Gavin Robinson
MP for Belfast East · Democratic Unionist Party · United Kingdom
“I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for allowing me to intervene. She mentions that the Government have a responsibility to ensure this legislation is lawful and workable, yet she is the Bill’s sponsor—that responsibility rests on her, too.”
“That is an answer to a question, but it is not really the answer to my question. I want to hear from our Secretary of State a full-throated recognition that there is a deficit, that Sir Declan needs access to the unredacted material, and that the Secretary of State will secure agreement from the Irish Government for such a change.”
“Is the Secretary of State further concerned that the chief operating officer of the Northern Ireland Office said that day that she would take that point back—to whom we do not know, because she is the chief operating officer—but today has written to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee to confirm that nothing in the Secretary of State’s…”
“The Secretary of State will know that, given the legacy of our past, two Governments are involved. Was he concerned, as we were, that Sir Declan Morgan shared with the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee two weeks ago his concern that he will not have access to unredacted intelligence material from the Irish Government?”
“I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) on securing this debate. Does the Minister understand that when he speaks of co-operation between the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach, it rings hollow when immigration officials in Dublin airport indicate where the bus to Belfast is?”
“Does the Minister understand that any agreement around data sharing rings hollow when the Home Office will not tell us how many people enter the UK from the Republic of Ireland, how many apply in Drumkeen House in Belfast or how many are removed not just from Northern Ireland, but the United Kingdom as a whole, and even more so when the H…”
The complete record
Every one of 601 lines we hold for Gavin Robinson, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 13.
“Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) asked the Secretary of State about that earlier, but he was unable to answer. This measure is coming in in April 2026, yet all we have is a notional offer from the Government to support the Executive in creating a system. Can we have confirmation as to whether annually managed expenditure will be made available to ensure that every household in Northern Ireland will be entitled to £150 on the same basis as in England and Wales? Will that extend to oil boilers? We heard about £130 for gas boilers, but 70% of homes in Northern Ireland are fuelled by crude oil.”
“I lament the fact that there was praise for our Minister for Finance in Northern Ireland last week, when he talked about the need for revenue raising in our Province but then went on to rule out every significant aspect of revenue raising. Politically, they are not in that space, yet we have to share power with them. That is wrong. I lament the fact that we have partners in government who say, “We need more fiscal devolution; we need more powers in Northern Ireland”, yet they have manifestly failed to use the powers at their disposal. That cannot continue, and I say that there is a role for national Government in those negotiations. We welcome that there is a potential £150 of support for energy bills in households across this United Kingdom, but there is no detail in the Red Book—my hon.”
“I am happy to engage with the Northern Ireland Office—I am pleased to see the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland here—about some of the challenges that we face in Northern Ireland. I recognise the additional £370 million through Barnett consequentials, although that is not one year’s addition; it covers a period of years with but £2 million in one of those years. The Secretary of State knows that the challenge this year for our Executive is £400 million—that is the current pressure. What is the one thing missing from the Red Book’s section on Northern Ireland? It is any challenge to the Executive; it is any mention of the fiscal framework and those negotiations that need to take place.”
“As my hon. Friend knows, we have campaigned on the removal of the two-child limit. We did not agree with the limit; we do not think it is right, and we think it is immoral for families to be placed in that position. We opposed it when it was introduced, and we oppose it today. When considering the cost of living, let us reflect on the fact that within two years—by 2027—the state pension will be taxed because of frozen thresholds? It will be taxed in 2027, 2028, 2029, 2030 and 2031 because of choices by this Government. We recognise that pensioners should be entitled to and need pension credit to supplement that, but if their sole income is the state pension, it will be taxed, unlike pension credit. That cannot be right, but it is what has been delivered through the freezing of thresholds.”
