Oxford to Cambridge Growth Corridor
I am grateful to all the hon. Members who spoke for their co-operation. We now come to the Front-Bench spokespeople. I call the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats.
5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Advanced Ceramics Industry: North Staffordshire
I will call Dr Allison Gardner to move the motion and then I will call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members who are present that they may make a speech only with the prior permission of both the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister; subject to the discretion of the Minister and the Member in charge, they may of course make an intervention. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.
- Hansard source
Terminal Illness: Mental Health Support
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for opening the debate. I say this mostly for the benefit of those in the Public Gallery, but we are expecting votes in the main Chamber soon. If that happens, I will suspend the sitting and we will reconvene when the votes are complete. I call Jim Shannon.
- Hansard source
Terminal Illness: Mental Health Support
Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but a Division has been called. I am very much in the Minister’s hands at this point, and I am conscious that there may be more he wishes to say. If he has only a minute or two of his speech remaining, I gather there will be several Divisions, so I do not want to force everyone to come back for just that. If he has more to say, there is of course more time for him to take, and the same applies to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West. I am in the Minister’s hands; does he wish to conclude now, or would he rather come back?
- Hansard source
Terminal Illness: Mental Health Support
Order. I am afraid that we will now need to suspend as the Division is active. I will suspend the sitting for 15 minutes for the first Division and for 10 minutes for any subsequent Divisions. I gather that there may be several Divisions, so I apologise to the Minister and all other Members who will have to wait.
- Hansard source
Terminal Illness: Mental Health Support
I do not want to compress the debate, as I appreciate it is a very sensitive subject. If the Minister can complete what he has to say in less than a minute, I will allow him to do so. If he needs longer, I will allow that after the Divisions.
- Hansard source
Terminal Illness: Mental Health Support
The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West may have a very brief word.
- Hansard source
Terminal Illness: Mental Health Support
I am very grateful to the hon. Member. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered mental health support for people with terminal illnesses.
- Hansard source
OBR: Resignation of Chair
For what it is worth, I think the OBR has become too powerful. We live in a parliamentary democracy, not a quangocracy, and the Chancellor alone should be responsible. Does the Chief Secretary agree that in future all communications between the Chancellor and the OBR should be in deep private? That is the only way the system will work. Never again do we want selective leaks. Can he promise that that will not happen in the next Budget?
- Hansard source
Engagements
Could the Prime Minister give his assessment of the latest news that President Putin has again turned down terms for peace in Ukraine? In an extraordinary outburst designed to destabilise our understanding of the truth, he did say that Russia is ready for war with NATO. How ready are we?
- Hansard source
OBR: Resignation of Chair
For the first time in its history, the OBR was forced to correct the record about the forecasting process in the run-up to the Budget. Is not the reason that the Chancellor selectively leaked information from the OBR to mislead the public and justify tax rises?
- Hansard source
OBR: Resignation of Chair
I am grateful for your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker. Perhaps I can rephrase that: the Chancellor inadvertently misled the public to justify those tax rises.
- Hansard source
OBR: Resignation of Chair
Although I remain convinced that there are ways of delivering the guardrails that the Treasury needs without the OBR, I know that the Chief Secretary and the Chancellor are not persuaded of that argument. However, might the Chief Secretary be persuaded that the resignation of the chair of the OBR and the recruitment process that is now under way presents an opportunity for the Treasury and the permanent secretary to reflect on what they need the OBR to be doing for the next five, 10, 15 or 20 years? What skills does the OBR need, what shape does it need to be, and what does it actually need to do to get the economy right? Will they be availing themselves of this opportunity to recast the OBR and reflect on its roles and responsibilities?
- Hansard source
Grooming Gangs
3. What steps she is taking with the Home Secretary to help tackle grooming gangs in Wales.
- Hansard source
Grooming Gangs
Welsh Labour voted against a grooming gangs inquiry in the Senedd. Now Scottish MPs are bemoaning the lack of action from the Scottish National party and the Scottish Government. Given that Welsh Labour is also dragging its heels over this inquiry, will the Secretary of State step up and ensure that it holds a Wales-wide inquiry into this horrific scandal?
