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·SNP·Pete Wishart

   Ticket Tout Ban

   It would be churlish not to acknowledge the result last night. The whole House can rowdily congratulate Ghana on their fantastic victory last night. I do not think the Minister fully understands the real sense of disappointment and frustration that those in the live sector feel because there is no full Bill, as has been promised by everybody, from the Prime Minister down. While this Government dither, fans continue to be ripped off by the touts, the profiteers and the spivs, as they suck the lifeblood out of our live music sector. Can the Minister clearly set out how the Bill will progress and when the sector is likely to see an outcome? Can he possibly explain why the outlawed company Viagogo was recently in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, weeks before the announcement was made?

   Hansard source
2. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·SNP·Pete Wishart

   Topical Questions

   T3. We are now over a year out from the Government’s debacle over their consultation on AI and the creative industries. There seems to be a welcome commitment towards the copyright framework, but website owners still cannot see who is taking their content, and rights holders, publishers and journalists are watching their work being scraped in real time. There was a commitment to transparency, so when will we see the Government’s plans?

   Hansard source
3. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·SNP·Pete Wishart

   Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

   I whole- heartedly congratulate the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) on the customarily forthright and direct way in which he opened the debate. I agree with all the points he made; he would expect that of me, as his loyal deputy on the all-party parliamentary group. It is great that we have heard so many solid and significant contributions today. Once we are a couple of hours into a debate, we start to get a feeling for how it is going, the emerging themes and the sense of direction. We all acknowledge and appreciate the huge progress that has been made. When I started out on this campaign more than 20 years ago, I would never have believed that we could get to this point, at which payments are being made to those impacted and those affected. The Minister is starting to hear that the same issues are emerging. Constituents are experiencing the same complications and difficulties, and the same representations are being made. I will not touch on those, because so many have been raised, but I might just reinforce some of the points made. The Minister is beginning to hear a chorus of things that need to be addressed—and addressed they must be. We are on the cusp of having something of which we can be proud—of this House having addressed one of the biggest scandals that we have ever experienced in parliamentary life. We took control of it; we handled it; we got a report and an inquiry; and we got billions of pounds of compensation. We have the opportunity to pay that compensation right now, and I hope that the Government grab it. I pay tribute to IBCA for the work that it has done. It is amazing that we have put together the infrastructure and a support scheme as quickly as we have. IBCA has done remarkable work in such a short time. It is starting to deliver, and I think we are all immensely pleased and proud that this House has collectively been able to construct it, and to make sure that it is functional and works. I have visited IBCA on a couple of occasions, and I have met the staff and discussed many of these issues with them. I recognise their sheer dedication to the work that they are pursuing, in the best interests of everybody whom they serve; and their commitment, as an arm’s length body. It is amazing that we have got here, but it was not always like this. I remember what happened back in the early 2000s. I am looking at the chair of the APPG, my friend the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst, and he will remember this, too. We were fobbed off, disregarded and lied to when we took up the cases of our constituents. They presented to us at our various surgeries with these unexplained difficulties and complications. They would say, “How did I get HIV?”, or “I’ve got hepatitis. I do not know how on earth this happened.” We would write to successive Ministers in the Department of Health, making representations, and asking for assistance or acknowledgement, only to be told that they were not interested, and that there was nothing to see here. They would say, “Move along. We are not prepared to take this up. Believe me, we are doing everything in our power, and there’s really nothing to acknowledge.” For years, we were fobbed off and disregarded, and for years, we fought on. Over the years, I have got to know the campaigners. They came together with a common purpose, determined to get to the heart of the issue and to support each other. We call them the community, and we could not find a better community than the campaigners who have led this, been at the forefront, and refused to accept “No”. They are people with different lives from different backgrounds, but they all carry the burden of what happened to them. All of them are still here, fighting the good fight, determined to get justice for the whole community, and that whole community is the key thing today. I was the APPG chair for all those years, and the community has some of the finest people I have ever encountered. I have seen lots of campaigns in this House, and I have seen how people approach these issues, how they take them forward, how they engage and how they access their Members of Parliament to make sure that things are done. It is the most fantastic campaign we have ever had. Unfortunately, I could not make the ceremony at St Paul’s, as I was recovering from an illness, but I know from friends, colleagues and campaigners who were there the importance to them of that ceremony, where they were recognised as a community for their work. There have been high points, and we should acknowledge that. Few of us would have expected Theresa May to have made the announcement back in 2017 that there was to be a full inquiry. A lot of us were surprised that she chose Sir Brian Langstaff to lead it, and lead it he did. Like many people in this debate, I listened to lots of the evidence in the inquiry sessions, and I cheered along with the community when the report was produced. I was in this House when the report was launched, and the Government took full responsibility and said that there would be a full repayment scheme and that people would get what they should. Those were great days, met with real enthusiasm and euphoria by those who have campaigned. There have been good days, but we have to address the biggest issue. It has been mentioned on several occasions, so I will not labour the point, but people have been waiting decades. Even at this point, the majority of these people are still waiting just to start their claim. That is not to receive compensation—we might think that we would be at that stage now—but just to get into the system. Even at this stage, only a relatively small number have been paid. People have mentioned that these are real people—people who are unwell and who know that time is not on their side. I do not know which Member mentioned it, but people are dying weekly because they are not having their situation attended to and their payments made. Families still have no clarity about when their case will move forward. That is made worse by what is being asked of them. I have been surprised—I have listened carefully to colleagues who have raised this—that we see people being asked for evidence that in many cases simply does not exist. They have been asked for records from decades ago, such as proof of cohabitation between parents and children in the 1980s. Those things were probably never properly recorded in the first place, and if they had been, it may have been lost over time. That means that so many people are being delayed or sometimes shut out completely because they cannot meet requirements that are not realistic. In some cases, people run into a purely arbitrary administrative date, rather than when harm was actually suffered. Members have mentioned the bereaved families in whose cases support can stop at the point of death rather than reflecting the full impact of what has been lost. Another theme that has developed—I think it was the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) who raised this in particular—is the growing concern about those with hepatitis C who were treated with interferon. That has to be addressed. Of all the issues that have started to emerge, that is the one that the community in general wants us to press as strongly and as directly as we can with the Minister. I hope that we get some satisfaction.

