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

12,942 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·John Slinger

   BBC Funding

   The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) mentioned reports that BBC Radio 4’s “The World Tonight” programme may be cut. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that in the age of fast news, disinformation and misinformation, we need more programmes such as “The World Tonight”, not fewer, and that we need more contemplative journalism so that our voters can understand politics and the world around them more effectively? Does she agree with me that the BBC perhaps ought to look at the vast salaries they pay their stars, both in entertainment and in news, in order to retain programmes such as “The World Tonight”, which will be much missed if it goes?

   Hansard source
2. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·John Slinger

   Grooming Gangs: Independent Inquiry

   My thoughts are with the victims of the despicable grooming gangs. Does my hon. Friend agree that, despite the numerous actions that this Government have taken to protect women and girls, hon. Members sometimes use language, both inside and outside the House, that allows the spread online of tropes about my party and hon. Members on this side that—I speak from personal experience here—have real-world implications? Those online tropes affect the behaviour of people in the real world. Does she agree that it is incumbent on right hon. and hon. Members, both inside and outside the House, to use temperate language? Opposition is needed and expected, but politicising such an important issue can create real risks for hon. Members and others in the real world.

   Hansard source
3. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·John Slinger

   Business of the House

   I am sure that I speak for all right hon. and hon. Members when I say that it is a privilege to serve our constituents in this place. We have a multifaceted role. There are many things that Back- Bench MPs can do in this place—some are welcome, and some are perhaps not so welcome. Sometimes Back Benchers even get above their station, such is the allure of high office. Can the Leader of the House find Government time for us to debate the role of Members of Parliament? As we know, there is no job description, no employer—save for our constituents—and perhaps not even a Government Department that could answer. But I think it is important that we debate and suggest ideas—in addition to those that we can send to the Modernisation Committee, as I have done repeatedly—about how we can improve the role of MPs. It is much misunderstood, and some might say under-resourced, and we can probably do better.

   Hansard source
4. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·John Slinger

   Regional Innovation and Growth

   I welcome my hon. Friend’s statement, which is very interesting and important. I briefly draw her attention to the agreement between Rugby borough council and Frasers Group, which is setting up its global HQ in my constituency. Under the agreement, Frasers Group is providing £10 million for a much-needed training and innovation hub in Rugby town centre. Does she agree that encouraging businesses, such as Frasers Group and many others, to invest in towns and not just cities is vital? We need to remind our Government that cities are wonderful and attract lots of investment, but they have a lot going for them already, and we need to do more for our towns. What she said in her statement gives me some hope in that regard.

   Hansard source
5. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·John Slinger

   Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

   I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) for his moving and powerful speech and for all the work he does with the APPG. I also want to put on the record my respect for my right hon. Friend the Minister and thank him for his and the Government’s efforts, which I think have been acknowledged across the House. I have been contacted by a constituent of mine whose identity I am going to keep anonymous, and Members will therefore hear me using the pronoun “they” quite a lot. The crux of the issue is that after an operation in 1977, my constituent contracted hepatitis C. They are struggling to locate medical records, which is making it difficult to engage with the Skipton Fund or the English infected blood support scheme. The point about evidence has been made by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss). The concern here is that the records have been lost or destroyed, and there have been significant consequences for my constituent. They registered with the infected blood compensation scheme last October, but have not had any correspondence from the scheme. My constituent believes that they received contaminated blood during an operation at the Hospital of St Cross in Rugby in 1977 and was infected with hepatitis C. The hospital appears to have lost its notes of the operation, and both the Hospital of St Cross in Rugby and University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire have stated that any records of this operation have been destroyed. I want to put it on the record that I am not casting any aspersions whatsoever on the current staff of either hospital or the trust. My constituent tried to claim from the Skipton Fund in the early 2000s, but was turned down for lack of evidence because of the need for hospital records. They then applied to the England infected blood support scheme, but this request for compensation was also declined due to lack of evidence. They have since tried to appeal this decision, but this appeal was, of course, rejected because of the requirement to present new evidence. My constituent is concerned that they may not be registered with the Infected Blood Compensation Authority to receive compensation through the authority. I have written to the Department of Health and Social Care about this case, and I would like to know the status of any intervention. I think it is worth the Department checking whether there is evidence that any other people who were treated by the Hospital of St Cross in my constituency in or around October 1977 were infected in the way that my constituent appears to have been. I am also keen to know what happened to my constituent’s records—how and why they were lost or destroyed. Given that my constituent registered with the infected blood compensation scheme last October, I want to ensure that they receive the compensation they are owed. Could the Minister assure me that this case will be investigated and that my constituent will be updated on its progress, and that they will receive any compensation that they are owed? I will of course provide the Minister with details of this specific case. Finally, I want to make a broader point that has been made by many other hon. Members across the House today. The duty of candour, which I am glad our Government are committed to bringing in through the Hillsborough law, cannot come into effect soon enough. Hopefully it will deter future examples of such egregious state failure as well as deterring such behaviour in the private sector, which the duty of candour will have some relevance to in certain circumstances.

