partytracker.uk — a sourced record of what Britain's political parties say and do, party by party, with every entry linked to a primary source

12,868 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dan Jarvis

   Russia: Level of Threat to UK

   Mr Speaker, may I associate myself, and I am sure all Members of this House, with your words of condolence for the late, great George Howarth? He was a hugely experienced parliamentarian, and he will be very much missed. May I also congratulate the England men’s team on one of the great nights, or perhaps mornings, in our nation’s footballing history? It was a victory built on pride, passion and determination. Russia poses a serious and persistent threat to UK and European security in every domain—underwater, on the water, on the land, and in the sky, space and cyber. Russia’s reckless military actions involving NATO aircraft and airspace, including its multiple reckless overflights of our aircraft carrier just last week, risk miscalculation and escalation. This Government are ensuring that our response meets that threat, as we stand firm with Ukraine and with NATO.

   Hansard source
2. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dan Jarvis

   Russia: Level of Threat to UK

   I was proud to lead the DDTF as Security Minister, and as Defence Secretary I am focused on ensuring that we defend our nation against the threats that we face. The UK is under daily attack from adversaries who seek to harm our society and our prosperity, including through cyber-attacks. My Department is investing £2.5 billion in cyber and intelligence, and we are working across Government, industry and society, and with our allies, to defend against and deter attacks across every domain.

   Hansard source
3. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dan Jarvis

   Russia: Level of Threat to UK

   My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the hybrid nature of the threats that we face from Russia. Information operations seek to unpick the threads of our resilient democratic society, and we will defend against these threats. I have the privilege of working with military and civilian specialists in the Ministry of Defence, and I can assure him that I will always give our specialists what they need to detect, expose and respond to the full range of hybrid threats that Russia poses.

   Hansard source
4. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dan Jarvis

   Russia: Level of Threat to UK

   I am sure that my hon. Friend, as a former Royal Marine, will join me in paying tribute to our forces who courageously interdicted the Russian shadow fleet vessel just last month. This Government take the security of our military bases and critical infrastructure incredibly seriously. Through the Armed Forces Bill, we are giving defence personnel greater powers to defeat drones that threaten our bases. Our defence investment plan sets out significant funding for radars, sensors and counter-drone systems, including more than £750 million to provide short-range drone protection for our forces in the UK and those deployed overseas.

   Hansard source
5. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dan Jarvis

   Russia: Level of Threat to UK

   Yes, I can give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance he seeks. We are serious, absolutely. That is why, in my first couple of days as the Defence Secretary, we interdicted the Russian shadow vessel, and we will not hesitate to take further action in the future.

   Hansard source
6. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dan Jarvis

   Russia: Level of Threat to UK

   As I hope the hon. and gallant Member will acknowledge, we are the third-largest contributor in cash terms to NATO. This weekend, I visited our personnel deployed on NATO operations in the High North, and together with the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, I am going to the NATO summit in Ankara. Our allies look to us for leadership. We have provided that in the past, and I guarantee that we will provide it in the future.

   Hansard source
7. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dan Jarvis

   Russia: Level of Threat to UK

   I agree with the right hon. Gentleman; the threat that he has outlined is completely unacceptable. It is reckless, and I commend all those serving on the carrier strike group for the decisive action that they took in responding to it. The Ankara summit, which begins tomorrow, provides another important opportunity to restate our commitment, as an alliance, to standing against the threat that Russia undoubtedly poses, and we will ensure that we do not miss that opportunity.

   Hansard source
8. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dan Jarvis

   Russia: Level of Threat to UK

   I have huge respect for the Chair of the Select Committee. He will have heard my words the other day on the importance of ensuring that defence is the No. 1 spending priority at the next spending review. That is the moment at which we will need to set out a clear trajectory to honouring our commitment to spending 3.5% of GDP by 2035. I know that he will also understand the leading role that the United Kingdom plays in NATO. Our allies expect us to lead and to step up, and that is what we will do.