   Hansard source
4. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·SNP·Pete Wishart

   Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

   Interferon was introduced as almost like a chemotherapy drug back in the day, and some of its impacts and consequences have been similar to the side effects and impacts of chemotherapy. Physically and mentally, the effects are often severe and long-lasting. When the Minister is on his feet, perhaps he can explain a little more about what he intends to do with this group and this community. The Government have introduced a new level 2B to recognise some of these harms, and my understanding is that it provides a temporary uplift, but it seems to apply only in certain circumstances. What it does not seem to do—I have read about it carefully—is reflect the long-term reality for many. The argument appears to be that the higher category covers just about everything else when it comes to interferon treatment for hepatitis C, and that levels 3 and 4 already take interferon into account. My colleagues in Haemophilia Scotland asked for the evidence showing how that was factored in, and none was provided, so can the Minister tell us a more about that evidence in relation to levels 3 and 4? A similar set of concerns relate to unethical research, as we have heard. The Government have expanded eligibility and increased awards. That is welcome in principle, because it means that people are recognised without having to jump over additional evidential hurdles, but there is still a lack of clarity as to whether the level of award properly reflects what actually happened to people. The issue seems to be the arbitrary 1985 cut-off date. Perhaps the Minister can provide clarity. Officials say that there is no evidence of unethical research beyond that point, but the inquiry itself referred to evidence beyond that date, and even up to the 1990s, of children being recruited without proper information or consent. Why did the Government arrive at 1985 as a cut-off date for eligibility for unethical research awards, given that there is evidence that unethical trials and research continued well into the 1990s? There are also ongoing concerns about estate claims, because the structure of the payments could disadvantage those who died earlier, and about unpaid care over the years. That, again, has been reflected by several hon. Members. A few people referred to some of the different schemes around the devolved nations. I am particularly proud of what we did in the Scottish Parliament, and the Minister will be aware of the bespoke schemes across the whole United Kingdom, not just in Scotland. The one that particularly worked in Scotland—I want the Minister’s response regarding what has happened to it—is the special category mechanism known as the severely affected category. This was open to people who had significant problems and issues; they could apply, and were given an increased payout and support. That has since been subsumed under the general supplementary scheme; that scheme is welcome, but this is disadvantageous compared with the superior scheme in Scotland. Those who were initially on that superior scheme have been kept on it, but those who wished to apply for it have to go through bigger hoops and hurdles to get there. We need to know that scheme will still be available and that it will be easier for people to apply to it, because we were particularly pleased about the way it operated in Scotland. Let me turn finally to accountability. Throughout the decades, the Government repeatedly dismissed those asking questions and trying to achieve justice. The final report acknowledged that the infected and the affected were fed lies and lines, and that serious concerns were dismissed outright. We have to address this. We cannot leave it. We have to look at how we get round some of the things that were encountered. I remember the letters I got from various Government Ministers: “The Government do not accept that any wrongful practices were employed and do not consider that a public inquiry is justified.” I got that for years, every time I raised these issues on behalf of a constituent. I listened carefully to the infected blood inquiry. The evidence I found most compelling was from a certain Andy Burnham, who was Health Minister at one point during that period—I believe he is in the news today for some other reason, not particularly related to this. I remember Andy Burnham candidly telling the inquiry that he now knew that the lines he had been given by senior officials in the civil service were wrong, and that he had sent lies to me and other Members who raised these issues in Parliament. That is what he said, in effect, in evidence to the inquiry. That is simply unacceptable. The current Ministers are probably much better than their predecessors, and will look carefully at what comes across their desks, but this must not be allowed to happen again. That is why we need a statutory duty of candour on all public officials, including civil servants and senior civil servants. More than that, we need an independent compensation body to oversee all Government compensation schemes. Such a body would retain expertise and experience, would save time and money when schemes are set up, and would be capable of ramping up and down according to need. The Hillsborough law must be enacted without delay, introducing a duty of candour for everybody involved in public life. A national oversight mechanism should be established to monitor and scrutinise the implementation of recommendations from all public inquiries and hold the Government to account. After all this, it is hard to believe that the first meeting I had about the issue was back in about 2004, with a lovely lady from Blairgowrie, in my old constituency. She came to see me in what could only be described as a hell of a state; she could not account for why she had HIV following a blood transfusion after a medical emergency. It was because of her that I started to get involved in all this, tried to find answers and tried to ensure that campaigners got justice. The name of that lady was Tricia Titheridge. After contracting HIV, she died in 2013, without seeing the huge progress that we have made. It is because of people like Tricia that we are all still here—still fighting to ensure that everybody is included and that there is a scheme that works for all our constituents. Looking at the Minister and knowing the qualities that he will bring to this job, I am pretty certain that he is going to be the man who delivers this for everybody, meets our concerns and looks at the difficulties we have presented today.

   Hansard source
5. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Plaid Cymru·Ben Lake

   Grooming Gangs: Independent Inquiry

   For the inquiry to secure justice for victims and survivors in Wales, it is essential that it fully understands the devolved context in Wales and the various lines of accountability that arise from it. One way to achieve that would be for Wales to receive a specific investigation as one of the inquiry’s designated local areas. Will the Minister consider that?

   Hansard source
6. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Plaid Cymru·Ben Lake

   Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

   I am grateful that my hon. Friend has reiterated that point, and I will do likewise. Many of my constituents who have been affected and infected by this scandal have asked me to emphasise the point that even the updated scheme does not properly recognise the long-term consequences of interferon treatment.

   Hansard source
7. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Vikki Slade

