Al Pinkerton MP: speeches

Speeches

• 22 Jan 2026 · Local Government Finances: Surrey · Hansard source

  More

  I am terribly grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. She has been extremely open in her responses so far. One side effect of the financial pressures that Surrey faces as a consequence of special educational needs is the so-called safety valve agreement. That has had consequences for a proposed school in my constituency, Frimley Oak Academy, for which money is designated. The Department for Education agrees that it should go ahead, but as a result of the safety valve agreement, Surrey cannot go ahead with it, because of that school’s ongoing operational costs. That is an example of financial constriction having a material effect on the provision of a vital educational offering. Will the Minister perhaps take that point away, and inquire whether the situation could be freed up to ensure that the school can come to my constituency?

• 22 Jan 2026 · Local Government Finances: Surrey · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is giving an excellent speech that has really drawn out the pressures on his constituents, as well as on mine and on those of the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford). West Surrey unitary authority as a whole faces the prospect of beginning its life with £4.5 billion of debt. The hon. Gentleman raised a very important point about the vital public services that need to be paid for. My constituents are concerned that when west Surrey unitary authority comes into existence, those public services could falter and fail on day one, and I am sure his constituents are concerned, too. Through the hon. Gentleman, I ask the Minister for reassurance that that will not happen and that some kind of financial package will be offered to my constituents and those of the hon. Gentleman.

• 22 Jan 2026 · Local Government Finances: Surrey · Hansard source

  More

  In my area—perhaps in the hon. Member’s, too—we have had increased housing targets of up to 150% as a consequence of this Government’s decision. I understand their commitment to house building, but such targets open up the floodgates to opportunistic development—development that is unplanned. It requires incredible expertise in planning departments to ensure that such development is appropriate and that there is enforcement where necessary. Those are exactly the kind of services that risk being cut at just the time when we face the greatest pressure. Does he agree that we need some kind of financial resolution to ensure that these services are continued into the future?

• 22 Jan 2026 · Local Government Finances: Surrey · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 21 Jan 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation: Referendums · Hansard source

  More

  As the Minister knows, in Surrey, which is going through a process of reorganisation, two unitary authorities have been selected, and each will cover more than 600,000 people. There is a great concern that that is too big or will feel too remote. An added complication is that, with potentially £4.5 billion of debt in the new West Surrey, which my constituency is in, many of my residents will end up paying a very high cost for debt that they had no part in accumulating. That may directly affect the very public services that the Minister has just mentioned. Will she speak directly to my residents and tell them why they should be paying for debt they did not accrue, and offer them reassurance that they will get the public services they deserve?

