the words of Sandra Peake, the chief executive officer of the Wave Trauma Centre, a fantastic cross-community charity. Sandra said:

“Whatever the previous Government’s intention the result would have been that terrorists who carried out the most egregious crimes imaginable would be able to walk free if they told their story to ‘the best of their knowledge and belief’. They could say that they stabbed John Molloy, an 18 year old, in a frenzied attack, leaving him to bleed to death yards from his home because he was a Catholic. And the state would say, “Thank you and we’ll say no more about it”. A witness saw them laughing and dancing down the road after they murdered John. Thanks to the Legacy Act, they would still be laughing and dancing. What John’s parents, Linda and Pat, were being told”—

by the previous Government—

“was that they should grieve in private while the evil perpetrators could celebrate in public. And this in the name of ‘reconciliation’.”

I have met many victims’ families, and they are some of the best people I have met. In the face of unimaginable trauma, they have led campaigns for justice with immense courage and dignity. They are motivated not by revenge or retribution, but by their love for their relatives and their determination to secure truth and justice. The legacy Act introduced by the last Government denied them all those things, and did so without consulting them.

I will finish with the words of Michael O’Hare, brother to 12-year old Majella, who was shot by a solider in south Armagh on her way to church one morning in 1976. I am pleased to see Michael in the Gallery today. He has said:

“This is an important day for families like ours, who thought we’d seen the door closed forever on these cases. Majella was just an innocent little girl who didn’t deserve to be gunned down when walking along the road with her friends. We deserve truth and accountability. It’s a huge relief that that is now a possibility again, even if we’ve had to wait half a century. It’s never too late to do the right thing”.

Today is about doing the right thing. It is a step forward, and I thank the Secretary of State for all his work, as well as every victims’ group that has been part of bringing forward this Bill. \p Robin Swann: “For your tomorrow, we gave our today”, would have been the phrase that many in this House stood for in honour, sombre, last Remembrance Sunday, as we stood across this country, remembering those who served and those who sacrificed. When I stood at those memorials in South Antrim, at Ballyclare and Antrim and Crumlin, and I saw wreaths laid for the members of the UDR, the RUC and the home battalions, it brought home why, when we talk about veterans in this place, we must also reflect and respect those veterans from Northern Ireland who did not return to home or to barracks in England, Scotland or Wales, but who every night returned to their own homes, having defended their neighbours, their loved ones, their families and workmates.

With regards to the victims have been mentioned, I note that the Secretary of State listed a number of atrocities but he did not mention Teebane, when 14 construction workers who were returning home from Omagh were blown up because the IRA considered them targets. They were working on a military base, and therefore the IRA described them as collaborating with forces of occupation. Our veterans and innocent victims are still waiting for their tomorrow, and they suffer, reflect, and carry the scars and pains of the 30-year terrorism campaign that was delivered on the doors and workplaces of their neighbours.

What is challenging about this, then? The former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith), mentioned that the trust and involvement of the Irish Government in this process is particularly challenging and galling. The Belfast agreement has been mentioned a number of times. I do look with honour and respect at what my party delivered in bringing forward that peace process, but it was delivered  in three strands: a Northern Ireland only basis, a north-south basis and an east-west basis. I have asked the Secretary of State this question before and I will do so again now: where does legacy sit within those three strands?

It seems now that the Secretary of State is abdicating, and that he is working in parallel with the Irish Government to bring this forward. He stood on 19 September beside the Tánaiste, Simon Harris, who told the media afterwards that there would be no specific protections for veterans—and, as we have seen, there are no specific protections for veterans in the Bill. The example that has been used once again is that veterans will not have to go to Northern Ireland to give evidence. Tell that to a Northern Ireland veteran! What protection—what special coverage—are this Government actually giving those men and women who served over there?

Yesterday, after the British-Irish intergovernmental conference, the Irish Government insisted that the legislation must remain “true” to the framework that had been agreed. So where are the amendments that will come from this place, and from the elected representatives of the United Kingdom? We will look for those amendments that are necessary to the Bill—I look for support across the House—and we will look for the definition of an innocent victim; we will have the opportunity to clarify that those responsible for the planning or implementation of an unlawful conflict or related incident are not included. Crimes that trigger an investigation must include sexual crimes as well, as we should not underestimate the use and deployment of sexual crime by terrorists and terrorist organisations to influence and control the population of Northern Ireland.

As has been raised by the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), what powers with the second director of investigations have, and why? Those powers will be in the gift and patronage of this Secretary of State, and they will include the power to appoint a constable. If that second director of investigations is from outside the United Kingdom, not only will they have access to all the information and detailed records that our military and police services hold, but they will be able to appoint someone with the powers of a constable.

There is no special reference to a veteran being on the victims and survivors advisory group. Where is the place for the Northern Ireland veterans commissioner or the commissioner for victims and survivors in regards to who may be appointed— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. I call Andy McDonald. \p Andy McDonald: I rise to welcome the Bill, particularly its reversal of aspects of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 and its effort to restore human rights compliance and public confidence. It resolves court-identified incompatibilities and makes changes to legacy cases. Alongside the remedial order, it removes immunity from prosecution, restores civil actions for troubles-related conduct, and reinstates some inquests. Other matters will be handled through the legacy commission’s inquisitorial proceedings, enabling family  participation and appropriate handling of sensitive information. These measures acknowledge that previous approaches caused deep harm and were, in many respects, unlawful.

However, as with the Public Office (Accountability) Bill and the Government’s engagement with the Hillsborough families, it is vital that this legislation gains the confidence of those affected in the north of Ireland. Amnesty International notes progress but also remaining concerns. Section 45 of the legacy Act, which limits police ombudsman investigations, is only partly addressed. Will the Minister say how incompatibilities with the ECHR, highlighted by the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal, will be resolved?

The Bill also retains the national security veto, giving the Secretary of State sole authority over sensitive disclosures. That risks undermining compliance and public trust, especially where state wrongdoing may be implicated. The family of Sean Brown, who was abducted and murdered in 1997, have long sought an independent public inquiry, and the Taoiseach called for such an inquiry this year. The PSNI has apologised for failings in the original investigation. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether the Government will commit to a fully independent inquiry into Mr Brown’s death, and that the proposed veto powers will not prevent it?

Given the legacy of mistrust, why do disclosure decisions remain solely in the Secretary of State’s authority? Will the Government consider an independent mechanism to balance national security with public confidence in legacy commission investigations? Although the Bill narrows the definition of sensitive information and introduces a public interest test, only the commission can appeal disclosure refusals, and only judicial review principles—not merits review—apply. Families’ rights to truth under articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR therefore remain vulnerable. Outstanding cases, such as that of Sean Brown, highlight the need for full, independent investigations. Courts have confirmed that an article 2 inquiry is required, yet none has been convened.

Concerns also remain about universal protections. Veterans appear singled out, potentially undermining fairness. Will the Secretary of State clarify how the Bill will ensure that protections apply equally, and that no group is seen as prioritised over victims and families? Additionally, the Bill states that human rights are to be “respected”, rather than imposing a binding obligation. Clearer language would strengthen accountability and reassure the public that all bodies must comply fully with the ECHR. Will the Government make that explicit? Finally, independence in appointments, particularly of judicial panel members, is essential. The Secretary of State’s broad appointment and resignation powers risk perceptions of political influence. Strong safeguards are needed to maintain trust.

In conclusion, although the Bill and the remedial order mark progress, significant issues with disclosure, independence, inquiries and universal protections remain. I urge the Minister to clarify how the Bill will rebuild trust and ensure fairness, transparency, and full human rights compliance for victims and families. \p John Lamont: 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. \p Alison Griffiths: Bognor Regis and Littlehampton is a coastal constituency with a strong forces tradition. Many of my constituents served in Northern Ireland and are now terrified of being pulled into a process that continues with no end. Does my hon. Friend agree that we owe those veterans a process that is fair, proportionate and final? \p John Lamont: 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. \p Katrina Murray: Kilsyth war memorial bears the names of the men of the town who lost their life in foreign wars—men whose service we recognise and remember every year on VE Day, VJ Day and Remembrance Sunday. On one face of that memorial sits a single, solitary name—a name set apart. The difference between that name and the others is stark. This son of Kilsyth also lost his life in the service of his country, but in his case he was killed by the Provisional IRA. In a town where his family still live and where his school friends are marking their significant birthdays, his name on that memorial is a reminder that his life, and the ultimate sacrifice that he made, will not be forgotten.

Just 2 miles down the road live another family. They, too, lost a loved one—a cousin, killed in an ambush by loyalist paramilitaries in the ’90s. I have known about the military deaths for a long time. They were one of the first things that I found out about as I became a candidate. I discovered the other one when we met families as part of a Select Committee visit to Belfast. One of the family members we met said, “I know your area. I spent summers there. My cousin lives in Kirkintilloch.” It reminded me of exactly how strong the links are between my part of the world and Ireland.

With a name like mine, I should recognise that there is a strong connection, but we are completely intertwined. It means that we know those families who lost loved ones during the troubles. We know the lack of answers that they have had, and the grief that still endures and is still raw. In the Select Committee inquiry, it did not matter who we spoke to among victims, survivors and families, because the message was the same. They told us about their loved ones and the brutal ways in which their lives had been taken, and they told us again and again that they wanted legislation that respected them, treated them with dignity and took them seriously. They wanted answers, and the previous Government’s legacy Act did not deliver that. It rode roughshod over the wishes of families, victims and survivors. It made promises to the armed forces that it could never deliver, and the mechanism that it created, despite the intentions of all the people working within it, inspired little confidence that families would be treated with the dignity and seriousness that they deserved.

I welcome this Bill, because it puts families at its heart. It recognises that the victims and survivors are the people this legislation must serve. It recognises that members of the security forces are also victims and survivors. It builds into the process the need to reflect and to stay engaged with those families. Across the board, those experiences have not necessarily been good. Where there have been inquests, they have been nothing more than tick-box exercises. They spoke to us, and we heard of anger, frustration and despair. It was the first  time we had heard those stories, but it was not the first time that they had told them, because they have been saying it for decades upon decades in the hope of change. I thank every single one of them for sharing those stories with us.

The other part of this legislation that commends it is the fact that it recognises that if Scotland is a village, Northern Ireland is an even smaller one, and everybody is interrelated. The Bill builds on the best aspects of Operation Kenova, which is one of the big strengths in making it work. Like any piece of legislation, the Bill is not perfect, but it is a necessary and long-overdue step in the right direction. For the sake of those victims, survivors and families, we cannot afford to get it wrong. \p Iain Duncan Smith: I rise to support the Opposition Front Bench in their concerns about the present legislation. Three facts stand out. First, the Bill does not protect veterans from criminal cases, even repeated ones. It essentially means that they are likely to be dragged through the criminal process multiple times if accused of wrongdoing or even asked to give evidence. Secondly, Labour’s protections for veterans can barely be called protections, and the Irish Government have denied that they exist at all. It remains unclear how they will work in practice to protect veterans, and the Irish Deputy Prime Minister Simon Harris has said that no additional protections will be given to veterans, so there is a conflict between the two parties to the agreement.

Thirdly, it remains unclear whether the protections for veterans in the new legacy deal will protect paramilitaries and terrorists alike. Interestingly, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) asked the Secretary of State that question at the Dispatch Box, and he never answered it. I would be grateful if at some point he, or the Minister when he gets up, would say whether the protections extend to both sides.

The main point that I want to make, having served in Northern Ireland, is how quickly people forget what a peculiar and terrible event it was—so peculiar to have British troops on the ground in the United Kingdom with British citizens all around them, having to keep the peace in a part of this United Kingdom. It seemed almost outrageous, but that was what we were called to do. We had strict rules of engagement, and those were very tough to follow at times because of the nature of the threat and what could happen around any corner. You never knew when you went to a house whether someone would be sniping or shooting at you, and that played on the senses and on the alertness of those soldiers. Sure, mistakes will have been made, but that was the very nature of the background in which that happened. \p Calvin Bailey: The right hon. Member makes an important distinction about the manner in which we deployed our soldiers. What he has described is a policing action, and there are very different requirements for delivering scrutiny. Is he not incredulous that other Members of his party are conflating that with the concern that we would put those requirements on future veterans, who would be  fighting a conflict where we hope they would be acting forwards in a way that is entirely different from what he described? \p Iain Duncan Smith: I will not follow the hon. Member down that road, because I have limited time and there is something I want to reflect on, but the reality is that many people and veterans believe that this will be a problem for future recruits.

I was, in actual fact, not in favour of the legislation passed by the previous Government because I felt that equating this by giving rights to both sides to avoid any prosecutions would not necessarily work. I was, however, persuaded in the final analysis by one particular case. The hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) mentioned Robert Nairac. Robert Nairac was a very good friend of mine. I came to the conclusion that there was no way on earth that we would ever find out what actually happened to this brave soldier who served in Northern Ireland. We have had bits and pieces to relay the fact that he was almost certainly tortured and that he was executed, but we never get to know. His parents died not knowing and his family still wonder what happened to him. Was he ever buried? Is it true that he was cut up? That somehow spread, and nobody wants to own up to it.

It struck me that for as long as there was a likelihood that somebody would be prosecuted for it, we would never know or get closure. I was persuaded on those grounds that it was time to shift from the way we were behaving—the way we were dragging soldiers through inquiries and into the courts. As Soldier F even now tells us, it is unlikely that we will achieve what everyone here keeps talking about as justice. What we will achieve is a permanent state of anxiety and nobody getting justice in the course of it. It struck me that the only thing we could do was to get to the root of the problems, have those cases explained and get those who were involved in them to tell the families what happened and why. Therefore, they would at least have closure through having knowledge and understanding of why these things took place.

I wish we knew where Robert Nairac lies, if he lies anywhere at all. I wish his family knew. Many other soldiers and civilians are in those circumstances too. The terrorism and brutality of the IRA was appalling, yet we are still arguing about it even today.

Let me take us back about a month to Norman Tebbit’s funeral. I remember when he watched the person who set the bomb and blew up the Grand in Brighton walk free. I remember him saying to me afterwards, “It was the worst moment in my life—I went through all of this and I had injuries. This man went free because we had to get peace in Northern Ireland, but my wife will never be free, because she is immobilised for the rest of her life, and I have to live with that with her. We are both trapped in what happened in those seconds in the bombing.” For his sake and for everything else, he recognised finally, as horrible as it was, that there was a necessary compromise to be made.

