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

Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,942 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 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
2. 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
3. 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
4. 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
5. 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
6. 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
7. 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
8. 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
9. 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
10. 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
11. 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
12. 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
13. 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
14. 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
15. 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
16. 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
17. 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
18. 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
19. 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
20. 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
21. 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
22. 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
23. 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
24. 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
25. 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
26. 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
27. 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
28. 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
29. 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
30. 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
31. 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
32. 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
33. 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
34. 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
35. 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
36. 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
37. 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
38. 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
39. 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
40. 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