• 20 Jan 2026 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Please forgive my slightly croaky tones today, Madam Deputy Speaker.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will do my best, having received that cue from you, Madam Deputy Speaker. This Bill returns to us from the other place with amendments that raise serious questions about the governance, cost and durability of the treaty concerning the future of Diego Garcia and the wider Chagos archipelago. For decades, decisions about the Chagos islands were taken without the consent of the Chagossian people. That was the defining feature of the injustice that they have experienced. My concern, shared by many across this House and others in this place, is that unless the Government properly consider the Lords amendments, Parliament risks giving statutory effect to a framework that lacks the safeguards necessary for accountability, legitimacy and long-term sustainability. That is precisely what the Lords amendments seek to address. In the things that they have proposed, the Government have acknowledged the historic wrongdoing to the Chagossian people. They have recognised the right of return in principle and proposed a £40 million trust fund to address the harms caused by forced displacement. The framework before us today provides limited assurance, however, that the Chagossian people will have any meaningful agency over the decisions and structures that will shape their future. That matters, because legitimacy is not derived from intergovernmental agreement alone. It rests on whether those affected can participate meaningfully in decisions taken about their homeland. At the core of the United Nations charter lies the principle of self-determination. Article 1.2 could not be clearer. One of the purposes of the United Nations is: “To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and the self-determination of peoples”. We reasonably expected to have the opportunity to vote to reaffirm our commitment to the UN charter and, crucially, our commitment to the right of Chagossians as a distinct, albeit displaced people to self-determine their future. It is therefore deeply regrettable that Members across this House have been denied that opportunity today.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  If the right hon. Gentleman will bear with me for two minutes, I will get to precisely that point. It is shameful that a meaningful referendum was not the starting point of this Government’s approach, which left Opposition parties to insist on it through amendments. It is equally shameful that this principle has today been rejected on the grounds of cost. What price do the Government place on self-determination? Among Chagossians, this will be received for what it is: justice layered upon injustice. This Government, and Governments before them, have routinely defended our overseas territories in the international arena on the basis of the self-determining rights of their citizens. Today, this Government rightly defend Greenland on that same basis, asserting the right of Greenlanders to determine their own future. It is therefore with deep regret that I speak in support of that right and of that principle as expressed through Lords amendments 2 and 3, knowing that we will have no opportunity to vote in favour of those amendments when a Division is called. In respect of accountability and oversight, Lords amendments 5 and 6 would reinforce Parliament’s role in scrutinising the financial commitments of this agreement. They would ensure that the House is not asked to authorise long-term expenditure without clarity on its scale, duration and assumptions. The amendments would require transparency in the way in which costs are calculated, and ensure that Parliament retains control over future payments. That is not obstruction; it is a proper exercise of parliamentary responsibility, and one owed to future Administrations and to the public. The amendments would also give the Government a mechanism to terminate the deal and all future payments to Mauritius should Mauritius fail to honour its obligations. In May, the Prime Minister said that the deal would cost up to £3.4 billion over 99 years. However, freedom of information disclosures suggest an initial estimate closer to £34.7 billion, a figure that we have already heard today. That disparity risks further undermining trust in this Government, and confidence in their wider approach to public spending. At a time when families across Britain face cost of living pressures, Parliament is entitled—indeed expected—to demand clarity before committing taxpayers to potentially vast long-term liabilities that will endure well beyond any of our lifetimes. In respect of security and durability, Lords amendment 1 addresses the strategic importance of Diego Garcia, and would ensure that the United Kingdom is not locked into ongoing payments should the military use of the base become impossible. Given the rapidly shifting nature of the United Kingdom’s relationship with the United States, particularly under its current President, the amendment is essential to ensure that we are not bound into a long-term lease without a similarly long-term tenant. No one in this House or the other place disputes the strategic importance of Diego Garcia to our national security, and to global security more broadly. The amendment reflects that reality, and raises legitimate questions about the long-term viability of this deal. Let me now return briefly to Lords amendments 5 and 6, which together form a coherent and, in my view, proportionate package. They would reinforce parliamentary oversight, protect the public purse, and hold the Government’s financial commitments to account. The other place has not sought to frustrate the Bill; it has asked whether Parliament is prepared to proceed without sufficient safeguards on cost, governance and legitimacy concerns. I again place on record my disappointment that Lords amendments 2 and 3 were not selected for today’s debate. They would have provided the Chagossian people with a referendum, allowing them a direct and meaningful say over their future—something that remains conspicuously absent despite repeated assurances about consultation. The Chagossians are not, and should not be, diplomatic collateral. They are not a note in the marginalia of an agreement between Mauritius and the United Kingdom. They are a people who have been treated badly by our country and are now deserving of agency, dignity and justice. For those reasons, the Liberal Democrats urge the Government to accept Lords amendments 1, 5 and 6. More than that, however, we urge the Government to pause, to reflect on the changing geopolitical circumstances in which we find ourselves, and to think again about whether this is the right approach for us, for the Chagossian people, and for our future security.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  In answer to an earlier question, the Foreign Secretary said that the future of Greenland should be determined by Greenlanders and Danes, yet Members across this House are just finding out that any opportunity to give Chagossians a referendum has been stripped from this afternoon’s discussions on the Chagos Bill. Why does the Foreign Secretary think that the Chagossians do not deserve the same rights that she considers to be so fundamental to Greenlanders?

• 19 Jan 2026 · Iran: Protests · Hansard source

  More

  At the weekend, I visited several Iranian-owned businesses in my community to show my support and solidarity. The business owners told me that they have relatives inside Iran who, due to the internet shutdowns, are going to increasingly extreme lengths to pick up information from the outside world, including travelling close to the border with Iraq to pick up a mobile phone signal or across towns to connect to the community-owned Starlink network. They expressed their frustration at the lack of activity from the British Government, as they see it, but they also expressed their fears that the US Government have marched protesters up to the top of the hill and left them abandoned there. What co-ordination has the Minister had with our American allies—if I can still call them that—on their approach? Are we aligned with them on what we are doing in Iran?