- Hansard source
Oxford to Cambridge Growth Corridor
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate. He is right to talk about the torrid history of East West Rail, but he misses some crucial points. First, the railway loses taxpayers an enormous amount of money. Secondly, East West Rail chose a long, hilly, environmentally damaging route that it did not need to choose. Thirdly, the railway brings with it the fundamental question of how it will be propelled. The hon. Member talked about the problems of a 20th-century technology; railways are a 19th-century technology. Does he accept that the Oxfordshire part of the railway has been built on the assumption it would be diesel, and now we are looking to retrofit that with a 21st-century technology? This is still a terrible mess, is it not?
- Hansard source
Oxford to Cambridge Growth Corridor
On the point of cross-Bedfordshire roads, we will have potentially Tempsford new town in my constituency and an entirely new railway being drawn across the area, in addition to Universal Studios and the expansion of Luton airport. Over time, that will all create enormous internal pressure. To amplify the point about co-ordination, does my hon. Friend agree that local councils will be overwhelmed without clear support from the Government?
- Hansard source
Local Media
I beg to move, That this House has considered the future of local media. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, I think for the first time, Dr Allin-Khan. I will start by giving hon. Members some reassurance: I intend to give way every time someone asks, because I fully expect this to be one of the most intervened on speeches that I have ever given.
- Hansard source
Local Media
Well played! That was very good, and of course I agree. I used to work with Toby Granville, so I know him well. I think that sets the tone for a lot of the interventions that will come during this speech. Where was I? Line two: I fully expect this to be one of the most intervened on speeches that I have ever given. Why? Because all hon. Members present will wish to pop up to record their love for their local newspaper, be it the Watford Observer, The Oxford Times, the Farnham Herald—
- Hansard source
Local Media
I of course agree with my hon. Friend. The role that local media plays at the centre of the community is what I will develop during my speech, if I get to the second page. I mentioned the Farnham Herald, which he intervened on, and go on to the Isle of Wight County Press and the Stranraer and Wigtownshire Free Press—all of us have examples of great local newspapers, which are at the heart of our community. We know that what they report matters, because it reflects our communities. While national and regional news have expanded, and the offering has widened, local, trusted news is still the go-to place for residents across our communities.
- Hansard source
Local Media
My hon. Friend makes an important point, which I will get to as I develop my speech. I also have to declare an interest: I spent the majority of my working life in local news. Even as a child, I delivered copies of the local Guardian around south London. My first “proper” job was at the South London Press. Back in those days, we sold two paid-for editions each week and delivered numerous free titles across south London. Later, I spent nearly 10 years with Newsquest, with its huge footprint across the UK. I still write a monthly column for the Bromley News Shopper, our local oracle. The News Shopper dates back to 1965 and counts Norris and Ross McWhirter as former contributors. Indeed, it was deemed such a bastion of information that a young Rupert Murdoch took temporary ownership of it back in 1969.
- Hansard source
Local Media
Tell me about it. It remains the go-to place for my constituents across Bromley and Biggin Hill for the news that counts, and that is local news. It is where we go to find out what is happening, what new shops are opening in the high street, what that planning application is that everybody is talking about, or why the heck they have put in that stupid roundabout near Mike’s house. It is the place we go for the things that matter. But times have changed. Since 13-year-old Peter spent his afternoon stuffing numerous leaflets into hundreds of papers ready for delivery in the early ’90s, technology, advertising and expectations have changed. The traditional model of delivering local news has evolved, and that has put real pressure on the industry—note that I say “model”, not the need for local news. In fact, I would argue that in an age of fake news—Mrs Fortune told me not to do an impression when I said “fake news”—and increasing pressures on council services, the need for trusted, informed and relevant local media is more important than ever before, but it is increasingly challenging to deliver it in the traditional paper format. A newspaper sliding through the letterbox once a week is simply no longer financially viable, especially with the model that relies on advertising revenue to fund the printing and delivery of the product. That does not remove the need for local news; it just changes the delivery method.
- Hansard source
Local Media
I do agree. That has been happening in local media since the invention of Facebook, which I will come to later. Across the UK, local journalism attracts 42 million readers each week. It is the first port of call, be it print or digital in format, for communities who value a trusted source of information. While some formats may have changed from print to pixel, the trust in local brands has not, but the sector faces challenges, including the rapidly evolving digital environment, engagement with Government and public notice funding, and the conversation around a new relationship with the BBC.