Let me simply say that the attacks on the previous legislation forget that it was about trying to get truth and reconciliation, and about learning from other countries such as South Africa. As difficult and problematic as this issue is, there are major faults in this legislation, and I hope that the Secretary of State will respect the fact that amendments will be made and that he will accept many of them. \p David Smith: Just over 20 years ago, in my red Vauxhall Corsa, I rounded the bend at the bottom of the Woodstock Road in Belfast and drove straight into a pregnant pause in the middle of a riot. To my left was a baying mob of young east Belfast men, and to my right was a baying mob of young men from the Short Strand. They were being kept apart by a British Army unit gathered around a group of armoured Land Rovers.

As I buzzed my window down, I heard a crunch as my tires passed over the bricks and debris. The worry must have been written across my face. The pause in that moment was pregnant in more ways than one—above all because of my heavily pregnant wife sitting next to me in the passenger seat. She was managing her contractions with breathing exercises as I told the nearest soldier of our need to get to the hospital on the other side of town and, crucially, on the other side of the road.

In that brief moment of relative calm, the soldier made a split-second decision and waved us through; I did not need further invitation. Before long, we were safe in the maternity wing of the Royal Victoria hospital in Belfast. Later that day, our first child—our daughter—was born, and we have called her our Belle of Belfast city ever since. I will always be thankful for that soldier’s decision, but even more thankful that he and his colleagues were there that day to keep us safe in the first place.

I had moved to Belfast four years earlier to begin my first proper job, running the Presbyterian Church in Ireland’s first ever youth peace and reconciliation programme. It was a new job, in a new city, in what seemed like a new Northern Ireland, just three years after the Good Friday agreement. It was a hopeful time; there was an appetite from the vast majority of the population to enter a new and peaceful era for that wee country.

There was also a realisation that the horrors of the troubles had to be processed and dealt with by the individuals directly impacted, but also by Northern Irish society as a whole. Yet here we are, 20 years on from that moment, still talking about making a serious start on dealing with the legacy of the troubles.

I can say with confidence that the legacy Act did not do that; it did not help with that legacy. For example, it meant that 200 military families were left in limbo, unable to pursue the truth of what happened to their loved ones. They were families like that of Mo Norton, whose brother Terence Griffin was killed in the M62 bus bombing in 1974. She said:

“That morning, everything changed. Twelve lives were lost, including children. Our family was shattered. There was no warning, no chance to say goodbye. Just silence, and then years of unanswered questions. I need to know that Terence’s death has been fully investigated, I don’t think it has been properly investigated in the past.”

Honourable soldiers follow the law and are glad to do so. That is what made my grandpa a good soldier, and it is what gives the British armed forces their outstanding reputation.

As strange as it may sound, I am pleased that we are debating the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. Today represents the possibility of a huge step forward. I believe in the bonds of these islands that we share—that is why   I am a Unionist—but our relationship with the Republic of Ireland matters deeply. The joint framework of the Irish and UK Governments states:

“The Governments recognise that legacy must be addressed across these islands as a whole”.

I welcome that, but the challenge is that we need to hold on to reconciliation. Reconciliation is mentioned only once in the Bill, but we must hold on to the principle. Reconciliation is obviously hard.

No one in Northern Ireland came out of the troubles completely untouched, and the pain can twist down the generations. Truth alone is not enough for a community to reconcile. There must be trust and a resetting of our relationships, and that does not happen without acknowledgement, without memorialisation and even, in some cases, without repentance. We need community spaces, moments and symbols that do that. We know that no one can make anyone else reconcile, and a Government certainly cannot. At the same time, however, Governments have the resources, the convening power and the cross-cutting responsibilities to empower and enable those moments, spaces and symbols that can foster social reconciliation. We saw that at the time of the late Queen’s visit to Dublin castle.

I welcome that commitment, but we need more detail, and we need it more quickly. We need commitments from the other parties to this conflict, about whom we have not talked enough today—specifically the Provisional IRA, the Ulster Volunteer Force, the Ulster Defence Association, and all other militant and terrorist groups. They need to make those commitments, and acknowledge what they did.

I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for this welcome legislation, which seeks truth. I simply urge him to think creatively and ambitiously about how the Government can now help to turn truth into genuine reconciliation and hope for Northern Ireland’s future. \p Caroline Nokes: I am imposing an immediate four-minute time limit. \p Cameron Thomas: I have the honour of being, in 107 years of the Royal Air Force police, the first of its veterans to be elected to this House.

Our armed forces are revered worldwide because they train for and execute one thing to a higher standard than anyone else, namely the moral component—discipline, and the will to fight. Without those two principles, an effective fighting force descends into what we see from the Russian military in Ukraine: the extrajudicial killing of civilians; soldiers motivated not by an objective, but by fear of their own colleagues and commanders; and the routine humiliation, torture and murder of their colleagues.

We must hold our armed forces to a higher standard than our adversaries, because they are better than those adversaries. They must be expected to act within the law. When they act outside the law but in good faith, they must be defended, in recognition of the unique pressures under which they operate. If there were no consequences for breaking the law while in uniform, no longer would we pledge to protect our own troops from the retribution of their own commanders, from illegal orders or poor leadership, whether in Northern Ireland  or Afghanistan. No longer would we stand by our statement before the world, in Nuremberg 80 years ago, that “just following orders” did not excuse war crimes.

Private Bryan Soden from Tewkesbury was only 20 years old when he lost his life, on his third deployment to Northern Ireland. Like so many others, he was murdered in an ambush by cowardly paramilitaries. Those who bravely served in Northern Ireland did so under the constant threat of an enemy, often disguised as a civilian, lurking and awaiting an opportunity to kill them. Our Northern Ireland veterans should be in no doubt that this country will continue to distinguish their noble service from the deceitful and inhumane paramilitary terrorism that they stood and fought against. To do that, we cannot allow the IRA to be the barometer. We cannot resolve to hold our troops to the same standard to which they hold their terrorists. To do so would not only legitimise terrorism, but sell out those who conducted themselves with honour.

Those Conservative Members who, last week, hijacked a debate about remembrance to score political points about this Bill neglected to recognise that we are here only because their Northern Ireland troubles Bill was a hash, and satisfied none of the parties to whom it applied. Some of those who spoke in that debate referred to a letter printed in The Times the day before Armistice Day, written by eight retired generals and one retired air chief marshal under whom I taught the law of armed conflict to RAF recruits. The signatories asserted that the Northern Ireland Bill “tears up” our contract with our personnel, and that

“Today every…member of the British Armed Forces must consider not only the enemy in front but the lawyer behind.”

The letter paints an emotive image, but it is misleading. I served for 23 years, and from the very beginning, and every year thereafter, I was reminded that I had to act within the law, and that if I acted outside the law but in good faith, I would be protected by the law. \p Al Pinkerton: In the months in which I was the Northern Ireland spokesperson for my party, I engaged with lots of veterans’ groups. Their members told me that they were very keen for this legislation to recognise that they went to Northern Ireland, as service personnel, to restore the rule of law. They recognise that they should be subject to the possibility of prosecution, but prosecution should never turn into persecution. How does my hon. Friend reconcile those points with the issues that he is raising? \p Cameron Thomas: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point, and he is absolutely right. We went to Northern Ireland to secure peace against terrorists, and the law should always recognise the difference between the actions of our soldiers and those of the terrorists they stood against. I always knew that I had to act within the law, but that if I broke the law in good faith, I would be protected by that law. Those who signed the letter may think that the Bill undermines that contract, but they have declined to clearly identify what part of the Bill does that, and I cannot find it. If this wider debate is about supporting our veterans and our armed forces, Members will find an ally in me, but if what they really seek to do is absolve personnel of responsibility for alleged war crimes, including those against United Kingdom citizens, then let them say so aloud.

Although I recognise the shortcomings of the legislation that preceded the Bill, the worst that I can say about this Bill is that the Government do not have the support of the Veterans Commissioners. Can the Minister clarify which, if any, veterans’ groups have approved the Bill? Furthermore, by opting to go with convention, rather than taking this Bill to a full Public Bill Committee, the Government have declined an opportunity for full, line-by-line parliamentary oversight and cross-party collaboration. Fiat justitia. \p Alex Ballinger: I come to today’s debate, as many Members on both sides of the House do, as someone who was proud to serve my country and who has the utmost respect for those Members who served in Northern Ireland on Op Banner. For me, this debate is complex, but at its heart are two simple questions: how do we respond to trauma, and how do we uphold accountability? The wounds of the troubles are still raw. I saw that earlier this year, when I visited Northern Ireland and went to the WAVE trauma centre. I met people who are still experiencing trauma, and I met victims of the troubles whose only crime was being in the wrong place at the wrong time—people who lost parents, people who lost limbs, and people whose lives were irreversibly changed by violence in which they took no part. I met Alex Bunting, a taxi driver who was going about his day when a sudden explosion tore his vehicle apart and severed his left leg in 1991. The question of who was responsible for the attack was never solved, but it was assumed to be an IRA operation that struck the wrong target.

I also met Kathleen Gillespie, who was held hostage by the IRA with her children while her husband Patsy was chained to a cab and forced to drive a lorry at an Army checkpoint; he and five young soldiers were killed. Patsy was used by the IRA as a human bomb. Kathleen was angry with the last Government, because she felt that his barbaric death was treated like it never happened under their legacy Act.

Alex deserves answers, Kathleen deserves answers, and both deserve accountability. So do many others, not only in Belfast but here in Britain. Families in the west midlands are still seeking answers after the Birmingham pub bombings of 1974, which took 21 young, innocent lives. Half a century on, the families’ trauma remains, and they still wait for justice. That is why accountability matters—accountability for the terrorists, including the IRA, who carried out the overwhelming majority of killings, but also accountability for our armed forces when standards were not upheld.

However, the Conservatives’ legacy Act of 2023 undermined every route for accountability. Most gravely, it created a system of conditional immunity for members of the IRA—effectively a blanket amnesty for anyone who was willing to co-operate with the commission. That is not justice; it places terrorists and those who served our country on the same moral footing. Families were rightly appalled. Audrey, whose brother Private Winston Donnell was murdered by the IRA in 1971, said:

“We always had a very slim hope of getting justice, but…this amnesty has let us and other families down. Our Government has let us down badly.”

Victims of IRA terrorism, and victims of state wrongdoing, deserve the opportunity for accountability. No veteran should be dragged repeatedly through processes  dealing with the same matter. That is why the new protections in this Bill are so important. They mark a genuine improvement, and put veterans’ welfare first. They are important, sensible and overdue protections for our veterans, who overwhelmingly served with honour and distinction. This legislation seeks to fix the grave failings of the Conservatives’ discredited legacy Act of 2023. It helps victims to pursue justice, it restores the chance of accountability for terrorist crimes, and it provides stronger, fairer protections for veterans than anything in the previous Government’s approach. \p Carla Lockhart: At the outset, let me restate unequivocally that we DUP Members will always stand with the innocent victims and survivors of terrorism in Northern Ireland. We will stand with the families whose loved ones were cut down by a ruthless and bloody terrorist campaign. Their pain has not diminished, and neither will our determination to defend truth, justice and moral clarity.

We continue to hear attempts to justify or sanitise and romanticise terrorism. We hear repeatedly from Sinn Féin’s leadership, the self-proclaimed First Minister for all and Mary Lou McDonald, that there was somehow no alternative to the IRA’s barbaric campaign of violence, and that it was justified. Justified? That is an affront to every innocent family whose loved one was murdered. There was always an alternative to murder; there was always an alternative to placing bombs under cars; and there was always an alternative to shooting innocent men, women and children.

I want to take the House back to two significant events in 1987: the IRA bombing of the service of remembrance at the cenotaph in Enniskillen, killing 12 people and injuring at least 60 more; and the Special Air Service’s engagement of heavily armed terrorists in Loughgall in my constituency. Which one of these incidents do Members think was granted a public inquiry? It was not the murder of innocents and the injuring of many more. Instead an inquiry was granted into the heavily armed terror gang, which was rightly engaged with and eliminated by the security forces, who saved countless lives in the process. Such is the subversion of the legacy process in Northern Ireland that the murder of innocents at Enniskillen has never had a public inquiry.

In recent times, the Secretary of State visited Loughgall and heard directly from innocent victims of the IRA’s East Tyrone brigade, one of the most brutal, ruthless killing wings of the IRA. He spoke with two men whose families endured unimaginable suffering at the hands of some of the IRA’s most notorious killers, and their testimonies were powerful and deeply moving. The East Tyrone brigade were not freedom fighters, but a heavily armed terror unit. Having already killed hundreds of innocent people, they mounted a killing operation at Loughgall, intending to obliterate any RUC officer in that station. They never paused in their murderous intent. They did not stop to give any officer an opportunity to walk away. Terrorism must never be sanitised or justified. Those who defended the innocent must never be sacrificed to appease those who glorify violence. \p Sammy Wilson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Secretary of State’s promises to the House mean that the Bill would enable some of those people and their  supporters to be included on the victims advisory group? Indeed, if the Secretary of State consulted the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland, the leader of the Alliance party, she would say that they should be included, because they are just as much innocent victims as the people whom they killed. \p Carla Lockhart: Absolutely. That was a point well made.

This Bill speaks of inquests, and we firmly believe that every family deserves a full and fair investigation, but Loughgall—really? Not only has that event been before the European Court of Human Rights, where the UK was found to be justified, but there is to be a second inquest. How does that make innocent victims feel? There must be no more vexatious pursuit of the security forces, and this Bill does not protect them. Only 10% of troubles-related deaths were caused by the security forces, and almost all of those occurred in engagements with terrorists, yet the narrative we hear is deliberately inverted. There is no comparison—none—between terrorists and those who stood as a human shield in their path. The SAS soldiers who served in Loughgall deserve this Government’s full support.

The Government have allowed the Irish Government an entirely disproportionate role in shaping legacy, while innocent victims in Northern Ireland feel sidelined. Let us be very clear: the Irish state has its own legacy—a dark, uncomfortable legacy—that it has yet to confront with honesty or transparency. That same state’s own tribunal, the Smithwick tribunal, found collusion between members of the Garda Síochána and the IRA on the murders of Chief Superintendent Harry Breen and Superintendent Bob Buchanan. Those two senior Royal Ulster Constabulary officers were ambushed and executed after information was passed by the Irish police to terrorists. It was the same with Ian Sproule, the 23-year-old from Castlederg. These are not isolated incidents. Across border areas, families have credible concerns about the Irish state’s failures—failures to arrest, to extradite, and to share intelligence, and failures that allowed terrorists to flee across the border and live openly.

We will stand with every innocent family whose loved one was murdered. We will stand with the RUC, with the Ulster Defence Regiment, with our veterans, and with the SAS. Terrorism was wrong. It was never justified, and it cannot be sanitised. \p Graeme Downie: Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to take you back to a Saturday in March 1993. I was getting ready to leave the house to get on a little blue Sprinter bus that stopped outside. It would take me into town. I was meeting friends there for a couple of hours. I had probably told my Mum that I needed to buy a Mother’s Day card, or something like that. The next day, I planned to walk my Border Collie, Gem, and maybe play some games on my computer. I would normally have been playing football on the Sunday, but we were shortly moving house and city, so I had stopped playing.