   Hansard source
6. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·John McDonnell

   Human Rights: Supply Chains

   I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) for securing the debate, which is much needed. Also, it is not often that I thank an Everton supporter for anything, but thank you very much, Mr Dowd, for stepping into the breach. A number of organisations have been working incredibly hard with me and other Members on a number of fronts relating to this issue for some time. I thank the Corporate Justice Coalition, which is a large coalition of organisations. I thank the TUC and my own union, Unison, for circulating briefings. I also thank Anti-Slavery International; ActionAid; Sarah Benn Gordon, who put together a range of information for me; and the wonderful House of Commons Library. The report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights is an excellent piece of work, not surprisingly. My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) has gone, but he is a specialist in Aristotle, and we can see the logic in the report. I have read the Government’s response and want to make sure that I have it clear; the Minister can clarify later in the debate. First, the response says that the Government share the Committee’s concerns and accept that there are real worries about global supply chains and that we have to ensure that, as a country, we are not complicit. Secondly, it states that “the Government is actively exploring options to strengthen protections.” Thirdly, it states—as hon. Members have noted—that their response will be based on the trade strategy review that was launched some time ago, which aims to ensure that we have responsible business conduct in supply chains and companies operating in the UK. I found it interesting that the Government’s response listed exactly the same concerns, about “human rights, labour rights, the environment, and anti-corruption” and said that there has to be due regard to the costs of implementation. It then listed the Departments engaged in the review as “the Home Office, the Department for Business and Trade (DBT), the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) and Cabinet Office”. There was no reference to the Treasury whatsoever—nor, seemingly, to the Financial Conduct Authority or the Bank of England. The small point I want to make is that the finance sector seems to have been excluded from the whole debate. It is certainly not covered in any of the reports so far. We need to be concerned. It is not just about goods in; our concern is about finance out and the scale of investment by the City and by our finance sector, unfortunately, in abusive business practices around the globe. That investment is sometimes funded by money that has been laundered into the City and then laundered out. I remind people that only a few years ago the City of London was described as the “Russian laundromat” due to the Russian oligarchs’ money that was coming in and then invested in a whole range of schemes that abused human rights and brought about environmental degradation. That is why I want to know whether the finance sector will be included in the overall review. At the moment, we largely rely on the EU’s corporate sustainability due diligence directive to cover the finance sector. The problem is that the omnibus proposed in 2025 watered down the role that would play and the requirements within it. There is also a finance exemption. A large section of the finance sector is completely exempt, so investment and lending are largely exempt in terms of the requirements on due diligence. It also excludes down- stream partners—the companies they invest in. Additionally, there is no reference to shadow banking at all. Shadow banking is going on at the moment virtually unregulated. There is other legislation, such as the EU sustainable finance disclosure regulation, but there are various interpretations of how asset managers could comply with that. In addition, we have a situation where compliance is virtually voluntary. Certainly, it is unclear and unmonitored. We then rely on treaties and memoranda of understanding, but the standards that relate to human rights abuse and labour rights abuse are not consistently applied in treaties. A report from the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which I served on at the time, found that treaties and memoranda of understanding are virtually devoid of parliamentary scrutiny. We never debate treaties on the Floor of the House. There is no central register of memoranda of understanding from which we could get some comprehension of what they cover and so on. As a result of that, there are numerous examples of the implications of the unregulated nature of our finance sector with regard to human rights abuse and environmental degradation. My questions are: will any new supply chain regulation cover the finance sector; if it does, what consultations will take place to ensure the sector is included; who will be involved in those consultations; and as my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green asked, what will the timescale be? We are waiting—the “soon” we heard is becoming a long soon. I do not want to take up too much of the debate so I will shut up at this point, but there is always this argument that finance regulation somehow restrains the animal spirits and as a result undermines growth. Actually, in the finance sector, my word is my bond, and nothing is more important that trust and confidence. As a result, proper regulation is required to maintain that trust.

   Hansard source
7. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Johanna Baxter

   Grooming Gangs: Independent Inquiry

   Victims and survivors absolutely must be at the heart of this inquiry. How are they being put at the centre of this work in practice, are they being provided with access to support, and what meaningful opportunities do they have to shape the outcomes of the inquiry?

   Hansard source
8. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Johanna Baxter

   Business of the House

   Health and social care partnerships across Scotland face a funding gap of half a billion pounds in their budgets this year alone. That is the result of years of under-investment by the Scottish National party. That has real-life consequences, because tomorrow in Renfrewshire we face the prospect of our local disability resource centre in Paisley being closed, our Autism Connections programme being cut, and our day centres for adults with learning disabilities being merged. Does the Leader of the House agree that rather than cutting vital services that my constituents rely on, the SNP Government in Holyrood should invest in our communities using the record funding they have had from this Labour Government, and put the constituents of Paisley and Renfrewshire South first?