- Hansard source
Local Media
I agree with my hon. Friend, and I will touch on the BBC charter later in my comments. Let us start with the digital environment, which the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) referred to. For an industry that relies on advertising revenue, the emergence of platforms such as Facebook fundamentally changed the marketplace. Over time, the industry has learned to adapt and channel-shift to keep pace with the changing news environment, but 20 years on from one epoch-defining technological advancement, we find another. We marvel as we see artificial intelligence developing and becoming the new intermediary between readers and news. This technology can now scrape the internet for information and pump out unchecked, unverified content, which undermines the faith in professional journalism and the financial sustainability of newsrooms. This undercuts the very institutions that produce the content, results in decreasing web traffic, and drains advertising revenue. The Government must act to ensure a fair licensing market, transparency in AI training data and strong backing for the Competition and Markets Authority to level the playing field between publishers and the tech giants. I touched on public notices. These statutory notices in local papers are a cornerstone of democratic accountability, ensuring that residents know about changes that affect them, yet the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill risks removing this requirement and irreparably damaging the public’s right to know. The Government should commit unequivocally to keeping public notices in local papers, especially at a time of major reform in local government. Coming to the role of the BBC, the corporation has made valuable contributions through initiatives such as the local democracy reporting service, but we need to better understand how the relationship between local news and our national broadcaster can work more effectively to ensure that commercial operators are not inadvertently impacted due to BBC overreach.
- Hansard source
Local Media
I entirely agree on that extraordinary story. I think Kevin Sinfield has run further than I have ever driven. The way he has used national, regional and local media to highlight the issue shows the strength and power of media, when harnessed and targeted properly, to have a positive impact. When touching on the BBC, I want to talk about the royal charter, which is now being reviewed. This is the moment to reset the relationship with local media, focusing on collaboration, not competition, and ensuring that commercial newsrooms can thrive. Finally, I come to Government advertising: 80% of UK adults trust the information they see in local media, yet Government campaigns remain heavily skewed towards social platforms, missing millions who rely on print and digital news. Shifting more advertising spend to local publishers would not only improve reach and engagement but strengthen the financial sustainability of the sector. I will draw my remarks to a close, because I wish to give hon. Members as much time as possible to share stories of their local news providers, although many have already done so. I am sure everybody recognises the value of their local title as much as I do the Bromley News Shopper. Although, as politicians, we may not always appreciate being the focus of news, I am sure we all recognise the huge importance of a trusted media source that is from and for the community. With its sharp focus on local issues, scrutiny of key decisions and responsibility for training the next generation of journalists, local journalism is a public good. It informs, scrutinises and binds communities together, but it cannot survive on good will alone. The Government have the tools to act on artificial intelligence, public notices, the BBC and advertising. If we value trusted local journalism, now is the time to secure its future. Finally, by my reckoning, I have said the word “local” 28 times in this speech, because that is the point.
- Hansard source
Local Media
I do not have enough time to thank everybody individually, so please take it that all are thanked and loved, especially the people who gathered outside to beep in support of the Westminster Hall debate. One of my heroes, George Orwell, believed that local journalism should reflect lived experiences, and that it is often overlooked by the national media in what he called a “reporting deficit”. He talked of good journalism being about honesty, clear language and exposing lies, and he used those principles to write “The Road to Wigan Pier”, one of his many great works. Society and civilisation are fragile and, when news can be weaponised, the clarity and trust provided by local media are vital to holding our communities together. I ask the Minister please to remember that and support it. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the future of local media.