• 19 Jan 2026 · Arctic Security · Hansard source

  More

  A week or so ago I asked the Foreign Secretary at the Dispatch Box: where was the red line? What was the Rubicon that would have to be crossed to lead the UK to hang together with our values-based allies in opposition to the imperialist ambitions of Donald Trump? I have to confess that I felt a brief moment of pride yesterday when I thought that Rubicon had been reached, but I have been filled with increasing fear today. I fear that we might again allow ourselves to be picked off, that we might allow ourselves again to prostrate ourselves in front of the President as we beg not to be treaded upon. So, I ask the Foreign Secretary again: what is the Rubicon that would have to be crossed? This is not just an academic question. We are, through our overseas territories in the Caribbean and in the south Atlantic, a western hemispheric nation. Is the red line the Falkland Islands?

• 14 Jan 2026 · UK-France Relations · Hansard source

  More

  My constituency was home to the Free French forces during the second world war, and that is representative of the kind of security relationship our countries have had in the past. May I urge the Government, through the hon. Gentleman, and in the spirit of strategic futures, to get back round the table and to ensure that we have a safe and secure SAFE—Security Action for Europe—deal to allow the UK to take part in common European defence?

• 13 Jan 2026 · Nigeria: Freedom of Religion or Belief · Hansard source

  More

  I am hugely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for his excellent speech. He is giving a powerful evocation of the significant crisis that exists within Nigeria in terms of intolerance and faith-related death. Can he indicate—this is a genuine question of inquiry—to what extent there are intersections with other sources of conflict such as terrorism and the resource competition he mentioned, and potentially even climate change? To what extent are those drivers of the kind of religious intolerance that we see playing out in his speech?

• 13 Jan 2026 · Airport Drop-off Charges · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) for securing this debate. We have had unanimity across the House, with a real feeling of injustice at the rising charges that we see at almost every airport that has been mentioned today. It should be of concern to all of us, and indeed to our constituents. Many of us receive letters and correspondence about this issue; I certainly do, given my constituency’s proximity to both Heathrow and Gatwick. I will focus on three themes, two of which are directly related to the drop-off charges issue and one of which is a slight shoehorning of another issue that I feel passionately about, which corresponds to the topic of today’s debate. The first issue is about the rising cost of the charges, particularly for people who have no realistic alternative to get to an airport. The second is about the transparency and fairness of the payment processes themselves. The third is about the wider enforcement and security consequences of poorly designed payment systems involving ANPR, and about the insecurities in our ANPR system. I am the Member of Parliament for Surrey Heath. Camberley, our main market town, is 19 miles from Heathrow airport and about 45 miles from Gatwick, but we have incredibly poor public transport systems to take us to those airports, so people rely on driving and therefore incur the £10 charge, for example at Gatwick, which my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) mentioned. These are not lifestyle choices; they are structural necessities, driven by poor public transport infrastructure as we come out of central London and head towards the shires in the likes of Surrey. I absolutely welcome the recent introduction of a fantastic new express bus service from some of the villages in my constituency to Heathrow, but its connect only three of the communities in my constituency to the airport, so lots of people are left beyond that system. For those people, driving is the only realistic option. Of course, the lack of choice disproportionately affects the disabled, people with young children, older people and those travelling to or from regional airports, where public transport systems are even more limited than in my area. That all reflects the wider national picture. The Business Travel Association has been clear that public transport is frequently not a viable substitute for accessing airports, and that pricing people out of kerbside drop-off does not make it suddenly accessible. That leads me to my second point, which is about the fairness and justice of the payment systems themselves. The hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) made a series of excellent points, and I have been a victim of exactly the situations to which he referred. I have driven around the loop at Heathrow airport and incurred the charge that he mentioned, purely by accidentally turning the wrong way. I appealed to get my money back, but I did not get it. Then I had to go and park in a multi-storey car park, so I felt doubly aggrieved, and nobody ever got back to me when I called the number. The problem is that the system seems to be baking in penalties as a form of revenue-raising. I do not know whether that is entirely fair, but that is how people feel and that is the perception. Why do people feel like that? Because the companies involved are not making it straightforward by issuing clear signage and they are not making it easy to make payments. The hon. Member for Bolton South and Walkden talked about some of the scenarios in which people go to airports, such as late at night or early in the morning, and they often do multiple other things during the course of the day, so it is easy to forget the act of payment. That leads me to my third point, on ANPR. Because of the increasingly punitive nature of some of the costs, we are seeing a huge rise in the use of ghost plates and in number plate cloning. Constituents of mine have received fines from both Gatwick and Heathrow airports because their number plates had been cloned, perhaps by taxicab companies that are apparently seeking to avoid the repeated application of charges at airports. If the system is driving increased criminality to avoid fines, we have a problem that needs to be explained, because the costs and inconvenience are falling back on constituents. That issue is perhaps not something people will have considered—I think it is the first time it has been raised today—but it is really important. Although the previous Aviation Minister, the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), said that there was no intention to review the process, I urge the Government to look at it again. There need to be proper, fair payment systems and a cap on how much airports are allowed to charge, because I do not want to have any more constituents writing to me about it.