   Hansard source
9. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dan Jarvis

   Russia: Level of Threat to UK

   With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, what I accept is that in two and a half weeks, we sorted the defence investment plan. That is a good base to build on. That is £15 billion of additional resource, which sits alongside a commitment to spend £298 billion over the next four years. Those are the kind of numbers that the Conservatives could only dream of.

   Hansard source
10. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dan Jarvis

    Russia: Level of Threat to UK

    Let me gently respond by saying that we inherited a Ministry of Defence that was underfunded, over-programmed and completely unsuited to the threats that we face now and will face in the future. This Government have committed £298 billion. The hon. Gentleman mentions £5 billion; let me tell him that we are spending more than £5 billion on the largest ever drone investment for the UK, learning the lessons of Ukraine. We have been clear about the need to spend more on defence, and we will do that, but I will not be taking any lessons from the hon. Gentleman.

    Hansard source
11. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dan Jarvis

    Russia: Level of Threat to UK

    I am sorry to say that that is performative nonsense from the shadow Secretary of State, who should know better. We inherited a Defence budget that was underfunded, overcommitted and simply not fit for the threats we face. This Government have committed £298 billion over the next four years, alongside £15 billion of additional resource for the DIP. Yes, we will need to do more, and the spending review will provide the opportunity to do that, and I hope that perhaps we can establish political consensus on the importance of doing that.

    Hansard source
12. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dan Jarvis

    Russia: Level of Threat to UK

    I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the important issue of support for Ukraine, and while it does appear that we in this House are unable to agree on the defence investment plan, I hope that we can agree on the importance of supporting our allies in Ukraine. My first call as the new Defence Secretary was to my opposite number in Ukraine. In my first weekend in office, we interdicted the Russian shadow vessel, and in my first week, we provided £752 million of support for Ukraine. We need to keep going with that. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the importance of the NATO summit; I will work with the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary to make sure that, as the hon. Gentleman says, we tighten the screw.

    Hansard source
13. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dan Jarvis

    Defence Investment Plan

    I worked closely with the Prime Minister and the Chancellor to secure more money for our armed forces—a £15 billion increase in my Department’s spending power. That means we will invest £298 billion in defence over the next four years. Of course there is more to do, and I will continue to work closely with colleagues across Government to ensure that defence remains the No. 1 priority at the next spending review.

    Hansard source
14. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dan Jarvis

    Defence Investment Plan

    I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that important point, and I pay tribute to those who serve in her constituency. We well understand the importance of having the best possible standard of defence accommodation for those who give so much for our country. That is why the defence investment plan restated the commitment to spend £9 billion over the next 10 years on defence accommodation, and that is why nine out of 10 of those most in need of repair have already been fixed.

    Hansard source
15. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dan Jarvis

    Defence Investment Plan

    My hon. and gallant Friend raises an important point, and I know that he speaks with operational experience on these matters. I hope that he sees and understands the importance that we attach to these matters. I know he understands the importance of working closely with our allies, both in NATO and in the joint expeditionary force—he and I have discussed that on many occasions. He will also understand that the NATO summit tomorrow in Ankara provides another important opportunity for us as an alliance to state our opposition to the threat we face from Russia. We are making sure that we have the resources we need to equip our armed forces for the kind of threat that he knows all about.

    Hansard source
16. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dan Jarvis

    Defence Investment Plan

    I have a lot of time for the hon. and gallant Member, but I will take no lessons from Opposition Members on the state of defence housing. He will have heard the commitment I made earlier about the £9 billion of investment that was reiterated in the DIP. I can also tell him that we will be refurbishing another 2,000 homes across the UK in the next 12 months alone. I understand why he raises the point in the way that he does, but I hope he will accept the importance that we attach to ensuring that those who serve have the best standard of accommodation.