Just as I was about to leave the house, my mum told me I was not going. I was 11 years old and utterly indignant; the rage was ready to go. An emergency news bulletin was on the TV—rare then, but almost unheard of now—and the newsreader said that a bomb had exploded in the town centre. I was not going anywhere.  Later news bulletins said that the IRA had carried out a bombing; they had also detonated a bomb at an industrial site in the town a few weeks before. There was no social media, and not really much more information, or even rumours. The news that night indicated deaths and multiple casualties. The town centre was closed off.

The next day felt strange, but not overly so. I had grown up on an RAF base, so I was very used to the threat of IRA bombings. I was used to checking the car, and I was aware of the kind of language being used on the news. The next day, I went out, as I had planned to walk Gem in the park—a huge park with football fields. I saw someone—I think it was Gary, who I used to play football with—and asked him why the team was not playing that day. He said the game was cancelled because one of the boys in our team had been critically injured in the bomb attack and was in hospital. That unnamed boy was in fact my friend, Tim Parry, and he was in intensive care, having suffered life-threatening injuries on Saturday 20 March, the day before Mother’s Day. I grabbed Gem’s lead and ran home, flushed—not crying; not even sad. I was an 11-year-old boy who just did not know how to respond. I was totally overwhelmed and did not know what to think. I crashed through the front door. While I was out, my mum had a phone call from a friend, telling her what had happened. I did not feel anything; I was numb. I do not remember anything of my reaction or anyone else’s.

With the hindsight of 32 years, I realise that the news five days later, on 25 March, was inevitable. Tim died after his life support machine was turned off. Another young boy, three-year-old Jonathan Ball, had died at the scene of the bombing. I missed Tim’s funeral—something I regret to this day. I was back with family in Scotland.

I do not know what happened in Warrington in 1993, other than that someone I was friends with and played football with every week had been killed. Since that day in Warrington, I have tried to understand. At university, I studied the politics of violence. I completed my dissertation on the politics of paramilitaries. I worked in Northern Ireland, where I had to meet and shake the hands of some of the people from the IRA who were ultimately responsible for the deaths of both Tim Parry and Jonathan Ball.

Prior to giving this speech, I messaged Colin Parry, Tim’s dad, whom I remember as being one of many parents shouting support from the sidelines during football matches. I wanted him to know that I still think about that day, and I still want answers. I do not seek revenge, and I do not think the Parry family ever expect to get justice, but I do want answers, and so do hundreds of others who have lost family, friends and loved ones as a result of horrific violence in Northern Ireland. I hope that the Bill can deliver the information and the truth that those people deserve—those innocent victims who, like Colin and Wendy Parry, still live with the pain and injustice of what they have endured for so many decades. I believe that everything should be tried. If this legislation is an attempt to help even one person, then it should be considered more than a worthwhile effort. \p Sarah Pochin: I would like to acknowledge all the brave veterans here today and to thank them for their service to this country.

I grew up during the height of the troubles in Northern Ireland in a deeply patriotic household with a father who served in the British Army. I remember watching the news when the IRA blew up Lord Mountbatten in 1979 and the effect it had on my father, and again when the IRA blew up Airey Neave at the gates of Westminster, also in 1979. I remember watching the horrific footage of the 11 soldiers and seven horses blown up in Hyde Park in 1982. I remember watching the news when the IRA tried to blow up Mrs Thatcher in 1984 at the Grand Hotel in Brighton, killing five innocent people. I remember watching the news when the IRA bombed the Baltic Exchange in the City of London in 1992, killing three and injuring 91, with a Semtex bomb—the biggest bomb to be detonated on mainland Britain since world war two. I remember watching the news when the IRA bombed central Manchester in 1996, wreaking havoc and injuring 200 innocent civilians. I remember watching many more events, but I was only watching the news on the television. Like so many of us voting on the Bill today, I have no experience of the horrors on the ground that our brave veterans faced in this war against terrorism.

Like so many of our veterans, my father did not speak of his tours in Northern Ireland. He did not speak of what he did, what he saw, or the risks he took. It was simply his job and his duty. My father is no longer with us, but I know he is watching me make this speech and speak on behalf of our brave veterans—many of whom are watching these proceedings today—about the injustice of their facing prosecution for simply following orders. These brave men served their Queen, their country and their regiments without question. They risked their lives to protect us, and now, in their retirement years, they are facing prosecution from this Labour Government and their shameful Northern Ireland Troubles Bill.

The Good Friday agreement was undoubtedly a historic achievement, but I remember watching the television with my parents when the Queen shook hands with Martin McGuinness and finding that so hard to watch. Watching the prosecutions of our veterans, while IRA terrorists were given comfort letters and immunity from prosecution, has been equally hard to stomach. The existence of the public coroners’ court in this legislation to appease republicans is nothing short of the Government enabling show trials to demonise our veterans. All applications should be heard by the Legacy Commission and by the Legacy Commission alone.

This legislation is wrong and unfair. Moreover, it will dissuade young men and women from considering a career in the armed forces at a time when we are already struggling to recruit. We have benefited from years of relative peace in this country, but now, more than ever, the Government need to be prepared for hostilities and to defend this country and its citizens. In a recent joint letter to the Prime Minister, nine four-star generals said that, with this legislation, British soldiers must worry not only about

“the enemy in front but the lawyer behind.”

How powerful are those words? \p Calvin Bailey: This is an important and necessary Bill. It is needed to repair the legally and morally flawed legacy Act passed by the previous Government, which created confusion in an already complex and sensitive area of law, history and military doctrine, and made impossible promises offering a route to immunity for terrorists who killed British citizens on British soil. What is worse is that those who created that mess now seek to mislead our veterans by portraying this Bill as some form of injustice. It is despicable.

As a veteran, I thank all those who served during Operation Banner and I understand the genuine concern in the veteran community that these issues have reopened. I hope that we hear some humility from those on the Conservative Benches who have caused this situation. This Government have had no option but to clean up the consequences of the previous Government’s legacy Act, which is difficult and sensitive work but necessary if we are to address veterans’ concerns properly and restore credibility. That view is shared by the Veterans Commissioners for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, who have recognised their constructive engagement with the Ministers. I welcome that spirit of honesty and collaboration.

In that same vein, I am proud to represent the position of the Royal British Legion as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the armed forces community. The RBL has said:

“The Government’s commitment to introducing safeguards for veterans is necessary. The legislation must protect veterans from repeated investigations, while ensuring bereaved Armed Forces families can continue to pursue answers to their longstanding questions.” \p Richard Tice: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? \p Calvin Bailey: If you had been here during the debate, yes, I would give way, but no, you can sit down and listen. \p Caroline Nokes: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows better than to use the word “you” in those circumstances. \p Calvin Bailey: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Those two principles—being protected from repeated investigation and giving families proper answers—must sit at the heart of the Bill. We know the previous Government’s Act shut down investigations into the deaths of our armed forces personnel and denied answers to hundreds of families. Further, its conditional immunity scheme was ruled unlawful by the Northern Ireland High Court, leaving us with the need for a new and credible approach.

In that spirit, the Royal British Legion has proposed several improvements. First, the provision of giving evidence remotely, anonymously and with welfare protections could be strengthened with clear guidance on how decisions will be made. Secondly, it should not be left to veterans to explain the context of the events that took place in the troubles. Rather, a senior member of the Ministry of Defence should be a representative to provide factual context and describe the dangerous situation in which our veterans found themselves. Thirdly, the Bill rightly recognises the impact of repeated investigation,  and it is important to set out clear criteria for the Legacy Commission so that duplication happens rarely and only when justified. Finally, the victims and survivors advisory group rightly includes references to armed forces victims. However, the Bill should state explicitly that veterans or the families of those we lost will have guaranteed representation.

I thank the Ministers for their engagement so far. Will the Secretary of State confirm that he will continue to actively engage with the Royal British Legion ahead of the Committee stage? This legislation is not just about history; it is about truth, justice and reconciliation across these islands, and it is about ensuring that our armed— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. \p Alex Easton: I rise to oppose the Bill in the strongest possible terms. The Bill has been weighed in the balance of justice and found gravely wanting. It fails the test of fairness, it fails the test of common sense and it fails the test of our duty to protect innocent victims and our veterans.

No one should underestimate the pain, the grief and the enduring trauma that the evil of terrorism has left in its wake. Some 3,500 people were murdered and countless others were maimed, physically and psychologically, condemned to lifelong suffering. It is the duty of everyone in this House to address that—not casually, not evasively, but seriously, honestly and above all with moral clarity. \p Jim Shannon: On accountability, I think we all want justice for those victims who have never had justice. I think of the four Ulster Defence Regiment men of Ballydugan, for instance: there was no justice for them and nobody was ever made accountable. My cousin Kenneth Smyth was murdered by the IRA and they fled across the border. No one was ever made accountable. Does the hon. Member feel that the justice that my family and all the other families want cannot be delivered through the Bill? \p Alex Easton: The hon. Member is perfectly right; the Bill will not give justice to innocent victims. Moral clarity is grievously lacking in the Bill. Far from delivering justice, the legislation seeks in effect to rewrite history. We are shamefully witnessing those who stood between the innocent and the most evil terrorism western Europe has ever known being hounded to their graves. There are no letters of comfort for them. There is no opaque, invisible process quietly smoothing their path. Instead, rather than naming and confronting terrorism, the Bill constructs a grotesque false equivalence between those who wore the uniform of the Crown and those who sought to bomb and murder them into submission.

Those who upheld the rule of law are being treated as morally indistinguishable from those who waged war against it. This is an affront to justice, to truth and to the memory of the victims. Those who stood between us and terror deserve better than to be hounded in the autumn of their lives by legislation that blurs right and wrong, truth and falsehood. This Bill fails that moral test. It fails our veterans, it fails the innocent and it fails the cause of genuine reconciliation. Justice demands that history never forgets those who chose the path of  murderous terrorism and those who stood in their path and defeated them. This House has a duty not to pass legislation simply to make us feel better about the past, or for reasons of political expediency, but to pass legislation that is fair, honest and just.

I am also deeply concerned about the legacy procedures operating outside the framework even of the ICRIR, such as public inquiries into nationalist and republican cases such as Pat Finucane, when victims of the IRA get no such inquiries. Operation Denton, which operates without any statutory framework or safeguards at all, has reportedly been travelling to Dublin and disclosing UK intelligence material to campaign groups, as reported in the media last month.

Specifically on the Bill, I too have serious concerns about clause 5. The requirement to have policing experience in Northern Ireland could mean experience of being part of an external investigation team such as Kenova, rather than having served in the RUC or the PSNI. It is a back-door way of ushering out former members of the RUC and PSNI officers, again to placate those who would rewrite history. The Bill also provides for the chief executive to be part of the oversight board. How can somebody charged with discharging operational functions simultaneously have oversight of the discharge of those functions?

Finally, is the proposal to have an advisory group to which the Secretary of State shall be required to have due regard not simply a way of again loading up such an advisory group with nationalist legacy activist groups? Can the Secretary of State give an assurance that, for example, such advisory groups will be required to give an undertaking and commitment to the definition of an innocent victim? Or are we going to be left with a panel, some of whose participants believe that, for example, the Shankill bomber is as much a victim as those who were murdered? That is just not right. Can the Secretary of State assure the House that no terrorists will sit on the legacy board? That assurance is not in the Bill, and he needs to clarify that. I want it in the Bill.

Will the Irish Government give up their secrets? I very much doubt it. Let us draw a clear moral line between those who upheld the law and those who violated it. Let us protect veterans from endless vexatious complaints. Let us be honest with real victims about what can genuinely be achieved. Let us preserve the historical record so that further generations know the truth about what happened. This is not just another piece of legislation. In our desire to make progress, we must not betray the very people who— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. \p John Martin McDonnell: The thing that seems to bind us all together is the search for the truth. I just hope that, through this process, we might be able to agree about how we can achieve that. One of my earliest Adjournment debates, way back in 1999, was on the murder of Patrick Finucane. Only weeks before that, I had been on a platform with Rosemary Nelson as part of the human rights campaign. Weeks after was murdered by a loyalist bomb under her car, so we are all desperate to find the truth, because hopefully that might bring some closure.

I desperately want this Bill to work, and I want to ask a number of questions about how I believe some of the issues should be addressed. The first is about ECHR compliance. Clause 26 deals with that. It basically says that a statement will be published giving guidance to which investigations will have to have regard about standards and how certain elements of the investigation have to comply with certain rules of behaviour. That narrows it towards the ECHR, but there is no express provision on that. I just do not understand why there is no express provision requiring Legacy Commission inquiries to meet ECHR standards.

Clause 11 is the same. It says that

“human rights should be respected”,

rather than complied with. Why is there a change in the wording of the joint framework, which was specifically about compliance, not respect?

Let us be clear: the national security veto gives the Secretary of State the ability to redact reports to families on security grounds, and as a result there is a fear about potential concealment. The measure refers to the relevant Secretary of State—the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Defence or the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—but some of these people will be responsible for MI5 and military intelligence, which might be the subject of an investigation. There is a clear conflict of interest there. Why not assign security decisions to a judicial panel member rather than leaving them in the hands of a Secretary of State?

There are immense powers in the hands of the Secretary of State to appoint the chair, the commissioners, the director of investigations, the chief executive officer and the judicial panel. The Secretary of State has a duty to take advice from a relevant panel of persons—the names are to be subsequently published. It is not clear who those advisers will be, what their status will be or even what their experience will be. In addition, under the Stormont House agreement, the Justice Minister makes appointments on the basis of a binding recommendation from an appointments panel of statutory office holders. Why have we departed from that approach in this piece of legislation?

There has been reference to the internment clauses: clauses 89 and 90. I remind the House that a number of members of the Provisional IRA were interned, but it was not just suspected Provisionals who were imprisoned at that time. There were more general political opponents of Unionism, too. There were members of civil rights organisations and trade unionists. I believe that they deserve justice as much as anybody else.