“I understand that the Government want to accelerate their plans to remove the two-child limit as soon as possible, and it may be too soon to get a legislative consent motion passed by the Northern Ireland Assembly. May I ask the Secretary of State to undertake to engage with the Social Security Minister? If there is political willingness at Stormont for this to proceed quickly, perhaps she could do it on our behalf.”
“I congratulate my friend the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) on securing this important debate. It follows a series of interventions, most recently from my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) with the Prime Minister. Given the Hillsborough disaster and the change in the law to create a duty of candour, with the tools in place and the onus on Government to be open and answer unanswered questions from the families, does the hon. Member agree that this is a most opportune time, and one that the Government should seize?”
“Over the past 18 months, the Prime Minister has shown himself to be influential and purposeful at significant times in this crisis, so I thank him for that. While events may be superseding the statement this afternoon, there are some principles that should not change. Aggression must not be rewarded. Violence should not pay. There has always been an alternative to violence. But when the Prime Minister says, rightly, that there should be a “just and lasting peace”, does he recognise that it may be difficult to sell a lasting peace to the people of Ukraine if so-called allies are forcing President Zelensky to accept an encroachment on his sovereign territory, and that those allies should be robustly defending Ukraine, rather than allowing so-called friends to allow the loss of territory?”
“The Minister will be enjoying his opportunity to travel across Northern Ireland and see some of the wonderful groups we have. He knows the strength of this United Kingdom, and he knows that increasing the bonds across Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England is crucial. He should know that the last Government—supported by his Labour colleagues—agreed that through the East-West Council there should be educational collaboration, so that our young people can mix with one another and draw upon each other’s strengths. Could he indicate how many times he believes the East-West Council has progressed that matter and what plans he has to strengthen those bonds?”
“In drawing upon the bonds of our country, the Minister will know while Northern Ireland has a greater than average growth rate compared with the rest of the United Kingdom, we still have a productivity gap. Behind that is the fact that our growth is masked by an over-reliance on our public sector. The Minister’s colleagues agreed in the last Parliament—as I am sure he does now—with cross-fertilisation between the Northern Ireland civil service and the home civil service. What plans does he have to increase our ability to draw on expertise and encourage secondments across this United Kingdom?”
“I think it is appropriate that the Secretary of State opened his speech in the way that he did, but he should recognise that when he gave dates for when the troubles started and concluded, he finished on 10 April 1998. He knows well that that means he did not include the largest atrocity of the troubles, which occurred four months later in the town of Omagh, and he knows that nothing in this Bill will make provisions available for those families. Although an inquiry is ongoing into the Omagh atrocity, that does not answer the questions relating to the Irish Republic. Will he consider extending the dates to include the largest atrocity from the troubles?”
“The Irish Government construed a memorandum of understanding on the Omagh inquiry to mean that they would assist only in answering the question of what the UK authorities could have done to prevent that atrocity; they will not say what they could have done, yet for decades they harboured terrorists, refused extradition and supported and financed terrorism in Northern Ireland. Has the Secretary of State put them under any pressure? No, he has not. What legal obligation is there, if the Bill passes, to see that they adhere to the European convention on human rights? None.”
“Where is their support, Secretary of State? It is not in this legislation. Whenever the Northern Ireland Retired Police Officers Association had to go to court, who paid its bills? It did. Retired police officers had to raise tens of thousands of pounds to challenge the Police Ombudsman, who was rewriting the past and asserted “collusive behaviours”—a legal phraseology that does not exist. Those retired police officers have had to defend their honour by themselves, because no Government of any hue have stood by their side and defended them. They defended us, Secretary of State, and we should defend them. The Secretary of State has sullied himself and this Parliament by the engagement with the Irish Republic. I have it on good authority that the Irish Republic has cautioned against amendments to the legislation.”