    Hansard source
17. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dan Jarvis

    Defence Investment Plan

    I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s analysis of the DIP, not least because it included £20 billion to rapidly increase the Army’s lethality and nearly £64 billion of investment in the UK’s nuclear enterprise. In addition, the defence investment plan will create up to 60,000 good, skilled jobs across the country. On his specific point about bonds, the United Kingdom is working with our allies to establish a mechanism to improve defence financing, joint procurement and industrial capacity. We will look closely at his suggestions for how we can do things differently, but I hope he will understand that there is a commitment from this Government to invest the resources we need over the longer term. We will of course look closely at how best we can do that.

    Hansard source
18. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dan Jarvis

    Support for Veterans

    This Government will always stand up for those who have served our country. We are determined to honour our veterans’ service and celebrate the vital role that they play in our society. Last year the Government published a strategy for veterans, which includes celebrating their contributions, helping them into good jobs, and supporting them through the transition to civilian life. Our £50 million Valour programme will give veterans easier access to the care and support that they deserve.

    Hansard source
19. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dan Jarvis

    Support for Veterans

    I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that important issue, and I pay tribute to her constituent and the work that he is doing in the constituency. She has made an entirely fair challenge, and of course we will have conversations with colleagues across Government to ensure that services are in place to provide that support for those who need it. There is an important role for the NHS, which is why we are working with colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care, but I am sure that the Minister for Veterans and People, my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey), will be happy to discuss the matter further with the hon. Lady.

    Hansard source
20. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dan Jarvis

    Support for Veterans

    I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the work that she does to champion the service of our Gurkhas, who I am sure the whole House holds in the very highest regard. I was pleased to have the opportunity to meet her in her constituency a few days ago, when we discussed the importance of this matter in detail. I hope she will understand that we are working through the details of an engagement plan with the right stakeholders, including the G10. I am confident that my colleague the Minister for Veterans and People is on the case and providing the assurances that are sought, and I know that he would be happy to discuss the matter with her further.

    Hansard source
21. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dan Jarvis

    Support for Veterans

    I should begin by declaring an interest as a veteran who served in Northern Ireland. This Government are absolutely committed to the troubles Bill, but we are also determined to ensure that everyone involved, including families and veterans, is treated with fairness, dignity and respect. The Government will introduce a substantial package of amendments to strengthen protections for veterans and to provide greater confidence that those who served our country are afforded the appropriate safeguards. We are engaging with stakeholders to ensure that the measures reflect the interests of our defence community, and to deliver a balanced and fair approach to addressing the legacy of the troubles.

    Hansard source
22. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dan Jarvis

    Support for Veterans

    I genuinely want to find a way forward on this that can attract cross-party support, but I remind the shadow Minister and some other Conservative Members that the previous Government’s Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 left our veterans with no certainty and no protection, and left victims and families with no justice. No veteran ever received immunity through the law, and it risked giving immunity to terrorists. This Government will bring forward new primary legislation that is legally compliant and recognises our veterans’ interests in order to deal properly with the legacy of the troubles.

    Hansard source
23. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dan Jarvis

    Topical Questions

    Last week, I made good on my promise to publish the defence investment plan and do right by our people. Yesterday, I met some of those people deployed on our aircraft carrier HMS Prince of Wales in the High North. They are deterring our adversaries and keeping the UK and our NATO allies safe. I know that the whole House will join me in offering our gratitude for their dedicated service and sacrifice. Tomorrow, I will join the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary in Ankara for the NATO summit, where 32 nations, with the might of our armed forces and defence industry behind us, will be building a stronger, more secure Europe.

    Hansard source
24. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dan Jarvis

    Topical Questions

    It is a fair question. I am looking very closely at the detail, and I will discuss it with our American allies.

    Hansard source
25. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dan Jarvis

    Topical Questions

    I am not aware of the detail that the hon. and learned Member raises, but if he would like to write to me, I will look very carefully at it.

    Hansard source
26. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Damien Egan

    Topical Questions

    I would like to ask about the recruitment freeze on civil service roles in the military. Will it change as a result of the publication of the DIP, and how are skills gaps to be addressed to limit pressure on military personnel?

