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·Dave Robertson

   Health Bill (Third sitting)

   It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy. One of the most powerful things we can do as Members of this place is bring our constituents’ stories here so that they can form part of our discussions. That is what I will do as we discuss the future of NHS England. I openly admit that I have never knocked on a door and found that someone’s burning question was about the abolition of NHS England. I have never had that particular discussion, but I do have regular discussions about the NHS. We know how important it is to people. They value the greatest gift that the Labour party has ever given the United Kingdom. As we have those discussions, one thing that comes up time and again is that people will always want more; they will always want better healthcare, and they should be able to expect it. Across my constituency, the biggest health need is access to primary care. Two towns each make up one third of my constituency, so a third of my constituents live in Burntwood, 4 miles up the road from Lichfield— I believe my constituency is misnamed, but that is a matter for the boundary commissioner, not for me. When I talk to people about healthcare and access to primary care in Burntwood, one thing comes up time and again: the new health centre for Burntwood that was promised but never delivered. That centre was promised in 2009 when the old one was demolished, but its funding was cut in 2011 following the change of Government, and we are still waiting. A modular building had to be put up in the car park of the leisure centre—“modular building”, by the way, is a grand term for what are portacabins stacked on top of each other. A huge number of people have worked at that site for a long time, delivering the best care they can, but they are being failed by the facilities that they are forced to work in. When I have conversations about primary care with people in Burntwood, they are never unhappy about the care they receive, about their doctors or about others who work in the NHS; they are unhappy about the facility that they are forced to use. I am standing here in 2026 and we still do not even have planning permission for the replacement centre. It has been promised so many times that people are beginning to doubt that it will ever happen. That is so hard to hear.

   Hansard source
2. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Daniel Francis

   Churches: Disabled Access

   3. What steps the Church of England is taking to ensure that churches are accessible for disabled people.

   Hansard source
3. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Daniel Francis

   Churches: Disabled Access

   In April, St Paul’s cathedral opened a Changing Places toilet, providing disabled people with an accessible, dignified and safe toilet. That new facility gives visitors who require specialist toilets the ability to access the cathedral, as well as contributing to the local economy. Can my hon. Friend outline how other cathedrals across the UK can be supported to open Changing Places toilets, to provide disabled people with the facilities they need to visit these historic locations?

   Hansard source
4. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Daniel Francis

   Business of the House

   Many of my constituents rely on the 96, the 428 and the 492 bus routes, which serve Darent Valley hospital and Bluewater shopping centre. Reform-led Kent county council proposed a substantial increase to its bus tax, which Transport for London bus services pay to use the fast-track bus way at Bluewater. That is putting services at risk that many of my residents and those in neighbouring constituencies rely on to access the hospital and the shopping centre. Does the Leader of the House agree that it is vital that Kent county council reconsiders its proposal, and that Transport for London works with local MPs and the local council to ensure that these essential bus routes are safeguarded for my constituents?

   Hansard source
5. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dame Nia Griffith

   Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

   I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) for his excellent work, and for securing another debate on this issue—an opportunity for us to speak up for our constituents and express our continued frustration at the pace and disparities of the roll-out of the compensation scheme. I pay a huge tribute to all those who have campaigned tirelessly for so many long years, and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson) for her sterling work. Before I turn to concerns about the scheme, I want to take a moment to remind us of what an appalling scandal the infected blood scandal has been. It has absolutely ruined lives and destroyed families. It is appalling enough that people were infected in the first place, leaving them with lifelong health problems, and having a devastating impact on them and their families—but of course, that was compounded by the fact that they, and their families, were not told the truth; by the continued use of products after their risks had become known; by medical records going missing; by cover-ups, obfuscation and the deliberate withholding of information; by the stigma that surrounded HIV; by the limited treatments available; and by the endless delays in getting to where we are today. Hopes were raised, only to be dashed again. There was anticipation, expectation, and then disappointment. People have been waiting years and years for compensation. Many of the infected and affected have passed away before seeing any redress, but many are still waiting, wondering if they will get redress in their lifetime. I turn to some specific issues and cases. I will mention three of my constituents, but we only get a tiny glimpse into their life; we can never know the anguish that they and their families have endured, the obstacles they have encountered, the continual battles they have had to fight just to live their life, or the injustice, anger and despair that they have felt. So often, we have felt inadequate as MPs; there was so little that we could do. Like them, we were waiting. The mother of one of my constituents is 98 years old. She was only 52 when her son was infected; she has had to see him suffer, and she has cared for him. It has been 46 years, and she still has not received any redress or compensation. Let us remind ourselves of the trauma that mothers like her have lived through, seeing their children suffer and looking after them. I had understood that the older members of the affected community were to be prioritised, but just how old do you have to be? Is 98 not old enough to be a priority? Of course, any redress or compensation is totally inadequate in the light of what has happened, and can never make up for what the infected and their families have been through, but my constituent’s mother at least deserves recognition in her lifetime. They have still had no redress and no recognition, and the worry is that they may not even live to see it. I appreciate the arguments about getting the scheme right and learning the lessons from small numbers, but now really is the time to ramp up and speed up the roll-out of the compensation. Another of my constituents was infected very young. Again, we can never know the anguish he and his family suffered, but because of his age, there was never any proper accounting for his earning potential—any recognition of what he would have achieved if his childhood had not been dominated and ruined by the very serious consequences of his infection. He quite rightly feels that it has all been too little, too late, and that the payments do not reflect what he has been through. Again, his family—his mother, his sister and his children—are still waiting, and no one is getting any younger. His case, as the person infected, is all documented, so surely it should not be difficult to deal with the family members who have been affected as a result of his being infected. Then there is the family of Damian Lewis, who was infected with HIV in 1983 as the result of bone marrow treatment in a London hospital, and who subsequently developed AIDS and died in 1995, when he was just 19 years old. To compound matters, this was another case in which the parents, Brian and Joan, were not told straightaway what had really happened, and only found out the truth later. The impact of Damian’s infection on him and the family was devastating; his surviving twin brother tells how his parents never got over it. They had their lives destroyed by losing Damian. His mother Joan passed away in 2021—all those long years after Damian was infected—having seen only the first three years of the inquiry. She sacrificed her career as a nursing midwifery manager to look after him in his final years. Even after so many years, Damian’s family have never had redress or an apology. They never saw matters resolved, and as Joan passed away in 2021, her estate will never be eligible for any compensation, because claims can be made by estates only when the affected person dies between 20 May 2024 and 30 May 2031. That just seems so unfair, unjustifiable and morally wrong, particularly as there have been so many delays. Even now, the pace at which the affected are being dealt with is glacial. Like so many others, Damian’s surviving twin is shocked at the disparity between the living infected and the infected who have passed away, who never received answers or redress. There are also disparities in the ways that the various family members are treated; there are substantial differences in the treatment of partners, parents, children and siblings, despite family members experiencing the same events and witnessing the same injury, suffering and injustice. He would like answers on these issues. Of course, while delays continue, those still waiting for payments see the worth of their entitlement eroded by inflation, and are missing out on the opportunity to earn interest on their money. I turn to the current situation. We all appreciate that my right hon. Friend the Minister has worked hard on this issue, and has secured £11 billion in funding for the scheme. He is the latest in a long line of Ministers dealing with this, and many of the delays happened before he was appointed, but nevertheless, he is the one who now has the power to expedite matters. The cry from everyone is: can we please speed up the process of payments? Can we avoid all the duplication, going back over records, and imposing unnecessary work on clinical staff? Some of the dates set out by the Infected Blood Compensation Authority feel light years away. It is not just that those affected are missing out financially; there is the psychological trauma of yet more delays, and the fact that they still cannot get closure. The infected, too, do not want to be forever simply getting the payments under their current scheme. They want the option of a lump sum—but above all, they want closure. The affected also want proper redress and recognition of all that they have been through. Sir Brian Langstaff repeatedly made it clear that the affected should be able to make an application themselves, and should not have to wait to be invited to do so. Many of those involved have the documentation ready, and so much time, effort and cost could be saved by allowing them to make an application. Haemophilia Wales has assessed that it would be far simpler, and would save the Cabinet Office a lot of work, if those wishing to claim could put in their forms and get the necessary evidence together with the help of their lawyers, many of whom have been involved for many years. Instead, I understand that very well-meaning caseworkers who are new to the issues are having to ask for additional copies of documents, and are giving clinicians additional work. They are duplicating what has already been done, when many of those who have been waiting for compensation for many, many years have all that information ready. Will the Minister look seriously at this suggestion? I understand that the legislation will include a supplementary route for those affected, which will give a 50% uplift. That recognises the unique and lasting impact on children and siblings affected while under the age of 18, bereaved parents whose infected child died under the age of 18, and bereaved partners. Can the Minister give us a timescale for that? To conclude, what will the Minister do to speed up the roll-out of the payments to all those infected and affected? None of us should rest until every person infected or affected receives their entitlement.

   Hansard source
6. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dame Meg Hillier

   Business of the House

   We all know how important housing is, and I applaud the Government’s ambition to build 1.5 million new homes, but we have seen Enfield, where we now have a Conservative-led council propped up by the Greens, decide to axe completely the Government’s proposal for 21,000 new homes. Does the Leader of the House not think it would be good to have a debate in Government time on how we can reprofile that spending with the Mayor of London, to ensure that constituencies such as Hackney South and Shoreditch and neighbouring east London constituencies can get the housing we need? Even if it is not a new town in one big space, we could consider a revision of the Government policy to create new towns with a cluster of smaller developments in seats such as mine.

