House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
Before we begin today’s proceedings, I know the House will wish to join me in acknowledging that today marks 1,000 days since Russia launched its attack on Ukraine. We can be proud of the fact that this House has continued to stand with the people of Ukraine, who are fighting and dying for the ideals that underpin a peaceful, prosperous, stable and democratic world. The whole world is paying the cost of Russia’s aggression but would pay even more if we stood by and allowed it to succeed. Our thoughts today are with the people of Ukraine, as well as with our colleagues in the Ukrainian Parliament.
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Josh Simons (Makerfield) (Lab)
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
Mr Speaker, I associate myself with your remarks about the war in Ukraine. I know the whole House stands with Ukraine as it defends its freedom and democracy. This is precisely why the Prime Minister’s leadership at the G20, and in other international fora, is vital in standing up not just for our national interests but for our values across the world.
Over the past decade, the Conservatives’ mismanagement has left the NHS with 1,400 fewer full-time equivalent GPs than in 2015, hundreds of practice closures, the loss of over 1,000 community pharmacies, and NHS dentistry a distant memory, which is why this Government took immediate action to employ 1,000 more GPs. Through the additional roles reimbursement scheme, through the Chancellor’s Budget measures and through our 10-year plan, we will shift the focus of healthcare out of hospitals and into the community.
Josh Simons
In my Makerfield constituency, Wigan council and my local NHS trust are working closely together to pioneer a health system focused on prevention and delivered through neighbourhood health centres, but they need help. What is the Secretary of State doing to improve access to primary care, especially data-driven preventive care, through neighbourhood health centres?
Wes Streeting
I agree with my hon. Friend on the importance of prevention at a local level. We are trialling neighbourhood health centres across the country to bring together a range of services, ensuring that healthcare is closer to home and that patients receive the care they deserve. This is part of our broader ambition to move towards a neighbourhood health service, with care delivered close to home. I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to hear more about what is going well in his community and what further action we need to take.
Chris Vince
Does the Secretary of State agree that access to primary care is hugely important to supporting accident and emergency departments at hospitals like the Princess Alexandra in Harlow? Does he also agree that access to primary care is about not just GPs but dentists? Finally, what are the Government’s plans to support dental surgeries such as the aptly named Harlow dental surgery, which I visited last week?
Wes Streeting
My hon. Friend is right that many of the pressures on our hospitals, such as the Princess Alexandra in Harlow, are a result of pressures in other parts of the health and social care system. It is outrageous that the biggest reason for five to nine-year-olds presenting to hospital is tooth decay, which is why we need to get NHS dentistry back on its feet, along with the rest of the NHS.
My hon. Friend the Minister for Care and I have regularly met the British Dental Association since the general election to consider how the dental contract can be reformed to retain dentists and rebuild NHS dental services.
Sam Carling
In my local area of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, GPs are reporting feeling increasingly burnt out, with working conditions becoming more extreme. The number of patients per fully qualified GP in my area has increased by nearly 400 since December 2016, a higher increase than the national average. Can the Secretary of State tell me what his Department is doing to make the situation more sustainable while improving access to primary care?
Wes Streeting
General practice is a valued part of the NHS, and GPs are a vital part of our NHS family. In fact, they are delivering more appointments than ever before, and we recognise the significant pressures they face. At the same time, we know that patients are struggling to see their GP, which is why we have invested an additional £82 million into the ARRS to recruit 1,000 more newly qualified GPs this year. This will take pressure off general practice, and we will be announcing further budget allocations in the not-too-distant future to set out what further support we will provide for general practice.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
Last week, I visited Summertown health centre. Staff there implored me to say to the Government that the issue is not just more money—we welcome the £100 million that has been allocated for capital investment in primary care—but the snarled-up process at integrated care board level and getting investment to the right places quickly. What will the Secretary of State’s Government do to ensure ICBs deliver that money to where it is needed, and fast?
Wes Streeting
The Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee is right that investment is vital, but so is reform. We tasked ICBs with leading the development of the new neighbourhood health service. We are removing their responsibility for performance management of trusts in order to free up their focus, so that primary and community services have the attention that is desperately needed. In the coming weeks, we will be talking to the British Medical Association and the Royal College of General Practitioners about how we ensure the investment announced by the Chancellor leads to improved patient care and a reformed neighbourhood health service.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
Goff’s Oak, in my constituency of Broxbourne, has seen a lot of development. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that GP surgeries are delivered before hundreds of new homes are built?
