Deirdre Costigan MP: speeches

Speeches

• 8 Jan 2025 · Playgrounds · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Lewell-Buck. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) for securing this important debate. Playgrounds are not just nice things to have. They are vital spaces where children grow, learn and thrive. In densely populated urban constituencies, like Ealing Southall in London, they are often a precious escape from overcrowded homes. But 14 years of Conservative Government have seen playgrounds and public spaces suffer under successive cuts. With councils starved of funding, playgrounds became a luxury that they could barely afford. Budgets for parks were slashed by more than £350 million and the last Labour Government’s multimillion-pound playground programme was cancelled. That led to crumbling playgrounds that were starved of cash, with councils often having to remove equipment that they could not afford to repair, and a 15% drop in the number of adventure playgrounds since 2017. The results have been devastating: there are fewer public playgrounds, and that harms children’s physical and mental health, stifling their potential before it has a chance to bloom.

• 8 Jan 2025 · Playgrounds · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree that we need fair funding for local councils and for playgrounds. Access to play is a fundamental human right. It is written down in the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. There should be no argument about it, so it is heartening that the new Labour Government has immediately shown its commitment to play as a human right that cannot be denied to our children. Our changes—in some ways radical—to the national planning policy framework will, for the first time, insist that playgrounds are a consideration in all new developments. It will force developers to provide them, if we can back this up with legislation. In these changes, the Government have demonstrated a renewed commitment to a child’s right to play and their right to be supported through development. I hope this can be followed by a new national play strategy for England—the first since the last Labour Government. Research shows that many playgrounds fail to meet the needs of girls. In one study, 68% of girls said that there was nothing for them to do in the playground. Developers often tick the box by putting in a climbing frame but many girls prefer playground equipment that is social and collaborative: space to chat to their friends—swings are one example. Our future playgrounds must be inclusive, offering facilities for all children, and I hope that will be included in the Minister’s plans. Despite years of funding cuts, Labour-run councils like Ealing, which covers my constituency of Ealing Southall, are leading the charge to transform playgrounds and put children at the heart of local plans. Ealing council has already committed £2 million to renovate a staggering 22 playgrounds across the borough, including Ravenor Park, Spikes Bridge Park, Southall Park and Lammas Park in west Ealing. Ealing has worked with developers, including the developer of the Green Quarter in Southall, to ensure that developer-built playgrounds are publicly accessible. All new projects in Ealing are being assessed to ensure a minimum of 50% inclusive play, and that refurbishments consider the Make Space for Girls guidance. In my former role as deputy leader of Ealing council, I championed “play on the way”, where play features like stepping stones on the grass build-outs at the corner of a street, and a hopscotch marked on the pavement, can even weave play into a child’s walk home from school. What councils need most is secure funding from central Government, so this year’s 3.5% real-terms increase in council funding—that is £69 billion for councils—is a hugely welcome first step. I know we will hear more on this in the upcoming spending review. We need to ensure that councils like Ealing can sustain and expand playgrounds, especially in urban areas, where green and outdoor spaces are more limited. Playgrounds are not just for children; they are investments in the fabric of our society and in our future generations. To continue to achieve this Labour Government’s mission to break down the barriers to opportunity for every child, we need to keep pushing forward with our radical plans for play. It is time to reverse the damage of the past and create spaces that truly reflect the vibrant, equitable future that we want for our children.