   Hansard source
7. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dame Meg Hillier

   Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

   My hon. Friend may be aware of the work that the National Audit Office has done, looking at different compensation schemes. Does he think that there are lessons that this and any future Government need to take on board when proposing a compensation scheme? Some matters are dealt with by compensation, and some through bureaucratic procedures of the civil service; other resolutions come about as a result of a campaign, like the one he led with others, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson). Are there lessons from this that should be applied more widely, and has he had conversations with the Government about taking that approach?

   Hansard source
8. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dame Meg Hillier

   Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

   There are some discussions going on about how there should be oversight of Government’s acceptance of recommendations from public inquiries. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) talked about the statutory option, but there are also discussions about whether Select Committees should have a role in that space. That would bring the matter right to the heart of Parliament, in full view of the public. Sunlight shone on things means they might be followed through. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) have any thoughts on that process?

   Hansard source
9. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dame Chi Onwurah

   Grooming Gangs: Independent Inquiry

   The Spicer review of 2018 into the handling of the widespread sexual exploitation of children and vulnerable adults in Newcastle found a culture that enabled and did not investigate the exploitation and rape of children and vulnerable adults, and a culture of victim blaming. It also praised Newcastle city council and Northumbria police’s actions following the investigation. I have repeatedly contacted Northumbria police to raise issues around child exploitation and to seek reassurances about its actions. Given the comments in the Casey review, how can I ensure that Northumbria police has the resources and support it needs to identify and support victims, believe them and encourage them to come forward, and to create a culture of investigation, openness and transparency to reassure my constituents?

   Hansard source
10. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dame Chi Onwurah

    Business of the House

    I join the Leader of the House in paying tribute to the young Northumbria police officer who so sadly and tragically died last week while protecting and serving our region. The A1 motorway forms the boundary of my constituency at Etal Lane. There is an open play area next to cars racing past at 60 mph or more. For a decade now, my constituents have been raising concerns about the unsightly and—more importantly—unsafe fencing there. For the past five years, led by former Labour councillor Alex Hay, they have been passed from Newcastle city council to the Highways Agency. In the meantime, the fencing has fallen into total disrepair; in some places, it no longer exists, forming a clear and present danger to a whole generation of Geordie children. The Highways Agency has finally accepted responsibility, but now says that it may or may not fix it next year—at the earliest. Can we have a debate in Government time on how we can ensure a culture of taking responsibility among Government agencies, rather than passing the buck?

    Hansard source
11. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dame Chi Onwurah