   Stoma: Public Toilet Provision

   It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this important debate. It is great to follow the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden), who did better than I did in my maiden speech, when I managed to mention Shitterton and Happy Bottom—and I have now done so in Hansard for a second time. By the way, they are both places in my constituency. When I first stood for Parliament in 2015, the closure of public toilets was one of the key issues raised with me by local people. In fact, we pretty much had a whole hustings on it at Canford school. Since arriving in this place I have repeatedly sought opportunities to improve provision, whether through debates or legislation. I am therefore delighted to speak today in a debate focused on people living with stomas, although many of the issues we are discussing apply equally to people with other conditions or disabilities or, indeed, other sections of our community. For many people, the worry about whether a public toilet exists, is open, clean and has the facilities they need is lifechanging. It is the difference between participating in public life or staying at home. This issue is close to home for me, as one of my close family members needed a stoma last year. It stopped them travelling into London to watch me speak in Parliament and it will even stop them travelling to see their grandchild perform in the west end in a few weeks’ time. I know they desperately want to enjoy those experiences, along with the rest of the family, but they feel trapped close to home and close to the facilities they know they can rely on. Following the hon. Member for Fylde, I will have to ask my family member what they call their stoma. Given the prevalence of bad jokes that emanate from their home on a daily basis, I am sure they will come up with something. I may need to catch the hon. Member in the Tea Room and let you know what they come up with. Simple changes, such as shelves, mirrors, disposal bins, hooks and space to manage the stoma with dignity, can cost such a small amount but make such an enormous difference. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling on the Government to support further research into the adjustments that could promote the dignity, comfort and independence of people living with stomas. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s views about potential changes to part M building regulations, as suggested by the hon. Member for Strangford. Too often, these small facilities are absent or even removed for fear that they might be misused for other purposes. It is shocking that more than a third of stoma users report being challenged or criticised for using accessible toilets because their condition is invisible. Two thirds of all disabled toilet users have experienced disapproving looks and almost half have been verbally challenged. Imagine how distressing it must be, particularly for someone recently diagnosed with a life-changing condition who might already be worried about getting to a toilet on time, to face the judgment of strangers. For people with stomas, older people, those managing disabilities or continence conditions, pregnant women and parents caring for young children, access to an appropriate toilet is not just a convenience; it is essential. With the new EHRC guidance, those who are transgender, non-binary or do not conform to gender stereotypes—for whom the disabled loo is not their preferred choice, and nor should it be—now find that the disabled toilets may be the only way to protect their dignity and stay safe. Public toilets are becoming even more of an issue for more people. There is also a widespread assumption that men’s toilets do not need sanitary bins, but they are essential for many men living with stomas. I was also delighted to join Matt Forde in Parliament last year as part of the prostate cancer “Boys Need Bins” campaign. For people with continence issues, the absence of bins can have a completely unnecessary effect on their confidence, dignity and independence. This includes people with stomas or bladder, bowel or digestive conditions. Liberal Democrats are therefore calling on the Government to ensure that all public toilets are equipped with sanitary bins and to update workplace guidance to reflect the needs of men as well as women. There has been progress thanks to organisations such as Colostomy UK, as well as retailers such as Morrisons and B&Q, both of which made their toilets stoma-friendly, possibly after the experience the hon. Member for Fylde shared earlier. We want the Government to work with national retailers to ensure that accessible toilets are routinely made stoma-friendly. As some businesses have shown that it can be done, the challenge should be to make good practice the norm. On access to toilets more widely, the British Toilet Association estimates that the number of public toilets has fallen by around 40% since the turn of the century. Its estimates suggest that only 4,000 public toilets remain in England—one public loo for every 14,000 people. We call them public conveniences, but they are in fact a public necessity. Their decline is happening as our population is ageing and more people need the confidence that facilities are available when they go out. If we want thriving high streets, vibrant parks and successful tourist destinations, we need decent public toilets. The needs of other groups, including homeless people, refuse collectors, postal workers, delivery drivers, community nurses, social care staff, taxi drivers and highway maintenance crews, are also forgotten. I know that from personal experience, because about 10 years ago, I worked a full eight-hour shift alongside refuse collectors, starting at 5 am. When I climbed into the cab with my bottle of water and my can of Coke, they said, “You can’t drink; you can’t eat. There’s nowhere we can go.” I thought it was ridiculous that those people, who worked for us, had absolutely nowhere on their route where they could go. There was no way that we could go into a supermarket or a petrol station; we absolutely stank. It would not have been reasonable for us to go into a private business and expect to use its toilets. Thankfully, the local council addressed the issue with changes to its workplace facilities, but that sort of thing should concern us all. The Government rightly speak about healthy ageing, thriving town centres and reducing inequalities, yet all those things become harder to achieve if people are not confident about finding a toilet. If the problem is so obvious, why has it continued to get worse? Part of the answer lies in the law. Currently, councils have a power to provide public toilets, but not a duty to do so. When budgets are stretched, discretionary services are often among the first things to disappear. I do not blame councils; I used to lead one, and I know that the system is so stretched and that few options are available when budgets are getting smaller and smaller. I propose a change in approach, and I hope that the Minister and her colleagues will give it serious consideration. Councils should have a statutory duty to ensure sufficient public toilet provision within their area. That does not mean that every council must directly own or operate those facilities—community toilet schemes and partnerships with businesses, libraries, leisure centres, churches and town councils can all play an important role—but there should be a duty to assess local need, identify gaps in provision, and ensure that facilities are available when people need them and reflect a local population’s health profile. I am sure that the Minister will refer to the Pride in Place scheme, which is great for the areas that have it, but thousands of communities around the country will not have access to that capital. There needs to be a way for those areas to ensure that their residents are also protected. The Liberal Democrats also believe that Governments must support local authorities to reverse the decline in public toilet provision. Councils cannot be expected to deliver improved services if they are being continually asked to do more with less. Alongside the duty should come expectations for accessibility, maintenance and cleanliness. A toilet that does not lock, or is filthy or unusable, is not really a toilet. Where facilities are built or refurbished, they should be genuinely inclusive, including by being stoma-friendly. We should also think carefully about signage. Not every disability is visible, and the current image of a wheelchair may itself drive the perception that someone is “not disabled enough.” The adjustments required are small, simple things: shelves, mirrors, hooks, disposal bins and signage. This is a public health issue because people who choose not to go out will become more isolated, and that will affect their mental health. Those who restrict fluids to reduce the risk of getting caught short can develop other conditions. Those who are forced to change their stomas on filthy floors, or change their disabled child behind a bush, will not only face distress but risk serious infection.

   Hansard source
8. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Vikki Slade

   Stoma: Public Toilet Provision

   I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I worked for Diverse Abilities, which looks after disabled children and adults in Dorset. The number of times that we could not ensure that the children in our care had suitable facilities was really frightening. I spoke at the Backbench Business Committee earlier this week, where the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis), put in a pitch for a debate on a new strategy for Changing Places toilets. That is hugely important, and I would absolutely support it.

   Hansard source
9. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Vikki Slade

   Stoma: Public Toilet Provision

   I thank the hon. Member for his intervention on behalf of the Chair, and I pay tribute to Jessica—what a fantastic young lady! Her story, having gone through her childhood and teenage years with this condition, is incredibly heartwarming. Wales already has the statutory requirement for a local toilet strategy. Surely England can do the same—it is not a flashy proposal. As we said earlier, it is about very basic needs. It does not require a new quango or a major reorganisation; it is simply about recognising that public toilets are part of the essential infrastructure of a modern and civilised society. Whether someone is living with a stoma, raising a young family, managing a disability, working outdoors all day or simply getting older, access to a toilet should not determine whether they can take part in public life. The British Toilet Association’s “Legalise Loos” campaign talks about the “loo leash”, and states that “14 million people have incontinence issues; 15 million people menstruate, and 16 million people have a disability.” We are failing all those people if we do not have decent toilets. My message is simple: support research into stoma-friendly facilities, work with retailers to make accessible toilets fit for purpose, ensure sanitary bins are available wherever they are needed, support councils to reverse the decades of decline in public toilet provision and make it a statutory responsibility to have a strategy. Alongside those measures, move from powers to duties by requiring councils to assess need, ensure sufficient provision and provide clean, accessible and dignified facilities. Public toilets are not an optional extra or a convenience; they are part of essential infrastructure. Until we recognise that fact, too many people will remain excluded from public life simply because they cannot be sure where they will go when nature calls.

   Hansard source
10. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Vikki Slade

    Stoma: Public Toilet Provision

    I take the Minister’s point. As a former council leader, I know that the last thing that councils need is a whole load of additional things that they have to do, but the point is that there is fear and inconsistency. If there is a postcode lottery when it comes to whether a council is sufficiently interested in ensuring provision or making information available to people, people will end up staying at home because they do not know what the rules are in the place they are travelling to. I gently urge the Minister to think carefully about placing a duty on local authorities to make provision in their area. If we want everybody to have the opportunity to engage in public life, that is the bare minimum.