• 7 Jan 2025 · Workplace Pay Gaps · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) for securing this important debate. I declare an interest as vice-chair of the Unison group of MPs. We have had gender pay gap reporting since 2017. Although it was a very welcome first step, it has proved to be too weak on its own to fully level the playing field between men and women at work. Women are still being paid significantly less than men on average. Gender pay gap reporting relies on a name-and-shame approach that means that employers can continue to report paying women less, year after year, without having to take any action at all to change this. It is great news that the new Labour Government have already taken decisive action by bringing forward the new Employment Rights Bill. The new law will mean that employers have to publish an action plan setting out how they will take tangible steps to reduce gender pay gaps and discrimination in the workplace. Finally, employers will be held to account to ensure that they pay women fairly. Today, I want to focus on disabled people in particular. Disabled workers are paid an average of over £2 an hour less than non-disabled workers. That is thousands of pounds a year that disabled workers are losing out on. Disabled women experience one of the worst pay gaps as a result of double discrimination: not only do they suffer the gender pay gap, but they experience the disability pay gap, which has barely moved over the past decade. There was no progress at all under the previous Government, and disabled workers are still losing out. I am delighted that the new Labour Government announced straight away in the King’s Speech that we would bring forward a new equality Bill that will ensure a full right to equal pay for both disabled and black and Asian workers. The new law will finally extend pay gap reporting to disabled workers and will mean that employers with more than 250 staff must publicly account for the difference in how much they pay their disabled staff. However, as the gender pay gap has shown, we will still need to do more, and the groundbreaking disability employment charter outlines some of the solutions. The disability employment charter is a list of nine demands of Government that will break down the barriers for disabled people at work. It was put together by organisations such as Scope, Disability Rights UK and Unison. Over 220 employers have already backed the disability employment charter but the previous Government failed to act on any of its recommendations. One of the charter’s key demands is for disability pay gap reporting alongside employment gap reporting, because too many employers just do not employ disabled people in the first place, let alone pay them properly. I hope that the Minister will consider mandatory publication of the level of disabled staff at larger employers so that an employer’s commitment to treating disabled people fairly can be properly assessed. Disabled workers are twice as likely to be unemployed than non-disabled workers. That is caused by discrimination in recruitment, but also by workers being hounded out due to bullying and harassment, or a failure to provide reasonable adjustments. Disabled workers are entitled by law to reasonable adjustments—often small changes that can help them do their job—but research by Unison found that a quarter of disabled workers have waited over a year for adjustments to be put in place and many never hear back from their employers at all. They get ignored and the current law is not strong enough for them to do anything about it. No one can do their job properly if they do not have the tools to do it, so of course those disabled workers lose out on promotion and get stuck on the bottom rung of the pay ladder. That is a key cause of the disability pay gap. Without the right help, many disabled workers are in pain each day at work, or struggle to perform. The next thing they know, they are out of the door: an outcome that could have been avoided with changes to hours, additional breaks, or with, for example, speech-to-text software. That is a massive waste of talent, which has led to a disability employment gap of 30% and nearly 3 million people stuck at home on long-term sick leave when many of them want to work. The disability employment charter calls for a new right to a two-week deadline to get at least a reply to requests for reasonable adjustments. Currently, there is no deadline for a response—unlike, for example, flexible working requests, to which the employer needs to respond in eight weeks. I gave evidence on that point to the Lords Public Services Committee in my previous role with Unison and I welcome the Committee’s recommendation of a four-week deadline for responses to requests for reasonable adjustments. I know the Minister will consider that issue as she works with colleagues, including the Minister for Social Security and Disability, on proposals to help to reduce the disability employment gap and the pay gap. Disabled people are full of talent and creativity. For too long they have been pushed out of jobs that they love because of discrimination, bullying and a simple refusal to give them the basic help that they need to thrive at work. The solutions outlined in the disability employment charter, including mandatory publication of the disability pay gap and the employment gap, and a deadline for responses to requests for reasonable adjustments, will help to finally unleash that talent. I look forward to this transformative Labour Government taking forward this vital work.

• 7 Jan 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The last Government treated mental health as a Cinderella service, with my constituents waiting days in A&E to be admitted to hospital mental health wards. The Solace Centre in Ealing Southall provides help and support in the community for those with mental health problems, at a fraction of the cost of a hospital stay. How does the Minister intend to move more mental health services from hospital to the community, and to create more great services like the Solace Centre?

• 6 Jan 2025 · Health and Adult Social Care Reform · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Secretary of State agree that his plan to transform adult social care services has already started with Labour’s Employment Rights Bill ensuring that social care workers will get fair national pay and conditions, and increased access to training and progression? Does he further agree that we will never have a quality social care service in this country if we do not value the people delivering it properly, as this Labour Government intend to do?