    Regional Innovation and Growth

    I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for this statement. On behalf of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, I put on the record our thanks to the Committee Clerks and specialists who supported this inquiry. We are told on a daily, if not hourly, basis that the source of all our political, public service and economic woes is the lack of economic growth. The Labour Government were elected on a platform of delivering economic growth across the country through their “unashamedly place-based” modern industrial strategy. Across the UK, we have world-class scientific research institutions and universities, two of which are in my constituency: Newcastle University and Northumbria University. Indeed, the importance of the innovation ecosystem is reflected in the Government’s pledge to spend £86 billion of public money on R&D by 2030, and to leverage at least £3 of private investment for every £1 of public investment. The Committee launched its inquiry in December 2024 to assess the role of our innovation ecosystem in achieving this Government’s wider economic growth mission across the UK. Our call for evidence assessed the role of structural factors in influencing the success of start-ups, spin-outs and other innovation-focused enterprises; these included the tax system, regulatory requirements and standards. Across six sessions, we heard from innovators, investors, local and regional leaders, universities, Ministers, UK Research and Innovation, and Innovate UK. I place on the record my thanks to those who gave evidence. By doing so, they helped us to shape our report, and we are very grateful. Our report, entitled “Flying Blind: Innovation, Growth and the Regions”, was published in March. Profound policy mistakes have led to a multi-decade failure to foster even economic growth geographically. From a productivity and GDP per head perspective, we are two nations: Greater London and the south-east, and everywhere else. Last year, GDP per head in the UK averaged just over £39,000. Every region in the country is below that figure, apart from the south-east, at £41,000, and London, at a whopping £69,000. My Committee’s report found that if the £86 billion of public funds is accompanied by unlocking private investment across the country to commercialise innovation, it could deliver regional economic growth and therefore better living standards and quality of life for all our constituents. Although we welcome the Government’s commitments, including a £500 million fund for regional innovation clusters, that is less than 1% of our public research spend. The work of our Committee member and former Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), rightly emphasised the power of clusters. Our report found that there is still untapped potential for innovation-driven activity across the regions, with an increase in the number of innovation-led clusters. Regional inequalities continue to persist in R&D funding. The golden triangle between Oxford, Cambridge and London receives significant public R&D funding and private investment, absorbing 46% of non-business R&D despite having only 36% of the population. The Minister for Science has asserted that cutting-edge research is best carried out in centres of excellence, and we found such centres in Cardiff, Durham, Edinburgh, Leeds, Manchester, Milton Keynes and Newcastle, among many others. Geographic clusters can drive productivity, foster concentrated networks of expertise, infrastructure and collaboration, and support regional growth. Their success relies on sustained investment, established infrastructure and skills concentration. We have said that the Government should establish a national framework for cluster development that embeds regional key performance indicators. We have said that the Government should take a data-driven approach and comprehensively monitor, map and support the growth of innovation-led clusters across the regions. We have also said that the Government should publish annual data covering the performance and impact of innovation clusters. The data should set out any gaps in infrastructure, skills, and commercialisation outcomes, and detail how public investment is being used across different parts of the country. Throughout our inquiry, we heard of major shortfalls in gathering and sharing data relating to innovation policy, meaning that there is currently no clear way to track the pipeline from R&D research to capital investment, company growth and wider economic benefit. There is no system that brings together the data on all research and innovation spending across the public sector. The Public Accounts Committee noted in July last year that UKRI aimed to link up all such data across Government but had not given a target date, and that “significant limitations” in its data systems make it hard to manage its budget strategically. We concluded that the UK is flying blind when it comes to public and private R&D spending, and it is unacceptable that we cannot measure and map R&D spending and private sector investment. The Secretary of State rightly told us of her desire to leverage public funds to unlock private investment in innovation- led activity across the country, but without clear and transparent measures of what is being done and its impact, it is impossible to assess existing policies or identify improvements. I thank the Government for their response, which was published on Tuesday. There is much to welcome in it, particularly the Government’s joined-up contribution from the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Department for Business and Trade, the Department for Education, the Treasury and the Cabinet Office. I welcome the Government’s agreement with the key thematic areas highlighted in our report, and their acceptance of the need for better data. More specifically, the promise of “a more robust and joined-up approach to monitoring the development of innovation clusters over time” is a step in the right direction. The Government also committed to doing more to help innovators access public funding and, crucially, to prioritise the procurement of innovation, which is the best way for the Government to support the development of sovereign UK alternatives to global technology providers. I note and welcome the Chancellor’s recent directions to Ministers on this topic. However, I am disappointed by the Government’s rejection of our call to establish a framework for monitoring cluster development, and by the fact that they will not designate a Minister responsible for championing innovation in each region of the UK. That leaves us with only a Minister with responsibility for Cambridge and Oxford innovation—the Minister for Science. The Government have argued that they should not be supporting the establishment of a Midlands Mindforge or a Northern Gritstone, and they have not accepted our recommendation to establish regional branches of the British Business Bank. By failing to accept these recommendations, the Government are depending too heavily on an industrial strategy that does not have appropriate regional data. We chose to call our report “Flying Blind” because that was the best summary of the approach of successive Governments to innovation policy. Regional growth and development can transform a region and rebalance our nation’s economy, helping to address the inequalities that drive division. Greater Manchester is an example. Under Mayor Andy Burnham’s leadership, we have seen 3.1% annual growth sustained over 10 years, which is faster than London and twice that in the UK as a whole. That shows the power of regional leadership and investment. The current Government deserve credit for backing our national research and development ecosystem, but without a clearer picture of what works for different regions and a greater engagement with local leaders on what support their local innovation ecosystems need, we will continue to be flying blind.

    Hansard source
12. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dame Chi Onwurah

    Regional Innovation and Growth

    First, I thank the hon. Member for his contribution to the Select Committee while he served on it. He is absolutely right to trace the link between research funding and key issues such as health inequalities, from which we also suffer in the north-east of England. He is right to identify the need to address the differences in health research funding, but without the appropriate data and information, it is hard to do so. He is also right to look for that to be addressed by the Government, and we shall be looking at the actions of both DSIT and the Department of Health and Social Care in this area.

    Hansard source
13. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dame Chi Onwurah

    Regional Innovation and Growth

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I join him in paying tribute to Frasers Group. Innovation and its benefits are for everyone across our country, and that is particularly important in towns that may traditionally not have seen those benefits, or may have done so in centuries past but not recently. Having a local employer and business drive innovation and innovation-sustained jobs in his town is of particular benefit to his constituents, not just now but in the future.

    Hansard source
14. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dame Chi Onwurah

    Regional Innovation and Growth

    The hon. Member is always a champion of Northern Ireland, and I congratulate him on the examples of innovation and its contribution to economic growth that the Committee found in Northern Ireland. We did not have a specific discussion about that when the Minister for Science came before the Committee, but the hon. Member raises very good points, and I am very happy to take them up with the Minister.

    Hansard source
15. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dame Chi Onwurah

    Regional Innovation and Growth

    I am immensely grateful to my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for her question, and she is absolutely right. As I highlighted in my concluding remarks, we have seen how in Greater Manchester, where the mayor has had over 10 years to make such a difference—we see this in Liverpool as well—having local leadership that values innovation and knows the local economy’s needs, skills and strengths can really drive regional growth. I know that the mayor f the North East combined authority, Kim McGuinness, is fully seized of the importance of innovation in driving great jobs and a sustainable economy in the north-east, particularly on Tyneside.