   Hansard source
9. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Johanna Baxter

   Regional Innovation and Growth

   I thank my hon. Friend and the Select Committee for their report. Can she say a little more about the role of the Scottish Government in this area, and whether the Select Committee had any observations about the relationship between the Scottish Government and the UK Government in that regard? She has referred to the role of devolution in this space, so is that relationship securing the gathering and sharing of data that she might expect and that she raised in her statement, and if not, what more can be done?

   Hansard source
10. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Johanna Baxter

    Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

    My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does he agree that the Government need to work with colleagues in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to drive forward the final compensation scheme and address the concerns about timelines that he rightly talks about?

    Hansard source
11. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jo White

    Health Bill (Third sitting)

    We all know how important our NHS is to the people we represent. I know how frustrated patients and staff have become after years of rising waiting lists, cancelled appointments and growing bureaucracy. Since coming into office, this Labour Government have already started to turn things around by delivering more than 3 million extra appointments ahead of schedule, cutting waiting lists and agreeing a new GP contract that begins the work of restoring the family doctor. However, the challenge remains enormous. We inherited an NHS facing the worst crisis in its history, and public finances under severe pressure. That means that every pound must work as hard as possible for patients. That is why I welcome the decision to abolish NHS England and bring its functions back into the Department of Health and Social Care. The complex structure created by the 2012 reorganisation has left us with duplication, inefficiency and too many layers of management, separating decision makers from the frontline. Far too many NHS leaders and clinicians tell us that they spend their time filling in reports and navigating bureaucracy, when they should be focused on delivering care. We owe it to taxpayers and patients to change that. These reforms are not about criticism of the dedicated public servants working in NHS England; they are about creating a simpler, more accountable system that supports staff rather than holding them back. By reducing duplication and cutting unnecessary bureaucracy, we can redirect hundreds of millions of pounds to frontline services. That will cut waiting times, improve access to care and give local NHS leaders more freedom to innovate. This is about one simple principle: fewer checkers and more doers; less bureaucracy and more patient care. It will create a stronger NHS that delivers for communities such as Bassetlaw and for people across the country. The NHS is facing huge challenges. With the right reforms and leadership, we can build an NHS fit for the future and there for every patient when they need it most.

    Hansard source
12. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jessica Morden

    Support for Creative Industries

    Grassroots venues in Newport such as The Cab and Le Pub, where the fan-led review was launched recently, are a vital part of our city’s creative industry, drawing thousands of people into our city centre each month. The ticket levy announced by the Government could help such venues to manage rising costs and develop talent. Larger events were encouraged to participate voluntarily in the scheme, so could we have a bit of a progress report and an idea of next steps?

    Hansard source
13. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jessica Morden

    Business of the House

    As a former history teacher, the Leader of the House will know that Newport was the site of the UK’s last armed insurrection. Every year in Newport, we honour and commemorate the Chartists’ sacrifice at the annual Newport Rising festival, and I am delighted to say that the torchlit march is being considered for the UNESCO inventory of living heritage in Wales. Does the Leader of the House agree that we should take every opportunity in this House to debate and recognise the sacrifice of people’s movements that helped to shape our democracy in this House, especially at a time when our democracy is under threat?

    Hansard source
14. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jessica Morden

    Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

    I too thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) for his excellent and assiduous work on the APPG. The right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) is right that it is a very different APPG, and my hon. Friend does a fantastic job with it. I also my hon. Friend for articulating so well the asks of the community; mine is a general plea, but it is keenly felt by my constituents, and I fully support all his asks and look forward to the Minister’s response. Over the last 15 years in this Chamber, I have raised the cases of the Newport East families impacted by the contaminated blood scandal over 20 times. I really hope that we are closer to the point where I do not have to raise them again, as we now have the compensation scheme and the money, and I thank the Minister for that. We appreciate that he is doing a very difficult job—I want him to know that. I also pay tribute to all those who have brought us to this stage, especially the victims and the families who have campaigned absolutely tirelessly and provided us with the vital evidence over the years. I pay particular tribute to Colin and Janet Smith and their family, who have lived with this nightmare since 1983 when their toddler son Colin was given infected blood sourced from a prison in Arkansas. I am going to remember Colin again in this Chamber now—he died aged just seven; it is really important that we remember today the people we are here for. The Smiths are some of the strongest and most dignified people I have ever met. It is an immense privilege to have them as my constituents—and I really mean that. For them, this fight has been about justice and has never been about the money, but the Smiths, like so many others—I understand that there are about 92 estates in Wales—have not been invited to apply for compensation yet, even though we have the scheme and the money to pay the claims. They registered their intent to claim and pre-qualified for interim payments, but are still waiting to be invited. All these families just need to know what the hold-up is. The authorities have done the checks and have the information—the system appears to be doubling up. It would be helpful to know why people cannot just apply and why they have to wait to be invited to. We need to move much faster than we are now. The current pace of delivery is just adding to the stress that these people have already endured for decades. On behalf of the families, the Hepatitis Trust and the Haemophilia Society, I urge the Minister to look at what we can do to increase the speed of the scheme’s delivery and about people waiting to be invited. These people have fought long enough. Crucially, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst said, it is important that we continue to listen to the community, and prioritise the elderly and the terminally ill. As the right hon. Member for East Hampshire said, the community are getting older, and it has now been more than two years since Sir Brian Langstaff delivered his recommendations and around 20 months since the Chancellor set out the £11.8 billion required to settle all the claims. Those affected want the chance to move on from this painful chapter, and the many bereaved parents want the chance to live their remaining years with a sense of closure after what, for them, has been more than 40 years of struggle. These families deserve the closure before it is too late, and we have it in our gift to make that happen. Please can we increase the pace and bring this long injustice to an end? I support all the asks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst. My final plea to the Government is: please continue to listen to the community.