I hope that, as we reach the next stage, there will be a cross-party element to the Bill’s improvement so that we can secure the confidence of all as we go forward. If we do not, it will remain a matter of rancour for the future, and I do not believe that we would be serving our constituents or anybody else properly in that respect. \p Lincoln Jopp: 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. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Nusrat Ghani: We have, unfortunately, run out of time for Back-Bench contributions. I call the shadow Minister. \p Mark Francois: 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”. \p John Hayes: The truth is, the Secretary of State has said there is no equivalence between those who fought us and those who defended us, but his Bill says the very opposite. Every investigation has a view to criminal prosecution. Everyone pursued will feel hounded, because they will be hounded. \p Mark Francois: 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? \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the Minister. \p Matthew Patrick: It is a real pleasure to close this Second Reading debate for the Government, and I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed. I wish to declare an interest. Members should be aware of my declaration in the “List of Ministers’ Interests”, where I have flagged that two family members work for the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery.

Today’s debate has been powerful to listen to, and many right hon. and hon. Members have raised important points and asked important questions. In the time available, I will try to address as many of those points as I can, and I will write to Members on any specific points that I am unable to address in time.

I will start my remarks with enormous thanks to the veterans who served us in Operation Banner, serving in intolerable conditions, and standing in harm’s way to protect life, as other Members have powerfully described. Quite simply, our armed forces are the best of us. I wish to thank those who served in the police—a job of enormous difficulty that brave men and women set out to do with distinction. We owe a particular duty of care to those who served our nation, and there will never be equivalence between our armed forces and police service, and the terrorists who set out to cause death and destruction.

As the Secretary of State has set out, this Bill is about helping people to get answers. I cannot begin to understand the pain of not knowing what happened to a loved one who was killed or disappeared. I can only imagine that the need for an answer, to know what really happened, never fades. \p Julian Lewis: On that point, will the Minister give way? \p Matthew Patrick: I will not take interventions, as I am very short of time.

The right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) said that this legislation will be “reopening wounds”, but I believe they never closed. I have sat with families who simply want to know what happened to their loved one. More than 3,500 people were killed during the troubles. The Good Friday agreement recognised that it was essential to address and acknowledge the suffering of victims and survivors, and it is our collective duty to deliver on that remaining Good Friday agreement commitment. If through this process, those relatives can be supported to get answers, then we will have met that duty. There are many things that the last Labour Government achieved of which I am proud. As the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) noted, the Good Friday agreement rightly sits among their very finest achievements.

I recently had a conversation with a veteran in my constituency who told me how important it is to deal in facts, so let us set some of those out. It is a long-standing principle in this country that decisions to prosecute are independent. Judicial independence has served our country very well for over 300 years. That is why when people  read about recent cases, such as the trial of Soldier F, it is not relevant that the decision to prosecute was taken while the Conservative Government were in power, because the decision was independent. Equally, it is not relevant that soldier F was acquitted under a Labour Government, because that decision too is independent.

Since 2012 there have been 25 prosecutions relating to the troubles. Of those, the majority were for republican terrorists. There are nine live prosecutions relating to the troubles, and one ongoing prosecution relates to the conduct of the British Army. Again, the decision to prosecute was taken under the Conservative Government —under, not by, because they are rightly independent decisions.

I urge the House to reject the reasoned amendment. Among other things, the amendment suggests that removing conditional immunity will lead to veterans being dragged before the courts. That is not true. The Conservatives’ failed immunity scheme, which would also have applied to IRA terrorists, was never commenced. All it did was offer a false promise that could never be delivered. Because this amendment is based on such a fundamental misunderstanding about the Bill and the way in which our prosecution system works, I urge the House to reject it.

Veterans were raised by a number of hon. Members. The Government’s commitment to honour Operation Banner veterans is unshakeable. We must not forget that over 1,000 armed forces families lost loved ones during the troubles, and that over 200 investigations into the deaths of armed forces personnel and veterans were shut down by the last Government’s failed legacy Act. In search for answers, those families, as much as any families, deserve a fair, proportionate and transparent system. They would not want for the terrorists who took the lives of brave soldiers to have any form of immunity.

Members talked about our protections. I reiterate that our Bill puts in place strong and important protections that were not included in the failed Tory legacy Act. I thank the Minister for the Armed Forces, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), who is himself a veteran of Northern Ireland, for his close work and attention to put in place these important protections. We have published our fact sheet that details where the protections sit throughout the Bill, so I will not rehearse them all now, given the time I have available.

The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) asked how we can continue with the remedial order. The Government abandoned their appeal and therefore have the ability to continue with the order. For those, including the right hon. Member for Tonbridge, who talked about morale, I am proud of the protections in the Bill. I am also proud more broadly that this Government have given an important pay rise to our armed forces, and I believe that morale was harmed by the actions of the last Government. \p Alex Burghart: On that point, will the Minister give way? \p Matthew Patrick: I apologise, but I will not as I am short of time.

The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar raised the idea of immunity. As I have said in response to the reasoned amendment, we should remember that no veteran ever received immunity—it was undeliverable and a false promise. The conditional immunity championed  by the Conservatives would have meant that someone who murdered a UK citizen on UK soil would have walked away scot-free, and that is what they are calling for us to return to.

The right hon. Member for Tonbridge was right when he said that their offer of immunity was pretty abhorrent. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon) set out so powerfully, the immunity offer was an insult to the families of those killed and, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr Foster) indicated, an insult to veterans too.

On the issue of on-the-run letters, they did not grant immunity—[Interruption.] The case of John Downie was cited as proof. He is currently subject to live criminal proceedings for the murder of two soldiers in 1972, which is clear proof that those letters grant no immunity.

I am grateful to the hon. Members who drew our attention to the voices of victims and survivors. It is important that those families are at the heart of the legislation, and they are. We must ensure that we increase confidence in the new Legacy Commission and enable more families to come forward, which is why we are significantly reforming the commission through this legislation. The Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), asked about the definition of family members. We believe that the definition set out in clause 93 is right and proportionate.

Clause 8 of the Bill sets up a victims and survivors advisory group, which is designed to ensure that the voices of victims and survivors are heard. The question of who will be appointed to that group was raised by many colleagues, including the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler). It is absolutely vital that this group can command confidence, and this Government will therefore not appoint to it anyone who has previously been involved in paramilitary activity. That is a clear commitment made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State from this Dispatch Box.

A number of hon. Members from across the House have raised issues relating to prosecutions. Let me be really clear on this important point: as I have set out, decisions to prosecute are independent. Our judiciary is independent. I disagree with those Members who claim that prosecutions are vexatious or political. \p Mark Francois: Will the Minister give way on that point? \p Matthew Patrick: I do not have time.

I now turn to the issue of inquests, which has been raised by hon. Members. As the Government have long committed to, clause 84 makes it clear that a small number of inquests that have been halted by the legacy Act will be able to proceed. Inquests that had not commenced hearings before the legacy Act will be subject to an assessment by the Solicitor General, based on statutory criteria, to determine whether they will be most effectively progressed in the Legacy Commission or in the coronial system. This position reflects the significant role that a reformed Legacy Commission can play in achieving outcomes for families, particularly given its far greater capacity to handle sensitive information when compared with an inquest. \p James Cartlidge: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? \p Matthew Patrick: As I have stated, I have a very short amount of time, and I want to address as many of the points that have been made as I am able.

A number of Members, including the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar and the right hon. Member for Belfast East, raised the commitments made by the Irish Government and the role that they will play. The clear commitment of the Irish Government to provide the fullest possible co-operation with the Legacy Commission will help provide many more families with an opportunity to obtain information they have long sought. This partnership represents two Governments coming together, each making sovereign commitments and promising to carry them out in their own jurisdictions. I believe that the Irish Government will honour the promises they have made—the agreement has been signed in good faith, and we are each committed to do what we promised to do independently in our Parliaments.

In the interests of time, I will conclude my remarks. I am grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to this debate—a debate that I know we will continue as the Bill progresses. As we do, I know that we will hold at the forefront of our minds who this is all for: for victims and their families right across the United Kingdom; for all those who bravely served us in intolerable conditions; and for Northern Ireland and its future. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 165, Noes 327.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 62(2)), That the Bill be now read a Second time. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 320, Noes 105.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, on Consideration and on Third Reading

(2) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be taken in two days in accordance with the following provisions of this Order.

(3) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall be taken on the first day and shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the first day.

(4) Any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be taken on the second day.

(5) Any proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the second day.

(6) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the second day.

(7) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House, to any proceedings on Consideration or to proceedings on Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(8) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Nesil Caliskan.)

Question agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: King’s recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, it is expedient to authorise:

(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:

(a) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State or any other public authority, and

(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under or by virtue of any other Act out of money so provided, and

(2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—(Nesil Caliskan.)

Question agreed to. \p Julian Lewis: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. \p Nusrat Ghani: Is it absolutely relevant right now? \p Julian Lewis: Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you tell me how, within the rules of order, I can draw attention to the way in which the junior Minister, in summing up and purportedly taking part in the debate that has just ended, refused to take any interventions for lack of time, yet finished his speech with two minutes left? Can you say anything that might encourage a Government with an unhealthily large majority to enter into the spirit of real debate? [Interruption.] \p Nusrat Ghani: 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. \p Chris McDonald: With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the closure of the ExxonMobil Fife ethylene plant at Mossmorran in Scotland. I thank Mr Speaker for accommodating this statement today.

Like many Members of this House, I am saddened to learn of Exxon’s plans to close its Fife ethylene plant. This decision is of course extremely worrying news for those employed by Exxon, as well as for contractors who work at the plant, those employed by the companies who supply the site with gas, and those at the adjacent natural gas liquids plant operated by Shell. While this is no solace to those impacted at Exxon, Shell has confirmed that it does not see its workforce or operations being affected by this closure.

The Government and ExxonMobil have been discussing the operating environment of the plant since April, and my officials have endeavoured to meet Exxon every week since August. Ministers also met Exxon regularly this year, underlining our commitment to exploring every possible opportunity to retain the site’s operations. This afternoon, I spoke with Paul Greenwood, the chair of ExxonMobil. He assured me that Exxon is not suggesting that this closure was due to a lack of action or will on the Government’s part. It was a commercial decision made when the numbers simply did not add up. He reiterated to me that the site is 40 years old, inefficient and in dire need of modernisation to be commercially viable for the future.

The company estimates that it would have cost close to $1 billion in capital investment to bring the site to a point where it would be profitable. That fact, combined with a challenging petrochemicals market, including a sharp decline in ethane supply in the North sea, meant that the investment was likely to outweigh the return. ExxonMobil has already closed similar assets in Europe, and is divesting from activities where there is no short-term path to profitability. It explored alternative use cases for the site, but none offered a viable route to sustainable operations. As the site has been significantly loss-making for the last five years, and as it would take a further five years for the investment to reach its potential, Exxon decided against continuing operations. In those circumstances, the support from the Government that Exxon would need to change those calculations was beyond acceptable levels. Exxon was aware of this, and it has acknowledged that, even with support, the commercial circumstances were simply too stark, and the costs would have been too great. So despite tireless, inventive and determined work from both Government officials and Exxon, the challenges facing the site were ultimately insurmountable.

The decision that the Government would not provide financial or bespoke policy support was communicated to Exxon by my right hon. Friend the Business and Trade Secretary, but we have of course retained an open dialogue with the company throughout. This is not a decision that either the company or the Government have taken lightly. As hon. Members know, this Government have shown that we are prepared to step in and support industry when it is feasible to do so. We have stepped in to support businesses in the steel, shipbuilding and chemicals industries, protecting jobs and vital capability  across the UK, including Scotland, but in all cases there was a fundamentally sound business proposition underpinning our investment. Sadly, here that was not the case.

I want to stress that, as disappointing and concerning as the closure of the Mossmorran site is, it is not symptomatic of UK industry as a whole. Our commitment to supporting UK industry is clear in the many steps that we have taken since coming into government last year. Our modern industrial strategy lays out a raft of policy interventions to ensure that British industry remains a world leader that is hugely innovative and investable—a strategy to cut red tape, lower energy bills and get spades in the ground. The fact that we have seen £250 billion of investment committed and over 45,000 jobs supported since July is testament to the strategy’s success so far.

The closure of the Fife plant is a commercial decision made by ExxonMobil, but of course it has a very human cost. There are 179 direct employees and 250 contractors employed, and there are more people in the supply chain. I know Members from across the House will be primarily worried about these individuals and the communities impacted. Let me assure the House that the Government stand ready to provide support through the Department for Work and Pensions rapid response service and its involvement in PACE—partnership action for continuing employment. The Secretary of State is meeting Unite tomorrow as part of a wider visit, during which he will discuss options for more support for the affected employees. I also met Unite earlier today, and I will meet GMB colleagues tomorrow.

I have been assured by the company directly that Exxon, as a responsible employer, will ensure that it properly supports its staff in finding alternative work, including at its Fawley site at Southampton, and will support those employees in their relocation. Our focus now is on helping the workforce through this troubling period, and ensuring that responsible next steps are taken for the decommissioning and remediation of the site. Long term, we are ensuring that UK manufacturing at large benefits from this Government’s growth mission. We want to create the right conditions for British manufacturers to properly compete in the global economy and win. Over the coming days, my Department will update the House on the progress that we are making, not least on energy costs.

Before I conclude, Exxon chair Paul Greenwood asked me to reiterate a message that he has given to all the employees at Mossmorran. It is a message that I am sure all Members of the House will agree with: the closure of this site is no reflection on them, their efforts, or their work. They should be proud of what they have accomplished in the last 40 years. As Industry Minister, I personally thank the employees at Mossmorran and the Fife community for their contribution to the UK industrial economy and, through decades of ethylene exports, to our balance of trade for over 40 years.

This is not the end of Fife’s industrial story. As Exxon gradually decommissions and remediates the site, the Government are committed to working with the local authority and the Scottish Government to promote the benefits of this location for future industrial investment. This Government are committed to supporting the workforce and the community over the coming weeks and months, during what I know will be a difficult and painful transition. I commend this statement to the House. \p Andrew Bowie: I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement. Since the Government came to power in July 2024, over 15,000 manufacturing and industry jobs have been lost. Only this Labour Government would recognise that as a success. The Minister says that he is saddened. That is cold comfort to the workers losing their jobs today. Energy-intensive industries are in decline across the United Kingdom. Oil refineries and petrochemicals plants are facing the economic and fiscal realities of choices made by this Labour Government at Ineos in Grangemouth, at Prax Lindsey in Lincolnshire, and now at Mossmorran in Fife, where Exxon has told us that there is no competitive future due to the current economic and policy environment.

The Minister tells us that this was a commercial decision, and that the numbers did not add up. Er, yeah—due to Labour’s decisions. Honestly! He mentions the decline in the ethane supply in the North sea. He almost gets it. The Government’s destructive tax-and-ban policy in the North sea has led to disinvestment, and has undermined the petrochemicals industry and its ability to secure low-cost ethane. That is damaging our energy security, detrimental to our petrochemicals industry, and utterly devastating for Scottish oil and gas workers. The Labour party simply does not get it. Also, the carbon tax—£20 million per annum for the Fife ethylene plant alone—was crippling. We are suffocating industry in this country, and these are political choices.