    Hansard source
16. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dame Chi Onwurah

    Regional Innovation and Growth

    We looked at innovation in the ecosystems around Edinburgh and Aberdeen, and we found fantastic examples of world leadership in scientific research and innovation in Scotland.Official Report, 06 July 2026; Vol. 789, c. 2WC. (Correction). However, we did not find the collection of regional data at a level that would have enabled us to measure effectively what works best. There were some concerns about the funding of research, particularly high-intensity research, across Scotland, but I would be willing to discuss that in more detail with my hon. Friend.

    Hansard source
17. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dame Chi Onwurah

    Regional Innovation and Growth

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In the north-east, our great history of industrial innovation and growth was based around towns as well as cities, and that is what we must aspire to again. The focus on clusters and data would enable us—through the industrial strategy, which has so much to be welcomed and supported—to ensure we can drive innovation across a region and in particular look at hubs that are based around towns, as well as cities. We found that there is much good work done by universities. Having hubs in towns and around the region can drive innovation and therefore, with the right support, growth.

    Hansard source
18. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Dame Chi Onwurah

    Regional Innovation and Growth

    One can never bang on too much about towns and innovation and growth. That is what all our constituents across our country deserve, because it is only by having growth in every town across the country that we will address the cost of living crisis and the economic conditions that we need to improve. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we need to understand, in concert with local leaders, what innovation is happening around Redditch and what works best to ensure that Redditch and the towns in his area get the innovation support they deserve and which they can put to the best use for his constituents and all our constituents.

    Hansard source
19. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Clive Efford

    Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

    I beg to move, That this House has considered the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme. At the outset, I would like to bear witness to those who have fought for justice for so long, and who have given evidence to the inquiry. I would also like to pay tribute to my predecessor as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson). I am aware that many Members who would like to be here are in Makerfield for the by-election, so I may ask for your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I have a lot to cover, because a lot of people are missing. The Government are about to lay another set of orders before Parliament, and the community and campaigners have demanded that we make representations on their behalf before they are laid, so I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for moving us up the list and granting us this debate in such short time. I congratulate the Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office for securing the funds to get the compensation process under way. I know that he takes the matter to heart, and it would be understandable if he felt slightly harshly treated, given that he has secured £9.8 billion for the compensation process, but I am sure he understands that because the community of the infected and affected have had to fight so hard for so long, and have lost many friends and relatives along the way in the face of huge opposition, they are not ready to praise anyone—not until everyone has received justice. In his address during the service of remembrance and reflection at St Paul’s, Sir Brian Langstaff said that this catastrophe was no accident. It has been called the deadliest man-made disaster in post-war history. In the ’70s and ’80s, people knowingly gave infected products to unsuspecting patients. In the USA, the production of blood products farmed from volunteers and prisoners took off after the USA deregulated harvesting blood products. Pooling products from different people meant that entire supplies became infected. As early as 1975, “World in Action” exposed the dangers of these products. In 1983, Government experts knew of the risks of contaminated blood products. Costs meant that heat treatment to clean the products was not introduced. In 1989, the then Government were advised to provide victims with compensation on humanitarian grounds. The Government rejected that advice on financial grounds. The Government continued to withhold information from the infected and their families. Had they been told, they could have sought medical help, and many would have avoided tragedy. The World Health Organisation expressed concern about the commercial supply of products from paid donors, but still the practice went on, and victims were kept in the dark. Pupils at Treloar’s school were experimented on. Between 1970 and 1987, 122 pupils with haemophilia attended the school. At the time that the evidence was given to the inquiry, only 30 remained alive. Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that your constituent Gary Webster is one of those; another is my constituent Lee Moorey. I am pleased to say that he is still with us. Lee did not find out until he was 14 that he had been infected with HIV. He was in his 30s when he found out that he had been infected with hepatitis C, and he found out that he has hepatitis B only last year. There is no escaping the fact that, had people been under an obligation to tell the truth at the outset, many lives would have been saved. We welcome the changes that the Government announced on 14 April this year, following the consultation that they held from October 2025 to January 2026. However, there remain concerns that some elements of the compensation system still require change.