Wes Streeting
Of course we need to deliver both new homes and GP surgeries, but the previous Conservative Government delivered neither. We have a housing crisis and an NHS crisis in this country; I would have thought Conservative Members might have shown some humility and responsibility for those facts before challenging a Government who have been in office for only four months.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
In Cornwall, only 25% of delayed discharges from hospital are because of lack of social care packages, with the remainder involving the significant degree of support needed from primary and community NHS services. The Royal College of Nursing has pointed out that there has been a 45% reduction in district nurses in the last decade, so what can the Government do to replace those essential roles at a primary care level?
Wes Streeting
The hon. Gentleman is right. Last weekend, I was up in Middlesbrough with local Members, where we saw a great example of hospital at home delivered by the community nursing team and the community health trust. We have to do a lot more in that space to ensure we provide care closer to peoples’ homes—indeed, often in the home—keeping them out of hospital and close to home, which is better for them and better value for the taxpayer.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The Royal College of General Practitioners has said the national insurance tax increase is expected to cost 2.2 million appointments. We know from answers to written questions that have been submitted that GPs, hospices and care homes are not exempt from the increases, and will not find out until April what, if any, mitigation will be put in place, so cutbacks are now being planned. Will the Secretary of State explain how his choice to tax GPs will increase GP access?
Wes Streeting
I can reassure health and care providers that we will be setting out allocations long before April next year. I recognise that people need to plan ahead of the new financial year. When deciding allocations, we take into account the range of pressures on different parts of the system. People have heard what I have said already about the need to shift out of hospital into primary and community services. The shadow Minister talks about choices; Conservative Members seem to welcome the £26 billion investment, but oppose the means of raising it. I am afraid they cannot do both. If they support the investment, they need to support the way in which we raise the money; if they do not support the way in which we raise the money, they need to spell out how they would raise it or be honest about the fact that if they were still in government, they would continue to preside over a mismanaged decline.
Dr Evans
One GP described the situation as “Schrödinger’s primary care”: GPs are seen as private contractors, so not exempt from the NI increases, but they are exempt from the small business relief because they are deemed to be “public”. Did the Department of Health team knowingly go along with the Treasury team’s plan to tax primary care without mitigation, leading to cuts? Or did it not understand or spot the complexity of what is going on, so mitigations have to be put in place now? Which is it?
Wes Streeting
I was terribly impolite; I should have welcomed the shadow Minister to his place in response to his first question.
Conservative Members seem to welcome the £26 billion investment and are happy to tell us how it should be spent, but they oppose the means of raising it. They cannot do all those things. They need to be honest with the country: either they support the investment in the NHS or they say they would cut it. Which is it?
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
The Darzi review made it absolutely clear that the NHS has been starved of capital. It is 15 years behind the private sector in its use of technology and we have fewer scanners per person than in comparable countries. That is why at the Budget the Chancellor announced an investment of £1.5 billion for capital funding, which will include investment for new artificial intelligence-enabled scanners, which will help tackle that backlog.
Tessa Munt
Residents in Somerset, and in North Somerset, my part of the world, recognise the £70 million that has been granted for new radiotherapy machines, as announced in the Budget, which will fund up to 30 machines. However, 70 machines will pass their sell-by date—their 10-year recommended life—by the end of this year. Will the Secretary of State and the Minister agree to meet Radiotherapy UK, which wants to highlight the huge cost benefits of having a more consistent, rolling programme of machine maintenance and replacement in the NHS 10-year plan?
Karin Smyth
The hon. Lady highlights the important matter of the lifetime of some of the machines, which we are finally addressing after the last 14 years of not addressing issues that include providing support to ensure that the machines work properly. Officials regularly meet Radiotherapy UK and the Department values its input. If there are specific incidents that the hon. Lady wishes to highlight, I am happy to respond to her.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that the NHS cannot continue to rely on outdated and obsolete equipment? It is ridiculous that GPs still use pagers and hospitals communicate with each other using fax machines. After 14 years of decline under the previous Government, will she commit to bringing our NHS into the 21st century?