Industrial emissions are mobile. If we decrease our domestic carbon emissions by crushing British industry, we are simply exporting our climate obligations and increasing reliance on imports of plastics, fuel, ceramics, glass, bricks, concrete and more. We must find a way to decarbonise without decimating our domestic industrial base. Simply forcing industry abroad does nothing to reduce global emissions; in fact, it does the opposite. The high cost of energy and this Government’s war on the North sea are killing industry in this country. We simply cannot afford this Labour Government.

Although the closure will be felt most acutely in Fife, the repercussions will reverberate across this country. For the first time since the UK invented polyethylene, we will not be manufacturing the primary component in this country. That is shameful. Industry has already warned that closures like Grangemouth, Prax Lindsey and now Mossmorran risk forcing downstream operators to import resources at higher cost, undermining their competitiveness. We are not just talking about 400 jobs at Mossmorran; the impact of this will cascade down the supply chain. The domino effect is taking place already. Altrad, Bilfinger and KAEFER all announced redundancies at Mossmorran when Grangemouth closed earlier this year. Allowing another major industrial plant to close sends the signal to investors that under this Government, UK plc is closed for business.

We are losing domestic industrial capacity at a terrifying rate. The Minister claims that this is not symptomatic of British industry as a whole, but the drumbeat of job losses and plant closures tells a very different story. He talks of support for jobs, but unemployment has risen every single month since this Labour party took office. The closure will be felt by workers in Fife, but make no mistake: the crisis facing industry is stamped “Made in Whitehall”.

The Government have said in the House that they are ready to provide assistance to workers at Mossmorran, yet we still lack clarity about the support for the future of Grangemouth, and the status of the National Wealth Fund moneys promised by the Prime Minister. Can the Minister update us on the £200 million fund for the future of Grangemouth? We have not seen one penny spent so far. The Prime Minister’s promise looks like empty words yet again. What proposals have been brought forward, and when will workers have certainty about the future of the site?

This Government are taxing jobs, increasing the cost of energy and driving British industry off a cliff edge. Britain cannot afford this Labour Government; frankly, Scotland cannot afford this Labour Government. I feel very sorry for the Scottish Labour MPs who have been whipped in to defend this Government’s position tonight.

This is not a just transition; it is anything but. This is the wilful de-industrialisation of the United Kingdom. The Government are offshoring carbon emissions and driving up reliance on imports, and British workers are paying the price. Will the Minister outline the support that his Department intends to provide for the workers at Mossmorran, and provide an update on the Nation Wealth Fund moneys for Grangemouth? Does he agree that British industry is at a competitive disadvantage, due to the crippling industrial energy costs, the jobs tax and the carbon tax? Will this Government finally see sense, see what everybody else sees, and change their policies on the North sea? \p Chris McDonald: I would be very happy to take the opportunity to educate the shadow Secretary on some of these issues. \p Andrew Bowie: Patronising tone. \p Chris McDonald: No; it is real. He will realise that soon. I was genuinely upset when the shadow Secretary of State described my words as cold; they were not. They were sincere and heartfelt, because I have been in this position myself. I really wish that the shadow Secretary of State and his colleagues had shown similar vigour when the steel industry in Teesside was collapsing around us, and my colleagues and I were at risk of redundancy. The Conservatives stood by, and left 10 days for a buyer to be found for the most efficient steel plant in the country before it closed.

I take the shadow Secretary of State’s comments about the uncompetitive business environment in the UK with a pinch of salt, because the plant has been significantly loss-making for five years. I wonder why that is. Could it be because of our high energy prices, resulting from the previous Government’s decision to tie us to international gas prices and put us at the mercy of Vladimir Putin?

The shadow Secretary of State talks about a transition. I know what a terrible transition is like, because I lived through one in the coalfield of County Durham. The Government are ensuring, in Scotland and throughout the UK, that the workforce in these industries have the benefit of a proper transition. That is why we have an industrial strategy, and why we have intervened in industry in the areas that I have mentioned.

Now we come to the point of education. Sometimes it is best to get our knowledge of industry, and industry in Scotland, from somewhere other than Twitter, because  we do in fact still have ethylene production in the UK, at Grangemouth. I would have thought the shadow Secretary of State would have realised that. Perhaps he did not realise this, but none of the ethylene produced at Mossmorran was used in the UK anyway; 100% of it was exported to the EU. That was why I thanked the workers for their contribution to the UK’s balance of trade over so many decades.

Finally, the shadow Minister can debate the nuances of carbon taxes if he wants to, but this plant exports all its product to the EU. To do that, the plant needs to ensure that the product aligns with the market in which it finds itself, which obviously has the EU emissions trading system. If it received relief in the UK, it would have to pay that tax to the EU. Does the hon. Gentleman prefer that that money comes to the UK Government or that it goes to the EU?

The hon. Gentleman’s comments demonstrate that not only does he not understand this plant, but he does not understand the chemicals industry. I really wonder whether he cares for the workers at Mossmorran at all. \p Melanie Ward: This is devastating news for all the workers at the ExxonMobil Fife ethylene plant in Mossmorran, many of whom are my constituents. ExxonMobil must now be fully transparent and give proper clarity for the sake of all those affected.

This company made £25 billion in profits last year, yet over the course of multiple meetings with Ministers in recent months it failed to come up with any viable proposals to secure the plant and the jobs. In contrast, I have today met with representatives of Shell, which runs the adjacent Fife natural gas liquids plant, and it has confirmed that the jobs there are secure for the foreseeable future.

I am also in regular contact with trade union colleagues. Earlier today, both Fife council and I called for a new taskforce to be set up to explore future options for the plant and provide proper support to the workforce. Will the UK Government give full support and engagement to such a taskforce? \p Chris McDonald: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we need to focus on the workforce. Earlier today, I sought and was given reassurances by the company on the support that it will give to the workforce. Its expectation is that, of the 179 permanent employees, 50 of those will remain in employment until at least 2027-28 to support the safe decommissioning of the plant, and a further 50 will be offered relocation to its Fawley plant. I have also made inquiries about apprentices.

On her specific request for a taskforce, that would be usual in this situation. I absolutely support it, and I think a new and distinctive taskforce is required for this plant to address the very specific areas, not only for the plant but for the Fife community. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Susan Murray: I agree that this announcement is devastating for Mossmorran and for the communities around Fife. Hundreds of highly skilled workers now face an uncertain future and it is clear that the closure of this cornerstone facility reflects a deeper failure to provide the stable, long-term  industrial environment that businesses need if they are to invest and grow in Scotland. For many years, the Liberal Democrats have warned that the absence of a coherent industrial strategy, first abandoned by the previous Conservative Government and then left to drift further by this Labour Government, has created damaging uncertainty for our manufacturing and energy sectors. Will the Minister assure this House that the energy sector is at the heart of the Government’s industrial strategy?

Exxon’s statement made clear that the current economic and policy environment has made continued operations uncompetitive. What steps will the Government take to ensure that the UK remains a viable place for energy production and to prevent further closures of major industrial sites?

We also cannot ignore the human impact. Many of the workers are among the most experienced and specialised in the sector, yet only 50 roles are being offered elsewhere and that is nearly 500 miles away. Can the Minister tell the House how many have been offered and accepted relocation, and what support has been put in place locally for those who simply cannot uproot their lives, families and communities?

Further, the Exxon closure will see many highly qualified and specialised workers laid off at a time of severe cost of living pressures. What immediate and long-term measures are the Government putting in place to ensure that those individuals can transition to appropriate, well-paid employment? Communities in Fife deserve clarity, certainty and a real plan for the future. I urge the Minister to act quickly, decisively and collaboratively to protect the workers and to ensure that Scotland’s industrial base has a sustainable future. \p Chris McDonald: I agree with the hon. Member that at its crux there has been a failure of long-term planning in industry. We can see that when we contrast the two ethylene plants in Scotland. The plant at Grangemouth imports a lot of its ethylene from the US, which is in plentiful supply and comes at a much lower cost. That required a significant investment in the port infrastructure at that plant. ExxonMobil was aware that, in order to ensure that Mossmorran was sustainable, it would need to make a similar investment. It would have been possible for it to have made that investment some years ago, but at this stage, an investment of about $1 billion that would not come to fruition within the next five years is judged by the company not to be sustainable. Of course businesses require some certainty in order to invest; I made that point at Energy questions this morning. The certainty provided by our industrial strategy—in particular, this Government’s commitment to renewable energy technologies—is allowing investment to come in.

I agree with the hon. Member that our focus absolutely needs to be on the employees. I understand that no employees have been offered relocation yet, but it is the company’s view that 50 such posts are available and it is inviting expressions of interest from employees at this stage. I understand that the other plant is a very long way away, and that relocation will not be suitable for everyone—perhaps people do not want to uproot their families or they are embedded in their local communities—but if some workers want to take up that opportunity, I am pleased that it is there. With the offer of relocation for 50 employees and 50 employees being retained, we can see a way forward for about 60% of the permanent  employees at the moment. Clearly, I would expect the taskforce to provide support for the other 40%, and the UK Government are working with the Scottish Government and the local authority on that.

We must not ignore the jobs that are being created every day and every week in Scotland in our new clean energy industries, with up to 60,000 jobs by 2030. Fundamentally, this is about supporting that transition. It is my expectation that, as these new jobs are created, people will transition across. As I have said, I lived through a terrible transition in the past. The mission of this Government is to ensure that we have a supportive transition for workers and communities in Scotland and around the UK. \p Richard Baker: This decision by ExxonMobil, and the manner in which it has been taken and announced, is a very poor way to treat workers who have given so much to the company and their communities. Given that only last year the company was announcing four-year apprenticeships at Mossmorran, including for some of my constituents, will the Minister do everything in his power to ensure that those apprenticeships can continue and that the company, which has made record profits in recent years, recognises its duty of care to those young people? \p Chris McDonald: I was pleased to meet my hon. Friend earlier to discuss some of these issues in detail, and I am pleased that he has raised the issue of apprentices. I raised that personally with the chairman of the company earlier today, and I have established that there are approximately six apprentices involved. It would be usual in this situation for those apprentices to be found positions in local industry, and that will certainly be a priority. With only six apprentices, I do not think it will be a problem. Local industry tends to respond very rapidly in these situations, and of course it is a priority for us to ensure that those apprentices can continue their apprenticeships. \p Harriet Cross: 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. \p Chris McDonald: I am aware that that is what was reported in the press, but I actually spoke to the chairman of Exxon earlier and asked him specifically whether he could confirm that. He told me that there were a few issues, including the availability and cost of feedstock and the efficiency of the plant. He also said that without the $1 billion investment, he could not see a future for the plant in those circumstances. \p Graeme Downie: I thank the Minister for his statement, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy  (Melanie Ward) for exposing the frankly ridiculous lack of transparency from ExxonMobil. My constituents certainly know exactly where the blame for today’s announcement lies: with ExxonMobil.

I wish to bring one issue to the Minister’s attention. A constituent—one of a number who work at Mossmorran —has contacted me with their concerns about the effect on opportunities for young people in the area. Given that we have also seen the SNP’s shocking failure on skills, including its cutting of college budgets by up to 20%, will the Minister reassure me that he will do everything he can work with the Scottish Government, Fife College and others to ensure that skills in the area are maintained and young people in Fife have the opportunities they deserve? \p Chris McDonald: I, too, was particularly disappointed that the announcement was made so close to Christmas. Anyone making such announcements should take that into account. My hon. Friend mentions opportunities for young people, and he is absolutely right to do so. Our clean energy jobs plan was launched just a couple of weeks ago. It highlights the opportunity to create five new regional centres of excellence for clean energy jobs. I know that there will be great demand for the skills of young people in Fife and across Scotland and the UK in those clean energy industries. We have set out the jobs and skills, and the methodology by which we will enable people to access them. The Prime Minister was very clear about that in his speech to the Labour party conference: opportunity for young people is a mission of this Government. Ensuring that young people can access high-quality jobs in the clean energy industries in Fife must be a priority for the taskforce. \p Stephen Flynn: Unfortunately for the Minister, some of us have also spoken to Mr Greenwood today. Although the Minister argues that this decision has nothing to do with the Government’s policy on the North sea, that is certainly not what was conveyed to me, but I am sure that he will clarify that from the Dispatch Box. The Minister also says:

“Exxon are not suggesting that this closure was due to a lack of action or will on behalf of the Government.”

Meanwhile, Exxon’s statement says that the decision is down to

“the UK’s current economic and policy environment combined with market conditions”.

What we have tonight is 400 families knowing that they do not have certainty over their ability to pay their bills going forward, a whole community impacted as a result of this decision, and a UK Government Minister who is not being clear with them about why this has happened and why he is not helping them. He stated from the Dispatch Box just a moment ago that the Government have before chosen to intervene—we know that they chose to intervene in Scunthorpe—but they chose not to do so in Grangemouth, as Labour Members will recall, and the Minister is choosing not do so now in Mossmorran. The Government are sleepwalking into the deindustrialisation of Scotland. This is on them. \p Chris McDonald: Maybe it would be helpful if I reiterated the direct quote from the chair of Exxon, who said that the closure was not due to a lack of action or will on the part of the Government. He was clear  about the condition of the plant. As I said in my opening remarks, the Government have intervened in the past where there has been a fundamentally sound business proposition. The right hon. Member failed to mention—maybe he has forgotten it—the £200 million commitment that the Government have made to Grangemouth, and the 100 projects that are lining up behind it to support the people there. Obviously he did not want to welcome that. He talks about a strategy for industry. Well, I have not seen the SNP industrial strategy. Perhaps I missed it. \p Torcuil Crichton: I pay tribute to the Minister for his work, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) for hers, in trying to engage regularly with ExxonMobil for the last couple of months. However, they failed to extract any viable proposal from the company on a way forward. Sharon Graham, the leader of Unite, has described ExxonMobil’s decision to pull out as “a disgrace”. It is a £25 billion company walking away from 179 jobs and 250 more contractors. Will the Minister ensure that, despite the axe-grinding that we hear from the Opposition, he works with the Scottish Government, Fife council and the community when he sets up the taskforce, to ensure a future for those workers? \p Chris McDonald: I spoke to Unite representatives today and heard directly from the workforce of their experiences. ExxonMobil tried, prior to announcing its closure, to effect a sale of the plant, but it was not able to find any interest. I have been informed this afternoon that, as a result of the announcement of the closure, there may be some interest in the plant. Of course, we will explore every possible avenue for that and to ensure that the employees receive support, but if there are interested companies, we would be very happy to explore that, in working with the Scottish Government and the local council. \p Wendy Chamberlain: I agree with the hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward): this is devastating news for Fife. Although the Mossmorran plant is not in my constituency, I know that I will have constituents who are affected. I note what the Minister said about this decision not being due to a lack of action or will on behalf of the Government, but his statement was pretty silent on the economic circumstances referred to in ExxonMobil’s public statement—in what I saw when this closure was announced, there was certainly an attribution to the UK Government’s failures in that regard.