    Hansard source
20. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Clive Efford

    Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

    I agree with the hon. Gentleman; we do need a timescale. I will cover that later. There are concerns that elements of the compensation system still require change, and that some of the decision making is arbitrary and not consistent with what had been promised. I will attempt to go through those concerns. Unethical testing is the most disturbing and distressing aspect of this horrible affair. People—most of them children at the time—were used as human lab rats. Former Treloar’s pupils have described themselves as “cheaper than chimps” for experimenting on. The Government have increased the payment for those who attended Treloar’s school from £25,000 to £60,000, which is a welcome step in the right direction, and for those who were experimented on as children elsewhere from £25,000 to £45,000. But we should stop to consider for a moment what this compensation is for. These children, without their knowledge, were given contaminated products so that the effects could be studied by the state—the state that should have been there to protect them. Imagine being one of the victims and reflecting on what the state has done to you, knowing that your life has been altered and shortened, and that you have lost friends. I spoke to one parent who described looking at her three children and knowing that she would never see them grow up to be adults or get married, and never see her grandchildren. The top price for that is £60,000. The message was, “If you are a pharmaceutical company, come to Britain. We have set the price low enough that you can carry out experiments on anyone, and then pay the fine and still make money.” What these people have lost is priceless, and £60,000 is nowhere near enough. The issue is not just the size of the compensation, but the gravity of what took place and its immorality. That has to be addressed, and these payments go nowhere near doing so. They should be withdrawn to allow a proper dialogue to take place with the infected and affected, so that an appropriate solution can be reached. We must recognise the losses that these people have endured since childhood. Some recognition has to be given in the new regulations to the impact of interferon treatment for those infected with hepatitis. The changes are time-limited to two years for financial loss, and one year for the care award. The compensation scheme cannot continue to ignore the real-life effect on victims of long-term interferon treatment, and the associated costs, which are far higher than the time-limited uplifts that the Government propose introducing. Treatment for interferon is not recognised when it comes to additional injury awards. Those awards must be paid to all those who underwent interferon treatment, regardless of other harms they may have suffered. Then there is the situation with hepatitis B. Why are people infected with hepatitis B not given equal treatment in the compensation packages with those infected with hepatitis C?

    Hansard source
21. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Clive Efford

    Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

    I have not had conversations with the Government about an approach like that, but I do agree with my hon. Friend, and I will address that later. The Government need to learn lessons, and to set up a system, so that we do not have to learn all over again all the lessons of paying compensation and implementing inquiries’ recommendations every time this happens.

    Hansard source
22. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Clive Efford

    Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

    I will touch on that and I will make that very point. There are areas of evidence required that are unreasonable. I thought we had agreed that that sort of evidence would not be asked for. In his statement on 14 April, the Paymaster General announced, for all those claimants who can demonstrate to the Infected Blood Compensation Authority that they meet the criteria, that all care and financial loss claims can be backdated to 2017, when the special category mechanism was first established. The community of people I have spoken to feels strongly that compensation must cover actual costs, whenever they occurred, and that there should not be an arbitrary cut-off date of 2017. On the issue of evidence, which the hon. Lady just referred to, the Government did not accept the inquiry’s recommendation for IBCA to be less stringent on overall evidence for the psychological harm award, and instead advised that people apply to the special category mechanism award. There is concern that the evidence threshold will be too high, and the Government should allow IBCA to be more flexible and compassionate in considering claims of psychological harm through the special category mechanism. The communities consistently pointed out that the current scheme penalises those who died before the compensation scheme came into force. The Paymaster General did not address that issue in his statement earlier this year. The compensation scheme must pay the estates of those who died young for the harm and losses suffered, and end such a clear injustice. The current scheme has not enabled family members who gave up work to be compensated for the sacrifices they made in their lives and the opportunities that they lost as a result. The supplementary compensation scheme should enable carers to claim the actual financial and personal losses that they have suffered as a result of providing care. My constituent Mary Grindley wrote to me on that issue: “I understand that the Cabinet Office is considering a supplementary route to further compensation for the affected on top of the lump sum at present offered. While considering this, please bear in mind many of us gave up our jobs and careers to look after our beloved ones often with little support. Also many had difficulty returning to work later or were too traumatised to do so. (I personally gave up work to look after my husband, giving up my teaching career. I tried to return after he died as my son was a minor and after two terms had a breakdown in the classroom in front of the children. I never worked again.) Loss of earnings should be taken into account.” She continued: “Other considerations that should be taken into account—being unable to have a child or more children, loss of a proper marriage (we were told that if my husband infected me he could be put in prison), harassment at home and work (we had to move twice, once with the help of the police) to living in poor housing due to not being able to get insurance for a mortgage. Regards, Mary Grindley”. When we read testimonies such as Mary’s they bring home the multitude of wrongs that must be recognised. There is a growing concern among the community about the pace of payments. After an upturn towards the end of last year, things have slowed down. There seems to be an upturn in IBCA’s demand for documentation, despite it being agreed previously that that would not be required from claimants. After so many years, some documents are impossible to find and such requests will slow down the system. In some cases, people have been asked to provide proof that they were living with their parents as children at the time of their claim. Will the Government instruct IBCA to alter its current stance on that requirement? The people infected and affected have been campaigning for decades, and many are very elderly. Does the Minister agree that it is time that we set timelines to end the limbo that they have been left in?