    Hansard source
11. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Vikki Slade

    Stoma: Public Toilet Provision

    I cannot resist the opportunity to plug the fact that, prior to being the council leader, I had a business on Broadstone high street, and we were part of the community loo scheme. There are currently five or six businesses in my ward that have open access to their toilets. Previously, there was one public toilet, which was often closed, vandalised or subject to crime. I want to take the opportunity to tell the public that “use your loo” schemes are there for people; they do not need to buy anything. It is really important that we remind our residents of that, because people are often reluctant to go into a café if they are not going to spend money.

    Hansard source
12. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Vikki Slade

    Grooming Gangs: Independent Inquiry

    The abuse of children is the most disgusting of crimes, and anyone who is involved in it, or who protects someone involved in it, must face justice. The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), who I note is not in his place, published his report this week, and my constituents are eager to understand why the statutory inquiry will take three years—[Interruption.] Another two years—several years. Why is the Government-backed inquiry going to take so long?

    Hansard source
13. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Vikki Slade

    Business of the House

    Those who care for our loved ones at home are unsung heroes and reduce the financial burden on the NHS. It is therefore tragic when they are subjected to harm or crime from those they bring into their homes. Yet without a carers’ register, families are left open to abuse by those who do not have Disclosure and Barring Service checks or, worse, do not have verified training in first aid, dementia and safeguarding. It is reasonable to expect that the people who provide the most personal care are safe, competent and trained. We undervalue those who work in care, so will the Leader of the House agree to a debate in Government time on professional standards in social care?

    Hansard source
14. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Vikki Slade

    Courts and Tribunals Bill

    I put it on the record that I voted for an alternative report that I felt better reflected my concerns, but I accept that the report is a fair reflection of the Committee’s view. Given that the last recruitment drive for magistrates failed to deliver the much-needed uplift at that point, and with the expansion of magistrate-led trials adding further pressure, does the hon. Member agree that the Government should publish regular statistics on magistrate recruitment to ensure that they are on track to achieve the 21,000 by 2029?

    Hansard source
15. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Tom Gordon

    Human Rights: Supply Chains

    It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd, and thank you again for joining us to allow this important debate to take place. I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) on introducing this debate so emphatically and wonderfully—I could not have done it better myself. I am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and as we have already heard, last year the Committee published its report, “Forced Labour in the UK’s Supply Chains”. Our inquiry found that, despite Ministers’ repeated assurances that no company operating in the UK should have any forced labour whatsoever in its supply chain, that simply is not happening in practice. Goods made, or at least partly made, with forced labour are still reaching our shelves here in the UK. In fact, we report billions of pounds of goods a year from sectors where forced labour is rife, yet companies are still not required to map their supply chains or prove that their goods are clean. Nowhere was the gap between rhetoric and reality more clearly seen than in the Government’s China audit. That was a genuine opportunity to set out, transparently in public, exactly how Britain intends to tackle state-imposed forced labour against Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang and other minority groups across China. Instead, the Foreign Secretary offered us “shining a spotlight” and described the audit as an “ongoing exercise”. When our Committee pressed for concrete measures behind that language, the answers amounted to export controls and sanctions that already existed. This is not a strategy; it is a missed opportunity. Over 95% of the world’s solar panels rely on polysilicon, and over half the world’s polysilicon comes from Xinjiang, so it was unsurprising that the Government’s own evidence to our Committee accepted that there is credible evidence that companies in solar supply chains may be linked to forced labour against people in China. Thanks to the great work of my Liberal Democrat colleagues in Parliament in holding the Government to account, GB Energy’s sourcing rules were strengthened. However, well over a year later, we still will not see panels guaranteed to be free of forced labour, and the issue will only be tackled “as far as possible”. Our Committee found that the industry’s own solar stewardship initiative offers thin reassurance. Certification applies to individual sites, not whole companies, so a firm with mostly uncertified factories can still wear the badge of membership. If we do not get a proper grip on this, it will be the new Achilles heel of the green transition. This is not only about solar; our inquiry also heard evidence about North Korean workers on Chinese fishing vessels. Last year, I visited the Falkland Islands as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme. When we met Members of the Legislative Assembly there, we heard about how the Chinese fishing fleet in the south Atlantic was causing problems, and some of the horrific instances where the regime of the Chinese Communist party was selling and buying labour from North Korea. We have also heard today about tomatoes being processed in China that now sit on British supermarket shelves, which have been documented by the BBC as recently as last year, as well as critical minerals like cobalt from the DRC. We know that the International Labour Organisation estimates that 27.6 million people are trapped in forced labour globally, two thirds of which is linked to commercial supply chains. This is a systemic, cross-sector and growing issue. What have the Government done with the JCHR report recommendations? In October, Ministers published their response and launched a responsible business conduct review. To be fair, that is a start, but they have deferred almost everything to the review. Will the UK introduce mandatory human rights due diligence? “We are waiting on the review.” Will the UK introduce an import ban on goods linked to forced labour? “We are waiting on the review.” Will there be a stronger use of the powers in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, which Border Force and the National Crime Agency are deploying far too rarely? Well, the Government told us that they “cannot direct how the POCA powers are used”. Although that may technically be correct, Governments can resource enforcement, set priorities and fund agencies to act. Choosing not to do so is a policy choice. Earlier in the debate, the hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) talked about section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act. It requires large companies to publish supply chain transparency statements, yet we know that a significant number of companies are not complying, and those that do can satisfy their legal obligations simply by reporting that they have taken no action whatever. That is not an obligation to ensure transparency in any meaningful sense of the word. Our Committee recommended strengthening section 54, and the Government’s response is under consideration as part of the review. Next week, I will be holding the inaugural general meeting of the APPG for coffee, tea and spices, if anyone is interested—I hope to see Members there. The APPG will look at how supply chains impact women and girls working in those sectors. We heard earlier in the debate from the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) about the actions that other countries have taken on slavery in supply chains. He pointed particularly to the United States and its Uyghur Forced Labour Prevention Act, which established a rebuttable presumption that anything from Xinjiang was made with forced labour, unless a company can prove otherwise. We also heard about the European Union and its forced labour regulations; we simply have a review. Our Committee recommended that the Government introduce new legislation within one year of the publication of our report. That deadline is in July 2026, just next month. Will the Government meet that deadline? I ask the Minister to take three other things from that report. First, I ask that the Government introduce mandatory human rights due diligence for UK companies. Voluntary reporting is not creating a level playing field, and businesses told our Committee as much. Secondly, will the Minister follow the United States and the European Union and introduce a proper import ban on goods linked to forced labour, rather than relying on the occasional under-used application of Proceeds of Crime Act powers? Thirdly, will the Government use the China audit for what it should have been—a public account of exactly what the UK will do to keep state-imposed forced labour out of our supply chains, starting with solar power?