- Hansard source
Oxford to Cambridge Growth Corridor
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) on securing this important debate on the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor, an area of enormous potential, world-class institutions and a genuine capacity to drive innovation and national prosperity. He is a dedicated campaigner and champion for his constituency—he has been for a number of years—and that emanated from his speech this afternoon. I would like to mention a few speeches from Members on both sides of the House who have spoken passionately on behalf of their constituencies. The first is my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson), who gave us a wonderful tour of his constituency. I know that the Minister will take away, through officials, his plea for junction 13 of the M1 to be upgraded. We know that north Bedfordshire, like many areas in the community in which he serves, has had a huge expansion. Whatever the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) had for breakfast, I would like some too, because we had a very rapid constituency tour, quite rightly explaining to us why her constituency is special. She was right about the infrastructure needs, and particularly the nature and environmental concerns. Her party and mine have been very concerned about some of the retrograde steps that the Government have taken in terms of planning and infrastructure regarding nature and the environment. The hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) quite rightly gave her view, as she is perfectly entitled to do, on local government reform. In this Chamber we actually heard a disagreement between two Members; I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire has strong concerns about LGR when it comes to a Milton Keynes–Bedfordshire–Luton mayor. That is something that we, again, are concerned about, where local authorities are being forced to reorganise come what may. Projects such as the one we are talking about today suffer as a result and come secondary to a needless reorganisation. The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane), managed to bring up Brexit in this debate, which I was slightly surprised by. I am never astounded by the tenacity of the Liberal Democrats, even if it does make me wonder why “Democrats” is in their party’s name. The Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor, sometimes called the Oxford-Cambridge arc, is not a new idea, as the hon. Member for Cambridge said. Its origins go back to the early 2000s when three regional development agencies came together with an ambition “to create one of the most successful knowledge-based economies in Europe.” That ambition was renewed in 2016 when the National Infrastructure Commission was tasked to consider how best to maximise the potential of what is indisputably one of the most exciting, knowledge-intensive economic clusters anywhere in the world. The facts speak for themselves. Within the arc, there are at least 10 major higher education institutions, including Cranfield University, with its world-leading strengths in aerospace and automotive engineering; the Open University; and of course the globally renowned universities of Oxford and Cambridge. Those are institutions that any country would be proud to host, yet this Government’s economic policies are stifling their progress, and the progress of the corridor project. That is the crux of the problem: the Chancellor wrote, in her foreword to the Government’s policy paper on the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor, that “Economic growth is the number one mission of this government and remains at the heart of all we do.” If this is what it looks like when growth is at the heart of what the Government do, I dread to imagine what they would do if they decided it was not a priority. That statement is not the experience of the institutions, businesses and local communities that work tirelessly to ensure that the corridor remains a leading hub of innovation, productivity and opportunity. We know that the Chancellor believes that the corridor could add up to £78 billion to the UK economy and we agree, but that number becomes a reality only if the Government provide the environment, the confidence and the long-term stability that private investors need. Instead, they have hiked taxes, raised business rates and plunged the markets into uncertainty. The Government’s own announcements, dropped somewhat sporadically and often without clarity, speak to their confusion. In October, Ministers published a press release promising jobs, homes and better transport links across the corridor. We heard about water infrastructure investment, a proposed new town at Tempsford, £400 million of initial funding to kick-start development in Cambridge and £15 million for the University of Cambridge innovation hub. All of those things sound encouraging, but this Government have become experts in making announcements while failing to deliver the underlying conditions that make delivery possible. They talk of homes but their housing targets will not be achieved. They talk of infrastructure but cannot secure long-term investment. They talk of growth but have presided over an economy with its growth revised downwards again and again, meaning that long-term problems will be incurred in the progress of this much-needed project. Before the 2024 election, the Chancellor told British people that she would raise taxes by £7 billion. Instead, at last year’s autumn Budget she raised them by £40 billion and at this year’s autumn Budget by another £26.6 billion. Economic forecasters have not been fooled. Since the Chancellor took office, the Office for Budget Responsibility, the Bank of England, the International Monetary Fund and the CBI have all downgraded the UK’s growth prospects. The OBR’s growth forecast for 2026 fell from 1.9% to 1.4%; inflation, which stood at just 2.2% on election day, has risen to 3.8%; the unemployment rate has hit 5%; and the deficit is set to double by ’28-29. The UK now has the fastest rising tax burden in the G7. That does not encourage growth, business investment or the stability that businesses and organisations need to get this project off the ground. In her 2025 Budget, the Chancellor invoked the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor as an example of a long-term national priority, but what message does it send to the businesses, universities and investors of the corridor when the Government cannot even be transparent about their own growth projections? In this debate, speaker after speaker has rightly emphasised the immense economic, scientific and social value of this region, but potential alone is not enough. Potential needs partnership, consistent leadership and a Government who understand the scale of the opportunity, but everything emanating from the Government has made the aspirations for the corridor more difficult. That is why this debate matters. This corridor is not just about the south-east or the east of England; it is important to the whole country. It is a showcase for the very best of British innovation, where research excellence meets commercial opportunity, where new technologies are born and where global investment sees a home. The Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. With the right leadership it could drive economic growth, technological advancement and prosperity for decades to come. Can the Minister tell us how the Government intend to give the corridor the long-term stability, investment confidence and strategic backing it urgently needs to realise its economic potential? Will he commit to setting out a clear, accountable plan for how the Government will support the institutions, businesses and communities of the growth corridor, so that they can contribute fully to the UK’s future growth, rather than being held back by uncertainty and delay?
