Tonia Antoniazzi MP: speeches

Speeches

• 6 Jan 2026 · BBC Charter Renewal · Hansard source

  More

  The National Union of Journalists wants an inquiry into allegations of inappropriate interference by current politically appointed board members in BBC editorial matters. The right hon. Gentleman said that there are only two such members. Does he think that an inquiry is necessary to restore public trust in the BBC board?

• 5 Jan 2026 · Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief · Hansard source

  More

  I have worked extensively with the National Farmers Union and its Welsh branch, and with the Ulster Farmers’ Union in Northern Ireland. These changes are very much welcome, but I say to the Minister—and to the Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs, who is sitting next to him—that it is important that we have these conversations with Labour MPs and Members from across the House at every opportunity, because this has damaged our farming communities. I also have no truck with what the Opposition say, because I have been in opposition and I know what it is like. Conservative Members let our farmers down. We are getting to the heart of this, fixing the situation, and supporting our rural communities properly, and I welcome the changes, especially for my constituents in Gower.

• 9 Dec 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles: Operation Kenova · Hansard source

  More

  As my Committee’s report on legacy last week outlined, information disclosure has been, and remains, one of the biggest challenges with legacy investigations. The Kenova report outlines the failure of MI5 to disclose all relevant material pertaining to Stakeknife in a timely manner. The chief constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland said today that he remains concerned that “there continues to be an unhelpful, unnecessary and protectionist approach to the disclosure of official records.” Given those comments and the significant concerns outlined in our report on the Government’s new approach to disclosure, how can families have confidence in the new process?