I am a bit disappointed that the first mention of the Scottish Government was at the very end of the statement, in looking forward. The Scottish Government have a responsibility for the economy and jobs, and taking an approach that does not involve the Scottish Government allows the SNP Government to blame the UK Government when such things happen. Although today’s announcement is not a surprise to the Government, will the Minister outline what conversations were being had with the Scottish Government in advance of this decision? \p Chris McDonald: The hon. Lady points out that the plant is not in her constituency, but clearly the effects run far wider than the individual constituency concerned, particularly for a plant of this size, and we need to think  carefully about the impact on the supply chain. I apologise for the fact that the Scottish Government are mentioned towards the end of the statement. That is in no way intended to imply that the Scottish Government have not been or are not involved. There have been meetings at the highest level in the Scottish Government. In fact, the Secretary of State for Scotland has also been involved in discussions with ExxonMobil, as we have tried to find any possible measure to avoid this decision. Ultimately, it was a decision for the business, and our focus now is on how we can move forward for the workforce and for the future of Fife. As I said, the industrial story of Fife is not over. There is excellent opportunity to bring new investment to that site in the future, and that sort of industrial regeneration is exactly what I want to see. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee. \p Patricia Ferguson: I thank the Minister for his statement this evening. I share the concern of colleagues, particularly those based in Fife, about the effect the closure will have. The news that contract workers were locked out of the plant this morning is a major concern, as is the news that staff—many of whom have worked in the company for many decades—have not yet been given information about what redundancy packages may be available. That is very worrying. What engagement is the Minister having with trade unions on this troubling development, and does he believe the trade unions have been properly consulted, as they should be in a situation such as this? \p Chris McDonald: I thank my hon. Friend for raising those two issues. I raised the issue of redundancy packages with the company earlier, and it assured me that such packages had been made available. I then raised the same question with Unite the union, and it has undertaken to go away and confirm that for me—I want to do my own due diligence and make sure that is true.

I am particularly pleased that my hon. Friend raised the issue of contract workers. It was reported that they were locked out of the site, but the actual situation is slightly more complex. Contract workers had their permits revoked this morning, which I realise sounds rather dramatic, but for a COMAH—control of major accident hazards—site, that is a normal procedure in certain circumstances. In fact, the workers themselves believed it was due to weather conditions this morning. It was actually to ensure that all workers on the site—either direct employees or contract workers through their contract managers—could be briefed at the same time on the issue. Contract workers were then allowed to return home or to resume work, recognising that not all of them would want to stay on the site at that time, having received such shocking news. Hopefully, that helps to explain the situation. Of course, I will ensure that I continue to ask these questions of the company and engage closely with both Unite and GMB on these issues. \p John Cooper: 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. \p Chris McDonald: I am committed to looking at the entire business environment for our-energy intensive industries—our heavy industry—because I want to improve the competitiveness. Perhaps I have an ally across the House who might help to point out areas that we could look at; I would certainly welcome that in the future.

I can perhaps provide a bit more detail on the two issues the hon. Gentleman raised: energy costs and the CBAM. On electricity costs, which are not the major factor for this site, the Government have introduced a range of measures to try to improve the cost competitiveness of the UK versus Europe, and we could talk about those in more detail at some other point. On gas, the UK is competitive with Europe; it is certainly cheaper than Germany and the Czech Republic, and it is slightly more expensive than Italy and Spain. The issue here is fundamentally the cost of gas in the USA, which is considerably cheaper, and we all understand why that is.

The CBAM issue is a bit more complex, because 100% of the material goes into the EU, so there is an issue around EU market alignment. Again, we could talk through that in more detail, but it means it is not quite as straightforward as if a domestic producer were asking for some relief from measures. \p Brian Leishman: Sadly, this is an all-too-familiar story: private capital closing industry, leaving workers as disposable commodities to be tossed aside, and a community devastated. It is a carbon copy of what happened with Ineos and PetroChina and the Grangemouth oil refinery.

The Government stepped in at Scunthorpe, but they did not at Grangemouth and it looks like they will not at Mossmorran. Why not? Because Scotland is once again the victim of chronic deindustrialisation. For the sake of Scottish workers and communities, let’s get the £200 million spent, let’s get Project Willow going, let’s get new companies in, let’s get the good-paying jobs that my community and my town desperately need—and, for goodness’ sake, let’s have a bit of common sense and take some form of Government ownership in what comes next at Grangemouth. \p Chris McDonald: I wholeheartedly reject the implication that there is some sort of anti-Scottish bias in this Government. I stand at the Dispatch Box as a McDonald, flanked by three Scottish Ministers. We all think very keenly about these issues in Scotland.

My hon. Friend made a point about British Steel at Scunthorpe. I mentioned the steel and shipbuilding industries, as well as other aspects of the chemicals industry, in my statement. The fundamental point was about having a sound business proposition. In this case, there was not a sound business proposition. The amount of money being asked for by the company, and the fundamental lack of profitability of the business over such a long period of time, meant that it was not a viable opportunity. That is why we need to look forward to how the workforce, in Fife and elsewhere, can transition into our new green economy. \p Dave Doogan: The Minister draws attention to the five Scottish Ministers on the Government Front Bench, but not one of them has said anything about the crisis facing those 400 families making a living from Mossmorran. The Minister seeks to hide behind the company’s statement that there was no lack of enthusiasm by the Government to find a solution, but that is not the point. The point is about what led the business to get into that situation in the first place, which is a direct consequence of Labour Government policy.

For the hard of thinking, those policies are: the carbon tax, at £20 million for Mossmorran alone; the cost of UK energy, which Labour cannot fix; the supply of ethane feedstock from the North sea; the energy profits levy, which this Government backs; the Government signalling an artificially accelerated decline in the North sea; and, of course, the national insurance raid on employers, taxing every job across the United Kingdom. This is industrial illiteracy and regulatory incompetence writ large. What does the Minister say to that? \p Chris McDonald: I thank the hon. Member for his question, but it is a shame that he did not attend Energy questions this morning. If he had, he would have heard the Minister for Energy express those exact concerns for the community around Mossmorran. I also think it is slightly bizarre that the hon. Member would say that this closure is a result of Labour Government policy. The plant has been loss-making for five years, so unless he thinks that the Labour Government have invented a time machine, then clearly it is not our responsibility. What I was most startled at was the implication that it is now SNP policy to abolish the emissions trading scheme—is that the case? \p Chris Kane: Does this decision not just underline the urgent need for a robust industrial strategy in Scotland that protects jobs, strengthens the supply chain and ensures a manufacturing basis that is fit for the future? \p Chris McDonald: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In our industrial strategy we point to the eight core sectors, including clean energy and defence—all areas in which Scotland is incredibly strong, and that are underpinned by our foundational industries. Our industry is a great strength of the UK—in Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland—and one that for the first time in a generation is receiving a significant amount of attention from Government. \p Andrew Murrison: 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? \p Chris McDonald: The company was quite clear that this is a commercial decision, based on investment and a lack of performance of the plant. If the company had wished the plant to compete, it would have made the decision that was made at Grangemouth and created a port for the importation of raw material. It did not do that, and it judges that that is an investment from which it will not generate a sufficient return. \p Scott Arthur: I grew up just four or five miles from the plant, and I have to say that it is an area still recovering from Thatcher’s economic vandalism. I thank the Minister for his statement and for the work he has done over many months, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) for her work. She stands in solidarity with these workers, and we should stand in solidarity with her, no matter which party we are from.

On 1 September we learned that it had been almost a year since any Minister from the Scottish Government had contacted the management team at Mossmorran—almost a year. It had been four years since any Minister from the Scottish Government had contacted the Scottish Environment Protection Agency or the Health and Safety Executive about the management of the site. On 29 July, the Scottish Government were asked when they last proactively contacted the UK Government about the operation of the Mossmorran site, but they could not name a date, and going back to 2020 there was no evidence of any proactive engagement. We have heard bluster from the SNP this evening. Have the Scottish Government approached a Minister with any kind of coherent plan to support these workers or save the plant? \p Chris McDonald: What my hon. Friend identifies is the different approach under this Government—a Government who have an active industrial policy and work in partnership with industry, in the same way that I saw other European Governments did when I worked in industry. He tells a sorry tale about the lack of involvement and engagement of the previous Westminster Government and the SNP Scottish Government regarding the ownership of the plant. That is in stark contrast with my predecessor in this role and the previous Secretary of State, as was also highlighted today by the Energy Minister with regard to the refining sector—another sector about which we are desperately concerned. Until this Government took action to meet the management, there had not been a meeting with a Westminster Government Minister for 13 years. \p Kirsty Blackman: We are seeing 400 jobs go, and we saw jobs go at Grangemouth. Is the Minister surprised that people in Aberdeen and the north-east of Scotland, who are arguing for a just transition and being promised 60,000 jobs five years hence, have no faith in this Labour Government? \p Chris McDonald: I am grateful for the opportunity that the hon. Lady has given me to clarify some words I said earlier. I did talk about 60,000 jobs by 2030, but it is actually 23,000 jobs in the industry by 2023, and new jobs are being created every day as a result of our investments in renewable clean energy. Beyond 2030 we can see that the clean energy industry is motoring ahead, but these few years are a really difficult transition and we need to work together. Jobs in the clean energy industry are being created every day, but a situation like Mossmorran obviously involves a significant number of jobs all at once. As I said earlier, we can see a way forward for 60% of the direct jobs at the site, and it is important to me that we also work with the other 40% to ensure that they are placed to get good jobs in the local economy. \p Frank McNally: This is devastating news for the Kingdom of Fife. May I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) for her diligent work today and over a period of time on this issue?

Does the Minister share my frustration that despite attempts to fully engage with ExxonMobil over recent months, including through multiple ministerial engagement sessions, the Government were presented with no viable plan to save the plant by the company—despite, as has been highlighted, a £25 billion profit having been made by ExxonMobil last year? Will he outline what steps he will take, working with colleagues both in Scotland and other Government Departments, to ensure that the workforce receives all necessary support through the Department for Work and Pensions rapid response service and Partnership Action for Continuing Employment? \p Chris McDonald: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and colleagues for how they have engaged so carefully on this issue for such a long period of time. I look forward to working with them in supporting the workforce. He makes an important point that alludes to the strategy of the company. The company did not present the Government with a viable investable proposition. It has also closed a chemicals plant in France and has confirmed that it is reviewing its European assets. I think we have reached a point where we have to accept that the company has made its decision. However, even though the company could not find a buyer, as I have said, I understand that some expressions of interest have been made and we would be happy to work with anyone who is interested in the plant. We have vehicles such as the British Business Bank and the National Wealth Fund that stand by to support any viable business proposition in our industrial strategy areas. \p Ashley Fox: The closure of the ExxonMobil plant is bad news for the whole of the UK economy, and it is the direct result of Labour’s economic and energy policies. Does the Minister accept that by pushing up taxes and energy prices, his Government are making the UK an uncompetitive environment for energy-intensive industries? What policy changes will he make to ensure that this is not the first of many such closures? \p Chris McDonald: As I pointed out earlier, the business has suffered from a lack of competitiveness for the last five years, in part due to the relative lack of competitiveness of UK energy prices, and it is important to point out the things that we have done and are doing to address that. We have the energy-intensive industries support scheme and the supercharger scheme, which is providing up to 90% relief. We also have the British industrial competitiveness scheme, which will reduce prices for over 7,000 businesses by £40 per unit of power over a period of time. Of course, with this business, the energy input was gas. We are competitive on gas with Europe, but the issue has been the much cheaper gas prices in the US; the ethylene imports coming into Europe are primarily coming from the United States of America. On that basis, as an exporting business in the UK, the competitiveness issues are fundamentally why the business does not see a future in the plant. \p Gareth Snell: I think any of us who represent an industrial constituency cannot help but feel a tinge of sympathy for my hon.  Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) this evening. We have all seen factories and manufacturing businesses in our constituencies close. While I accept what the Minister says about the fact that we are competitive on gas price with Europe today, the reality is that the gas price today is significantly higher than it was three, four or five years ago. Often the products that are being made in these places cannot absorb those overheads, which makes us uncompetitive on the world market. We have to look at how we can subsidise those costs here.

On industrial electricity, we are out of step with the rest of the world and we need those prices to come down. The Minister mentioned the British industrial competitiveness scheme, but that will not come online until 2027. He mentioned the energy supercharger scheme, but that does not include whole swathes of industry, including ceramics. Is there anything that the Minister can do in the short term to ensure that we end up with help today for those sectors that need it, so we can prevent future closures of big manufacturing sites? \p Chris McDonald: I know that my hon. Friend is particularly concerned about the ceramics sector, but his comments could read across to other energy-intensive sectors. I said that once quality costs have been taken into account, UK gas prices are competitive with the rest of Europe, but in the sector that he mentions, many of those imports come from Turkey. In some other sectors in the chemicals industry, the issue is about over-capacity, over-supply and the dumping of products in the UK that have been produced in the far east—there are quite a number of issues, and I continue to work on all of them across the heavy industry sector to ensure that we can improve the business environment as a whole. \p Richard Tice: Another week, hundreds more jobs slaughtered on the altar of net stupid zero. It is leading to high energy costs, high policy costs and high taxes, and making this business—along with so many others—completely unviable. How many hundreds of thousands of other industrial workers are terrified that they are next? Can the Minister confirm to this House whether any discussions have been had with ExxonMobil, or whether any indications or concerns have raised by that company, about any other plants, businesses or refineries in the United Kingdom? \p Chris McDonald: I know that the hon. Member takes a keen interest in the carbon prices for industry, and it is worth looking at the particular situation of this plant, as it exports all of its products to the EU. It receives a carbon allowance for its emissions that is slightly higher than 50%, and the reason why it does not receive a higher level of allowance is that it reflects the inefficiency of the plant. Fundamentally, the free allowances are set against a benchmark—a plant that receives 50% is one that is inefficient.

As I know the hon. Member will appreciate, given his business background, the intention behind that policy is to incentivise the owner of the plant to invest in order to reduce their carbon emissions, and then they would be able to sell the carbon credits on the open market and generate further profit for the plant. That has worked very effectively in the advanced manufacturing sector.  For whatever reason, the owner of this plant chose not to invest, and it has suffered the carbon penalty as a result. The community of Fife has suffered as a result of its decision as well, and we are now in a position where a $1 billion investment cannot be sustained.