    Hansard source
16. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Tom Gordon

    Stoma: Public Toilet Provision

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this important debate and raising awareness of this issue. Anyone who was at Prime Minister’s questions last week will have seen me talk about living with ulcerative colitis. I am grateful that the Prime Minister has arranged for the Minister to meet me to talk about the issues that people with inflammatory bowel disease face. If the hon. Gentleman or anyone else is interested in trying to join that meeting, should the Minister allow it, I would be more than happy to include them in that conversation.

    Hansard source
17. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Tom Gordon

    Stoma: Public Toilet Provision

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for being so generous with his time. He listed restaurants, businesses and other places where one might find a toilet. In recent years, we have seen the hollowing out of local government and the loss of publicly accessible toilets provided by town councils, unitary authorities or whatever it might be. Does he agree that when local authorities look either to close or to charge for those facilities, they need to consider the impact on people with stomas and other IBD conditions?

    Hansard source
18. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Tom Gordon

    Stoma: Public Toilet Provision

    I commend the hon. Gentleman on being one of the most generous Members I have encountered. On the provision of public toilets, the issue is not only the toilet closures, but the lack of maintenance and spending to make them a toilet that someone wants to use. Does he agree that we need to make sure that, where we have those facilities, they are up to the standard that anyone, let alone someone with one of these conditions, should expect?

    Hansard source
19. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Tom Gordon

    Business of the House

    I put on record a tribute to former councillor Jeanette Sunderland; many by-elections are taking place today, but the one in Idle and Thackley, in Bradford, is taking place as a result of her tragic passing earlier this year. She had a record of more than 30 years serving the community, and she was a true Yorkshire Liberal. On the weekend just gone, I took part in the Great Knaresborough bed race, which is celebrating its 60th year. It was a fantastic event. The population of Knaresborough nearly doubled for the day, and that came with challenges for wi-fi and cellular network capacity, which meant that local businesses struggled to trade on the day. Can the Leader of the House arrange a meeting with the relevant Government Departments to ensure that, at next year’s event, people can get the trade into their businesses, pubs, shops and more?

    Hansard source
20. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Tom Gordon

    Regional Innovation and Growth

    I welcome the report and thank the Chair of the Select Committee for her diligent work on it. In Yorkshire, we receive less funding per head across the board for transport, schools and, importantly, health research. We know that Yorkshire receives a quarter of the funding per head that London receives, despite worse cancer incidence and worse cancer outcomes, which are key health aspects. Does the hon. Lady agree with me that, given that regional imbalance, tackling health inequalities means making sure that research funding is better allocated across our regions?

    Hansard source
21. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Tessa Munt

    Access to Music and Dance Training

    2. What steps she is taking to help ensure that children from less privileged backgrounds can access music and dance training.

    Hansard source
22. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Tessa Munt

    Access to Music and Dance Training

    I thank the Secretary of State for her response. Wells Cathedral school is in my constituency, and it has 80 young people who are on the music and dance scheme. It is a fantastic scheme, and I pay tribute to the outgoing headteacher, Alastair Tighe, who has done his very best to ensure that the scheme reaches deep into the community and those from less advantaged backgrounds, including one of our local cleaners—she is able to pay just £200 a year for what is a £50,000 a year education. However, there has been a 10-year drift between inflation and the amount of the money that the scheme receives. Can the Secretary of State have another look at this issue and make it absolutely certain that pupils benefit from better funding—

    Hansard source
23. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Tessa Munt

    Education and Engagement Outreach Team

    I have to say, I am dismayed by the fact that there will not be humans in contact with young people. From my experience, I know that young people are really engaged when somebody turns up in their place, particularly in their school. At a time when we are trying to reduce the screen time of young people, I want to speak up in support of having people going into schools, especially when they are slightly more distant from London—it is something so very different. I shall certainly reply to the consultation when it comes along, if I have not missed the boat, and I will speak up for this particular scheme; it is fantastic.

    Hansard source
24. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Tessa Munt

    Grooming Gangs: Independent Inquiry

    I echo the comments about how disgusting these particular crimes are. Lady Casey has identified how, in quashing convictions, the Government have failed to take account of the whole picture. Quashing convictions for under-age prostitution is laudable, but there are other convictions such as for possessing the drugs given to those who are abused by their abusers or carrying them under coercion. The Minister referred to professional curiosity. Could she encourage people around her to engage in exactly that, and to look further than just the very first or main conviction to sort this out?

    Hansard source
25. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Tessa Munt

    Business of the House

    May I raise the matter of repayments of overpaid corporation tax identified by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs after a company has been dissolved? Businesses in my part of Somerset have had repayments, but they are not able to cash them; it is their money, but the business no longer exists, so effectively the cheque cannot be paid in, and the account has quite rightly been closed. Will the Leader of the House encourage the Chancellor to assess the current processes, including the transfer of such funds to the bona vacantia division, so that former shareholders of solvent but dissolved companies can recover funds in a way that is successful? That is particularly the case for small businesses.

    Hansard source
26. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Tessa Munt

    Courts and Tribunals Bill

    I too voted for the minority report, mainly because I am particularly concerned that the Government are going much further than the Leveson report. On judge-only trials, if magistrates’ sentencing powers are increased to 24 months, it is not impossible that cases with sentences of up to two and a half years could be retained by the magistrates court, which might mean that there is little work for the Crown court bench division; it will only have a narrow tranche of cases. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that there is merit in looking at other jurisdictions, and seeing whether there are other mechanisms for allocating cases that might be fairer and more efficient?

    Hansard source
27. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Sarah Green

    Support for Creative Industries

    5. What steps she is taking to help support creative industries.

    Hansard source
28. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Sarah Green

    Support for Creative Industries

    The Secretary of State will know that nearly a third of those who work in the creative industries are self-employed. I have been contacted by creative freelancers in my area who feel that their voice is not always heard. One of them is a licensed chaperone, responsible for safeguarding those under 16 working on productions away from their parents. She told me that some chaperones are waiting for up to eight months to be paid, caught between agencies and production companies, which blame each other, before everyone moves on to the next production. That is just one example of many. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss ways we can better support freelancers in our creatives industries to help them and the sector thrive?