Karin Smyth
My hon. Friend lays bare an important issue. We all know, and critically, staff know, that we are asking them to do the most incredible job with outdated technology. It is bad for staff and it is bad for patients. That is why moving from an analogue to a digital system is crucial. I was fortunate to visit colleagues at NHS England offices up in Leeds last week to see some of the fantastic work they are doing on the app. We will ensure that the NHS comes into the 21st century.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Andrew Gwynne)
Lord Darzi found that mental health waiting lists have surged, with more than 100,000 children waiting a year for their first appointment. That is why we will recruit 8,500 more mental health workers, provide access to mental health support in every school and roll out young futures hubs in every community. I am delighted to tell my hon. Friend that a Bill to modernise the Mental Health Act 1983 was introduced in the other place on 6 November. That was a promise that we made before the election—a promise that we kept.
Abtisam Mohamed
I welcome the Minister’s comments. My brother has very complex mental health needs. We as a family know at first hand the difficulties not only of accessing the services and of the long waiting times, but the challenge of support staff who are not constantly on a churn and the lack of community-funded support services. Our experience is no different to that of many other families. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we will make mental health services more accessible in communities, invest more in preventive services and fund more community-based provision?
Andrew Gwynne
I will be pleased to meet my hon. Friend. This Government think it is unacceptable that too many people are not receiving the care that they deserve, and we know that waits for mental health services are far too long. We are determined to change that with the measures I set out in my opening. The Government have also introduced NHS 111 for mental health so that people who are in crisis or are concerned about a family member or loved one can now call 111 and speak to a trained mental health professional.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
Facilities such as leisure centres and swimming pools—like the Sovereign Centre in Eastbourne where I learned to swim—are critical in supporting people’s mental health locally. Will the Minister support me in putting pressure on the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to expand the criteria of the towns fund to allow us to be able to spend it to invest in our leisure centres and sports and fitness facilities for local people?
Andrew Gwynne
I am grateful to the hon. Member for his question. We are a mission-led Government and, of course, tackling health inequalities is a job not just for the Department of Health and Social Care, but for all Government Departments. I will be very happy to raise the role that Ministers can play in improving mental health and wellbeing in my bilaterals with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
Fourteen years of Conservative neglect and incompetence have left huge swathes of the east of England as dental deserts. As part of our 10-year plan, we will be working with NHS England to assess the need for more dental trainees in areas such as the east of England where we know that many people are struggling to find an NHS dentist. I am aware of the University of East Anglia’s plans to open a dental school and I recently met MPs from the east of England, including the hon. Gentleman, to discuss that process. I encourage the UEA to continue with its bid for a new dental school.
Jerome Mayhew
The Minister well knows that there is a lack of dentists in the east of England, because there is no undergraduate training facility. The nearest place is either Birmingham or London. He has kindly mentioned the University of East Anglia, which is ready to go with a new building under construction. It has wide cross-party support, as he also knows from the meeting that he held recently, so when will he make the announcement?
Stephen Kinnock
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that follow-up question, but he will recall that, when we met, I and my officials made it clear to him that the UEA has not yet submitted its bid for a dental school. In that meeting, we said: “Please go back to the UEA and encourage them to submit that bid. When they do, we will look at it very carefully.”
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
Many of my constituents in Bedford are struggling to get an NHS dentist. I am also hearing from those who have tried to book an appointment only to discover that they have been removed from the NHS list without any warning. The Government have committed to improve the dental contract. In doing so, will they ensure that dentists can no longer drop people from their books—leaving them without any access to care—without prior notice?
Stephen Kinnock
My hon. Friend is right: we will reform the dental contract to rebuild dentistry in the long term and to increase access to NHS dental care, with a shift to focusing on prevention and the retention of NHS dentists. We continue to meet representatives from the British Dental Association and other representatives of the sector to discuss how we can best deliver our shared ambition to improve access for NHS dental patients.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
The leadership shown by the Chancellor has enabled her and the Government to fix the foundations of the public finances and fill the £22 billion black hole left by the previous Government. The decisions that she took meant that she was able to provide this Department with an extra £26 billion and a real-terms increase in core local government spending power by about 3.2%. That was the right decision for the right reasons in the national interest, and I am taking into consideration pressures on all parts of health and social care before making final allocations for the year ahead.
Wendy Chamberlain
In North East Fife, we have a particular issue with access to dental surgeries, especially with the recent closure of a surgery in Leven. Difficulties stem from recruitment from abroad as a result of visa changes and also simply from practices going private and coming out of the system. Obviously, the NHS is devolved in Scotland, but does the Secretary of State agree that putting staffing under further strain from increasing national insurance contributions will only make things worse for dentists? What in his conversations is he doing to ensure that dentists get the support that they need?