As I mentioned earlier, this company is exporting its products. It would be very difficult for it to find any way to exempt itself from carbon policies, because of course the EU has a carbon mechanism too, and that is the market into which it sells. Fundamentally, that carbon cost has to be paid, either here in the UK or to the EU. I am sure that as a good supporter of the UK and of Britain, as opposed to the EU, the hon. Member would prefer that His Majesty’s Treasury receive any taxation income, rather than sending that money to the EU. \p John Slinger: Could my hon. Friend set out what more the Government can do to engage with multinational investors and demonstrate that, from Rugby to Fife, the UK is an attractive environment for investment under this Labour Government? \p Chris McDonald: As I set out in my statement, we have managed to attract £250 billion of investment. That investment is coming to the UK because we have policy certainty around industry through our industrial strategy, and it is delivering jobs across the whole of the country. \p Christine Jardine: The Minister referred earlier to the jobs that are coming in the renewables industry. That will be no consolation tonight to the 400 families who do not have that future within their sight. He also rhymed off the Government’s policies for supporting energy-intensive industries, but those policies did not help Mossmorran—the company has cited the policy environment as a cause of its decision. Can the Minister please reassure the House that, before the Budget, the Energy Minister and his colleagues will impress upon the Chancellor the idea that perhaps new and more effective policies are needed to support energy-intensive businesses? \p Chris McDonald: I am grateful to the hon. Member for her question, and particularly for reminding us all about those families. She is right that they are in an extremely difficult position, and while it is incumbent on me to point out some of the opportunities, I do not want to in any way diminish the real pain and distress that I know—I know personally—those families will be going through. I have strived to strike a balance on that, and I hope the hon. Member feels that I have managed to do so this evening.

The hon. Member mentioned, in particular, some of the policy situation relating to Mossmorran, and I refer her to the answer I gave a short while ago when talking about the impact of carbon taxes on Mossmorran arising directly as a result of the inefficiency of the plant. That is a consequence of previous decisions and a failure to invest in that plant. It ultimately means that the plant appears to be, in and of itself, not commercially viable. If companies that think they could make the plant commercially viable come forward, clearly we would want to work with such organisations. \p Tracy Gilbert: I thank the Minister for his statement, and I share his concerns about the loss of jobs and the impact on the  families affected and the community in Fife. Does he also share my concern that the Deputy First Minister of Scotland refused to take a call, I understand, from the Secretary of State for Scotland tonight? If that is true, will the Minister please let us know what actions could be taken to remedy that situation for the families involved? \p Chris McDonald: All I will say is that in a situation like this, I would expect every part of the governance system in the UK, whether that is the Westminster Government, the Scottish Government or local authorities, to act with a single-minded interest in the workforce and the communities affected. \p Ellie Chowns: Today’s announcement by ExxonMobil—a company that made £25 billion of profit last year—will be devastating for the workers, their families and the communities in and around Mossmorran. Does it not just show that ExxonMobil does not give a fig for its workers; it just prioritises profiteering? Does the Minister agree that the fossil fuel giants cannot be trusted to protect jobs or the planet? Will he commit to investing new resources to ensure a genuinely just transition in which the voices of workers are central to the debate, so that they are not left to the whims of these profiteering fossil fuel giants? \p Chris McDonald: I point the hon. Member in the direction of our clean energy jobs plan, where we set out how that transition can be effected. There is also the £5.8 billion that we have committed to the National Wealth Fund to support investment in new projects. The transition of workforce and communities is very important to me and to this Government. Not all companies are the same; many different companies operate in different ways. This Government are absolutely committed to working with the private sector to achieve this transition, but in a way that is a partnership between Government, industry and trade unions. We are committed to that. \p Graham Leadbitter: We are talking about 400 direct jobs at Mossmorran, more in the supply chain, hundreds more at Grangemouth and a thousand a month out of Aberdeen. Those are independently assessed figures and figures that we know from the statement today. As somebody whose father worked at Ravenscraig in the 1980s, I know very well the impact such things have on families. The Minister has talked a lot about commercial decision making, but it does not happen in a vacuum; it is done on the basis of the policy environment and legislative environment in which companies are operating. He is not addressing that key issue, which is making a just transition unviable as it stands. Will he address those points? \p Chris McDonald: I am pleased to meet another Member from a steelworker family. In fact, Ravenscraig is a plant that I never had the opportunity to work on, but I worked with many people who did, and they always spoke of the great sense of camaraderie among the workforce there. I absolutely refute the suggestion that this Government are not attracting investment. In fact, for Scotland alone, we have seen £800 million of investment in battery storage projects by Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners and £55 million has been awarded to the port of Cromarty Firth for small floating offshore wind.  These are the industries of the future and the industries in which people in Scotland will be able to work in—in fact, they already are. The real responsibility of Government is to ensure that we help people to transition across into these industries. Fundamentally, that is the difference between this Government and every previous Conservative Government—and certainly the one in office over the past 14 years. \p Sammy Wilson: The Minister says that he and the Government have no bias against the people of Scotland, but they certainly have not done very well out of this Government—1,000 jobs being lost a month in the North sea, and now today’s announcement. He attributes it all to a commercial decision. That commercial decision was made in a hostile economic environment. He has told us some of the factors there: carbon taxes imposed by this Government, lack of supply as a result of the reduction in North sea production, and the energy prices as a result of the increasing reliance on wind energy. The common thread through it all is the Government’s net zero policies. Why can they not be honest with us and just tell us that these net zero policies are robbing the United Kingdom of all its energy-intensive industries and that this will not be the last job loss announcement that we will hear in this House? \p Chris McDonald: The right hon. Member speaks of 1,000 jobs a month being lost in the North sea oil and gas industry. That is not a figure I recognise, so I would be happy if he would share the source of that figure with me. However, I have some figures of my own to trade, if he wishes to know them. We are expecting 800,000 jobs to be created in the clean energy industries. We have attracted £52 billion of private sector investment since July 2024, and £5 billion per year of gross value added to the UK economy from carbon capture and storage alone by 2050. \p Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for his statement and wish him well in his endeavours. Anybody in this place would be churlish not to wish him well in his endeavours to try to do better— \p Richard Tice: Are you sure? \p Jim Shannon: Expect there might be one or two to my left-hand side, but that is by the way.

It is sad to hear of yet another large UK company closure next year, this time in Mossmorran. I have seen and experienced similar stories in Northern Ireland, and what springs to mind is always the impact that this will have on the workers. Alongside the Scottish Government, can the Minister provide an assurance that this Government will do all they can to protect the livelihoods of those workers and, indeed, all workers who face redundancy as a result of not being able to find solutions to keep such plants open? We all recognise that these workers need help, and they need it today. What can be done to assure them of a future for their families, their mortgages and the debts they owe? \p Chris McDonald: I thank the hon. Member for his contribution, which is always sincerely and kindly made. I agree that what will be precisely on the minds of the workforce at Mossmorran right now will be how they  will manage in the run-up to Christmas. They will be thinking about whether they will be able to pay an instalment on their holiday in January. The plant is set for closure on 16 February, so there is a bit of time in terms of, as I mentioned, the 40% of the workforce for whom who we will need to find alternative employment.

I mentioned in my statement that the DWP is ready to stand by to help—I appreciate that could sound quite cold, but it does stand ready. Combined with the Scottish Government, the local authority and the support from the UK Government, including the taskforce, that is the support that we will give directly to the employees and their families. \p Andrew Bowie: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker—I promise I will not make a habit of this. I am a bit worried that the Minister may have inadvertently misled the House, because he said that in his earlier conversation with the chairman of ExxonMobil, Paul Greenwood, he had pointed to no policy decisions by this Government as reasons for closing the plant. I and other Members also had the opportunity to speak to Paul Greenwood today, and he did give four reasons for the closure. The first two—the market and the cost of running an old plant—were, he said, not policy decisions, but the third and fourth certainly were. The third was the carbon tax, which is costing that plant £20 million, and the fourth is the sharp decline in ethanol production in the North sea due to the accelerated downturn directly due to Government policy. Will you give me some advice on how the Minister might go about correcting the record? \p Nusrat Ghani: 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. \p Cat Smith: I rise to present a petition about the Vale View day centre in Lancaster, which Lancashire county council is consulting on closing. I have met clients and their families, who all tell me what a fantastic job the manager, Emma, and her amazing team do. They offer clients an amazing experience, wholesome activities and exciting days out.

The petition states:

“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to make representations to Lancashire County Council to protect users of adult social care in Lancashire, and encourage the Council not to close Vale View Day Centre.” \p Lizzi Collinge: I present a petition in the same terms as my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith), who has worked so hard to protect care facilities in our area. My constituents really value the services provided by Vale View day centre, which provides a safe and caring space for adults who live at home but have care and support needs. Constituents have told me about their spouses, siblings and elderly parents who find joy and friendship at Vale View.

The petition states:

“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to make representations to Lancashire County Council to protect users of adult social care in Lancashire, and encourage the Council not to close Vale View Day Centre.”

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The petition of residents of the United Kingdom

Declares that Vale View Day Centre provides care and activities for older adults and supports their carers and families by giving carers time for themselves; further notes Lancashire County Council is running a consultation on the future of this service; further declares that this service is deeply valued by local residents across North Lancashire as reflected by comments in local media.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to make representations to Lancashire County Council to protect users of adult social care in Lancashire, and encourage the Council not to close Vale View Day Centre.

And the petitioners remain, etc.]

[P003132] \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Gregor Poynton.) \p Ellie Chowns: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this crucial issue tonight. I hope to bring to the House the voices of people in my constituency, of campaigners across the country, and of the many families who wake up each morning wondering, “How will we keep our children warm this winter? How will we keep our grandparents warm?” Those are questions that nobody should have to ask.

The Government have committed £13.2 billion to the warm homes plan, which is welcome. It was very strongly implied that this would be £13.2 billion of additional funding, but there are rumours that the Chancellor is considering scaling back the energy company obligation and paying for it with the warm homes plan funding. That would mean that the Government were, in reality, reducing the amount of money spent on retrofit. If that is the case, it is extremely disappointing—and that is the understatement of the year.

I am really disappointed that the warm homes plan, which was due to have come forward quite some time ago, has been delayed and delayed. We now find that there is perhaps a Government plan to reassign some of the funding in a way that would fly entirely in the face of the intended purposes of the warm homes plan, and in the face of what we need to do: upgrade our homes so that everybody can live in a warm home that is affordable to heat. Fuel poverty is an absolute scandal in our country, and we simply cannot let a long-term programme be cannibalised to produce a short-term headline. The rescue mission that our housing stock needs will not survive being hollowed out further by short-term tinkering in the Treasury.

We already know the shocking scale of fuel poverty in this country. The Government’s own figures show that nearly 3 million households in England were fuel-poor in 2024. \p Neil Duncan-Jordan: The hon. Member is making a powerful case about fuel poverty. In my constituency, around 5,000 households are experiencing fuel poverty—about one in 10 homes. We know that three factors affect this issue: the energy efficiency of a property, the household’s income, and the cost of keeping warm. Given that last year alone, energy companies made a profit of £61 billion, does she agree that it is time we revisited the idea of a nationwide social tariff, which would bring down bills for all low-income households and those living in fuel poverty? \p Ellie Chowns: The hon. Member is right to draw attention to the eye-watering profits made by energy companies—a subject raised during exchanges on the statement made just before this debate—and the irresponsibility of many of those companies’ actions. It is essential to ensure that when people pay their bills, the money goes towards keeping them warm, not filling the coffers of shareholders. Given those eye-watering profits, it is clear that there is capacity in the energy market, not least because of the hike in energy prices that has resulted from Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. That is what has driven  them through the roof; it has nothing whatever to do with levies and policy costs. We should be ensuring that those eye-watering sums are reinvested in supporting those who are most vulnerable to fuel poverty, and enabling them to live in warm homes. \p Jim Shannon: I commend the hon. Lady for raising this issue. In Northern Ireland we have a slightly different scheme called the affordable warmth scheme, run by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. The problem we have is that only a certain amount of money is set aside, and it is first come, first served, so some people in poverty do not receive the benefit, whereas others do. Does the hon. Lady agree that such schemes, whether here in England or in Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales, must always make funding available to those who meet the criteria? \p Ellie Chowns: The hon. Gentleman may have been reading my notes over my shoulder, because I was about to make exactly that point. We must keep the needs of the most vulnerable households front and centre.

I was talking about the fuel poverty statistics. According to the Government’s own figures, 3 million households were fuel-poor in 2024, but using the definition that is still used in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, campaigners estimate that the number of UK households facing fuel poverty is nearly double that number—about 6 million households. We live in one of the world’s wealthiest countries, and no one, but no one, should be struggling to keep their home warm.

In the west midlands, where my lovely constituency is, we face the highest regional rate of fuel poverty in England. North Herefordshire far more badly affected than the national average. Adding to the strain in my constituency is the fact that rural homes are disproportionately affected by fuel poverty. They are more likely to be detached or built before 1919—that is certainly the case in North Herefordshire—and therefore harder to heat efficiently, and rural households face deep fuel poverty and high energy costs. Moreover, installers are known to avoid complicated homes, such as those in my constituency, because they are less profitable, which means that schemes such as the ECO often fail to reach rural locations. \p Manuela Perteghella: In my constituency, the charity Act On Energy gives advice and support on energy efficiency to residents, many of whom are in fuel poverty. Its work is particularly relevant in rural communities where properties are older and harder to insulate and, in many instances, rely on oil and liquefied petroleum gas. Does my hon. Friend agree that more must be done to help off-grid households to insulate their homes properly? \p Ellie Chowns: My hon. Friend is entirely right about the particular problems that we face in rural areas. This is relevant to the point made earlier by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon): we must support the most vulnerable households. \p Jayne Kirkham: I agree that rural households such as those in my part of Cornwall desperately need the warm homes plan. Does the hon. Member agree that other sources of energy provision—for instance, ground source heat pumps and liquid fuels such as hydrotreated vegetable oil—could also be included, and would be a good addition to the plan when it arrives, which we hope will be soon? \p Ellie Chowns: I am not an engineer, and I must confess to having some doubts, certainly about HVO, so I would need to engage in a bit more conversation on that subject. As for ground source heat pumps—yes, absolutely, although I understand that air source is normally more efficient. In my constituency we have some water source heat pumps as well, so all sorts of wonderful technologies are possible.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) drew attention to the excellent work done by charitable organisations in this sector, but fundamentally none of it is a substitute for a decent, proper, national, strategic, well-funded and long-term programme of home insulation to tackle the problem at its root. If we have delivery routes based only on profitability for private contractors, whole swathes of the country will be left behind. We have had problems, such as those highlighted by the National Audit Office recently, that are related to short-termism and profiteering by some rogue contractors.