- Hansard source
Engagements
Q7. In 2020, the Justice Secretary said:“Criminal trials without juries are a bad idea”,and the Prime Minister himself has said that there should be “a right of trial by jury in all criminal cases”,but now they want to scrap trials by jury. With a Chancellor who cannot count and a Justice Secretary who has lost count of the number of people he has let out of prison, is it any wonder that the people of this country cannot ever again trust a single word this Prime Minister or Government say?
- Hansard source
Business without Debate
With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 3 to 5 together. Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), Financial Services and Markets That the draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (Prudential Regulation of Credit Institutions) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 20 October, be approved. That the draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (ESG Ratings) Order 2025, which was laid before this House on 27 October, be approved. Energy That the draft Heat Networks (Market Framework) (Great Britain) (Amendment) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 30 October, be approved.—(Gregor Poynton.) Question agreed to. Church of England (General Synod) (Measures) [Relevant documents: 247th Report of the Ecclesiastical Committee, Armed Forces Chaplains (Licensing) Measure; Abuse Redress Measure, HC 1453.] Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118,(6)), That the Armed Forces Chaplains (Licensing) Measure (HC 1454), passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, which was laid before this House on 11 November, be presented to His Majesty for his Royal Assent in the form in which it was laid before Parliament.—(Marsha de Cordova.) Question agreed to. Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), That the Abuse Redress Measure (HC 1455), passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, which was laid before this House on 11 November, be presented to His Majesty for his Royal Assent in the form in which it was laid before Parliament. —(Marsha de Cordova.) Question agreed to.
- Hansard source
Engagements
Let me first pay tribute to Sir John Stanley, who passed away yesterday. Sir John was a dedicated MP for 41 years, and we send our deepest condolences to his family. Does the Prime Minister believe that when an organisation descends into total shambles, the person at the top should resign?
- Hansard source
Engagements
The Prime Minister does not want to answer a question about taking responsibility, because he likes to blame everyone except himself, and so does the Chancellor. We now know that the head of the Office for Budget Responsibility was forced out for telling the truth: that the Chancellor did not need to raise taxes on working people. We also know that the Chancellor was briefing the media and twisting the facts—all so she could break her promises and raise taxes. If she were a CEO, she would have been fired, and she might even have been prosecuted for market abuse. That is why we have written to the Financial Conduct Authority, so will the Prime Minister ensure the Chancellor fully co-operates with any investigation?
- Hansard source
Engagements
The Prime Minister talks about losing the plot. Let me read to him what his own Cabinet Members are saying—that the handling of the Budget has been “a disaster from start to finish.” Who said that? Was it him? Was it her? It was probably her, actually—it was probably the Chancellor! [Laughter.] One of the Prime Minister’s Ministers said that the Chancellor and the Prime Minister look “weak and incompetent”. The country agrees. We know that there were endless Treasury briefings to justify raising taxes on hard-working people to pay for benefits and those briefings had real-world consequences. Hundreds of thousands of people drew down their pension, an irreversible act. The Prime Minister pays tribute to the head of the OBR. If the head of the OBR had to resign over market-sensitive leaks, why is the Chancellor still in her job?
- Hansard source
Engagements
No one believes a word the Prime Minister says. We now know the black hole was fake, the Chancellor’s book was fake, her CV was fake—even her chess claims are made up. She does not belong in the Treasury; she belongs in la-la land. The Government raised taxes on working people—that is £16 billion—to increase benefits to protect them from their Back Benchers. The Prime Minister now boasts about removing the two-child benefit cap, but he used to say that it was unaffordable. He even removed the Whip from seven Labour Members for wanting the same thing. He is very happy to throw them under a bus when it pleases him. I ask the Prime Minister, how did it suddenly become affordable at the very time he needed to save his own skin?
- Hansard source
Engagements
If all of this is true, why did the Prime Minister take the Whip away from the people asking for it? Let us remind the Chancellor that exactly a year ago today, on 3 December 2024, she said: “We will never have to repeat a Budget like this one”.—[Official Report, 3 December 2024; Vol. 758, c. 149.] If only! The Prime Minister may have taken the Whip away then, but the rebels have had the last laugh—he has lost. He cannot run his own party, let alone the country. Let me quote the hard-left former shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). He said: “We’ve won.” He is right, isn’t he?