• 13 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Back in November, the Chancellor promised to support the great British pub by introducing permanently lower tax rates in more than 750,000 retail and hospitality properties. In my constituency, the Half Moon will experience an 157% rise in business rates, the Inn at West End an 87% increase and the Frog in Deepcut an increase of 128%. Does my hon. Friend agree that this feels less like support and more like last orders?

• 13 Jan 2026 · Arctic and High North · Hansard source

  More

  Prior to our brief interruption, the Minister described a part of the world that is undergoing considerable change and turbulence, not least from climate change. Will he reflect on how UK procurement and military doctrine might have to go to a similar scale and rapidity of change in order to respond to, and reflect, the challenges of an increasingly liquified Arctic that is no longer in a frozen state?

• 12 Jan 2026 · Leasehold Reform · Hansard source

  More

  May I take the Minister back to the circumstances of constituents who are living in retirement communities? I have a community of constituents who live at Mytchett Heath, owned by Cognatum Estates. They are experiencing very high service charges, and I have written to the Minister about that before. They are made nervous by talk of delay. They are often on a fixed income with fixed-income pensions. They are getting older, and they want to enjoy their retirement in peace. Can the Minister offer them any reassurance today?

• 12 Jan 2026 · Call for General Election · Hansard source

  More

  Will my hon. Friend give way?

• 12 Jan 2026 · Call for General Election · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful. More than 1,800 of my constituents have signed the petition that has prompted today’s debate. It would be arrogant for me to assume that those people are necessarily indicating their support for an EU customs union, although it would be sensible if they did. But what I hear from them is that they are feeling worse off than they did yesterday and face the prospect that their children will be worse off tomorrow than they are today. They have signed this petition asking for an urgent general election. The Government have to reconcile this point: unless they can deliver meaningful growth that people can actually feel, there may not be a general election tomorrow but they will be made to pay a high political price the next time one comes. What are they going to do to give the UK the massive dollop of economic growth that this country needs and our constituents need to feel?