    Hansard source
15. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jeff Smith

    UK Artists Touring in Europe

    9. What steps her Department is taking to help support UK artists touring in Europe.

    Hansard source
16. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jeff Smith

    UK Artists Touring in Europe

    I thank the Minister for that answer; there is some good news there. One of the many negatives of Brexit is that it has placed barriers on UK artists being able to tour in Europe. The Culture, Media and Sport Committee has just published its report, featuring a number of practical measures that the Government can take to remove those barriers. Will Ministers act on those recommendations? I point to one in particular. As well as leaving the EU, the UK decided not to participate in the Creative Europe scheme, which we were net beneficiaries of. Ahead of the upcoming EU-UK summit, a signal that we intend to participate in the successor scheme, AgoraEU, would be a positive message to our creative artists.

    Hansard source
17. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jayne Kirkham

    Business of the House

    Cornwall has organisations like Young People Cornwall that deliver vital services in, frankly, substandard premises, and they are doing brilliant work with limited resources, but they need investment in buildings to expand their impact. I would be grateful if the Leader of the House could ask the relevant Minister to outline the timeline for the next phase of the better youth spaces fund and how the criteria will be changed so that it also benefits rural and coastal areas. At the moment, the criteria are similar to the Pride in Place criteria, which excludes some of those areas.

    Hansard source
18. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jas Athwal

    Grooming Gangs: Independent Inquiry

    The grooming gangs represent the most profound betrayal of some of the most vulnerable people in our society, and the victims were failed by the very institutions that should have protected them. Justice was denied, while perpetrators escaped accountability. The vile individuals who systemically groomed, abused and violated these girls must face the full force of the law. Can the Minister provide an update on Operation Beaconport and explain how its work is helping to identify offenders, secure justice for victims, and strengthen the national response to tackling these heinous crimes?

    Hansard source
19. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jas Athwal

    Business of the House

    To keep with the current theme of the beautiful game, the Buza youth football academy in Ilford South has been running for only six years, but, in that time, the youngsters—the under-nines—have won the Echo junior league, and the under-11s and under-13s have won cups and competed abroad. Two of its players now have contracts with West Ham United; they are aged only six and eight, but they are talented. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating this wonderful club on the quick strides it has made, its wonderful coaches and the work of the parents, in helping these children progress so quickly?

    Hansard source
20. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ian Murray

    Exchange of Cultural Artefacts: Greece

    It would be churlish of me not to recognise England’s wonderful victory in the world cup last night, but there is only one European nation that has three points at the world cup without conceding a goal, and that is indeed Scotland—the new favourites to lift the trophy. Culture, Media and Sport Ministers have had no recent discussions with counterparts in the Hellenic Republic on mutual exchanges of cultural artefacts. As the hon. Member knows, the Parthenon sculptures are legally owned by the trustees of the British Museum. The chair of the museum has been in discussions with the Greek Government about a partnership, including reciprocal loans. As I said to the hon. Gentleman from the Dispatch Box last time, this Government would not stand in the way if such loans were agreed.

    Hansard source
21. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ian Murray

    Exchange of Cultural Artefacts: Greece

    I can only repeat what I have said in previous answers and in my initial response to the hon. Gentleman. The sculptures are owned by the British Museum. The chair of the trustees, the former Chancellor —the hon. Gentleman’s Chancellor in the coalition Government—has had talks with Greek Ministers on this issue to seek a constructive partnership. We support those talks, but it is for the British Museum trustees to reach an agreement with the Greek Government. As I have said, we would not stand in the way if such an agreement was put in place.

    Hansard source
22. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ian Murray

    UNESCO World Heritage Sites

    Responsibility for managing and funding UNESCO world heritage sites is devolved to local authorities and the devolved Governments. As such, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport does not typically provide direct funding. Heritage sites can apply for UK Government funding through our arm’s length bodies, notably the National Lottery Heritage Fund and Historic England, which can provide support to world heritage sites through capital grants for conservation, education and community resilience projects.