• 4 Dec 2025 · Northern Ireland: Legacy of the Past · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting me the opportunity to make this statement, following the publication on Monday of our report, “The Government’s new approach to addressing the legacy of the past in Northern Ireland”. Getting the approach right is key to protecting more than 20 years of fragile peace in Northern Ireland, which is a truly remarkable achievement. However, the past still casts a shadow over the present for many people, particularly those who have lost loved ones or who were injured or suffered significant trauma during the conflict. Unresolved cases of killing, torture and serious injury can poison relations in the present. Our report is a unanimous cross-party document. It is the culmination of a year’s work, and I am grateful to our Committee specialist, Dr Joe Ryan-Hume, and our specialist adviser, Dr Eamonn O’Kane, for their diligent and sensitive contribution to that work. In December last year, my Committee launched an inquiry into the Government’s then emerging plans. We received almost 80 pieces of written evidence, and held eight evidence sessions with representatives of victims and survivors, veterans, retired police officers and human rights groups. We also heard twice from the Secretary of State. Importantly, too, we visited Northern Ireland to hear at first hand from people directly affected by the troubles. As a cross-party group, we recognise the significance of raising these concerns with a unified voice, and I am deeply appreciative of my colleagues’ collaborative spirit in shaping a report built on consensus. This was considered, constructive and consensual work, done at pace, so that we could produce a report before the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill returns to the Floor of the House for its Committee stage. It is our hope that the detail in the report can frame the parameters of the debate, in this House and beyond, on a host of issues. I will start with the commission. We found that the current main legacy investigation body, the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, has been unable to garner the trust and authority necessary across the communities to carry out its work effectively. It was clear that its roots in the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 hampered it from the beginning, and that fundamental reform was inevitable. There remain, however, several outstanding issues. On investigations, the Government must address the lack of a specific requirement for the investigations process to be ECHR-compliant, and the de facto exclusion of most troubles-related sexual crimes from the commission’s remit. On case referrals, the Government’s plans to widen the range of people and organisations who can refer a case to the new legacy commission seem sensible, but changes could still be made to the definition of “close family member” to make it more inclusive and reflective of the reality of modern family life. The centralising of appointment powers, so that they are held by the Secretary of State, was also raised as an issue. Greater transparency and clear guidance on appointment processes are needed to bolster confidence. The Government’s proposal for reform of the commission’s governance and oversight may answer many of the concerns that we heard, but several remain. For example, concerns have been raised about the proposed victims and survivors advisory group—about who its members will be and how they will be appointed, and about the potential duplication of the role performed by the victims forum in Northern Ireland. I turn to resources. All the reform, good will and political impetus in the world will not lead to truth and justice if there is not enough money, either for investigatory or information-disclosing bodies. The ICRIR has pointed out the increase in demand on its services—something that we hope will only continue under the new commission. If the commission is to receive relevant information in a timely manner, the resourcing of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and other organisations that will face new demands for their records will also need to be considered. Let me turn to the proposals for inquests. The Government’s plans for an enhanced inquisitorial mechanism through the legacy commission are seen by some as an improvement on the system produced by the 2023 Act. However, concerns persist, including about why judges presiding are to be appointed by Ministers, rather than through the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission. I turn to veterans. As I said at the outset, we took evidence from veterans’ representatives during our inquiry. The Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner, who we heard from twice, told us most recently that the Government had been listening to veterans’ concerns “to an extent”, but added that what was proposed was not really protections for veterans, so much as safeguards for all witnesses. Indeed, the Commissioner for Victims and Survivors described the measures to us at the same hearing as “welfare…that you would want to afford to anyone involved in the process of engaging with the Legacy Commission.” We concluded that by packaging proposals as protections, rather than safeguards available to all, the Government risk undermining trust in the process among the very groups —veterans and others—in whom they hope to instil confidence. We also said that the reopening of previously defective investigations should take place only where necessary for the purposes of European convention on human rights compatibility, or owing to new evidence. Information disclosure has been, and remains, one of the most significant issues with legacy policy. The Northern Ireland Troubles Bill assigns the Government a new role in balancing information disclosure with national security—something that Ministers did not undertake under previous legacy measures before the 2023 Act, or with Operation Kenova—hence concerns persist about trust, appeal rights and how the provision will operate in practice. The Government plan to move information retrieval matters to the new Independent Commission on Information Retrieval. Again, Ministers will need to strike a balance, this time between safeguarding the information provided to the commission, so that individuals have the confidence to engage with it, and verifying that information, so that the public have confidence in the commission’s reports. We also hear that there is a lack of detail on the body’s relationship with the Legacy Commission and the extent to which an information firewall will exist between them. With regard to the ICIR and in other areas, the Government of Ireland will also have to play a part. There must be more detail on the Irish Government’s timeline for introducing similar structures to those being provided here, and also more information on the proposed legacy unit in the Garda. To be clear, throughout our inquiry we consistently heard about the lack of commitment to address legacy in Ireland. We were also told by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission that there has been a lack of compliance in the Republic of Ireland and a lack of commitment to beginning and completing article 2 investigations. I and some of my Committee colleagues met Irish Government officials on Monday as part of a visit to Dublin. We were encouraged by the dedication and determination of those involved to establish legacy mechanisms. At this juncture, we urge Dublin to move at pace to show its commitment and mutual good faith, and to maximise confidence and the likelihood of successful outcomes. On Monday we also met TDs and Senators from across the political spectrum. We agreed that the framework, the Bill and our report represent an opportunity to take forward legacy policy. Among the many issues we discussed, we reflected on what it might mean if people from one community heard those in another community say “sorry”. Reconciliation is difficult and cannot be forced on anyone. My Committee colleagues and I plan to explore it in more detail next year, but it is clear right now—not least from the brave testimony of victims and survivors during our inquiry—that reconciliation stands a chance of succeeding only if accompanied by people’s admissions, and acknowledgment, of the truth. In conclusion, legacy is not only about addressing the past; it is about laying the foundations for a better future. It has been a privilege to lead this vital inquiry, and I am deeply humbled by the courage of those who I have had the honour to meet. Our Committee’s report gives the Government the opportunity to pause and reflect on a process that is vital to the future of Northern Ireland. If they do so, they will help ensure that we all seize this chance to put the people who matter most—those who lived through the troubles and still experience its effect today—at the heart of this new approach. We owe it to them to get this right.

• 4 Dec 2025 · Northern Ireland: Legacy of the Past · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his service on the Committee, where his background in academia played an important role. Sir Declan Morgan brought integrity to the commission, and I thank him personally for his work. The evidence shows that it was not him but the set-up of the institution he was leading that caused it to fail.

• 4 Dec 2025 · Northern Ireland: Legacy of the Past · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. We have not seen much detail on reconciliation, but our Committee will consider it. I commend the Government on their much-improved relations with the Irish Government. It is testament to the Secretary of State and his new Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick), that we are in this position, and I am very grateful to them for it, but we need to make reconciliation work going forward, as my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) says.