“The answer is to create an equal position to sit alongside him. We have a human rights commissioner in Northern Ireland. Even though the High Court has attested the independence of the commissioner for investigations and the ICRIR, the Secretary of State has decided at the behest of the Irish to create an equal position, for fear of contamination. That is outrageous. It is not legally sustainable or legally required, and it cuts to the heart of the professionalism and integrity of not only that individual, but all who served in the Royal Ulster Constabulary, 302 of whom were murdered by paramilitaries in Northern Ireland. We hear about protections for veterans, but what about those who served in the PSNI, or the RUC before them? What about those who served and were deployed alongside members of the armed forces?”
“They have not received it. Does the Bill contain protections for veterans? No. Does the word “veteran” feature in this legislation at all? No, it does not. Victims and veterans are sick of the gaslighting and psychological torture of having their own beliefs, understanding and memory challenged and questioned to the point that they think they have got something wrong. What about paramilitaries? Paramilitaries were invited to Lambeth Palace to create the amnesty scheme that the Conservatives brought through. They will be satisfied enough that their concerns have been listened to by this Labour Government. I have raised with the Secretary of State time and again his lamentable failure to support the commissioner for investigations, solely because he has a history in the RUC. What is the answer to that?”
“There is no specific protection for veterans in this piece of legislation—none. Last week, when the Minister for Veterans was asked on the radio four times whether she could rule out a member of the IRA being on the victims advisory forum, she could not. That the Secretary of State has not taken the opportunity to say that he would accept an amendment to ban paramilitaries from that advisory board is, I think, a shame, but shame runs throughout the legacy of our past, and Governments’ approach to it. Does the Bill work for innocent victims? I have to tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that innocent victims are sick, sore and tired of people from across this Chamber—maybe even those on these Benches—pretending to speak for them. Yes, it is true that some innocent victims want truth and to know what happened, but others want justice.”
“Only two weeks ago, a Minister from the Northern Ireland Office met 25 victims, one of whom, a member of our party, was shot in 1981 in Aughnacloy by a member of the Provisional IRA, a champion within the Sinn Féin movement until he fell out with them. He sought sanctuary in Switzerland and Sweden. Only when he became an opponent of the peace process was he ever amenable to justice. He stood as a dissident representative in the 2007 election, and was arrested at the count. He was convicted for 20 years for the attempted murder of one of my colleagues. That was a de facto amnesty for as long as he was brought into the political process. The innocent victims of Northern Ireland have heard the Government promise to repeal and replace, yet that is not what they are seeing. They have heard a promise to protect veterans; that is a mirage.”
“It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna). We do work with each other on these issues, although we do not always agree. It is fair to say that our history is sorrowful. It is pitiful and painful, and grounded on a corruption of justice. While we listen to the politics and the back and forth between Labour and Conservative in this Chamber, we have to go back to 1998 to find that corruption of justice: the release of prisoners, the litany of failures, and the lamentable approach to those who terrorised our communities across society in Northern Ireland. The on-the-run scheme was not the same as letters of comfort; it was a royal prerogative of mercy, and a de facto amnesty to paramilitaries.”
“To interrogate honourably, the BBC needs to have a level of integrity, yet it has diminished itself in ignoring a report for six months that looked not just at one “Panorama” programme but at a litany of failures. The BBC piously shows religious observance to the principles of integrity and impartiality, but when challenged and criticised, it sacrifices all that on the altar of supreme arrogance. Hearing today that the high priest of partiality Jonathan Munro continues to defend the editorial decisions of the “Panorama” programme, does the Secretary of State believe that he too must go?”
“Does he recognise that, in Treasury terms, the incident was “unforeseen, unaffordable and unavoidable”, and therefore matches the Treasury’s criteria? To set aside that money in-year would be 10% of the PSNI’s overall budget—it is not affordable. Can I ask him to think about this issue again, in engagement with the Chancellor, and to ensure that our Police Service of Northern Ireland and the national security threat that it faces are not hampered by in-year financial rules?”