    Hansard source
23. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Clive Efford

    Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

    Yes, where we can improve the system by working together, I think we should do it. That is absolutely right. We welcome the introduction of an ongoing dialogue between the infected and affected community and the Government. That was lacking throughout the process, from when the Government started to set the tariffs and set up IBCA, and that led to a lot of mistrust. A two- way dialogue is needed if good relationships and trust are to be maintained and if we are to restore trust in the process. We must learn the lessons of all inquiries and compensation bodies that the Government have had to set up. We must not keep reinventing the wheel every time an inquiry reports and makes recommendations.

    Hansard source
24. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Clive Efford

    Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

    I agree. We need to put this on a statutory footing—if nothing else, to give rights to the people who have been wronged in the process.

    Hansard source
25. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Clive Efford

    Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

    Yes, I agree. We keep repeating the experience with inquiry after inquiry. The time has come for us to set up a body that retains that experience so that it can represent the people who have been wronged and ensure that the issues that have been raised by them, through whatever inquiry has taken place, can be addressed.

    Hansard source
26. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Clive Efford

    Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

    It would be an improvement if we were to set up a system that reviewed what action is taken in response to inquiries. For instance, if we had acted on the recommendations of the inquiry into the Lakanal House fire, we might not have had the Grenfell fire. Those things are just left to gather dust on a shelf, and we need to address that. We must set up a body for compensation payments so that skills and experience are not lost and do not have to be learned time and again. We must also have a duty of candour; the Hillsborough law must be introduced in its entirety. One person whom I know the campaigners, the infected and the affected would like to thank, overall, is Sir Brian Langstaff. I will finish with his address at the remembrance service at St Paul’s. He said that the catastrophe was no accident, and quoted the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), who said on the publication of the final report in 2024: “We must fundamentally rebalance the system so that we finally address the pattern of injustice, so familiar from other inquiries, such as Hillsborough, where innocent victims have to fight for decades just to be believed.”—[Official Report, 20 May 2024; Vol. 750, c. 666.] In response, the then Leader of the Opposition, now Prime Minister, said that “we must restore the sense that this is a country that can rectify injustice.”—[Official Report, 20 May 2025; Vol. 750, c. 668.] In the conclusion to his oration, Sir Brian said: “Putting into practice these principles—prioritising patients’ safety, embracing candour, transparency and involvement, recognising and remedying injustice, truly valuing people—is a challenge for the here and now. These principles need to be not just matters of words, but together provide a practical route map to follow.” Had we been following Sir Brian’s advice, we would have got to the truth much earlier, saved lives and perhaps avoided other catastrophes. As we go forward, we must heed his words, involve people, value them, listen to them and act.

    Hansard source
27. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Clive Efford

    Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

    I pay tribute to the work of my right hon. Friend to move things forward. When he receives representations from the infected and affected community, how does he intend to put those into effect and change the compensation process? That is what they approach us about and we are all raising a number of those representations, asking for changes in the regulations he is about to lay before the House.

    Hansard source
28. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Clive Efford

    Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

    I will not detain the House for long. I just want to thank everyone who contributed to the debate, and I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for his thoughtful consideration of all the points raised. I just have one request: could I meet with him before he lays the regulations, so that we can discuss some of the issues raised today? I thank again everyone who contributed to the debate. I hope we have done justice to the people who are concerned about this issue, and to the infected and the affected who are watching the proceedings today. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme.

    Hansard source
29. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Claire Hazelgrove

    Topical Questions

    I am so proud to back Filton’s bid to become the UK town of culture 2028. From our vibrant community to our vast heritage, including as the British home of Concorde, we have so much to offer the whole country. Will the Minister agree to meet me to hear more about this bid and what makes Filton so special?

    Hansard source
30. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Vince

    Access to Music and Dance Training

    Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating Sam Ashford and the Livewire theatre in Harlow on 25 years of supporting young people into music, dance and the theatre with its hard-hitting shows? I pay particular tribute to the work it did to support young people remotely during covid.

    Hansard source
31. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Vince

    Cost of Living: Support for Families

    4. What steps the Church of England is taking to help support families with the cost of living.

    Hansard source
32. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Vince

    Cost of Living: Support for Families

    I want to pay tribute to three fantastic women in Harlow: Caroline Hatton, Alison Taylor and, in particular, the Rev. Jokey Poyntz at my local church, St Mary’s in Little Parndon, who for many years has run a church furniture fund—she has got me to move the odd sofa—providing furniture to those in need across our town. What work are the Church Commissioners doing to recognise the work of local churches, like St Mary’s in Little Parndon, and to learn from that good practice?

    Hansard source
33. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Vince

    Business of the House

    The Leader of the House will be aware of the long-term funding challenges facing our palliative care sector due to real-terms funding cuts over many years. As a result, St Clare hospice in my constituency of Harlow is consulting on streamlining services. I welcome the fact that the Government will publish the modern services framework in the autumn, and I met the Minister for Care to discuss this yesterday, but can the Leader of the House find time for us to discuss this important issue in Government time?