    Hansard source
29. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Richard Foord

    River Otter: Sewage Pollution

    I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of sewage pollution in the River Otter, a river that flows through many of the Devon communities that I represent. I should say at the outset that, this morning, I declined an offer of hospitality from the new chief executive of South West Water and its parent company Pennon Group. They offered breakfast in Parliament, but I did not accept as I was here, in the Chamber, trying to catch Mr Speaker’s eye to talk about the Jurassic coast UNESCO world heritage site, and it is helpful that I will get to talk a little bit about that now. My office has written back to South West Water to request a separate meeting with the chief executive to talk through some of the issues that I will raise in the debate. In fairness, the debate is also about issues that apply across the water industry, not just with Pennon Group. I pay tribute to the more than 75 water testers, campaigners and citizen scientists of the Otter River Catchment Action group—ORCA. The ORCA group developed out of the Otter Valley Association, and it has devoted almost as many hours to understanding and protecting the cherished River Otter as there have been hours of sewage spills into that river, which is saying something. The work of ORCA has provided much of the evidence in my contribution. The dedication of the ORCA volunteers represents the very best of self-organised civic community action and public service. In particular, I would like to pay tribute to Bruce McGlashan, who passed away suddenly in April this year, just days after ORCA hosted a public meeting at The Institute in Ottery St Mary. Bruce brought to ORCA his experience of having been a manager at the Environment Agency for 30 years. He was also secretary of the River Otter Fisheries Association. Bruce was central to ORCA, and helped us to correspond with South West Water and the Environment Agency. It is hard to believe that he, Peter Williams and I stood on the shingle outside the Otter Inn at Honiton, after a meeting with the Environment Agency, just days before Bruce died. He should have lived to see the River Otter returned to full ecological health. The Otter should be one of England’s ecological success stories. It runs through a beautiful valley in Devon that supports agriculture, tourism and recreation, and ought to be a rich and diverse habitat. Yet today, most sections of the Otter and its key tributary, the Wolf, are classified by the Environment Agency as having poor ecological status. That places the rivers within the 20% of water bodies with the poorest ecological status in the country. This issue does not just concern the local environment: it also concerns public health and infrastructure, and it is increasingly a question of public trust in the Government’s ability to regulate companies that provide utilities properly. The facts on the ground are damning. Data obtained from South West Water through freedom of information and environmental information regulation requests reveal an alarming picture of bacterial contamination in the River Otter. Between November 2024 and May 2025, average daily levels of E. coli measured in the river were five times higher than the acceptable level for safe swimming. After periods of rainfall, those levels spiked up to 100 times the safe limit, remaining at increased levels for days or weeks at a time. During the period analysed, E. coli levels exceeded the safe swimming limit on more than 90% of days. Budleigh Salterton, where the river meets the sea, lost its blue flag status this year because of a deterioration in water quality. Following the loss of that blue flag status, South West Water stated publicly that the E. coli levels at Budleigh’s beach “could be caused by birdlife in the new Otter Nature Reserve”. However, ORCA samples from the mouth of the River Otter show E. coli surges correlate with surges upstream of the nature reserve. We should be honest about the scale of the sewage problem. This challenge is made more difficult by the fact that regular monitoring has been limited. Until recently, nobody was routinely measuring E. coli levels along the River Otter. ORCA volunteers are collecting samples every two weeks. They do so at three locations along the river, building a much-needed evidence base to understand pollution levels, rainfall impacts and likely sources of contamination. In 2024, South West Water released untreated sewage into the River Otter for more than 9,500 hours. In terms of duration, that is three times more untreated sewage hours spilled into the River Otter than into Exmouth bay. In 2025, more than 8,000 hours of untreated sewage were discharged into the river and its tributaries, following hundreds of monitored sewage overflow events. Untreated sewage is entering the river on a routine basis, and at a scale that cannot be dismissed as a consequence of exceptional weather. Phosphate pollution further damages the river’s ecology. High concentrations of phosphate cause algal bloom and eutrophication and reduce oxygen levels in the water, causing significant harm to aquatic plants, fish and wildlife. The evidence gathered by ORCA is striking; its monitoring suggests that the presence of a single sewage treatment works on the river can increase harmful phosphate concentrations in the river by around 80% during the summer months. Its testing indicates that around 70% of phosphate found in the middle and lower River Otter can be attributed not to agricultural pollution, but to treated sewage effluent. One of the most frustrating aspects of this situation is the gap between the pledges we have received from South West Water and the delivery we have seen on them. In August and October 2025, South West Water’s then CEO, Susan Davy, publicly committed to three critical objectives for the River Otter by the end of 2029, which I will quote. The first objective is that “any storm overflow that is persistently releasing more than 20 times a year will be tackled following investigation of the cause”. The second objective is that “where our assets are not performing as they should, or where they are causing environmental harm, we will act”. The third objective states: “As part of our 2025–2030 investment programme, we’re targeting improvements across the Otter catchment—including at Ottery St Mary—to reduce storm overflow use, and lower phosphate in our treated discharges”. At the time, those commitments were welcome, but residents are entitled to ask what progress has been made in the last year. First, at the 11 worst discharge points along the river, there was still an average of 67 untreated discharges in 2025. That is not fewer than the 20 that we were pledged. Secondly, South West Water has published only a limited programme of what it describes as “tactical improvements”. That is hardly action. Thirdly, despite repeated engagement from local campaigners and community groups, South West Water currently has no scheme to remove phosphate from treated effluent by 2030 and no published plan to meet the commitments made by the former chief exec. There was a time when South West Water talked about a phosphate reduction scheme for Honiton sewage treatment works, which would have removed 35% of all South West Water-sourced phosphate before 2030. According to South West Water more recently, the scheme “had been removed from the 2025-2030 plan.” Another consequence of sewage pollution is its impact on housing developments. East Devon district council commissioned a water cycle study as part of its local plan. Honiton sewage treatment works—the largest treatment works on the river—is already operating at 40% above capacity. That is projected to rise to 73% above capacity when future building plans are taken into account. The council’s report identified many serious failings in South West Water’s sewage infrastructure in the River Otter catchment. That includes failings at three major sewage works that are already operating in excess of their capacity. Their excess untreated sewage is being discharged regularly into the River Otter. Effectively, South West Water has been using the River Otter as a conveyor—a free, open, half-pipe sewer—resulting in significant environmental harm. The council’s report was plain that new housing approvals will require that South West Water delivers suitable additional treatment capacity. The costs of inaction are mounting: we have environmental degradation, risks to public health, constraints on housing, additional pressure being added by new housing, and growing public frustration. Residents ask a simple question: why must local communities accept continuing environmental damage, rising bills, and insufficient investment in the infrastructure required to clean up this mess? According to Ofwat’s most recent water company performance report from 2024-25, South West Water had 108 pollution incidents per 10,000 km of sewer, based on self-reported data—more than double the average for the sector. In fact, South West Water failed to meet its own performance targets for pollution incidents for each of the five years of the 2020-25 period. ORCA’s trained citizen scientists have logged over 2,800 individual tests and observations, whereas the Environment Agency carried out 24 location tests on the River Otter over that period. The public should not have to rely on volunteers to provide the evidence base for environmental protection. The volunteer action we have seen is invaluable, but safeguarding rivers must be the responsibility of water companies, regulators and, ultimately, the Government. Are we going to have to wait years for the Otter to be coaxed back to health? What specific measures to address these local issues might we see in the Government’s upcoming clean water Bill? Residents of towns and villages across this corner of Devon would love to know. Over 50,000 people have signed a petition that was initiated in February by Marc Astley. Marc lives in Ottery St Mary, and he and his family put together a petition stating that “if environmental standards aren’t being met, executives shouldn’t be receiving bonuses. The government has introduced new powers intended to block payouts when environmental performance fails…But loopholes remain—rewards can still be restructured as retention payments or routed through parent companies. To the public, that looks like bonuses by another name…The end goal is clear: close the loopholes and link executive rewards directly to measurable environmental outcomes—cleaner rivers, healthier seas and fewer sewage discharges.” I know that the Minister also wants to see cleaner rivers and seas, and that she is committed to her brief. Can she confirm to the more than 50,000 people who signed that petition that those loopholes will be closed by new legislation? The River Otter is not a cost-free extension of the sewerage infrastructure network that enables bill hikes and increased shareholder returns. It is supposed to offer a living ecosystem, a valued recreational resource, and an integral part of the lives of the people who live in east Devon. The people who live along the banks of the Otter are not asking for miracles; they are asking for honest monitoring, adequate infrastructure and accountability, with pledged commitments being met. The River Otter can recover—we have seen elsewhere that targeted investment in treatment infrastructure and phosphate removal can make a real difference—but recovery will require urgency, transparency, and a willingness to move beyond promises and towards delivery. Bruce McGlashan’s legacy will live on if the polluters, the regulators and we Members listen to, and act on, the citizen science carried out by the volunteers I represent today.