Wes Streeting
It is because the Chancellor took the decisions that she did in the Budget that my Department has received £26 billion to reform and improve health and social care. As I said before the general election, all parts of the United Kingdom suffered under the previous Conservative Government, which is why I am sure that Members from across Scotland will welcome the extra £1.5 billion this year and £3.4 billion next year—the biggest funding increase since devolution. I am sure that the SNP Government will welcome the increase, and they certainly have no excuses now for not acting.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Fourteen years of neglect have left hospices in a perilous condition. They are dealing with the rise in national insurance contributions, pay and other cost pressures, so I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State is putting in place measures to ensure that the funding recovers. Will he assure me that integrated care boards not only will pass on that recovery from the increased costs to hospices, but will help them catch up from the Tory years of neglect of the whole sector?
Wes Streeting
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. I am looking carefully at the pressures on hospices. In fact, only last Friday I visited Saint Francis hospice, which serves my constituents and people right across east London and west and south Essex. I saw at first hand the brilliant work it is doing on end of life care, but also the pressures it is under, and I am taking those pressures into account before deciding allocations for the year ahead.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I have tried repeatedly through written parliamentary questions to get an answer to this without success, so I will try asking it face to face: will the Secretary of State tell the House how much his Chancellor’s changes to national insurance contributions will cost the NHS?
Wes Streeting
The hon. Member talks about the employer national insurance contributions as if they were a burden on the NHS. It is thanks to the decisions taken by the Chancellor that we can invest £26 billion in health and social care. The Conservatives welcome the investment but oppose the means of raising it. Do they support the investment or not? They cannot duck the question; they have to answer.
Dr Johnson
The right hon. Member speaks of ducking questions, but it is worrying that three weeks after the Budget he still does not know, or will not tell the House, how much it will cost the NHS. Of course, changes to national insurance contributions affect not just the NHS directly, but suppliers, contractors, charities and other NHS care providers. I know you are a great supporter of your local air ambulance service, Mr Speaker, as I am of the Lincs & Notts air ambulance, which now needs to raise £70,000 extra just to fund this Government’s ill-advised changes to NICs. That £70,000 is a lot of cakes to sell, cars to wash and fun runs to complete, and that is just one example of pressures placed on lifesaving services right across the country. Will the Minister confirm that he will meet the Chancellor, explain the disastrous effects of the policy and insist that she reverses it?
Wes Streeting
Again, we have not yet announced how we are allocating the budget for the year ahead, but I remind the Conservatives that it is thanks to the choices the Chancellor made in her Budget that she is able to invest £26 billion in health and social care. Would they cut the £26 billion this Labour Government are investing in the NHS? If not, how would they pay for it? Welcome to opposition.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Hospices provide essential care for people at the most difficult point of their life, and they are usually only partially funded by the NHS. Hospice UK says that real-terms funding has fallen by £47 million since 2022, and hospices are struggling with this hike in national insurance contributions. Hope House children’s hospice in North Shropshire estimates that it will cost £178,000. Will the Secretary of State commit to either exempting hospices from the NICs increase or ensure that they are funded to cover those additional costs?
Wes Streeting
I am grateful to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for her question. I pay tribute to the children’s hospice in her constituency and, indeed, to Haven House children’s hospice, which serves my constituency.
Wes Streeting
And indeed your very own local hospice, Mr Speaker—I am sure that will appear on the record. I am particularly thankful for the advocacy we have received from Hospice UK and charities such as Together for Short Lives and others that are making their voices heard about the pressures on the system. I say to all hospices across the country that I am taking those pressures into account before deciding allocations for the year ahead, because I want to ensure that everyone, whatever their age, receives access to the timely and good-quality end of life care, palliative care and, of course, support for people with life-limiting conditions that all of them deserve.
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
I was proud that the Chancellor raised the salaries of hundreds of thousands of care workers in the Budget. Last month, the Government introduced legislation to deliver the first ever fair pay agreement for adult social care. While we were giving care workers a pay rise, the Leader of the Opposition was belittling their work as merely wiping bottoms. I gently say to the Conservative party that it is better to be wiping bottoms than talking out of them. This is an important issue, and I am dealing with ministerial colleagues on it.