“The Prime Minister has a deep understanding of policing in Northern Ireland and its importance. He knows about the ongoing national security threat and about the additional costs of dealing with the legacy of our past. He knows that the Police Service of Northern Ireland has been underfunded, and that the Northern Ireland Executive have rightly brought forward a stability programme for it. He also know that it is under strength; in 2020, New Decade, New Approach suggested that there should be 7,500 police officers in Northern Ireland, but today there are 6,200. Does the Prime Minister know, however, that the Treasury did not look favourably on a request to draw on the reserves for a data breach that cost £120 million?”
“I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. It is quite right that she took the last two interventions because she was talking about cross-party support for Northern Ireland farms. She is blessed to have a constituency with some of the most fertile and therefore valuable agricultural land in Northern Ireland, with an average of around £30,000 per acre. Although there may be a policy intention in relation to the industrialisation of farms or people shielding their wealth through farms, would she like the Government to recognise that that is not the case in Northern Ireland, and even a small family holding of 30 acres could get caught by the policy change?”
“Yesterday, in an atypical fit of pique, the Secretary of State failed to answer my question as to whether the Attorney General, Lord Hermer, had been excluded from the legislation or had personally recused himself. So today I have an easier question. Given that the Secretary of State yesterday highlighted the protections for veterans in this legislation, could he tell the House which page, which clause or which line uses the word “veteran”?”
“Labour Members may cheer, but not one of those clauses refers to veterans. Those are not protections for veterans; they are protections for everyone—paragraph 20 of the explanatory notes shows that what I am saying is true—and many of them are already available in the criminal justice system. It is a mirage. To be collegiate, the Secretary of State has spent many years criticising the legacy Act of 2023 and previous efforts on the basis that they commanded no political support whatsoever across the parties of Northern Ireland. If there is agreement across Northern Ireland’s Members of Parliament on amendments during the passage of his legislation, will he agree to those amendments?”
“Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I think it is appropriate that on behalf of the Democratic Unionist party, and indeed on behalf of all Northern Ireland parliamentarians, I extend our condolences to the Liberal Democrats and to the colleagues who knew Mr Campbell better than I did. I first came across Sir Ming when I was at school, and he became leader of his party when I was at university. It was not his prowess, his intelligence or his ability to launch an argument that struck me, but his name: Ming. I knew of no other Mings than Ming the Merciless— [ Laughter ] — and yet we got to know Ming the Merciful. We got to know Ming the politician, who stood and achieved the respect of colleagues right across this House. He was a sincere Unionist, an avowed Scot and a true parliamentarian.”
“But the detail we do have is that the Secretary of State wishes for the Solicitor General to be the person to carry out the sifting process on whether cases should go to inquest through the coronial system or to the legacy commission. In Northern Ireland, we have an Advocate General. The Advocate General is England and Wales’s Attorney General. I am clear in my mind that Richard Hermer would be wholly inappropriate to have his hands anywhere near cases touching on the legacy of the past, given how he has conflicted himself. Will the Secretary of State indicate: has the Attorney General of this country recused himself from this process? Has he, as Secretary of State, decided to exclude the Attorney General from this process? Is he legislating in a way that will exclude every Attorney General from this process, or is it just Richard Hermer?”
“First, I welcome the Minister to his place and to the Department, and I welcome the new shadow spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats. I personally thank the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) for the role she played in her time in the Northern Ireland Office. That the announcement with the Irish Government was made during a House of Commons recess, one could consider as cynical; that we stand here today during a statement on legislation that has yet to be introduced, and therefore we have no detail on, as disgraceful; and the suggestion that the Irish Government have committed to legislate at all as entirely fanciful—they have not.”
“She knows that ideologically, practically, principally, politically and legally, that is wrong, so will she at least confirm today that nothing within the consultation will give an option to anyone to suggest that the policy, if it were to be introduced, would be anything other than across the United Kingdom?”