• 8 Jan 2026 · Human Rights Abuses: Magnitsky Sanctions · Hansard source

  More

  I thank and congratulate the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on securing this important debate. I seem to remember that he once referred to himself as a “quiet man”, but he has had a loud voice on this issue. I also congratulate the other excellent speakers we have heard today. The hon. Members for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton), for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed), for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell), for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) and for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) took us on a journey through different territories, spaces and countries, and reminded us of the history of the important name that we associate with the kind of sanctions we are talking about. We are living through a period marked by rising authoritarianism, escalating human rights abuses, and the increasing use of corruption and repression as tools of state power. In that context, Magnitsky-style sanctions are among the most powerful instruments in our armoury to uphold human rights, defend international law and promote democracy. Their strength lies in the fact that they target perpetrators, not populations, and individuals, not states, holding those responsible to account without inflicting further humanitarian harm on civilians—at least they do when they are working at their best. Magnitsky sanctions were designed to establish both legitimacy and intent. As Members have noted, they include asset freezes, travel bans, and restrictions on financial transactions, aimed directly at individuals who violate international law or commit serious human rights abuses. Their purpose is to reduce the humanitarian costs associated with blanket sanctions, to draw a clear line between civilians and abusers, and to provide a mechanism for accountability where domestic justice systems very often fail. When used consistently and in co-ordination with our democratic allies, these sanctions carry real power. They deter future abuses, impose reputational and financial consequences, and challenge the assumption among perpetrators that they can act with impunity. Yet despite their importance, the United Kingdom’s current approach is, I contend, still falling short, and in so doing it is undermining the very purpose of the sanctions. Application remains inconsistent, enforcement is insufficient, as we have heard, and transparency and oversight are often inadequate. Sanctions retain their power only when they are applied coherently, consistently and with the political will to enforce them. The Liberal Democrats believe that Magnitsky sanctions remain essential, yet too many individuals credibly implicated in serious abuses and corruption remain unsanctioned. Even where sanctions are imposed, those targeted continue to exploit evasion methods. Delays, gaps and selective application fundamentally weaken deterrence and erode confidence in that regime. We have consistently argued that the UK must be prepared to act decisively, rather than hesitating or allowing political convenience to override principle. On human rights and the rule of law, the United Kingdom must be a leader, not a follower. A key weakness lies in how Magnitsky sanctions are operationalised. There is no clear, strategic approach to when and how the powers are used, leading to narrow and often selective application that ultimately undermines deterrence. Structural complexity has discouraged bold action, and weakened the overall effectiveness of the Magnitsky regime in the UK. That problem is compounded by a lack of alignment with our allies. A significant number of individuals sanctioned by partners such as the United States, the European Union and Canada are not mirrored by the UK, reducing the collective impact of co-ordinated action. In fact, in 2022 the UK failed to replicate 69% of global Magnitsky designations. Let me be clear: these sanctions will not serve their intended purpose without close international co-ordination. Moreover, unlike the United States, the UK does not operate under a single, clearly defined Magnitsky Act. Instead, our framework risks producing narrower and less transparent criteria for designation, particularly in cases involving serious human rights abuses and grand corruption. If we are serious about accountability, we must be bolder, clearer and more decisive in how we use these powers. That is why the Liberal Democrats would prioritise the defence of democracy and the promotion of human rights globally, deepen co-ordination of sanctions policy with our democratic allies—particularly in relation to Russia—and strengthen economic crime legislation to close loopholes that allow sanctioned individuals to evade accountability. Sanctions must be backed by rigorous enforcement and tougher vetting of major investments, or they simply will not work. That principle applies just as strongly to the protection of British nationals overseas. Arbitrary detention is not diplomacy; it is coercion. That is why, as well as appointing a dedicated envoy for arbitrary detention, Magnitsky sanctions must be a tool for enforcement, ensuring that hostage-taking carries a personal cost to those who seek to perpetrate it. Looking ahead, the future development of the UK’s sanctions policy must be genuinely joined up across Government. Only a whole-of-Government approach can ensure effective enforcement, close loopholes and maintain both the credibility and the moral authority of our sanctions regime. The Liberal Democrats are clear about what that means in practice. Sanctions must target the individuals responsible for human rights abuses, not just states. Economic crime legislation must be strengthened to prevent evasion. Magnitsky sanctions must be used proactively, not reluctantly, as they so often appear to be used now. Arms export controls must reflect our human rights obligations, and asset freezing and seizure must be used to stop the flow of dirty money through our financial system. That clarity must be reflected in our response to events around the world. In Hong Kong, a territory that has been mentioned several times during the debate, the Liberal Democrats want to see Magnitsky sanctions imposed on those responsible for the erosion of freedoms and the unacceptable targeting of pro-democracy activists, including those here in the United Kingdom. The arrest warrants recently issued by Beijing are disgraceful attempts to interfere in our democracy, and they must be met with actions that befit the words that are so often spoken in this place and elsewhere. The same boldness is required in response to Russia. We must work with our European partners to seize and repurpose frozen Russian assets, up to £30 billion of which are held in the UK, and direct them towards humanitarian, financial and military support for Ukraine. Sanctions that are not enforced do not constrain aggression, but enable it. That consistency must be extended to Israel too. The Liberal Democrats were the first major UK-wide party to call for a full ban on military exports to Israel, and we continue to demand sanctions against Prime Minister Netanyahu and his Cabinet Ministers for their conduct in Gaza. International law must apply to everyone, without exception, and that includes senior figures in the UAE for their personal and institutional support for the still unfolding atrocities in Sudan. In conclusion, Magnitsky sanctions are undoubtedly a powerful tool, but they cannot be deployed only when politically convenient. If the United Kingdom is to retain credibility on the world stage, our sanctions regime must be principled, consistent and enforced with resolve. Only then can it serve its true purpose: accountability for abusers, justice for victims and the defence of the values we claim to uphold.