Antonia Bance
According to last month’s Skills for Care report, most care workers are paid only a couple of pennies above the national minimum wage, while the sector cannot recruit and retain the people it needs. Will the Minister set out the timetable for establishing the fair pay agreement and adult social care negotiating body, and will he give the House an assurance that the care trade unions will be closely involved in its design?
Stephen Kinnock
We took quick action on the Employment Rights Bill, which includes the fair pay agreement, within 100 days of taking office. The consultation process on the negotiating body can begin only once the Bill has become an Act. We are engaging widely with stakeholders, and I assure my hon. Friend that unions will play a central role in that process, but let us remember that, through the national living wage, we are giving the lowest-paid full-time care workers a pay increase of £1,400 per year.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
One barrier to better staff salaries in the care sector is the additional employer national insurance contributions. Are the Minister and his colleagues considering an exemption for GP practices, charities and hospices from national insurance employer contributions?
Stephen Kinnock
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care pointed out, when we won the general election on 4 July, we inherited public finances in their worst state since the second world war. Through the Chancellor, we have taken responsible action to deal with those issues. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has also said that we are looking at the Budget in the round, and we will report on that in due course.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
Dan Aldridge (Weston-super-Mare) (Lab)
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
After 14 years of Tory neglect and incompetence, NHS dentistry in England has been left in a parlous state. Tooth decay is the most common reason why children aged five to nine are admitted to hospital, and 28% of the country—13 million people—have an unmet need for dentistry. Rescuing NHS dentistry will not happen overnight. We will expand the provision of urgent dental appointments across the country, and we are working with the sector to reform the dental contract in order to increase access and incentivise more NHS care.
Andrew Pakes
Yesterday, I heard from a disabled constituent who has spent over a year trying to find an NHS dentist, but without success. The only solution was to come to London for emergency treatment—that became a shockingly common story under the previous Government. As a first step, our integrated care board is putting 12 extra dentists into Peterborough and the surrounding towns to increase access. Will the Minister update the House on progress and on how we will further improve access to NHS dentistry?
Stephen Kinnock
I am very pleased to hear about what my hon. Friend’s ICB is doing. Working with the dental sector, we will deliver measures to improve access, targeting areas that need it most. Those measures include 700,000 additional urgent appointments and reform of the dental contract. The golden hello scheme, which incentivises dentists to work in underserved areas, is under way across the country, and dentists are also being offered a new patient premium to treat new patients.
Richard Baker
Does the Minister agree that it is unacceptable that more than 40,000 people in Fife are not registered with an NHS dentist? Will he share any learning from this Government’s action to increase access to dentistry with his colleagues in the Scottish Government, and urge them to fulfil their responsibilities so that people in my constituency can get the dental treatment that they need?
Stephen Kinnock
Responsibility for dental services in Scotland is of course a matter for the Scottish Government, but Governments across the UK work together to spread best practice and deliver on our common goals. The Scottish National party Government have an extra £1.5 billion this year, and £3.4 billion next year, through the Barnett formula. I hope that they will prioritise health, including dentistry, and undo some of the damage that they themselves have done to dentistry in Scotland.
Dan Aldridge
Some 37% of five-year-olds in Weston-super-Mare have enamel or dental decay—a figure well above the national average. The Better Health North Somerset team does amazing work to promote good oral health, but regular dentist check-ups are the oral health silver bullet. Will the Minister explain and outline the work he is doing to ensure that children in Weston and Worle and across the country get the dentistry service that they so desperately need?
Stephen Kinnock
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this vital issue. Prevention is of course always better than cure, so I am very proud of the fact that we are introducing supervised toothbrushing for three to five-year-olds in the most deprived communities and where there is the most unmet need. We are also working to sort out the NHS contracts so we can ensure that children get the care they need.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Having training locally at the University of East Anglia is important for my constituents, but in the short term, what steps is the Minister taking to speed up the process by which dentists get on the dental performers list, so that they can work in the NHS and not just privately? Is he also considering bringing in a provisional overseas registration scheme?
Stephen Kinnock
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. We are looking at provisional registration. As I also mentioned to his hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), we are very open to the idea of a dental training school at the University of East Anglia. We need to ensure that we push on the full spectrum of all these measures, because there is a crisis in NHS dentistry and we need to get on and fix it.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Toothless in Huntingdon in my constituency has written to me highlighting that 36% of patients under Cambridgeshire and Peterborough integrated care system no longer have an NHS dentist. It wants dental practices to provide access to those needing emergency treatment and a priority pathway for referrals from hospital departments such as cardiology and oncology. To that extent, what steps are being taken in Huntingdonshire to improve dental access across rural Cambridgeshire? How are the Government helping the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough integrated care system to address those issues?