    Hansard source
30. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Rachel Gilmour

    Business of the House

    My constituent Marika built Fortitude gym in Williton from scratch at just 27 years old after selling her own house mid-covid. It has grown into a community wellbeing hub with classes and events, offering support to members coming back from injury, illness and addiction, one of whom went from being on crutches to running a half marathon. Outfits like Marika’s are doing preventive health work that takes pressure off the NHS, but business rates and overheads continue to push them towards closure. Will the Leader of the House make the case to his Treasury colleagues for fairer business rate treatment for small, independent health and fitness-focused providers, so they can keep doing the vital preventive work that the NHS relies on?

    Hansard source
31. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Rachel Gilmour

    Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

    I am going to try to make my intervention without crying. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his impassioned speech. I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee, and this subject came before us a couple of weeks ago when we examined the impact of the infected blood scandal as part of a much wider report on Government compensation schemes. These cases are always marked by a profound injustice, but nowhere is that clearer than in relation to the infected blood scandal. Each week people die before receiving the compensation they are promised, and I know that the hon. Gentleman will agree that that is a moral stain upon our country.

    Hansard source
32. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Olly Glover

    BBC Funding

    6. What steps she is taking to help ensure the sustainability of the BBC’s long-term funding.

    Hansard source
33. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Olly Glover

    BBC Funding

    Yesterday, as part of £500 million cuts, the BBC announced the scrapping of BBC Radio 4’s “The World Tonight” programme after 56 years, among others. It is very welcome to hear the Secretary of State’s support for the BBC, but can she say a little more about what she is going to do to protect the future of the BBC, following the end of the BBC charter consultation in March?

    Hansard source
34. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Mr Alistair Carmichael

    Business of the House

    May we have a debate in Government time on the Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s proposed changes to the way it compensates those who give their time as coastguard volunteers? The agency’s current proposals are causing massive concern among volunteer coastguards in my constituency and right around the coastline. We risk seeing those volunteers being forced to walk away, leaving communities without the necessary protection as a result. Surely the Leader of the House can agree that not to take on board those concerns before making the changes demonstrates a fundamental lack of respect for those who volunteer their services in this way.

    Hansard source
35. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Marie Goldman

    Grooming Gangs: Independent Inquiry

    It is deeply disheartening that, a year on from Baroness Casey’s audit, the Government have not made greater progress. The victims have already been failed once; they must not be failed again. Previous inquiries have produced more than 800 recommendations, most of which have not been implemented. We see this over and over again across Departments: inquiry launched, recommendations produced and accepted by the Government, and then nothing—while victims continue to suffer. I wholeheartedly support the independent inquiry into grooming gangs, but it must not become an excuse to delay implementing the changes that we already know are needed. Will the Minister set out a clear timeline for implementing all Baroness Casey’s recommendations in full, and make clear to every organisation with a duty to safeguard children that the hundreds of recommendations from previous inquiries are not “nice to haves” but must be implemented at pace and without further delay?

    Hansard source
36. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Marie Goldman

    Grooming Gangs: Independent Inquiry

    indicated assent.

    Hansard source
37. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Lisa Smart

    Business of the House

    Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to be here for business questions once again, subbing for my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean). Last week the NHS published the first ever official figures on corridor care, which ripped off the plaster and revealed a scandal that many of us have seen at first hand. In one month, patients across the country were treated in corridors at least 69,000 times, and that is with major trusts such as Birmingham failing to share their figures. The practice has become dangerously normalised across our NHS. We on the Lib Dem Benches believe that amounts to serious and continual negligence, and Ministers should be held to account before a corridor care tribunal of patients, bereaved families and frontline NHS staff. Behind every one of those numbers is an NHS trust or a hospital starved of resources and capital funds, and a social care system in crisis that leaves hospitals full of people who cannot leave, despite being desperate to do so, because the care package they need is not available. Meanwhile, A&E waiting rooms are heaving with patients waiting to be seen. Nowhere is the crumbling estate behind this crisis clearer than at Stepping Hill hospital in my patch, with its growing £134 million repair backlog. There have been collapsing ceilings, leaking roofs that forced the temporary closure of the intensive care unit, and times when just four of the 14 lifts were working, meaning that anyone using a wheelchair was unable to visit a higher-floor ward and that patients were carried up and down stairs in scoops. Will the Government therefore make time for an urgent debate on the corridor care crisis and the state of the NHS estate to ensure that patients, including those in my Hazel Grove constituency, are no longer treated in corridors, or left waiting in them for hours for the treatment they deserve?

    Hansard source
38. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Lisa Smart

    Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

    The infected blood scandal, and the 30,000 or so people who were infected with HIV, hepatitis or both, have been discussed in this House many times, but the numbers—the sheer scale of the scandal—are still hard to comprehend. The hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) laid out the background compellingly at the start of this debate, and I congratulate him on securing it. Other Members have spoken of perhaps the most horrifying element of the scandal: children were subjected to unsafe and unethical clinical testing in the 1970s and ’80s. This testing—this experimentation—continued for more than 15 years. It involved hundreds of people and infected most with hepatitis B, hepatitis C or HIV. The trials involved children with blood clotting disorders, when families had often not consented to their taking part, and the majority of the children who were experimented on are now dead. It is not just about those who were infected, of course; the number of those affected by the scandal is far higher. Although we welcome the steps that the Government have taken in progressing the compensation scheme, it is clear that the job is not yet done. The changes that the Government have brought in will mean more compensation for those who have been impacted by the infected blood scandal. Payments will be sent out to victims as part of the wider £11 billion-plus allocated by the Government in the 2024 Budget to compensate victims, but in the last two months to June, just 217 people have received compensation payments. At that rate, far too many victims will not receive their compensation by the 2029 deadline. The pace must increase—a point that has been well made in this debate by the hon. Members for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) and for Newport East (Jessica Morden), as well as others. The Liberal Democrats welcome the improvements to the scheme that the Government set out earlier this year. These changes will hopefully deliver some of the justice that victims have been calling for, but there is clearly a strength of feeling that the scheme still does not go far enough, and the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst laid out some of the well-founded concerns in opening the debate. The failure to deliver the Hillsborough law has been raised by many Members from across the House, and they are right to do so. It would extend the duty of candour to all public officials, and it was a manifesto commitment from this Government. It is also a promise that has been repeated by the Prime Minister and several other Ministers since. Despite repeated talk of an “unwavering commitment”, this vital reform has still not been delivered, and we do not know when it will be. I would welcome any update that the Paymaster General could give on the progress that we might expect and when we might expect it. With this scandal, as with too many others, the inability to deliver both timely compensation and complementary legislation extends people’s fears of a culture of cover-up. In so many instances we see the breakdown of trust between the people we represent and our politics, so delivering compensation at pace, and delivering the Hillsborough law, would be a statement of intent to change our political culture. It is one of the vital building blocks that can start to repair this House’s fractured relationship with the public—an essential step to recover trust. That is more vital today than at any other point in my lifetime. Many Members have spoken of their constituents who have been impacted by this scandal. My constituent Catherine from Marple Bridge is one of so many who provided testimony to the compensation authority. She is a daughter handling the estate of her father, who was infected, and she is affected. Catherine’s thorough, detailed testimony was calm, thoughtful and delivered with remarkable clarity. It was testament to her strength of character. Last year’s damning report on compensation showed that not enough lessons had been learned, and survivors such as Catherine continue to be left out in the cold. The impact of course extends to those who have lost family members to contaminated blood, such as Angus Lacey-Stewart, who contacted my hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller). Angus’s dad and granddad both died due to health conditions caused by infected blood. Angus lost his dad prematurely, but he also told my hon. Friend how his dad’s infection at the age of 14 changed his dad’s life and robbed Angus of the relationship he might have wanted with his father, who suffered from poor mental and physical health. Angus understands that there are many claims and supports the prioritisation of infected claimants, but he cannot understand why he has been told not to expect payment until 2030. Angus told my hon. Friend that he “feels let down and ignored by the Government”, and he will not be alone. The Liberal Democrats have been consistent in urging the Government to end the record of failure of successive Governments, and finally answer the needs of victims. We committed, along with others, in our 2019 manifesto to act on the inquiry’s recommendations, “ensuring a just settlement for victims and their families”, and we have voted in favour of legislation when it has been brought to this House. We encourage the Government to be as effective and visible as possible in the way they deliver the promised compensation scheme for the all-too-many victims. After so many years of secrecy, deceit and delay, the Government must deliver on the start they have made to ensure full transparency on the progress of the scheme and open, ongoing and effective communication with all those affected. I close my remarks by paying tribute to the victims and their families, and particularly the doughty campaigners who have worked for decades for the compensation and justice they deserve.

    Hansard source
39. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Jamie Stone

    Business of the House

    I want to raise the case of Hughie Stirling from Ullapool. He was on board a flotilla proceeding to Gaza with aid when the Israelis intercepted them in international waters and took them into custody. His partner tells me that he and others were shockingly mistreated—we are talking about physical abuse and even being beaten up. When his partner made appeals to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office for information or assistance, the silence was utterly deafening. Hughie is a British citizen and has his rights, surely. Could we have a debate in this House on consular support and protection of UK nationals delivering aid abroad?

    Hansard source
40. 18 Jun 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Helen Morgan

    Health Bill (Third sitting)

    The Liberal Democrats broadly support the abolition of NHS England. As constituency MPs and users of the NHS, we see a huge amount of duplication and unnecessary bureaucracy as our local health organisations try to navigate the processes of securing capital investment, for example. Reducing duplication between the Department and NHS England is clearly welcome if done well, but we have concerns about the way in which that is being undertaken. We think that this centralising process, under which the Secretary of State takes on more powers, risks political capture. That may not seem like a huge risk considering who the current Secretary of State and shadow Secretary of State are, but given the febrile political atmosphere that we are working in, it seems a poor time to give a Secretary of State sweeping operational powers over the detailed functioning of the NHS, with few checks and balances. I will speak about the most concerning elements and make the argument in greater detail when we debate cause 11. As the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said, the former Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Ilford North, said that top-down reorganisation of the NHS was the last thing he wanted to do, and yet that is where we find ourselves today. It feels as if the plan has been pulled together very quickly, and that it has been complex to turn into a piece of workable legislation. It has taken a long time even for the Treasury to agree on the funding of the redundancy bill. We have found out that redundancy costs of £800 million will be taken out of the future operating costs of the NHS. I hope that the Minister will describe how that will be delivered to ensure that the costs do not detract from patient care on the frontline. There is still some uncertainty about the new structures within the DHSC and NHSE reorganisation. We have heard that the previously announced plan for three top-level roles—a permanent secretary, a chief medical officer and an NHS chief executive officer—might be changed, and that there is a proposal to merge the permanent secretary and NHS CEO roles. At this stage, as we start to consider the legislation, it would be helpful to have clarity on who will be in charge of the NHS and how the layers below will be organised. We have also heard that hours of staff time, leadership focus and money have been directed away from frontline services. In the oral evidence session, Sarah Woolnough of the King’s Fund and Jon Restell of the Managers in Partnership union suggested that that has been distracting and that, in any body, a significant reorganisation has an opportunity cost. In my previous life, I was an accountant at Centrica plc—one of those back-office checkers everybody wants to get rid of, but who turns out to be quite important in providing the information that enables the business to run smoothly. We found reorganisation hugely distracting; it took away from our ability to do our day jobs well. Then, within a couple of years, a lot of the equivalent roles were re-hired and we were back to square one. It is critical that the Government avoid that scenario in this big reorganisation of the NHS. I hope that the Minister can provide reassurance that it has been well thought through and that we will not find ourselves, two or three years down the line, with similar numbers of people replicating the roles that exist currently, following a huge distraction that resulted in no improvement in patient outcome or experience. My questions are fairly limited. Does the Minister know, at this point, what the impact the reorganisation has had on the system and how much it has cost in secondary impacts? We have had eight Health Secretaries in the past 10 years. After all that swapping and changing, how can the Minister ensure a degree of continuity when the new Secretary of State takes over? One benefit of quangos is continuity over a long time, divorced from the political turmoil of Westminster. We must be clear about how distractions will be avoided in the new structure. Finally, we heard in evidence on Tuesday that the new structure feels like a centralisation of power in Whitehall, when what is needed is more power devolved down to local level so that local services can be shaped to reflect the demographics that they serve and to address the important point of health inequality. Will the Minister explain why she is confident that measures to ensure local accountability and local shaping of services will be able to go ahead? Tackling health inequalities is the priority of everybody in this Room, and we need to ensure that we have an efficient structure in place to ensure that it happens.

    Hansard source