“Through the Secretary of State, may I thank the Minister for Digital Government and Data, who is sitting to her left? He was in Belfast last week and engaged with the Minister for Communities in the Northern Ireland Executive. He will know, and she should know, that our principled and practical objections to this proposal 20 years ago remain to this day, but the Secretary of State will also know that since the policy’s announcement there have been many fanciful and facile comments in Northern Ireland suggesting that it would be in breach of the Belfast agreement.”
“Over the last 10 days in my constituency, there have been five of the most appalling and violent acts by self-styled vigilante groups. In each case, they livestream on Facebook Live and TikTok LIVE. Those videos disappear, and the creators remain anonymous. There will be a criminal justice response, but may I ask the Minister to relook at the protections for those who continue not only to abuse and act racistly in our society, but to do so under the cloak of anonymity?”
“In November 2022, the hon. Members for Widnes and Halewood (Derek Twigg) and for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) and I were in Ukraine with the Defence Committee when there was an onslaught of rockets fired into that country, one of which errantly fell into Poland and killed two Polish nationals. On that day, Poland considered triggering article 4, and today it has clearly done so. In the intervening period of almost three years, there has been a growing reluctance to equip Ukraine to defend its skies and, importantly, to do so from the skies, so while this article 4 meeting of member states will consider how we protect the skies of NATO, will the Minister confirm that he is willing to extend that conversation to how we appropriately and effectively defend the skies of Ukraine?”
“Their sights are on Loughgall; their sights are on building a pernicious and never-ending pursuit against those who served in Northern Ireland. Our responsibility, as parliamentarians from across this United Kingdom, is to say, “No. We will not assist your quest to rewrite the history of the past, nor will we assist in the IRA’s pursuit to try and attain some level of honour towards their retirement.” They tried to destroy this country through war, and they failed. Let us not create the conditions for them to try to destroy the reputation of this country through peace.”
“Yet the very same coroner could do so when he did the Coagh inquest a number of months before. Why do people pursue these inquests, which the Secretary of State seems keen to recommence? Because those lawyers who do wish to rewrite history in Northern Ireland are laying the foundations for prosecutions. The reason why closing down those inquests was important was that it stopped this pernicious ability to put the building blocks in place to see our veterans in court. Yet the Secretary of State met with Mairead Kelly, the sister of Patrick Kelly—the officer commanding the East Tyrone Brigade of the IRA—on 24 March this year. Darragh Mackin, a solicitor from Phoenix Law, put out a statement immediately after, salivating at having got a commitment from our Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that inquests would recommence.”
“Yet, throughout all that time of prison releases, on-the-runs, the 2003 Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill and royal prerogatives of mercy, how many were given to those who defended the rule of law and order? None. So let us be very clear about the danger of going down a line of allowing inquests to recommence. The Clonoe inquest is a classic example of how a judge goes beyond the terms of his brief. An inquest is to determine who died, where they died, when they died and how they died, but not why. A coroner’s court is not there to determine whether there is criminal liability, yet that is exactly what the judge did—a judge who, in his judgment, made no reference to the context, to who was killed that day or to the terrorist campaign of the East Tyrone Brigade, which was the bloodiest of them all.”
“Thank God they had the resolve to withdraw that pernicious piece of legislation, but what did they then do? They engaged in a process of signing on-the-runs letters. People will say that they were not an amnesty, but tell that to the families of the four members of the Household Cavalry who were murdered in the Hyde Park bomb, to the seven horses that were put down as a result of the Hyde Park bomb, or to the 50 others who were injured in the Hyde Park bomb, because when John Downey was taken to the High Court in London, he produced his letter—a secret scheme by the Labour Government to allow him to walk out of court with no justice for his victims. That is not all: 365 royal prerogatives of mercy, from both Conservative and Labour Governments, were offered in Northern Ireland to give amnesty to terrorists.”