• 4 Dec 2025 · Northern Ireland: Legacy of the Past · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his contribution and for our engagement. It is unfortunate that he is unable to join the Committee—I find it disappointing, but that is how the procedures work. I have heard what he and others have said about the Irish Government’s warm words. As a Committee, we will continue to have dialogue and very frank conversations with them, and with our Government, to get the answers that he and others in Northern Ireland require.

• 4 Dec 2025 · Northern Ireland: Legacy of the Past · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member makes a good point, but what we need to do is get that clarification from the Secretary of State. I am not here to give an opinion; I am here to present the findings of our report. The Government call them “protections”. Should they be protections and who are they for? We need clarity around that.

• 4 Dec 2025 · Northern Ireland: Legacy of the Past · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Member and respect that he served in Northern Ireland, as we know many people have. The Irish Government have pledged to co-operate with the UK public inquiry, but it was clear from what we heard that victims’ families are frustrated with the decision not to commit to their own inquiry on the Omagh bombing, and that the lack of progress on the Republic of Ireland’s inquiry remains a profound obstacle to uncovering the truth. But we did hear positive statements when we were in Dublin, and I do have a greater understanding of why, alongside the troubles Bill going through Parliament now, there may be a misunderstanding. We urged them as a Committee to be more transparent and open with us and with the UK Government, so we know what they are doing and that they are not hiding anything from us.

• 4 Dec 2025 · Northern Ireland: Legacy of the Past · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is well respected. I will endeavour to fight for his family in their loss, and I will ensure that the Committee does everything it can to provide justice and evidence, and make that wrong a right.

• 4 Dec 2025 · Northern Ireland: Legacy of the Past · Hansard source

  More

  Having met the Good Friday agreement Committee and other Members in Dublin, it is imperative for us, and for Members of Parliament who have not spent time in Northern Ireland, to engage with what life is like for people and the legacy they live with. I commend my hon. Friend for his efforts in encouraging cross-party and cross-country collaboration with our counterparts not just in Dublin, but in Northern Ireland.

• 4 Dec 2025 · Northern Ireland: Legacy of the Past · Hansard source

  More

  With regard to veterans going on trial, we did take evidence and heard those concerns, and it is reflected in our report. I would happily have a conversation with the right hon. Member to pursue that further. His expertise in this field is welcomed by all members of the Committee from across the House, so I thank him.