• 6 Jan 2025 · General Election · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I understand that the people who signed this petition feel angry, and a lot of people are angry in my constituency of Ealing Southall. They are angry because their kids cannot buy a home, they are angry because their parents cannot get the hip operation they need and they are angry because, when their car gets nicked or their house gets burgled, the police do not seem to be able to do much about it. But it is clear where the blame for this lies. The Conservative party has been in charge of this country for the last 14 years. It was the Conservative party that did not build the affordable homes we need; it was the Conservative party that ran our NHS into the ground; and it was the Conservative party that drastically reduced the number of neighbourhood police officers on our streets. That is before I even get on to how it trashed the economy, with mortgages going up by hundreds of pounds overnight and a £22 billion black hole in the country’s finances. I understand that it is easy to get distracted and to start blaming other people for the mess that the country was left in, but that just lets the Conservatives off the hook for the damage they have done to our public services and our economy. As we live in a democracy, on 4 July people were asked to decide what they wanted through the ballot box, and they said that they wanted change. They wanted a break after 14 years of Conservative chaos. I understand that people might want that change to happen fast, and they might want a quick fix. If only we could wipe away all the damage of those 14 years of Conservative misrule in an instant, or even in a few months. However, life does not work like that. Change takes a serious plan, it takes hard graft and it takes time. That is why this Labour Government have launched our Plan For Change, which sets out what we will do to fix the NHS, to put police back on our streets and to build the affordable homes we need. The Budget last year was the first step in how we stabilise our broken economy so that we can pay for it all without increasing taxes on working people. Most importantly, our Plan For Change gives people the tools to check in four years’ time, at the next election, whether we have delivered what we promised. People will be able to check whether waiting lists have gone down, whether there are more neighbourhood police and whether it is easier for their kids to get on the housing ladder. They will be able to check whether their local school has a free breakfast club, whether there are more qualified teachers and whether their energy bills are based on cheaper, home-grown energy instead of rocketing up every time that Putin sneezes. What would Brenda from Bristol say about this petition’s call for a general election? I think she would say, “Not another one!” I think she would rightly say, “We should stop wasting our time debating pointless motions and get back to the hard work this Labour Government are doing of fixing the damage the Conservatives have done to our economy and our public services.”

• 18 Dec 2024 · Provisional Local Government Finance Settlement · Hansard source

  More

  Massive cuts to local government services by the previous Conservative Government have seen rough sleeping more than double and families in temporary accommodation regularly forced to move from hotel to hotel with their belongings in black sacks. I welcome the record £14.7 million in homelessness funding that the Minister’s Department has awarded to Ealing council. That is an increase of almost £4 million. Can the Minister outline how that will help those people sleeping out in West Ealing and in Southall town centre tonight? How will it end the use of hotels and bed and breakfasts for families in Ealing Southall?

• 16 Dec 2024 · Budget 2024: Unemployment · Hansard source

  More

  Many disabled people in Ealing Southall are unnecessarily unemployed purely and simply because their employer refuses to respond to their request for the reasonable adjustments that they need to do their job. Will the Minister consider strengthening the right to reasonable adjustments, so that workers receive a response within a specified number of weeks, in line with the recommendations in the groundbreaking disability employment charter?

• 11 Dec 2024 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q You said at the outset, Rachel, that you wanted the tax system to be more responsive. Would you not agree that rebalancing the tax system in this way is being responsive to those empty shops on the high street, and to the feeling among small businesses and hospitality that it is the online distributors that are not playing on a level playing field and are getting away with being able to undercut them because the tax system currently does not work? The legislation will give us the responsiveness we need to level that up. Rachel Kelly: Yes and no. Ultimately, if you take a step back, business rates are a tax on the occupation of property, and they are levied on the basis of the value of that property. If you occupy a more valuable property, you will pay more tax. The business rate system is working as the policy intended in that respect. In terms of making it fairer, the best thing you can do is value property more frequently. Retail rents have been falling for the last 10 or 15 years. In the decade from 2010 to 2020, rents came down 30%, but business rates did not for that sector. Rents are negotiable—rents do respond—but it is business rates that do not. If valuations had kept up with rents, retail would have been paying much less, much earlier, and other sectors that had been growing would have been paying more much more quickly. To my mind, the best way to introduce fairness into the system is to value properties more frequently.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Thank you very much for your evidence. I am a former chair of the governing body of a state school, so this is a really interesting conversation. Mr Woodgate, you mentioned that private schools might need to look at redundancies to absorb the impact of the measure. I understand that the student-teacher ratio in private schools is double that in state schools. It is something like 8.5:1 versus 18:1 in state schools, so there are significantly more teaching staff in private schools. If there were to be redundancies, have you made any assessment of whether the impact would be similar to the impact on state schools? David Woodgate: Pupil-teacher ratios are increasing anyway. Many schools are much beyond that. That is not a typical pupil-teacher ratio in one of our schools. Many are going up towards 20—the same kind of number that you are talking about in the state sector. Inevitably, if there are redundancies, there will be fewer teachers to go around and they will be teaching more pupils.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I was specifically asking for a comparison with the state sector. Do you think that redundancies will have a similar impact, a worse impact, or less of an impact in the private sector than in the state sector? David Woodgate: Inevitably, if pupil-teacher numbers change, that will have a negative impact.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Thank you, Minister. I know you are a former local government leader. I want to ask about local councils and what support there will be to ensure that they can administer the Bill and help to support rebalancing the high street in a way that I know all local authorities want. Jim McMahon: Again, there is a wider context. It is about ending the cap-in-hand bidding process, through which the previous Government aligned councils, one by one, getting them to compete with each other for a very restricted pot of money to support local high street improvements. In the end, we must provide a fairer way of funding local councils, which has to be based on need. I will be careful again not to get ahead of next week’s provisional settlement, but measures will be very clear in there about the intent and the direction of travel. In the end, it is about making sure that councils have the resources they need to ensure that wherever a council is—outside of the bidding war that we saw previously—they have the resources to intervene on the high street. Resource is part of that, but the powers are also important. The community right to buy, the asset register and having a proper period to be able to self-organise are part of that. The measure is about making sure that when businesses are open and they are operating, they are sustainable businesses because their tax burden from business rates is fair and equitable.