“People who had been engaged in terrorism and evaded justice for years, who hid in the Irish Republic, were not extradited, because the Irish Republic said they could not get a fair trial in this United Kingdom. Or individuals fled to the United States, like Gabriel Megahey, who was the IRA officer commanding in the United States of America during the ’80s and ’90s. He was imprisoned by the FBI for trying to purchase surface-to-air missiles to support the IRA in destroying our country. Didn’t he get a grubby deal with President Clinton, and has he not been allowed to stay in the United States, until President Trump deports him? It was a Labour Government who introduced the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill in 2003, and who asked Parliament to agree a process to allow on-the-runs to come back to this United Kingdom to retire with dignity.”
“They included Patrick Magee, who was responsible for blowing up the hotel in Brighton, killing a Member of our House, Sir Anthony Berry, and injuring Norman Tebbit and his wife. A week after Norman Tebbit’s death, can we not reflect that heinous men such as Patrick Magee should not be released from prison? There were others: Sean Kelly, an IRA bomber—a brave man who believed in republican ideals who walked into a fish and chip shop on a Saturday and blew up nine innocent people, and families, on the Shankill road—was released by the Labour Government. After that, republicans did not stop in their pursuit. They asked the Labour Government to encourage their comrades to come home.”
“It is right, and we will hear it in this debate, that every party in Northern Ireland opposed the legacy Act, but I remind Members that they did so for incredibly different reasons. I do not share Sinn Féin’s opposition, because I do not defend the IRA; I do not defend those who decided to destroy, or attempt to destroy, our part of this United Kingdom. My colleagues and I spend time in this House asking for our UK Government to protect those who protected us, so when I hear naive platitudes about the legacy Act simply offering an amnesty to soldiers, I have to say this: it was the Labour Government who released 435 prisoners from Maze prison following the Belfast agreement.”
“Thank you for your chairmanship, Mr Mundell, and for the opportunity to speak in this important debate. I give thanks to the armed forces of our country: those who came and served with us in Northern Ireland—people from Culloden coming to Coleraine, from Folkestone to Fermanagh, from Birmingham to Belfast and from London to Londonderry. They joined with us in defence of peace and in defence of the values of our nation. A number of figures have already been shared this afternoon. Some 1,441 armed forces personnel died in Northern Ireland during Operation Banner—not 722, not 1,043, but 1,441. They did so in support of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, GC, of whose members 302 were murdered by terrorists in Northern Ireland.”
“Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) that it would be entirely incongruous if in an inquiry set up under the Inquiries Act 2005, which was passed by this Parliament, to seek answers for the Omagh bombing families and construed in their names, information that Norman Baxter gave to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee was available and could assist the inquiry, but was refused because of privilege. That would be an intolerable situation. I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree that having gone through this process and agreed this motion, the information will be made available.”
“I have had the privilege of sharing time on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee with the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), in the names of whom this motion has been laid. It is crucial that the Omagh inquiry gets the information it requires, and we have raised concerns about the Irish Government and their reluctance. It would be useful for the Privileges Committee to hear very clearly from me and, I hope, from the hon.”
“I commend the Secretary of State for at least answering a question yesterday. Despite it being a day when the Labour Government were prepared to take money out of the pockets of the most vulnerable, they at least had the courage to stand forward and say that Gerry Adams would get none, so I thank the Secretary of State for that. I also advise him not to ignore the warnings of the Federation of Small Businesses, which in its report was explicit that the Windsor framework is fracturing the United Kingdom’s internal market. That is a cause for concern. When we were talking of the spending review two weeks ago, he was asked whether the financial transactions capital being made available to Casement Park was additional; he knows that the blue book has a flat line for the next five years, so what is the answer?”
“The Secretary of State knows that the blue book has a flat line for the next five years. Talking of economic growth, let me say he also knows that there is a commitment to an enhanced investment zone in Northern Ireland. When does he believe the businesses of Northern Ireland will benefit from that?”