    Hansard source
34. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Bloore

    Topical Questions

    T6. Redditch local history museum tells the story of our new town, our proud industrial heritage and much more. However, the museum was recently evicted from its premises and is now searching for a new home. Can the Secretary of State advise me on how her Department might be able to assist me in helping provide the museum with a new place?

    Hansard source
35. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Bloore

    Grooming Gangs: Independent Inquiry

    I thank the Minister for her response, and for her reassurance that this inquiry will have the powers to go wherever and to whomever it needs to get the answers for families in Redditch and other areas affected by these heinous crimes. When the initial set of inquiries are announced, if the area I represent is not included, but I still want to persist and ensure families get the justice they require, how am I best placed to do that via the Department and the Minister?

    Hansard source
36. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Bloore

    Business of the House

    I seek the guidance of the Leader of the House. David, a constituent of mine, has raised serious concerns about the handling of a deeply distressing paternity case involving a child who was taken out of the country and was later confirmed to be his daughter. Key lines of inquiry were not pursued by West Midlands police, and evidence that was relied upon has been found to be false. Significant delays and errors have been experienced in the proceedings in Latvia, and concerns remain regarding the child’s welfare and contact with the father. How would the Leader of the House suggest I support my constituent and help to reunite this father and daughter as soon as possible?

    Hansard source
37. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Chris Bloore

    Regional Innovation and Growth

    My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) has stolen my thunder by speaking about towns, for which I will never forgive her! [Laughter.] I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah) for her report. I am going to bang on about towns, because the report’s title perfectly describes the frustrations and the situation in Redditch. We sit at the heart of a precision and research engineering supply chain that contributes millions to the economy, yet we receive a fraction of the research and development funding from Government or from private investment. To support the excellent firms in Redditch, does she agree that we need granular regional tracking to get the metrics in place to support the clusters that exist outside towns and metro areas, so we can grow our towns and get the regional and national growth that the Government so desperately want?

    Hansard source
38. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Catherine West

    Human Rights: Supply Chains

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd; thank you for stepping in to chair the debate. I congratulate my constituency neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) on securing this debate. He has a long-standing commitment to human rights. He is right to emphasise the international nature of trade and the risks of human rights abuses, for example, from China, as the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) has said. As my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) has said, south-east Asia, Bangladesh, India and Pakistan are areas where we do a lot of trade but we often do not know enough about what is going on. I want to add some brief remarks about the UK fashion and textiles industry and human rights here in the UK. I know that the Minister has a background in understanding the potential for human rights abuses. She also understands manufacturing and the scope within the UK to augment that particular sector and produce more jobs for local people. There is the potential for international trade, best practice and home-grown industries to sit side by side. I note that when my right hon. Friend the Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey) was reflecting on defence spending a couple of weeks ago, he said there should be more defence money spent locally, certainly when it comes to uniforms. When I led a previous debate in Westminster Hall, I detailed the potential that exists to enhance supply chain understanding here in the UK. In parts of the UK like Leicester, much more could be done to support the many women who want high-quality jobs in that area. Local authorities and universities are ready to work on that, and it seems a pity not to be enhancing that by being more organised when it comes to how our supply chains work. Very briefly, I welcome the supply chain centre’s announcement of the 14-point action plan yesterday. I have not yet had time to digest it, but I am sure the Minister will refer to it in her remarks. We know that onshoring in the fashion and textiles industry could unlock £3.1 billion in GDP, 64,000 new jobs and £1.2 billion in tax receipts. That is not throwing away the whole system of international trade; it is just saying that, with some political will, we could be making more with jobs here in the UK. We know that the 2025 Budget included new measures to stop overseas online firms undercutting UK bricks-and-mortar businesses by ensuring that customs duties apply to parcels of any value. I would be interested in the preparation for introducing those measures, which I believe are coming into force in 2028-29. Will the Minister briefly reflect on that in her remarks? There are costs to producing in the UK, but what about the benefits? It could mean more flexibility and agility from local suppliers, faster turnaround times that global competitors cannot match due to distance, and more transparency, as customers will know exactly where their clothes are made. “Made in the UK” is a point of pride, so why not have, “Made in the UK, under fair conditions”?

    Hansard source
39. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ben Goldsborough

    Places of Worship Renewal Fund

    8. What steps the Church of England is taking to ensure that rural churches are aware of the places of worship renewal fund.

    Hansard source
40. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ben Goldsborough

    Places of Worship Renewal Fund

    There are 124 round-tower churches in Norfolk. In South Norfolk, we have St Peter’s church in Forncett and St Mary & St Walstan church in Bawburgh, to name just two. I have written to all my local churches to make them aware of the fund, but will my hon. Friend help to ensure that all rural churches are encouraged to apply?

    Hansard source