    Hansard source
27. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dame Meg Hillier

    Civil Service Pensions

    This is a real mess, and I am pleased the Minister has acknowledged that, but there are a few practical things that could be delivered. There is no MP hotline, and there is a long and complicated process for MPs and their staff to go through the other hotline. Could that perhaps be resolved, because it would make things a lot quicker? When emails are sent, the same AI-generated generic responses are sent back repeatedly, which means that no progress is made. The to-ing and fro-ing is just wasting time. There could be clearer guidance about what MPs can pass on to our constituents who have challenges. Finally, postal delays are a real issue in my constituency and others, particularly in London—I see that Members from around the country are nodding—so could there be more use of email to, at the very least, get out the statement, even if there is eventually paperwork to be signed? Most organisations now manage to do paperwork via email, so could Capita not sort that out?

    Hansard source
28. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dame Meg Hillier

    Payment Scheme

    I was interested in the Minister’s answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford). He said that, notwithstanding the regulations and all the work to set out the rules and scope of the compensation scheme, there is an opportunity for people who are affected or infected to go all the way to the chief executive or chair of IBCA—to all the bodies involved or even the Minister, if necessary. Could the Minister set out in detail the parameters of that? That could ride roughshod over a carefully developed scheme, even if not everything is perfect. How far could it go? There might be a risk that many people feel that they have not been fairly treated and then take it all the way up to the Minister, which would put this or a future Minister in an invidious position.

    Hansard source
29. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dame Meg Hillier

    Payment Scheme

    There have been occasions, in various roles I have had in this place, when we have looked at documents. The Government have a document destruction plan. At the Department for Work and Pensions, for example, a year after death one’s records will be destroyed; that has been an issue when there have been problems with pensions. Although the Minister is focused today on the regulations, what he has said is very interesting in the context of document retention and other schemes that require proof in order to pay out. With immigration, for instance, someone might need to prove that they had been in the country, and they might need to access doctors or school records. I wonder whether he, or others in the Cabinet Office, are thinking about how lessons can be learned from IBCA’s approach in this case that could be applied to other areas of Government and other compensation schemes, so that we do not lose the learnings from this for the next time—because, inevitably, sadly, things will go wrong with Government.

    Hansard source
30. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dame Chi Onwurah

    Topical Questions

    Last week in the statement on the defence investment plan, I raised with the Secretary of State the unacceptable truth that the north-east sends the highest proportion of its young people into the armed forces, yet receives the lowest proportion of investment spending, and he said that was a “reasonable challenge”. Will he meet me and colleagues from the region to see how we can ensure that the bravery in battle of sons and daughters of the north-east is at the very least reflected in the defence investment spend?

    Hansard source
31. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dame Angela Eagle

    National Security (State Threats) Bill

    I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

    Hansard source
32. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dame Angela Eagle

    National Security (State Threats) Bill

    The first duty of any Government is and will forever be to secure this country and keep all its inhabitants safe. It is a mission that has challenged us relentlessly, but it has grown and evolved in recent years. The threat posed by foreign powers will be known by all here: physical threats against individuals and property; theft of trade secrets; attempts to interfere in and influence our democracy; and cyber-attacks targeting both the state and the private sector that disrupt critical infrastructure and compromise sensitive data. As the House has heard many times before, the source of those threats has come predominantly, though not exclusively, from three countries: Russia, China and Iran. The threats from each present differently, but those threats are very real, and they are evolving. The Bill before us will strengthen the Government’s ability to disrupt hostile intelligence services and their proxies by adapting counter-terrorism tools to tackle state-based security threats to the UK. In developing this legislation, we have worked closely with the police, security and the intelligence agencies. The Bill gives our operational partners the powers that they need, and it does so in a way that reflects the differences between state and non-state actors. As Jonathan Hall himself has said, this Bill “does the job”. As the Bill progressed through its stages, the Government listened carefully to the arguments about legitimate humanitarian assistance, as well as concerns expressed by non-governmental organisations and the International Development Committee. The Government’s position remains that the Bill should not criminalise legitimate humanitarian aid work or the important work of journalists and diplomats.