• 6 Jan 2026 · Future of Thames Water · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend describes the tankering of sewage from his constituency. In 2023, those tanks arrived in my constituency and the sewage was stored in open tanks on a Thames Water site for an entire summer, casting a stinky pall over the whole of Camberley town centre. It was an environmental crime and Thames Water promised to pay my constituents compensation, which they have never received. Does he agree that we need a far tougher regulator to bear down on these appalling environmental practices?

• 5 Jan 2026 · Venezuela · Hansard source

  More

  There is an old warning from Benjamin Franklin: “If you do not hang together, you will hang separately.” Given the events in Venezuela in recent days, and given the active threats against Cuba and Mexico, in the past against Canada, and today against Greenland, I ask the Foreign Secretary, where is the line? For the United Kingdom, what now is the Rubicon, the crossing of which would force us to recognise that our silence today will lead only to greater challenge tomorrow? Is it not time that we hang together with our values-based allies to stand up against Trump’s colonial possession taking in central America, whether that is in the western hemisphere or elsewhere?

• 17 Dec 2025 · Housing Development: Cumulative Impacts · Hansard source

  More

  In my constituency we have had a 113% increase in our housing targets. A seven-year land supply has now dropped to little over three and a half years, making us susceptible to the very speculative developments that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. Does he share my concern that in the circumstances in which speculative developments come forward, we lose the opportunity to plan strategically the infrastructure upgrades that a community needs, and each development brings only a small, incremental increase?

• 17 Dec 2025 · UK-EU Common Understanding Negotiations · Hansard source

  More

  We welcome the Minister’s announcement. As a recovering academic—a distinction that I think I share with him—I have witnessed at first hand the impact of our exiting the Erasmus scheme on university student intake. Welcoming students from across the EU into our education institutions and giving our own students opportunities to study abroad have undeniably strengthened our education system, so after years of campaigning, the Liberal Democrats welcome the news that the UK is finally set to rejoin the Erasmus scheme in 2027. However—I am sure the Minister expected there to be a “however”—while this represents an important first step towards building a closer relationship with Europe, I urge him to go further and faster. Beyond this fixed-term experience of Erasmus+, will the Government commit to a proper youth mobility scheme for the benefit of the next generation, and can he update the House on what progress has been made in such negotiations? How confident is he that our food, drink and sanitary and phytosanitary scheme will be agreed by 2026, and how long thereafter will it take to fully implement the scheme? Agrifood and horticultural businesses cannot afford any further delays. Finally, on the subject of unnecessary barriers to trade—which is where the Minister began his statement—will his Department commit itself at the very least to conducting a transparent assessment of the potential economic growth benefits of a UK-EU customs deal of the kind that the House voted for last week?

• 17 Dec 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation · Hansard source

  More

  The introduction of a remedial order is welcome and necessary, even if its timing is potentially vexed. The order promises to finally end the policy of conditional immunity that was integral to the 2023 legacy Act—a policy that may have had benign intentions, but that put us at odds with our international legal obligations and regrettably drew a moral equivalence between UK service personnel and terrorist paramilitaries. I note that the second report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, published last week, recommended the order’s approval. However, I note also the Committee’s concern regarding the unusual sequencing and timing of the remedial order, in relation to the forthcoming primary legislation. Given the overtly political processes that led to the 2023 Act, I suggest there is an additional responsibility on the Government to ensure that this process is handled properly and that the process, as much as the policy, is seen to be fair-handed. There is broad recognition of the need to repeal and replace the 2023 legacy Act, but we also need to acknowledge that the removal of conditional immunity has created real anxiety, particularly among veterans groups, who fear the risk of prosecution. I particularly welcome the Secretary of State’s letter, circulated yesterday, at annexe A. If I may, I will ask the Secretary of State three things. First of all, to clarify—