• 6 Dec 2024 · European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak in this debate. I also thank the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) for introducing the Bill. I listened with interest to some of the points made by Opposition Members, particularly the words of the right hon. Members for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who suggested that there are attempts to talk the Bill out. The only people who appeared to be attempting to talk the Bill out were the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim and the right hon. Member for Belfast East, and they did a very good job of it. It has become increasingly clear in this debate that the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim has no interest in progressing the Bill. He knows that it is unworkable and has no intention of its ever becoming law. What he is doing today is purely and simply political posturing for nakedly electoral reasons. I was interested and slightly amused to hear the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim refer to his interest in ensuring equality and equal access to citizenship for all the citizens of Northern Ireland. I wonder if he felt the same way about extending access to equality and citizenship when it came to reproductive rights for the women of Northern Ireland and the right to equal marriage for people in Northern Ireland. I do not recall him being as vociferous at that time. I was interested to hear from the Member from South Acton—I mean South Antrim. Apologies—I represent an area very close to Acton, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) knows. The hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) asked whether Labour Members had read the Good Friday agreement. Back in 1998, as a very young woman, I recall vividly buying the newspaper that printed the full Good Friday agreement, laying it out on the floor of my bedroom at the time and reading through it clause by clause. For me, and for the people of Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and all the United Kingdom, it was such an important and joyous occasion to see that agreement come to fruition. That joy is properly experienced if one watches the final episode of “Derry Girls”, when Orla dances through the streets of Derry on her way to register to vote in favour of peace in Northern Ireland. What a contrast that moment of joy is to some of the words that we have heard from Opposition Members today, which have been less about forging a prosperous future for Northern Ireland and more about raking up the arguments of the past. Today we found ourselves revisiting old grievances rather than pushing for progress. The Bill drags us back into the quagmire of disputes that were settled through the Good Friday agreement and the Windsor framework—painstakingly negotiated and endorsed as a solution that works for Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom.

• 6 Dec 2024 · European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Let us look at the intent behind the existing democratic consent mechanism. The Windsor framework carefully designed the process to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland, through their elected representatives in the Assembly, have a say in whether the key provisions of the framework continue to apply. By allowing a simple majority vote, the framework ensured that the democratic will of the Assembly could be expressed efficiently and effectively. That system reflects the realities of a power sharing arrangement, where decision making can already be complex and contentious. Clause 19 proposes a significant and disruptive shift. By requiring cross-community consent in the Northern Ireland Assembly—a majority of Unionist and nationalist representation—the Bill introduces a mechanism that grants de facto veto power to either community, and Opposition Members know that. That risks creating scenarios where no decision can be reached at all, with no explanation in the Bill for whether the Windsor framework would continue under such circumstances. Such provisions invite obstruction and brinkmanship on a critical issue.