- Hansard source
Engagements
Let me tell the Prime Minister: making the whole country poorer and destroying jobs is not how to keep children out of poverty. In the past week we have seen broken promises, broken leadership and a broken Budget for “Benefits Street”—[Interruption.] The Education Secretary is chuntering. I ask her, where is the money for the children with special educational needs? Where is it? It is coming out of her budget.
- Hansard source
Engagements
She is shaking her head; she does not know where that money is coming from. Let us be clear: unemployment is up. There are more children now growing up in workless households because people are losing their jobs. It is not just the head of the OBR who is losing his job; millions of people have been hung out to dry by the Government’s Budget. Is it not the truth that behind it all is a Prime Minister who only cares about one person’s job—his own?
- Hansard source
Economic Growth
On Monday, it was delightful to observe the Chancellor and First Minister enjoying themselves in one of Wales’s premier hospitality venues, but we had an invisible Secretary of State for Wales once again. That venue is the type of business that must thrive if this Government are to have any chance of achieving anything other than anaemic growth and growing unemployment lines. If she had been there, what would people in the hospitality sector have told her about the minimum wage rise pressures, huge business rates and energy costs, the tourism tax, national insurance hikes and how those are strangling the economy in Wales, along with the bloated red tape and wanton spending from the Labour-run Senedd?
- Hansard source
Economic Growth
Clearly something more important than economic growth in Wales came up for Labour’s Wales Office. Can Ministers explain? The biggest rise in unemployment in the UK was in Wales, at 1.4%. Frankly, that is no surprise, given the Governments’ joint refusal to build the M4 relief road or the north Wales main line. That does not exactly match the Chancellor’s boasts about world-class infrastructure at the summit. Among the hobnobbing and backslapping, did any Ministers spare any thought for the desolate owners and workers of businesses in tatters in Monmouth and more widely? Did Ministers work on the ask for extra help to save those people’s livelihoods?
- Hansard source
Job Creation: Wales
The Office for National Statistics has revealed that a scandalous 1,000 jobs are being lost every single day across the country, meaning that Aston Martin is not immune to this Government’s economic recklessness and could soon be forced to make over 100 job losses because of the poor trade deal that Labour struck with the US. The deal includes absolutely no guarantee that small-volume car makers, like Aston Martin, will get fair access to the 10% tariff rate from 2026, meaning that they could face the imposition of an eye-watering tariff of 27.5% if they are squeezed out of the 100,000 car quota to the US. What will the Secretary of State do? Will she turn up to ensure that iconic Welsh car makers get fair access to US trade?
- Hansard source
Draft Infected Blood Compensation Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2025
I rise to speak in support of these regulations, as we set out when the Paymaster General made his statement at the end of October. There are, of course, many things on which we disagree, but this is not one of them. The Opposition will not be confecting differences purely for political benefit when the reality is that there are no real differences of substance between the Government’s position and that of the Opposition, or indeed the previous Government, in this regard. We welcome the progress made by the Infected Blood Compensation Authority in processing the payments. Victims were told that compensation must be in place without delay, and that is starting to become a reality for those who were infected. Does the Minister have any updates on the likely timetable for compensation for affected people and the estates of those who sadly died before they were able to receive compensation? Has there been any change in that? In terms of the changes these regulations make, as I said at the end of October, we support the five recommendations that the Government are accepting and legislating on today. We welcome the Minister’s clarification that lifting the HIV start date means it will not matter at which point a victim was infected by HIV, if it was the result of treatment with infected blood or blood products that took place before 1 November 1985. I am fairly sure I know the answer to this, but can the Minister confirm that this is also the case for people who may have discovered or been informed at a much later date that they were infected, but for whom it is likely that the infection relates to blood products before the relevant date? Similarly, can the Minister confirm that no one who should be eligible will fall through the cracks because of earlier failures in record keeping? This is particularly relevant for those infected as children, whose medical records at that point might have been incomplete. We need to make sure that they do not miss out on the compensation that they need and deserve. The Minister will be aware of the representations of those who were deliberately infected with haemophilia as a result of studies and their anger over the levels of compensation for deliberate infection. Will the Minister, alongside Sir Brian, review whether the component for deliberate infection is appropriate? Finally, as we have said a number of times over the last year or so, many victims and their families still feel that they are in the dark, as was identified in the latest report from Sir Brian Langstaff. Will the Minister commit to a clear communication plan and work with IBCA to make sure that there are regular updates—that accessible guidance is provided, in plain English, so that those who ought to be eligible for compensation and their families can access the compensation that they need? There is little point in me detaining the Committee further; we will support these regulations.