• 4 Dec 2025 · Northern Ireland: Legacy of the Past · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for her dedication and work on the Committee, and her ability to ask the questions that need asking. The absence of a clear requirement for ECHR compliance has been an issue. The fact that we are now moving forward with ECHR-compliant investigations is important. Those conversations with Dublin and the Irish Government are key. As I said to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), that will be important moving forwards.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Packaging: Extended Producer Responsibility · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the impact of extended producer responsibility for packaging. This is particularly relevant to pubs and breweries, but the EPR scheme extends wider than that sector. I thank Tata Steel, the Wine and Spirit Trade Association, British Glass and the Metal Packaging Manufacturers Association for their engagement. As chair of the all-party parliamentary beer group, EPR for packaging is one of the key issues raised with me over the past year. The challenges presented by this policy were highlighted many times during the beer group’s inquiry earlier this year. The industry is affected by a wide range of policy requirements across almost all Government Departments. The cumulative impact of these policies and regulations is taking its toll—it is stunting growth, and growth is what our country needs. The Chancellor used the word nearly 50 times in yesterday’s Budget speech, so I know it is important to this Government. In securing this debate, I want to share some of the EPR issues that have been raised with us by the beer sector, and hopefully move them closer to resolution, to help businesses grow once more. What is extended producer responsibility? It is a major new UK packaging obligation that applies to brand owners and importers of all packaging that could end up in household waste streams. Fees became payable on 1 April 2025. They are in the form of pounds-per-tonne rates for all the main packaging materials: cardboard, plastic, paper and glass. There are some exemptions for very small producers. These fees will raise £1.4 billion to pay local authorities for the collection, management, recycling and disposal of household packaging waste. Nobody can disagree that the idea of EPR appears to be brilliant. First, the polluter pays, with the businesses that put the packaging on the market bearing the associated environmental and societal costs. Secondly, it is an incentive for companies to design products that are more durable, reusable and easier to recycle. Thirdly, it is meant to promote a circular economy in which packaging is kept in use for as long as possible, minimising waste going to landfill. That all sounds great, but unfortunately the reality for businesses, particularly independent pubs and breweries, is very different. Laura James, from Gower brewery in my constituency, says that the introduction of EPR means the business has never had so much money going out the door. She fears that EPR requirements—on top of the increases to beer duty, the national minimum wage and national insurance contributions—could be the straw that breaks the proverbial camel’s back. Such independent breweries, which are the lifeblood of communities like mine in Gower, may be forced to close. Laura talked me through the day-to-day impact of EPR on the business. Every six to eight weeks, it gets a delivery of empty glass bottles, and it uses around half a million every year. Since the EPR requirements came in this April, its supplier has added £5,000 to the delivery, which means the brewery now has to find around an extra £45,000 every year, just for the bottles. The British Beer and Pub Association, which represents the industry, says that brewers and pubs are struggling, and that the EPR fees for glass packaging are far too high, costing brewers nationwide around £124 million a year. My first ask of the Government is that EPR fees for glass are reviewed. They currently work out at around 6p extra per bottle. Gower brewery says that, in an ideal world, it would move away from glass to cans, but that requires investment, which is money it just does not have. Alternatively, it would create a bottle deposit scheme, but that also requires money. It would need to rent a warehouse to store the empties, buy numerous bottle-washing machines and pay additional staff to facilitate it all. Added to that, it could not guarantee the integrity of the second-hand bottles—that they would be 100% safe to drink from. That is why pubs and breweries say it is vital that glass fees are made fairer and more sustainable.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Packaging: Extended Producer Responsibility · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is right. I am quite jealous that he has all those wonderful breweries in his patch. The pub and brewing sector is fantastic, and I really enjoy working with it, but I know how hard it is finding things and how it is striving to get to net zero. It wants to be part of this conversation and part of the solution. I take my hat off to that excellent sector. Secondly, the sector would welcome a quick resolution from Government on the double charging issue, which the British Beer and Pub Association says is costing pubs and breweries nationwide an additional £50 million a year. They pay the EPR charge passed on by suppliers as well as their existing commercial waste disposal fees for the same items, including beer and wine bottles or food containers that never leave their premises. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has agreed that double charging is unfair and against the intentions of the policy. It has suggested that the earliest it can be rectified is 2028, but that is three years from now. This issue needs to be resolved as soon as possible or smaller breweries such as Gower brewery will go under. Double charging means that not only does Gower brewery pay more to suppliers for its bottles and packaging, it pays Swansea council for its commercial waste collection. A simple clarification from Government would help the industry: the beer sector would like DEFRA to amend its guidance to provide more flexibility on how producers can account for EPR fees. As currently drafted, the rules prevent producers from accounting for the accrual of EPR payments across a 12-month period, which means that businesses are having to absorb the hit in one go in April. On a positive note, there is no doubt that the pub and brewing sector and wider hospitality share the Government’s ambitions for well-designed schemes to reduce packaging, increase recycling rates and build a functional circular economy. However, on a practical level, it is proving difficult. As well as the increased packaging fees, there are additional admin costs related to the time needed to fulfil EPR requirements. Laura from Gower brewery explained that every item of packaging has to be weighed and logged on a portal, from the bottle to the cardboard tray it is packed in and the plastic it is wrapped in. Each business it supplies has a separate portal, making it a lengthy task. There is also future uncertainty for businesses, which is not good for jobs or growth. For example, Laura is concerned about how each supermarket will approach EPR in the coming months. What if, say, Tesco decides that it wants her brewery to abandon plastic wrapping in favour of a cardboard box? Gower brewery would then have to find space for lots of flat-packed boxes. That uncertainty is shared by the whole sector, particularly because of the delayed confirmation of the final level of fees required under EPR and the retrospective nature of charging. Those two issues have made it extremely difficult for businesses to plan and to understand the level of investment needed to meet the new obligations. An urgent solution must be found to the double charging issue, which is unfairly placing additional costs on pubs. If a long-term solution is not possible until 2028 at the earliest, some form of interim measure would go part of the way to addressing the issue. A review of the fees for glass is necessary. They are too high and could have unintended consequences that would cause an increase in the use of less recyclable packaging materials such as plastic. It would also be helpful if DEFRA amended its clarifying guidance to provide more flexibility on how producers can account for EPR fees so that they do not have to absorb the hit in one go in April. I welcome the opportunity to raise this issue for the pub and brewing sector, which has faced tough economic headwinds. These increased costs for businesses will inevitably impact the price of food and drink for consumers and the cost of living. The Government estimate that in the region of 85% of the cost of EPR will be passed on to consumers. It is also worth noting that EPR is only one part of a complex packaging regulation landscape—I know the Minister is aware of that—which includes the plastic packaging tax, packaging recovery notes, regulation on single-use plastic items, and the forthcoming deposit return scheme. Consistency of policy across the four nations of the UK is crucial. The Welsh Government propose to keep glass as part of their DRS, whereas that is not the case for the rest of the UK. I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this issue in Parliament. The pub and brewing sector has faced a bit of a battering from policies in the last year. I thank the Minister for listening, and I look forward to what she has to say about EPR.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Packaging: Extended Producer Responsibility · Hansard source