• 6 Dec 2024 · European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes a good point. I am focusing on businesses in Northern Ireland, many of which lack the resources to implement the dual tracking system for goods destined for different jurisdictions. They would be placed at a significant competitive disadvantage. The Windsor framework has provided Northern Ireland with dual market access. That is a unique and valuable advantage that no other part of the UK enjoys. It has enabled Northern Ireland’s economy to remain one of the strongest performing post-Brexit. Businesses have adapted to the framework’s provisions, and over 9,000 firms are now registered with the UK internal market scheme. The Bill, however, would throw all of that progress to the wind. It would deter investment and create further trade barriers, undermining Northern Ireland’s status as an attractive place to do business. For small and medium-sized enterprises already operating on tight margins, the additional costs and administrative burdens could be devastating. After years of decline under the Tories, these businesses need certainty, stability and support, not a chaotic and fragmented regulatory landscape that would leave them scrambling to comply with conflicting rules. The people and businesses of Northern Ireland deserve better than what the Bill proposes. I turn to the critical issue at the heart of the Bill in clause 19, which would alter the consent mechanism for articles 5 to 10 of the Windsor framework, replacing the current system of simple majority voting with a requirement for cross-community support, as laid out by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim. While such a measure may appear on the surface to strengthen democratic buy-in, in reality it would risk paralysing decision making and undermining the delicate political equilibrium established by the Good Friday agreement.

• 6 Dec 2024 · European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I note that the hon. and learned Gentleman failed to answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna). He talks about doing a deal with the United States of America on trade. How could we possibly be taken seriously as a trade partner by any country in the world in future if we broke the deals that we already have on the table?

• 6 Dec 2024 · European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. and learned Member mentioned certainty, and he has just mentioned the impact on the economy of Northern Ireland. Does he agree that bringing in a Bill such as this, which would see regulations in Northern Ireland change in potentially just three months, would have a massive impact on businesses in Northern Ireland? It would have a huge impact on the economy of Northern Ireland, and it is not what businesses need right now.

• 6 Dec 2024 · European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am afraid that the hon. and learned Member has had sufficient time to speak today. The Bill is an attempt to undermine the very foundations and underpinnings of the Good Friday agreement. It risks creating far more issues than it claims to solve. Given the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim’s electoral pact with Reform UK, I would have thought he would be happy to get Brexit done, yet here we are renegotiating 2019, stuck in an endless “Groundhog Day” of Brexit debates. While the hon. and learned Member looks backwards, this Government are looking forwards to a stable, prosperous and peaceful Northern Ireland. Let me look at the most fundamental concern about the Bill. At the heart of it lies a blatant disregard for the United Kingdom’s obligations under international law. Clause 3 shows that the legislation seeks to disapply key elements of the Windsor framework. This is not a matter of abstract legal principles; it strikes at the very core of the UK’s credibility as a nation that honours its commitments. The Windsor framework was the result of years of painstaking negotiation designed to balance Northern Ireland’s unique position post Brexit. For the UK unilaterally to disregard its provisions would be not only a breach of trust with our European partners but a dangerous precedent that could have profound consequences for our future trade agreements and alliances. It would be not just a technical breach but a move that would erode trust in the UK’s ability to uphold our agreements, and international partners are watching closely. The message that the Bill would send if passed is clear. How can we expect to secure future trade agreements or maintain our standing on the global stage when Members of this House seek so readily to abandon the commitments we have made? Instead, the Government have grounded themselves in respect for international law. Only by sticking to our word can we rebuild this country’s reputation, which was trashed by the previous Government’s shocking decision to break international law in “specific and limited” ways. Let us be clear: we either abide by international law or we do not. It is not an à la carte menu where we can pick or choose. The Government understand that, and that is why we will be sticking to our agreements. The economic implications of the Bill are just as troubling. Under the Windsor framework, the at-risk, not at-risk test provides a clear and workable solution allowing for the smooth movement of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland while protecting access to the EU single market. By removing that mechanism and replacing it with undefined alternative models, the Bill would introduce huge uncertainty. Such a lack of clarity would create significant operational challenges, leaving businesses without a road map for compliance. The small and medium-sized enterprises that drive Northern Ireland’s economy would be particularly damaged as the Bill would disproportionately burden them.

• 6 Dec 2024 · European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. and learned Member give way?