    Hansard source
23. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ian Murray

    UNESCO World Heritage Sites

    I pay tribute to the Arkwright Society, which does amazing work in managing Cromford Mills, which is an integral part of the wider Derwent Valley Mills world heritage site. I am therefore pleased that it has already secured £1.3 million of investment from the National Lottery Heritage Fund. I understand the remaining challenges my hon. Friend set out about the longer-term financial viability. He asked for a meeting with officials, and we should set up that meeting, but also with the Minister in the other place, Baroness Twycross, who would be very happy to meet him and the Arkwright Society.

    Hansard source
24. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ian Murray

    UNESCO World Heritage Sites

    It is important that any new site put forward for UNESCO world heritage site status first goes through a robust national assessment process—and the issues that the right hon. Gentleman raises will be considered as part of that—before being put on the UK’s tentative list of prospective world heritage nominations. However, I am very happy to arrange a meeting with him to discuss what may have to be done to make that application as strong as possible.

    Hansard source
25. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ian Murray

    Ticket Tout Ban

    We are fully committed to implementing the measures that we announced last year, which will put fans back at the heart of live events, and eliminate industrial-scale ticket touting—it has been fleecing fans for far too long. We are working at pace to prepare the legislation and intend to publish a draft Bill in this parliamentary Session for pre-legislative scrutiny. That will allow us to draw on expertise from Parliament and across industry to ensure that our legislation is effective and enforceable.

    Hansard source
26. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ian Murray

    Ticket Tout Ban

    It is important to lay out that it is a manifesto commitment—from the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and all of us—to get that legislation through. It is incredibly popular legislation. We need to stop fans being ripped off by ticket touts, but it is important to get the legislation right. Given the complexity of what we are proposing, with a price cap, a cap in service fees, resale volume limits, strict legal obligations on the platforms, and strict enforcement, it has to be done right. If there are any loopholes or edges to the legislation, they will be exploited by ticket touts, who are already exploiting fans and the system. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join us in trying to get the legislation right.

    Hansard source
27. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ian Murray

    Ticket Tout Ban

    It is well documented that there have been issues with tickets for this world cup. My hon. Friend the Sport Minister has been having meetings about tickets for Euro 2028, which will take place in this country. It is really important, whether it is sport, music or festivals, that fans are not ripped off by ticket touts, who make huge profits out of ordinary fans who just want to watch their favourite sports or bands. The hon. Member did congratulate England on winning yesterday, but I am disappointed that she did not also congratulate Scotland for their wonderful win on Sunday morning.

    Hansard source
28. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ian Murray

    UK Artists Touring in Europe

    A tremendous question. Helping touring artists is a manifesto commitment. At last year’s UK-EU summit, the UK and the European Commission committed to supporting cultural exchange, recognising those touring artists. I discussed cultural professionals’ working conditions with the European culture commissioner at the first high-level meeting on culture in March. Digital ATA carnets that enable movement without customs declarations or duties were launched on 1 June across the UK, EU, Norway and Switzerland. We continue to engage with our EU counterparts at all levels and with industry to support touring.

    Hansard source
29. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ian Murray

    UK Artists Touring in Europe

    I congratulate the Committee on its report, and I welcome its continued interest in recognising the importance of international touring to the UK’s world-leading arts and creative industries sector. We are carefully considering the recommendations and will form the response in due course. The Prime Minister agreed with the European Commission President on Tuesday to press ahead with the UK-EU summit on 22 July, so that people on both sides can feel the benefits of the UK-EU collaboration as soon as possible. Touring artists were mentioned in the summit agreement last year. I cannot comment on the ongoing negotiations, but we are determined to ensure that UK touring artists can tour again in the EU as best as possible.

    Hansard source
30. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ian Murray

    UK Artists Touring in Europe

    As well as sending artists across the European Union, Strangford sends the very best to this Chamber. There is a firm commitment on the EU side to take this forward. I met Commissioner Micaleff at the high-level meeting, and also discussed the matter at the Culture Ministers’ meeting. We are determined to ensure that there can be as much ease as possible for UK touring artists in Europe. That is the manifesto commitment, and we are doing everything that we possibly can. It is complicated. There are a number of Commission elements to this—it is not just about visas but transportation, marketing and all those kinds of issues—but we are trying our very best to get through those as quickly as possible.

    Hansard source
31. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ian Murray

    Topical Questions

    As the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology laid out to the House on 18 March, we are taking forward four big strategic priorities—digital replicas, AI labelling, creative control and licensing—to get this right. No country in the world has been able to resolve this problem, but the UK is uniquely placed to try to resolve it. We want to work across the House and with both the tech and creative industries to get it right.

    Hansard source
32. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ian Murray

    Topical Questions

    The Redditch local history museum deserve all the support it can get. Local museums are hugely important, and decisions on the operation of cultural organisations are taken locally, independent of Government, through Arts Council England. The national development agency for museums may be able to offer some advice, and I wish Redditch good luck in the town of culture bid.