“My colleagues and I identify with the comments around de-escalation in the middle east. I hope that the Deputy Prime Minister will condemn recent disorder on the streets of Northern Ireland, as the Prime Minister and my colleagues have done. Does she accept that the Windsor framework, although sold to this House as a trade issue, is fundamentally impacting the ability of this sovereign Parliament to legislate on a UK-wide basis on matters of immigration? Will she commit to ensuring that the Government continue to challenge robustly the expansionism that is currently before the courts? If not, will she legislate to ensure that we as a country can control our own borders?”
“On the basis of the principles that many colleagues hold dear—principles of socialism, internationalism or trade unionism—I hope that they will do what we will do, and vote for light, hope and life.”
“Royal college after royal college has expressed its concerns, fear and trepidation; they have said that they will not stand over their members when it comes to this Bill, but they have concerns. We do not need to think in the abstract. In this Chamber, we voted for medicinal cannabis. How many medicinal practitioners are prescribing it? They are not, because their trade unions and their governing bodies do not support them or insure them in that endeavour. This Bill is not what has been outlined, not what has been promised, and not as good as this Chamber could make it. I hope that colleagues reflect honourably on what they have said, not only on Second Reading, but to themselves.”
“To the socialists in this Chamber, I say: you speak proudly of the values of the NHS and the values of welfare, and you want to stand up for those principles, so think about what you do today. To the internationalists, I say: it is not in your tradition to turn the other cheek or walk on the other side of the road. You do not turn your back on the weak and the vulnerable, the oppressed and the burdened, so please do not do it today. This Bill and your say on it will be final, but it will be final in a much more fundamental way for our constituents and our loved ones throughout this United Kingdom. I ask you to approach this Bill and your perspective on it on the basis of your principles alone. To the trade unionists, I say: what do the trade unions say?”
“The quote I shared on Second Reading is as true today as when it was first said 120 years ago: “Medicine is a science of uncertainty and an art of probability.” There is nothing that can be determined to the point of legal certainty—or, from our perspective, moral certainty. I say to colleagues across the House—not those who, like me, have a defined and determined position, and a principled position from which we will not yield, but those who are actively thinking about what to do today—that the parliamentary process has not served us well. Whatever time it takes, the House of Lords will debate and vote on each and every amendment. We were not allowed to, and did not.”
“We have been honourable in listening, but honourably we have to reflect that the Bill is not where it should be; that the assurances offered on Second Reading have been removed; that the balance promised in Committee is not there; and that the protections offered and suggested have been stripped away. Just yesterday, a constituent told me that when she was diagnosed with cancer for the first time, she approached the matter with a determination that surprised her, and she survived. When she was diagnosed the second time, she approached it with despair, and had this Bill been available to her, she would have availed herself of its measures. She would have satisfied the conditions on the basis of medical advice at the time. She told me this story yesterday, and that diagnosis was in 2012.”
“In parliamentary terms, we understand that just because we hold a view, it does not mean that everyone in this Chamber will hold it, and our votes are equal. The question before us today is not on a principle; it is on this Bill. We heard Members say very clearly and forcefully on Second Reading that they wished to start the parliamentary process to see how the Bill would evolve, how it could be strengthened, and what safeguards could be put in place. We are assured that the Bill is in a worse position today than it was on Second Reading. We heard 61 Members specify that there should be judicial involvement in the process. Another 20 articulated their support for this legislation on the basis of legal safeguards that have now gone.”
“It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna), though I will reach a slightly different conclusion from him. Although she is not in the Chamber, may I remark on the principled stand taken by the hon. Member for Lewisham North (Vicky Foxcroft), not only today but in her decision last night? I think it will stand her in good political stead. My colleagues and I will vote against Third Reading, and that should come as no surprise to Members in this House. We do not do it from a party political perspective, though we will all act as one party, and we do not do it because of a Whip. We will act as one out of our common but personal faith. We are assured that our beliefs will not be a determining factor today.”