• 6 Dec 2024 · European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  We disagree on that point, but I reiterate that I have read the Good Friday agreement from cover to cover. The introduction of a cross-community requirement would only place enormous burdens on the Assembly, which has already struggled to function effectively in recent years. Adding another layer of complexity to the Assembly’s decision-making process risks further entrenching the situation, making it even harder to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland. We must also consider the message that the provision sends to the people of Northern Ireland. By imposing additional barriers to democratic decision making, the Bill risks fostering a sense of disenfranchisement and disillusionment among the electorate. How can we expect the people of Northern Ireland to place their faith in the Windsor framework if institutions are being deliberately hamstrung by measures designed to perpetuate stagnation rather than to promote co-operation on this vital issue? The Windsor framework was carefully designed to strike a balance between competing interests. This Bill, by contrast, undermines that delicate balance, replacing pragmatic solutions with political posturing that serves no one. There is an absence in the Bill of a clearly articulated framework to replace the existing regulatory mechanisms established by the framework. Under the current system, Northern Ireland operates within a dual regulatory sphere, giving it unique access, as I said. That arrangement, while complex, has provided a measure of certainty for businesses. They know which rules apply, how to comply with them and the benefits of adherence. The Bill removes critical aspects of the existing framework. That would create a vacuum, leaving businesses and regulators alike with more questions than answers, and the resulting uncertainty would of course threaten Northern Ireland’s prosperity. That is before I get on to the fact that there is no clear timeline for the implementation of the Bill. It provides no road map, no phased implementation plan and no transitional support for affected parties. The Bill would therefore only create a chaotic environment in which businesses must prepare for the unknown, potentially leading to disruption, delays and financial losses. For small and medium-sized businesses that lack the resources to navigate complex regulatory shifts, the consequences would be devastating. The regulatory uncertainty created by the Bill is not a minor oversight; it is a fundamental flaw that undermines its viability. Far from being a technical adjustment, the Bill is a destabilising force. At its core, it flagrantly disregards the principles of international law and the commitments that the United Kingdom solemnly made under the Windsor agreement. But perhaps the most frustrating aspect is that the Bill represents a colossal missed opportunity. Northern Ireland is uniquely positioned to thrive as a bridge between the UK and the EU, leveraging its dual market access to attract investment and drive growth. The Windsor framework, while not perfect, is a pragmatic solution that provides the stability and predictability necessary for that unique position. Instead of building on that foundation, the Bill tries to tear it down, replacing a functioning system with chaos and division. It prioritises short-term calculations over long-term economic and social stability. Northern Ireland deserves better than this. Its people, businesses and institutions deserve a Government who legislate responsibly, with foresight and care, rather than rushing forward with reckless and ill-conceived measures. This House has a duty to legislate responsibly, to weigh the long-term consequences of our actions, and to uphold the principles that underpin our democracy and our international commitments. This Bill fails on all counts. It is not simply flawed; it is fundamentally unfit for purpose. I urge colleagues to reject this legislation and demand a more thoughtful, inclusive and workable approach to addressing the challenges facing Northern Ireland. Let us act not out of political expediency but out of genuine commitment to the people, businesses and institutions that rely on us to get this right.

• 27 Nov 2024 · Budget · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Secretary of State agree that to ensure sustainable finances, the Northern Ireland Executive need to set out clear steps to reform both the NHS and broader public services?

• 27 Nov 2024 · Budget · Hansard source

  More

  11. What assessment he has made of the impact of the autumn Budget 2024 on Northern Ireland.

• 26 Nov 2024 · Electricity Grid Upgrades · Hansard source

  More

  I want to bring the Minister’s attention to issues being faced in west London. He mentioned data centres; we recently had confirmation of a great investment from CyrusOne, but it has to get power from Enfield because there are huge constraints on the energy system in west London. Does the Minister agree that we need to ramp up the work on connecting these new investments to the grid? We must not allow the tactics of the Opposition, which are about delay and going back 14 years to decisions they should have made but never did. Now is the time to take action; people should not be required to pay higher energy fees than they should, which is another aspect of this issue.

• 26 Nov 2024 · Electricity Grid Upgrades · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman mentioned protecting landscapes. Does he agree that it is rather audacious for those in his party to refer to that, given that after 14 years they have left us with nature targets that they failed to achieve, still drilling for oil and gas, with backing for fracking for a significant amount of time, sewage in our rivers and seas, and plastic bottles across the country because they refused to implement environmental schemes on that front? Does he agree that he has a cheek to mention protecting the landscape? Furthermore, does he agree that many of his arguments today are a delaying tactic? We need that power in west London.

• 26 Nov 2024 · Electricity Grid Upgrades · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman give way?