    Hansard source
33. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dame Angela Eagle

    National Security (State Threats) Bill

    I do not agree with my hon. Friend’s interpretation of the Bill at all. The threats that we are facing mean that this Bill ought to be on the statute book sooner rather than later, so that we can begin to deal with them. As I was saying, the Government’s position remains that the Bill should not criminalise legitimate humanitarian aid work or the important work of journalists and diplomats, and it remains our view that the Bill does not have that effect. However, to avoid a potential chilling effect, the Government felt that it was better to accept amendments to the Bill to put that matter beyond doubt. That is why the Government supported amendments 1, 2, 4 and 6, tabled by Baroness Northover in the other place.

    Hansard source
34. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dame Angela Eagle

    National Security (State Threats) Bill

    We are very confident that the Bill as it is written does not place journalists in any jeopardy. In fact, these measures allow us to act against those who are conducting harmful activity in the UK, including targeting journalists here in the UK because of their attempts to expose activities in other regimes. The right hon. Gentleman makes a more general point about the jeopardy in which journalists put themselves in war zones, and I would agree that their news reporting is some of the bravest. We all support a free press and journalists’ ability to report in war zones, but I would say respectfully to him that these things are slightly different and he is combining the two issues. We are convinced that this Bill does not and will not put journalists in any more jeopardy in this country—certainly not for reporting. Baroness Northover tabled amendments 1, 2, 4 and 6 in the other place. They introduce a new defence into the offences at new sections 17B and 17C of the National Security Act 2023, specifically to cover legitimate humanitarian aid activity. This means that non-governmental organisations that have to engage with a designated body in order to carry out legitimate humanitarian activity will benefit from the same protections under the Bill as do UK diplomats. The Government also supported amendments 3 and 5, which were tabled by Lord Anderson. These amendments were based on the advice of Jonathan Hall KC and also had the support of Lord Carlile. They add a reasonable excuse defence in new section 17C of the 2023 Act for obtaining, accepting or agreeing to accept information from a designated body. This means that where a person has a reasonable excuse for receiving information from a designated body, they benefit from a defence. This might include, for example, a journalist conducting an interview or a charity receiving information on the location of landmines. The Government considered the case for exempting humanitarian NGOs from the offences, but we were advised by our operational partners that this would provide a loophole that hostile actors would seek to exploit, which in turn could make the NGOs themselves a target for infiltration. In fact, that is the case that I made to this Chamber in Committee. I am grateful to the other place and the International Development Committee for their engagement on this Bill and for the constructive amendments, which have helped strengthen the Bill and broaden its support. The Bill represents an important new addition to our toolkit to address the growing threat from foreign powers. As I said in Committee, my officials have worked closely with operational partners in the creation of this power and the accompanying offences, and our partners are fully supportive of the Bill. It closes a gap, and they have been explicit that it provides them with vital tools capable of addressing the sharpest threats that they are tackling.

    Hansard source
35. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dame Angela Eagle

    National Security (State Threats) Bill

    I am grateful for the contributions of all right hon. and hon. Members. The hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) was worried that we had changed the Bill in a way that would make it less effective, and my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) still made the case for having an exemption rather than a defence for humanitarian assistance. I confirm that in our view the Bill as originally written would have excluded humanitarian assistance completely, because of the primary purpose rule, but we felt that there was some merit in the argument about the chilling effect of not having a defence. That is why we accepted the amendments in the other place, but that is belt and braces—nothing has changed. We are trying to accommodate potentially legitimate worries and chilling effects that might have an effect on the operational effectiveness of some NGOs, even though the law itself would not have caught them.

    Hansard source
36. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dame Angela Eagle

    National Security (State Threats) Bill

    Yes, my hon. Friend may know her Pepper v. Hart, and I have just put it on the record in this House, but obviously I will take a close look at the guidance as it is developed. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) made a powerful speech, particularly about the rising level of threat that we face. That is why the Bill needs to be on the statute book as quickly as possible. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) asked about the designated threats defence. Again, the answer is the same: it is about the chilling effect.