  More

  I thank all Members for their contributions, and the Minister for her response. Swansea council is the second-best local authority in the UK, I believe—I do not know if one of the Minister’s special advisers can get that fact for me. I invite the Minister to speak to the all-party parliamentary beer group in the near future, because I know that that conversation would be important. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the impact of extended producer responsibility for packaging.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  I am really pleased that the Chancellor has announced that the Government are clamping down on illegal high street activity—let us call it “shop a shop”. My constituents Stuart Evans and his son, who run a fish and chip shop in Gorseinon, have raised concerns that other high street shops are exploiting cash-only operations, so I welcome the additional funding to support stronger and more joined-up enforcement against those who break the rules. I am looking forward to changes to the legislative framework, which currently limits trading standards enforcement capabilities; in fact, I am going to meet trading standards officers in Swansea very soon. I also welcome the removal of the two-child benefit cap and the abolition of the rape clause, because 1,270 children in Gower will benefit, with 450,000 lifted out of poverty nationally by the end of the decade. I thank the Minister—my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell), who is my constituency neighbour—for helping my constituents who used to work at the former 3M plant with the pre-1997 indexation issues that they had with their pensions. I want to take this opportunity to raise a couple of other subjects that are very close to my heart, and I have had conversations with Front Benchers and the Chancellor regarding some of my concerns. I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary beer group— [ Interruption. ] I get all the fun gigs. We recently published a report following our inquiry into how brewing and pubs can help drive economic growth. I want to flag the report to the Minister, because it is really important. We have seen a change in the business rates, but we feel that the industry faces issues across many different departments. The sector is a key driver of local and national prosperity, and it plays such a crucial role in helping to get young people into jobs. That is why I think the apprenticeship stuff is really good, so I thank my Front Benchers for that. It is really key that we get young people working, create good jobs and revitalise our high streets, and I know that strengthening our communities is very much what we need to happen. I also welcome the reduction in energy costs. I am going to keep my comments brief, but I want to bring up some issues in the Chamber. My Front Benchers know that my constituency is on the outskirts of Swansea. I have a large agricultural community, and I am really concerned about their wellbeing. No one in the agricultural community denies that we need to reform inheritance tax, and I genuinely welcome the small move that will help farmers—the spousal arrangements that allow widowers to transfer relief from their spouse—but the idea that farmers do not pay tax is nonsense; of course they do. However, that change does not address the impact on the elderly and terminally ill, and it also penalises divorced and single farmers. I gently urge those on the Front Bench and the Chancellor to look at the Finance Bill, consider the recommendations from my Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, the Welsh Affairs Committee and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, and look at potential Government amendments to move things to a better place. If we can remove the anti-forestalling clause, especially for lifetime gifts, I will not be having phone calls and conversations with people in the agricultural community who may be thinking of taking their own lives before 6 April next year, because those are the conversations people are having with me and other MPs across these Benches. I urge the Government to think about that, because this community feeds us—it feeds our nation—and it needs to have the ear of the Chancellor.

