(2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
15:53 - divided: - Ayes: 286 / Noes: 163 - Question accordingly agreed to.
First day | |
|---|---|
Clauses 1 to 3; Schedule 1; Clauses 4 to 12; Schedule 2; Clauses 13 and 14; Schedule 3; Clauses 15 and 16; Schedule 4; Clause 17; Schedule 5; Clauses 18 to 71; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to the subject matter of Parts 1 to 5. Second day | The moment of interruption on the first day. |
Clauses 72 to 90; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to the subject matter of Parts 6 to 8; Clause 91; Schedule 6; Clauses 92 to 98; remaining proceedings on the Bill. | One hour before the moment of interruption on the second day. |
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
I promise not to detain the House for more than a few minutes, but I think it is important to put on record the Opposition’s unhappiness with how Committee stage is being handled. Although we of course welcome a Committee of the whole House, which allows hon. Members from Northern Irish parties to contribute, the amount of time set aside is wholly inadequate for the task. This is one of the most complex and controversial pieces of legislation that the House will debate during this Parliament. It is a 98-clause Bill to which over 300 amendments—including, I think, 144 Government amendments—have been tabled, and the amendment paper is now longer than the legislation itself.
The consequence of the scheduling is that this House will have very little time to spend on detailed scrutiny, or indeed on detailed discussion of the amendments tabled. Most concerningly, the programme motion makes it clear that we will have only about an hour for Report, and that hour will almost certainly be entirely ridden over by overrun.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
I thank the shadow Secretary of State for making those points, and for highlighting the lack of opportunity for this House to properly and thoroughly scrutinise this legislation today or tomorrow. I lament the fact that this democratic Chamber will have much less of an opportunity to scrutinise the Bill than the House of Lords does. Once the shadow Secretary of State concludes his remarks, we do not need scores of Members to make the same point, because that would eat into our scrutiny time.
Alex Burghart
I entirely agree with the right hon. Member.
It looks as though we will get no Report stage at all. The idea that there is not time available to the House to debate this Bill properly is laughable. On Wednesday the House is confining itself to the Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill. On Thursday we have a general debate. This House will not get to vote on any of the Government’s 144 amendments directly, or on any of the Government’s 98 clauses individually.
The new Administration have done one good thing here, for which they should take credit: they have rolled the remedial order into this legislation. We strongly support that. It is something that those on the Conservative Benches have been calling for throughout the progress of the Bill, but we think that, as the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) said during the carry-over debate, it would have been far better for the Government to have adopted their own amendments and created a new Bill, and brought that to Second Reading. It would have presented a far more coherent picture of what the Government are now up to. The extremely messy way in which this legislation has evolved means that that would have presented the House with a clearer picture of what was going on, and there could have been greater time to consider the new Bill in its entirety.
As it is, and as the right hon. Member for Belfast East has pointed out, the main scrutiny will have to be done by the upper House. Although their lordships excel at such work, this practice is becoming far too common.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
I want to speak in favour of the argument for more time that the shadow Secretary of State has put forward. The issue of legacy has been dealt with by the UK Government for more than seven years. It has been going around in circles, and I have been critical of some of the previous Government’s approaches.
We are talking about the victims of some of the most horrendous crimes in our country. We are talking about veterans who worked for our country to protect it against some of the worst examples of terrorism. We are talking about relationships with Ireland; there is a great deal of concern about how far it is going to go with what it has committed to.
In this process of two days, we are going to consider more than 300 amendments. It is a ridiculous situation. This is people’s lives. This is people who are extremely vulnerable—whether they are a veteran worried about a court case or a victim who has been waiting for decades, their position is one of mental and physical trauma. It is absolutely shocking that we should have got into a situation where the House does not have the ability to take our time, consider the amendments and come to as close an agreed conclusion as we can.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sarah Owen)
I thank the shadow Secretary of State and the right hon. Members for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) for setting out their views on this issue and keeping them brief. I will carry on in that vein by keeping my remarks about the programme motion brief, as I am keen for us to move straight to Committee proceedings. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members are similarly keen.
I want to address some of the points, particularly those about the amendments. We tabled our amendments a week before Committee, in line with the usual practice for Government amendments. The amendments followed significant discussion with many Members and many stakeholder groups over many weeks and months. The shadow Secretary of State mentioned that there are many amendments, but he has to recognise that many of them are technical. Over the course of the two full days, we will be able to scrutinise, debate and consider those amendments in detail before the Bill is sent to the other place, where I have no doubt it will receive significant further scrutiny.
The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon is absolutely right: the Bill is about victims and we cannot allow those victims to wait any longer for answers. Almost three decades on from the Good Friday agreement, the issue of the legacy of the troubles remains unresolved. After many years of bereaved families having been let down, this may be our last chance to get things right. The Northern Ireland Troubles Bill will deliver on our manifesto commitment to fix the failed systems that the Tories created and ensure that a reformed legacy commission can be the route for families to get the answers that they need and deserve.
More than a quarter of a century after the end of the troubles, too many families are still waiting for the truth about what happened to their loved ones. Their grief has been prolonged by uncertainty and unanswered questions. We cannot accept that any longer. It is critical that we move the Bill forward. To that end, I urge all Members to support the motion. I commend it to the House.
Question put.