    Hansard source
37. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dame Angela Eagle

    National Security (State Threats) Bill

    I do not want us to go into specific examples, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we keep a very close eye on what proxy actors and state actors by proxy are doing in our country. We believe that designation, which is what this quite narrow Bill will allow us to do, will make it much clearer that we know what they are doing. It will make for a harder operating environment for those who wish us ill and are directed by state actors. That is what the legislation is intended to do. Against a backdrop of growing threat from foreign states and their proxies, including through espionage, interference, sabotage and threats to life, the Bill will strengthen the ability to disrupt hostile intelligence services and their proxies by adapting counter-terrorism tools to tackle state-based security threats in the UK. It will create a new power for the Secretary of State to designate organisations involved in foreign power threat activity, backed up by new criminal offences of supporting, assisting or obtaining benefits from designated bodies. There has been some concern, both in this House and in the other place, regarding potential unintended consequences, but I reassure the House that the Bill was never intended to, and does not, criminalise genuine humanitarian activity by NGOs or journalists or other legitimate activities. We have listened to the arguments, and it is right to put that matter beyond doubt. The amendments do that. We have worked closely with operational partners, and I am satisfied that these narrow amendments do not weaken the Bill. The Bill will enable proxy organisations to be treated in practice like foreign intelligence services, making it easier to prosecute those acting on their behalf. Overall, this manifesto commitment will strengthen the national security framework so that the UK becomes a more difficult operating environment for foreign intelligence services and state-linked proxies. With that, I commend the Lords amendments to the House. Question put, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

    Hansard source
38. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Connor Naismith

    Rochdale Grooming Gang: Offender Deportation

    Shabir Ahmed is a vile criminal, and the British public rightly want to see him deported. Does the Minister agree that where the law does not allow us to do so, we should change it, and that we should redouble efforts to secure returns agreements with countries like Pakistan?

    Hansard source
39. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Clive Efford

    Payment Scheme

    There are still concerns among the community about the regulations before us today. The Minister knows that the regulations were laid on the day of the Backbench Business debate on 18 June. That meant there was no opportunity for Ministers to take on board the points that hon. Members were making on behalf of their constituents, who still would like to see the compensation scheme tweaked. Through his ongoing dialogue with the community, does he accept that there must be an opportunity for that tweaking to take place in response to some of those concerns?

    Hansard source
40. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Clive Efford

    Payment Scheme

    I pay tribute to the Paymaster General for getting us to this point. It is time to move on, but there are still concerns, as I have mentioned already. I hope that those will be taken on board as we move forwards because, as he set out, the community out there are concerned about the pace with which payments are being made, particularly now that we are into the claims from those affected. It is time for test and learn to move us on and to ensure that those payments are made as soon as possible. I urge that the ongoing dialogue, to which my right hon. Friend referred when he made his original statement in response to the inquiry report, continues and that those people’s voices are heard. I am grateful for the meeting he had with me following the Backbench Business debate. I raised all the issues that I raised in that debate, and I am also grateful that he will come back to me about those issues. I will not go through all of them again today and will instead give other hon. Members the chance to speak, but it is important that they are taken on board. My right hon. Friend referred to the pace of payments, which is important, and to the evidence. We have to take note of the fact that so many of the people infected and affected have had to campaign for 40 years or more to get to this point and to get justice. It is unlikely that they will have evidence—the payslips and all sorts of evidence—that they were living with their parents at the time when a sibling was infected. It is not possible for people to provide that depth of information so late on. We have to be considerate in the way that we approach that. My right hon. Friend and I have debated and discussed unethical testing, and we differ on this issue. I, along with those people who were the children who were deliberately infected, feel very strongly about this. It is a sobering fact that they were deliberately infected by the state that should have been there to care for them. For them, the compensation is not about the money but about the degree of recognition within this scheme of just exactly how badly treated they were. The level of payments for that should be much higher than they are. I welcome these regulations. It is important that we move on as fast as possible now that we have them in place. Again, I congratulate the Paymaster General on all the work he has done.

    Hansard source