• 25 Nov 2025 · Pornography and violence against women · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to present a petition on behalf of my constituents regarding pornography. On International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women and day one of the United Nations’ 16 days of activism, the reach and influence of online pornography is bigger than ever. We know that sexual coercion is inherent to its production, and violence against women is mainstream within its content. Its use is fuelling misogyny and sexual violence, conditioning generations that abuse is a normal part of sexual encounters. The petition states: “The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to extend safeguards applied to pornography offline to pornography distributed online” and “to verify the age and permission of every individual featured on their platform—and give performers the right to withdraw their consent at any time”. Following is the full text of the petition: [ The petition of residents of the constituency of Gower, Declares that pornography use is fuelling sexual violence; violence against women is prolific in mainstream pornography; and sexual coercion is inherent to the commercial production of pornography. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to extend safeguards applied to pornography offline to pornography distributed online; and to legally require all pornography websites accessed from the UK to verify the age and permission of every individual featured on their platform – and give performers the right to withdraw their consent at any time to the continued publication of pornography in which they appear. And the petitioners remain, etc. ] [P003135]

• 19 Nov 2025 · Businesses with Supply Chains in Great Britain · Hansard source

  More

  The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee has taken evidence from Lord Murphy on his review of the Windsor framework, which has made important recommendations that could support GB businesses moving goods to Northern Ireland. Will the Secretary of State update the House on his considerations on the Murphy review?

• 18 Nov 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 11 Nov 2025 · BBC Leadership · Hansard source

  More

  I am no BBC basher; I want to protect it. This morning, along with a number of cross-party MPs, I wrote to the Secretary of State asking if she would ask the BBC board exactly why it delayed issuing an appropriate apology over the “Panorama” Trump edit, because, as we know, that delay inflicted further damage on the BBC, which is our country’s most trusted news source. I agree with Hannah Barnes, who said yesterday in a New Statesman article that the corporation “must turn this crisis into an opportunity.” Will the Secretary of State also seek clarity from the former director general Tim Davie on the worrying words in his resignation letter about how the BBC needs to be championed and not weaponised?

• 11 Nov 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  My constituent Richard Pyke was the victim of a violent attack at his workplace in March of this year. He was given his victim impact statement when he met the Crown Prosecution Service barrister five minutes before going into court on the day of sentencing. It had been amended: he was not allowed to say how he felt that the perpetrator tried to murder him, he was no longer allowed to say that he was manipulated into a vulnerable position, and he was not allowed to state how he felt about the perpetrator’s release. What assurances can the Minister give victims of serious crimes, such as attempted murder, that they will not be censored in such a way?

• 29 Oct 2025 · Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Leader of the House for bringing this motion to the House, and I thank the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa), Chair of the Privileges Committee, and the Committee’s members for the work they have done on this matter. On 9 July, I presented a petition from Tim Suter, the secretary of the Omagh bombing inquiry, asking the House to allow the inquiry to access unreported evidence from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. As current Chair of the Committee, I know how important it is that the inquiry should be able to do its work. I was happy to present the petition as the first step in getting the inquiry the information it needed. It is an important principle that the House has control of parliamentary papers. Committees can choose to report those papers to the House, but if they do not do so, those papers are only accessible if the House so orders. It is also important that people who give evidence to a Committee know that if their evidence is not reported, it will not be released without proper consideration of the issues. As it was unreported evidence, my Committee —the current Committee—did not have access to the evidence. There was no way for the House to assess whether the information could be published in whole or redacted, or what the inquiry might need. The Privileges Committee was asked to look at this matter and the papers were referred to it. I am grateful to the Committee for its work. As the Committee makes clear, it is possible that some of the information in the transcript may need to be restricted. It invites the House to take the unusual step of handing over material that it has not seen. I think that is entirely appropriate. The inquiry knows what information is useful to it. The Committee has received written confirmation that the evidence released to it will be treated according to its disclosure protocol to check material relevant to national security and that there will be a security check. In these circumstances, I support the motion, since I am confident that careful consideration has been given to the issues involved.

• 15 Oct 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 · Hansard source

  More

  A number of the core provisions of the previous Government’s legacy Act have been deemed by the Northern Ireland courts to be incompatible with our human rights obligations. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is little wonder that the legislation was so widely opposed, and does this not make the task of repealing and replacing it even more important?

• 14 Oct 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles · Hansard source

  More

  I am pleased to see from the joint framework that the Government have listened to some of the key concerns voiced by stakeholders during my Committee’s inquiry into legacy. Those stakeholders will no doubt want to study the detail of the proposals that my right hon. Friend is publishing today. To that end, what consultation have the Government had with victims and survivors groups since the joint framework was announced, and in what ways has this informed the legislation laid today?