Retrofitting homes is central to solving fuel poverty. Insulation and proper energy efficiency measures reduce bills and cut emissions. Upgrading a typical home from an energy performance certificate rating of D to EPC C— I recognise that EPCs are not perfect, but I will leave that aside for the moment—would save households around £210 a year. That is a significant amount of real money for families who need it, and it is also good economics for the country. Investments in innovation and home energy efficiency pay back in lower bills, reduced pressure on the NHS, health savings, which are related to better health outcomes, and, of course, jobs created up and down the supply chain. We want to be investing in these new green industries.

It is important to acknowledge that there is a history in this sector; we have been here before. Past retrofit schemes have been structured in ways that prioritised speed and profit over quality and need, allowing cowboy contractors to exploit the system. That was in significant part due to the short-termism of those programmes, which limped from year to year with single-year funding allocations. It was utterly counterproductive, and I saw that myself as I wrestled with such programmes when I was working as a councillor and as a cabinet member with responsibility for energy and environment. We need long-term policy certainty. The colleges providing the skills training, the businesses wanting to support apprentices and take them on, and the companies wanting to join the supply chain need that long-term policy certainty, which is in the gift of the Government.

The National Audit Office recently reported very serious quality failures in recent ECO4 retrofit installations, leading to significant health risks for thousands of households. The Government absolutely must not allow the same mistakes to be repeated in the warm homes plan. The plan must commit not only to making homes warmer and bringing down bills for the millions struggling across the country, but to ensuring that no one ends up in a worse financial situation through having used a Government retrofit scheme. That is why the warm homes plan must promise homes that are not only warmer, but retrofitted properly by those with appropriate certification, and must be subject to independent checks.

The Treasury is tempted by immediate headline reductions in bills, but if the Government reduce or eliminate the ECO scheme and use the warm homes  plan money to backfill those losses, the result will be fewer homes upgraded, fewer people protected from fuel poverty, and a greater long-term cost to the public purse and to our national health. \p Rachael Maskell: I am really grateful to the hon. Lady for raising this issue, because the two things are intrinsically linked. It is absolutely vital that we have a strategic plan that brings together the issues that cause fuel poverty, including poorly insulated homes. Does she agree that the Government need to have a strategic plan that looks at geography as well as degree of poverty, in order to ensure that people’s homes and their finances are insulated? \p Ellie Chowns: I absolutely agree with the hon. Member, who is a fantastic champion for health. She pays attention to the needs of the most vulnerable in our society, and ensures that policy really addresses the root issues that people face. I agree, and that is why I am so deeply concerned that the Government are flying this kite, and suggesting that they will start plugging gaps in the cost of their energy bills policy by using the warm homes plan money. Instead, they should introduce a wealth tax; that could be another source of funding for this endeavour.

In plain language, taking money out of the warm homes plan to fill a gap that would be created by abolishing ECO is robbing Peter to pay Paul. It is completely short-sighted. We absolutely need to cut energy bills, and we need as much investment as possible—as much as is needed—in the home insulation programmes that will provide the long-term solution to the problem of fuel poverty. This is not an either/or choice. We can and must make bills more affordable, and must at the same time invest in home upgrades to create future savings. We do not need to choose between warmth today and efficiency tomorrow. I mentioned a wealth tax; a 1% tax on wealth above £10 million, and a 2% tax on wealth above £1 billion, would raise at least £14.8 billion. That is way more than enough to pay for the cost of electricity bills policy, and to scale up, not down, the warm homes plan.

I want to set out briefly what a responsible warm homes plan must contain. First, it must treat the worst affected first, as hon. Members from across the House have said. It must prioritise low-income and vulnerable households and the coldest and least energy efficient homes, and treat warmth as a basic human right. \p Chris Hinchliff: I absolutely agree with the hon. Member that a well-funded warm homes plan is essential to insulating draughty homes and cutting bills. I wonder if she aware of the situation faced by my constituents in Letchworth Garden City. They have a separate scheme of management, so people applying for insulation have to go through two layers of regulation. That creates a real block to getting insulation for people who desperately need it. Would she join me in urging the Minister to bring together MPs who represent areas with such schemes of management, so that we can address that hurdle and ensure that those most in need, in all parts of the country, get the support that they need from the warm homes plan? \p Ellie Chowns: The hon. Member is a fantastic champion for policies that address social and environmental justice. He raises the important point that in these schemes, far too often, people have to jump through umpteen hoops.  We are talking about supporting the most vulnerable households; the last thing they need to do is jump through multiple administrative hoops, go through all the levels of a scheme, and then find that the deadline for the programme has been reached. We need to simplify and clarify, to provide long-term certainty to everybody working in the sector, and ensure that all households that need to access the warm homes plan can do so as easily and simply as possible.

I was talking about treating the worst-affected homes first; that was my first point. Secondly, a good warm homes plan must guarantee independent retrofit assessment and performance monitoring. We must not repeat the problems we had with ECO4. When public money pays for home improvements, the public must demand high standards. That means an independent public body with statutory powers to co-ordinate, monitor, evaluate and enforce, and to make sure that this stuff is done to the correct standard. It must be able to withhold payment until independent sign-off is achieved, and have a compulsory remedial fund that fixes, at no cost to households, any poor workmanship that somehow gets through. If we are to prevent a repetition of past problems, this body must create a publicly accessible register of any firms that fail to meet high standards.

Thirdly, a decent warm homes plan must include proper support and tailored delivery, especially for rural homes. North Herefordshire and many constituencies like it cannot be dismissed or overlooked because our properties are older and more challenging. We need specialist assessment teams, rural tailored procurement, and grant funding that recognises the additional cost of retrofitting hard-to-treat homes.

Fourthly, the plan must protect tenants. Retrofitting must not become an excuse for “retroviction”, in which landlords evict tenants to carry out improvements or unduly raise rents as a result. The warm homes plan must include a freeze on evictions and rent rises during any improvement works, and for a certain period after they have been completed. That would ensure that tenants felt the benefits of these improvements, and that costs were not passed on to them.

Fifthly, the plan must include an urgent programme to inspect and fix the homes affected by poor ECO4 installations. The victims of past Governments’ poor-quality schemes deserve an apology, compensation and a guarantee that this will never be repeated. The Government have to replace broken accreditation schemes and reform regulatory responsibilities, so that the system provides real accountability, not a paper trail of excuses.

Sixthly, the plan must be aligned with a clear energy affordability strategy. Real reductions in household energy bills mean reducing our dependence on volatile global gas markets, decoupling the price of gas from the price of electricity, expanding clean power capacity and tackling excessive corporate profits.

It is unconscionable that while millions struggle in cold homes, nearly a quarter of the annual average energy bill went to the pre-tax profits of major electricity generators, networks and household suppliers last year in the UK. That scale of profit demands scrutiny and a reconsideration of who bears the cost of our energy transition. Do we accept a system where families are priced out of warmth, while companies report massive profits, or do we invest in public goods that protect the vulnerable and create sustainable jobs?

The warm homes plan is a chance to change lives, lower bills, create good, skilled jobs and cut emissions. It is also, frankly, a test of this Government’s political will and our moral compass. \p John Slinger: I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this really important subject to the House. Does she acknowledge that the Government have invested £13.2 billion, which is a long-term investment? Further, does she acknowledge that in my constituency, that has meant £11 million for the warm homes plan, which was match-funded by the council? The council tells me that this enables it to get on with delivering efficiency improvements to about 1,000 council homes over the next three years. That sounds pretty long-term and substantial to me. \p Ellie Chowns: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the earlier part of my speech, in which I explained that I absolutely do welcome the commitment to £13.2 billion, but I am deeply worried that the Government appear to be backsliding from that commitment; they are promising to use part of that in other policy areas, as a sticking plaster. That could significantly reduce the overall package of funding available for this vital work, when the Government should be increasing it. If the Government do good things, I will say, “Well done.” If they threaten to do bad things, I will be really rather cross, and will try to put as much pressure as possible on the Minister.

This House, the Minister and the Government can choose to protect that full £13.2 billion, make it additional to the other schemes to tackle fuel poverty, and make this work for the poorest and most vulnerable, or we can stand by and watch the plan be hollowed out for short-term convenience. We can measure the cost of inaction in ill health, avoidable deaths, poorer education outcomes, and long-term added pressure on our NHS and social services. The choice is clear: the Government must not let short termism steal warmth and energy bill savings from millions. Please, do not let the lessons of the past be the mistakes of our future. \p Tom Collins: The hon. Lady rightly points out the importance of health in this debate. We face a crisis of warmth, but also a crisis of damp in our housing stock. In a building, ventilation and heating can often sit in tension with one another, yet it is vital that we think about the two together, and about how people dry in their homes, for example. Does she agree that we should look at fabrics, which I am very pleased she mentioned, as well as technology for heating, and should look to address in a conscious and positive way the ventilation of homes? \p Ellie Chowns: Absolutely, I completely agree. We need a long-term strategic approach that takes into account all the issues in houses, so that we do not repeat the problems of ECO4. That is part of the issue that the hon. Gentleman is talking about.

I am literally on my final sentence. Let us make the warm homes plan the bold, high-quality, fair, accessible and accountable programme that the people of Britain deserve. I look forward to the Minister’s response. \p Martin McCluskey: I thank the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns) for  securing this debate, and for the constructive way in which she has engaged with everything that the Department has been doing since the election last year. In the seven minutes available to me, I will try to address the points she has raised, but I am more than happy to discuss them with her further afterwards.

Everything we do in life starts at home, and the state of our housing stock, as has been mentioned by many hon. Members, is a national issue. It is therefore only right that the warm homes plan should receive proper scrutiny. We invite that scrutiny. We encourage people with a range of views to make their voices heard. Today, I reaffirm our commitment to the warm homes plan, restate our ambition, and remind hon. Members of what we will deliver in the years ahead, because this is one of the most urgent challenges the Government face in our mission to improve the lives of working people.

When I was given this role 10 weeks ago, the clearest of the instructions I was given was to reduce energy bills by making millions more homes warm, safe and fit for the 21st century. That is the challenge. Our housing stock is among the oldest in Europe. Over a third of it was built before the second world war, and that has a cost: high bills, damp and mould, miserable winters, risks to health, families wasting their hard-earned money on heating leaky, poorly insulated homes, and persistent, debilitating fuel poverty. This is an obstacle that we must overcome in our mission for national renewal. It is not just an economic imperative, but a moral and social one. This is how we rebuild people’s trust that the Government still have the power to intervene and improve their lives. It is why upgrading our homes is at the heart of our clean energy mission and our national mission.

We have been working hard to get our warm homes plan right and will publish our full plan soon. It has been a priority for me since I took on this brief two months ago, and it will be published soon. We have been clear from the moment we came into government about the scale of our ambition, and we are planning to upgrade up to 5 million homes by the end of this Parliament; that is entire streets and whole neighbourhoods benefiting from solar panels, heat pumps, home batteries and better insulation. To ensure that we deliver on that, we have matched every penny that we promised for this in opposition, investing £13.2 billion to improve homes up and down the country, slashing both bills and emissions—and, importantly, reducing fuel poverty.

To achieve our goals, people need to have full confidence in the system. We are aware of the recent National Audit Office report into non-compliance in two Government schemes delivering solid wall insulation, as many hon. Members have mentioned. Let me be clear: we will never let that happen again. More than that, we are taking this chance to completely overhaul the consumer protection landscape for retrofit measures so that work is done right the first time, guaranteeing customers the level of service that they deserve and swift redress on the occasions when those levels are not met. The warm homes plan will work only if we take people with us and deliver change at pace and at scale to the highest standards.

We are not waiting for the warm homes plan to start this work. We have already kick-started delivery, making it cheaper and easier for families to get heat pumps installed, almost doubling the funding for the boiler upgrade scheme to £295 million for this financial year, with a commitment to increase that funding year on year up to 2030, and removing the 1-metre rule for air source heat pumps in England, giving people more flexibility to install them without applying for planning permission. Today I was pleased to say that we have published our response to the boiler upgrade scheme consultation, extending the eligibility for that scheme. We have also published a consultation on alternative heating solutions today, including—my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) will be interested in this—on renewable liquid heating fuels, which I know is of interest to many Members in rural constituencies. \p Adnan Hussain: Will the Minister give way? \p Martin McCluskey: I am going to make progress because we are so tight on time.

Crucially, it is not just homeowners who will benefit from our plan. Back in March, we allocated around £1.8 billion to local authorities and social housing providers to deliver home upgrades through the warm homes local grant and warm homes social housing fund, which will support around 200 projects over the next three years, with work already under way. To achieve our goals, we are also backing improved standards in the private and social rented sector, as the hon. Member for North Herefordshire mentioned. We know that far too many tenants are faced with the daily reality of living in damp, draughty homes that they cannot afford to heat, which is why we have set out proposals to increase minimum energy efficiency standards in the private rented sector in England and Wales to an EPC rating of C or equivalent by 2030 and to introduce a minimum energy efficiency standard in the social rented sector. Combined, these measures will lift hundreds of thousands of households out of fuel poverty, giving renters the warmer homes and cheaper bills that they deserve.

Our plan is not just about retrofitting the older homes, but building the homes of the future. We have also set the target of building 1.5 million new future-proofed homes by the end of the decade, and our future homes standard will ensure that for the residents of those new homes, heat pumps, heat networks and solar panels on rooftops will become the norm, saving the typical household £500 on their bills each year.

While we deliver our plan, we are giving families the short-term support they need this winter. Earlier this year, we expanded the £150 warm home discount to every household where the bill payer is on means-tested benefits, meaning that this winter around 6 million families —one in five across Britain—will get this crucial benefit.

As for the long term, it is really very simple: home-grown clean power is the way through. It means that we can control our energy prices—the end of rollercoaster energy bills, price spikes, and an uncertain future decided by dictators and upheavals beyond our borders. By upgrading homes with energy efficient technologies, we can ensure that people feel the direct benefits of that clean, secure and affordable energy. That is how we will bring clean power home.

The Labour Government have a plan: to make millions more homes fit for the 21st century, to finally and properly tackle fuel poverty, and to protect working people and ensure that they will not have to worry about every degree turned up on the thermostat, every light switched on and every penny spent. We welcome constructive views on our approach, but we will not entertain those who would abandon our mission to decarbonise our homes and buildings or the wider transformative architecture  of clean power and, with that, abandon a hopeful, forward-thinking vision for this country. The British people want change and that is what we have set out to deliver with the warm homes plan.

Question put and agreed to.

House adjourned.