    Hansard source
33. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ian Murray

    Topical Questions

    The music plan is to help grassroots music. It is part of a whole package that this Government are putting in place to ensure that music thrives, and continues to thrive, in this country, including the £30 million music growth fund. We have the music plan, which will be coming out and announced shortly, but we also have the ticket levy—a £1 voluntary ticket levy on every single ticket sold for major concerts—which is putting money straight into grassroots music. That has put in half a million; there is another million to come, so that is hugely good news for grassroots music.

    Hansard source
34. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ian Lavery

    Business of the House

    The Ashington, Blyth and Tyne train line, which was closed during the Beeching cuts of the ’60s, reopened in December 2024 and has already been used by more than 1.5 million passengers. There is a burning desire to extend the line to the coast at Newbiggin-by-the-Sea, via Woodhorn colliery. Can we have a debate in Government time on the merits and the social and economic benefits of well-supported local train lines and infrastructure to my communities in the likes of Ashington, Blyth and Bedlington and to other communities across the country?

    Hansard source
35. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ian Lavery

    Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

    We have got to boil this down very, very simply. This has been described as the biggest tragedy the NHS has ever seen. As a result, lots of people have sadly passed on, and people are still dying on a frequent basis at a time when there are still issues in paying their compensation. People are dying as a result of contaminated blood as we sit here—they are dying on a regular basis. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General, who I think has done a marvellous job. But I have made the point time and again, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford)—I think I have spoken in 10 debates in the Commons on this—about the issues with this scheme. The Minister has afforded as many meetings as have been required—he is totally dedicated to the scheme—but the reality is that it is failing the people who are still awaiting compensation. That is the reality, despite everybody’s best efforts and despite the fact that IBCA is doing a really good job, as the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) said. I have been to IBCA and had a look at how it operates. Regardless of all the Sirs, the chairman and the chief executive, it is the staff who are so dedicated and compassionate. As it is in my area, I am not too surprised that that is the case. I pay tribute to the victims, the families, the friends, the supporters and the campaigners because without their persistence and commitment I am not sure where we would be. I am saddened that the latest iteration of the Government’s infected blood compensation scheme still falls short of what the victims and their families have been expecting. We have to question why might that be—why is this the case? The Government have had the chairman of the inquiry into this scandal, Sir Brian Langstaff, intervene to provide guidance in November 2024 and they have had months of further consultations, but still the victims and their families feel that they and their representatives have not been listened to properly. They still find that they face unacceptable provisions in the scheme, as has been explained by a number of hon. Members already, regarding matters such as adequate compensation for all classes of relatives of deceased victims, for the suffering stemming from treatments and for the periods of financial losses experienced. There are still huge difficulties with this scheme. They are feeling like they might be let down by this Government. I share their frustrations, as hon. Members can hear from the tone of my contribution today. Again I thank the Paymaster General for the fact that the Labour Government allocated £11 billion to compensate the victims, but the reality is that that compensation needs to get to those who justly deserve it. In November 2024, I said in this House: “The infected and contaminated blood scandal is just one of far too many injustices in the UK in recent decades, in which powerful people have treated institutional reputations, career prospects and, in a number of cases, profits as being more important than working-class lives. Hillsborough, Orgreave, the postal service Horizon scandal and Grenfell all share this shameful characteristic: each one sent out a message that ordinary working-class lives do not matter. The Minister can take this opportunity to show that this Labour Government think that the lives of ordinary people matter by ensuring that the victims of contaminated blood products receive just and meaningful compensation without any further unconscionable delay.”—[Official Report, 19 November 2024; Vol. 757, c. 208.] Many of the points have already been raised, but I am compelled to raise a number of the outstanding issues. The excellent work and the determination of the Paymaster General means that we are in the position that we are in today, with lots of progress made, and I thank him for his engagement with the infected blood community. There are a few points that I would like to raise. I want to talk about the changes many believe are still needed to the compensation scheme, about the pace of compensation and about the impact the compensation scheme is having. Fundamental injustices clearly remain in the compensation scheme that I hope can still be addressed. Interferon treatment is still not properly recognised under the latest proposals. For example, people treated with interferon are excluded from the additional injury award if they later developed more severe conditions, like cirrhosis. That is supposed to reflect the fact that they are already compensated for a higher level of injury, but the harm caused by interferon treatment is distinct and additional to the harm caused by infection of any severity. It should be acknowledged in its own right. Will the Paymaster General look again at extending the additional injury award to all those who underwent interferon treatment, regardless of other conditions? On estate claims, we are going to see families ending up with very different amounts of compensation depending on when their loved one died. In practice, that means that those who died earlier can end up worse off, which is ludicrous and perverse. It cannot be right that families receive less just because their loved one died before the scheme was up and running.

