Contribution
In this week of remembrance, we as Members of Parliament, both individually and as a House, solemnly pledge to honour those who have served and sacrificed life and limb for their country, but that pledge carries obligations beyond remembrance itself. Soldiers sent into danger under lawful orders, in life-threatening circumstances, are owed a continuing duty of care by us as their representatives and by the British state. No one is above the law, but justice also requires fairness and protection against repeated oppressive investigations decades after the events concerned.
Some 503 British Army soldiers were killed during the troubles in Northern Ireland, alongside 509 other defence and security personnel. Now the Government’s Northern Ireland Troubles Bill will expose elderly Northern Ireland veterans to the threat of precisely these repeated oppressive investigations, even where their conduct has already been examined. The safeguards proposed in the Bill do not go remotely far enough to address these concerns, so I ask MPs across the House, as they reaffirm once again their Remembrance Day pledge this week, to consider whether the Bill genuinely honours the obligations that that pledge lays upon them.
To go briefly from the sublime to the ridiculous, on Tuesday the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority migrated my office in Hereford to a new broadband provider—Onecom. My brilliant constituency team of three have worked with me for a combined 47 years all told. They could run a small European country—in some cases at least as effectively as the present Governments. They were not consulted at all about this decision or its implementation. We were given no choice and no agency in the matter. Two days later, my team are still unable to connect to the internet. They have no idea when the internet connection will be in place, and some of them are having to take days off in lieu because they cannot work from the office. The chair and chief executive of IPSA can take these remarks as a formal complaint by me and put in place action this day to address the problem, but could the Leader of the House also ask why IPSA feels the need to control my office connectivity in Hereford from London, and will he ask it to do its job so that we can do ours?
Finally, the Government promised that rail nationalisation would transform our railways for the better. South Western Railway, c2c, Greater Anglia and West Midlands Railway trains are all now under public ownership, but what has actually happened since then? The share of passenger trains arriving at their final destination within five minutes of the scheduled time has fallen rapidly since nationalisation—Greater Anglia from 93% to 90%; c2c from 92% to 84%; West Midlands Railway from 83% to 81%; and South Western Railway from 86% to 80%. All that in less than two years. Rather than better railways, passengers have had more delays, cancellations and uncertainty, while the bill to taxpayers goes up with every delay repayment made.
In Hereford, my brilliant campaigning constituent Cameroon Wood, who uses a wheelchair, has been highlighting the unequal treatment of passengers with disabilities on the railways for years. He is full of praise for the efforts made by West Midlands Railways, but there has been nothing like the improvements to access, signage or enforcement needed—above all for him to get to his beloved Aston Villa matches, but more generally as well. Can the Leader of the House explain why these services are deteriorating, what nationalisation is actually achieving that is worthwhile, and when passengers—able-bodied and with disabilities—can expect the improvements that they have been promised? If not, will he arrange an urgent statement from the Transport Secretary so that she can do so?