    Hansard source
36. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ian Lavery

    Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

    I am sure that hon. Members from across the House would agree with the hon. Lady’s sentiments. On the estate claims, what has just been explained cannot be right, as the right hon. Member—sorry, I am promoting the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] Sorry! The right hon. Member for New Forest East set that out. Will the Minister be able to announce a change of approach for the families who have already suffered so much, so that they are not penalised because of the date when their relative died? Carer’s contributions still are not properly recognised in the way they should be. Many family members provided unpaid care for many years, putting their lives and careers on hold, as has already been mentioned. This is especially stark for children and young people who took on caring responsibilities that went far beyond what would normally be expected, often at real cost to their education, wellbeing and future prospects. The supplementary compensation route should be amended to recognise both the financial and personal losses of carers, as well as recognising the additional impact caring duties have placed on children. To his credit, the Paymaster General has engaged with the community, parliamentarians and advocates. I know he will listen closely today, and I hope that there may be further changes before the next regulations are introduced. I hope that the latest proposals are not the last word and that we will ultimately have a scheme that is free from the clear inequities that I have already described. The other top priority now must be for compensation to be delivered faster. We need to focus on delivery and accountability. Too many people are still waiting, and the system is not moving fast enough. Many people are wondering how long it will take for their cases to be considered if this pace remains the same. The scheme made some initial progress, but it now feels as if it has slighted stalled. Most of the progress IBCA has made is among the most straightforward category of claims—living infected people who are already on a support scheme. We also need to see faster progress across all remaining categories of claims, including infected people who were never previously compensated, affected people and estate claims. A lot of those cases should be relatively straightforward, for example with many estate claims where probate is already in place and interim payments have been made. There is strong argument for prioritising those so families can get closure sooner. There is also a growing concern that IBCA’s test-and-learn approach is not working and is not delivering speed or fairness. Would it not be in most people’s best interests to deal with these straightforward cases rapidly so that thousands of people get closure and can move on with their lives? The haemophilia centres do fantastic work, but ongoing operational problems in the regulations are causing avoidable delays and placing additional burdens on them. Clinicians and haemophilia centres are under real pressure as a result. Many are being asked for historical records that no longer exist, and the administrative burden of finding evidence and responding to IBCA is falling on already-stretched NHS teams. There are cases where centre staff, whose primary focus should be on the treatment and care of people with bleeding disorders, are working every weekend to keep on top of compensation administration. It is important to note that haemophilia care is already facing challenges. The most recent peer review found major gaps, with 93% of haemophilia centres staffed below the target standard. Compensation claim admin should be properly resourced and funded through IBCA, rather than relying on haemophilia clinicians to pick up the slack. I hope that will be accepted by the Paymaster General. Finally, will the Paymaster General clarify a point about regulation 12, regarding the switching of payments? Sean Cavens, a great campaigner who has suffered greatly as a result of this tragedy, thought it was possible to switch his payments. He is asking that if an individual is on yearly support payments, which were previously guaranteed for life, they can switch it to take a lump sum payment. To clarify, Sean believed there would be an appropriate lump sum payment. However, he is 45 years of age. If he commuted his support payments to a lump sum payment, it would represent only four years of support payments. When was that changed? Surely it cannot be right that if somebody wants to transfer their support payments, basically forget about the situation and move on, they are not allowed more than four years of support payments as a lump sum.

    Hansard source
37. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Gill Furniss

    Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

    We find ourselves at a critical juncture in time as we approach the laying of the final amendments to the scheme in the fourth set of regulations. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) for securing the debate and all the work that he and the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood have done. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson) who ably led the APPG previously for her years of tireless campaigning and to the Minister for the countless hours he has spent working on this issue and his willingness to engage with me and other hon. Members every time we speak to him. The infected blood scandal has rightly been described by the chair of the infected blood inquiry Sir Brian Langstaff as the worst treatment disaster in the history of our national health service. Between the 1970s and the early 1990s, tens of thousands of people were knowingly exposed to unacceptable risks and infected with HIV, hepatitis B and hepatitis C. More than 30,000 patients received contaminated blood or clotting products, many of which were sourced from high-risk paid donors in the US, including prisoners and drug addicts. The result was catastrophic, claiming at least 2,900 lives. In some particularly horrifying cases, children as young as two were used as guinea pigs in clinical trials without the knowledge or consent of their parents. Doctors, the blood services and successive Governments did not put patient safety first. Many of those affected have had to live with the consequences of those failures for decades. One such person is my constituent John, who I know will be watching the debate. Like many hepatitis C patients, John was initially unaware of his illness. Once he became symptomatic, he spent 40 years desperately trying to figure out what was causing myriad inexplicable symptoms. The impact that that search for answers has had on every aspect of his life cannot be overstated. It was only after a chance conversation several years ago when a doctor offhandedly asked if he had ever received a blood transfusion that the truth came to light. John’s story is tragically mirrored in thousands of households across the country. The survivors and bereaved families have battled for justice for too long, but in May 2024 hope was brought to many of those homes when Sir Brian Langstaff delivered his landmark report. The previous Government committed to providing compensation to those infected and affected by this catastrophe, and this Government, on its election six weeks later, rightly set aside nearly £13 billion for compensation and rapidly launched a compensation scheme. Yet as we stand here over two years on from that final report, that promise remains unfulfilled for the vast majority. The sense of exhaustion, anger and desperation within the community is palpable. These issues could have been mitigated if, as Sir Brian wrote, “decisions about those who should receive compensation are not made without them.” The minimal involvement of the people affected in the development of the compensation scheme has introduced problems and injustices. The most urgent issue is the pace of delivery, which remains glacial. Out of 18,000 registered claims, just over 3,000 people have had compensation paid. Even more are still waiting to be invited to claim compensation. This has left tens of thousands of individuals in a state of agonising limbo, often in poor health and at the end of their lives, without any guidance about when their claim will start, praying that their case will be processed before it is too late. This is a particular concern for affected survivors who are unmarried and childless. The rule that their claim dies with them if they pass away before an offer is made is a source of total despair, and we must change it so that these claims become part of their estate. We cannot forget the stigma of HIV during this period and the impact that it would have had on victims’ personal lives. Will the Minister look at this, pressure the Infected Blood Compensation Authority to rapidly increase claims processing rates or provide additional resources for it to do so, and ensure that compensation payments are paid in line with the CPI measure of inflation? I fear that there are a number of inequities in the composition of the scheme that must be addressed. Under a provision called the special category mechanism, people can claim additional compensation for the financial loss and care costs that they have occurred as a result of their infection. However, this additional compensation applied only from 2017—an arbitrary administrative date inherited from a previous support scheme. I strongly believe that people should be compensated from the day that their harm occurred. If the Minister could confirm whether his Department is looking into this matter, or provide the Government’s justifications for maintaining this cut-off either today or later in writing, it would be most welcome. Furthermore, the evidential barriers placed before victims are often cruel and unnecessary. It is heartbreaking to hear of elderly mothers being asked to find 40-year-old school reports or GP letters to prove that they lived with children who died in the 1980s. These records often simply do not exist, and families are stuck in a loop of searching for the impossible while they themselves age and fall ill. We need a common-sense approach that relaxes these requirements, particularly for proven family relationships. Again, I would welcome the Minister’s assurance that the evidence requirements will be permissive and flexible to ensure that those eligible are not unduly excluded and to avoid retraumatising claimants. In a recent report, the National Audit Office found that there is currently no dedicated team within Government that has central oversight or offers support to those setting up or administrating compensation schemes, and victims have no route for formal redress. I support the National Audit Office’s call for a central oversight body for compensation schemes, and I hope that the Government will respond to its report in due course. The need for change is clear. Ultimately, there is only one way in which we can prevent a repeat of this sorry saga. I agree with others that we desperately need a Hillsborough law with a fully-fledged duty of candour to prevent institutional scandals and cover-ups from ruining even more people’s lives and to ensure that victims of the state get the justice they deserve at the time they need it.

    Hansard source
38. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dr Peter Prinsley

    Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

    I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) for securing this debate, and the many hon. Members who have given marvellous speeches this afternoon. I am new to this debate in Parliament, but I am not new to this issue, for I remember the very first patients we infected with AIDS. In 1988, I was an ear, nose and throat registrar at the Royal Free hospital, right here in London. The Royal Free has a large haemophilia unit for the treatment of patients with bleeding disorders, which are caused by a lack of clotting factors in the blood, as we have heard. Factor VIII was derived from pooled blood donations from donors in the United States—incidentally, people are paid to donate blood in the US, unlike here in the United Kingdom. I wrote my very first scientific paper on the management of tonsillectomy in haemophilia patients. Who would believe that we would be brave enough to take out the tonsils of a patient with haemophilia? Well, we were able to do so. The patients we saw started dying, not of bleeding disorders but of the HIV with which we had unknowingly infected them. I met such patients over several years and then I stopped meeting them, because they had mostly died. Then we had hepatitis and deaths from cirrhosis and liver cancer, and still we have deaths and many bereaved families. We doctors did not realise what we were doing to our patients until it was far too late. We cannot change history, however much we regret our actions, but there is surely something we can do, and do it we must. Our Government have committed billions of pounds to this scheme, and that is exactly right, but we must go faster. That is why we are having today’s debate. We are informed that thousands have yet to start a claim, and people are dying each week, so it is our duty to sort this out.

    Hansard source
39. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Douglas McAllister

    Places of Worship Renewal Fund

    5. How parishes can apply for the places of worship renewal fund.

    Hansard source
40. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Douglas McAllister

    Places of Worship Renewal Fund

    While the UK Labour Government introduced a £92 million fund for places of worship in England, the scheme does not apply to Scottish parishes now that it has gone from being a VAT rebate to a capital grant. The Scottish Government received the Barnett consequentials. However, no similar scheme was set up, despite the fact that they were told about the change by the UK Government as far back as January 2025. Will the Church Commissioners, with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, raise this matter with their Scottish counterparts as a matter of urgency to ensure that Scottish parishes have access to much-needed funding?

    Hansard source