Stephen Kinnock
Obviously the golden hello scheme for rural areas is very important. We are pushing forward on that, and I am pleased to say that hundreds have expressed interest in it and appointments are starting on that basis. The hon. Gentleman is right about training places. As I have already mentioned, we are very open to establishments and institutions coming forward with proposals for that. We are living in a country where the biggest cause of hospital admission for five to nine-year-olds is having their rotten teeth removed. That is a truly Dickensian state of affairs, and it needs to be fixed as a priority.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
Earlier this year, I was at an orthodontist’s practice that carries out work on behalf of the NHS. It said the issue is that when people are referred to it by their general dentist, it cannot go on to do the orthodontic work because their teeth are in too bad a state, so they are referred back to the dentist, but they cannot get in because of waiting lists and issues. When we look at reforming dental contracts, will we look at orthodontic ones too?
Stephen Kinnock
Absolutely. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, we have already met with the British Dental Association, and no issues are off the table. We absolutely need to look at orthodontists in the round as part of the contract negotiations, and we will certainly report back on that in due course.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
Before the election, we made it clear that investment and reform were needed in the NHS. The Chancellor announced the investment in the Budget, and since the general election we have confirmed the introduction of new league tables of NHS providers, with high-performing providers being given greater freedom over funding and flexibility. We are sending turnaround teams into struggling hospitals, giving the best performers greater freedoms over funding to modernise technology and equipment. We are creating a new college of executive and clinical leadership that will help to attract, keep and support the best NHS leaders. We are banning NHS trusts from using agencies to hire temporary entry-level workers in bands 2 and 3, such as healthcare assistants and domestic support workers. We are sending crack teams of top clinicians to areas with long waiting lists and high economic inactivity to improve the productivity of their clinics, and we are running a GP red tape challenge to slash bureaucracy. I could go on, because this is a Government who are walking the talk on NHS reform.
Tristan Osborne
I wish my right hon. Friend would go on. Irresponsible promises were made by the Opposition about capital investment in hospitals and elective surgeries across the country, including in the three Medway constituencies. Will my right hon. Friend meet me and my hon. Friends the Members for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards) and for Gillingham and Rainham (Naushabah Khan) to discuss the much-needed NHS investment in our area?
Wes Streeting
I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and other Members from across Medway to discuss the challenges that their part of the south-east faces, and to explain why our predecessors made promises they could not keep, with timetables that were completely fictitious and funding that runs out in March. I am really sorry for the way that communities were let down by the previous Government. This Government will not make the same mistakes.
Kevin Bonavia
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his earlier answer. Last week, I spoke to one of my constituents, Norman Phillips, who has been an unpaid carer for his wife Ros for the past 18 years. Like many unpaid carers across Stevenage, Norman has been put through absolute hell by the previous Tory Government’s complete inaction on social care for over 14 years. Does the Secretary of State agree that unpaid carers such as Norman play a vital role in providing care, and that unpaid carers need to be at the heart of any reforms to the social care system—reforms that are much needed?
Wes Streeting
I, too, pay tribute to Norman and to family carers like him, who play such a vital role supporting loved ones. Through the carer’s allowance uplift in the Budget, the Chancellor announced the largest increase to the weekly earnings limit since the introduction of carer’s allowance in 1976. As well as that investment, we will have a 10-year plan for social care, and I see the care workforce, care providers and family carers as all being important partners in building that plan.
Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s plans to reform the NHS, but may I caution against the idea that the answer is to fire more incompetent managers? The problem is not bad management: it is micromanagement from the centre that sees hospitals managed with more than 100 targets by NHS England, making ours one of the most micromanaged healthcare systems in the world. Will the Secretary of State’s plans allow managers more autonomy, helping them to innovate, save money and improve care for patients?
Wes Streeting
I am happy to confirm that it is my view that, when there are too many targets and everything is being measured, nothing ends up being measured. We need to give more freedom and autonomy to good leaders, including clinical leaders and managers in the NHS who are coming up with some of the best productivity gains in the system. That is why we have announced new support for, and investment in, the college of leadership for both clinical and executive leaders in the NHS. I would be delighted to meet the right hon. Gentleman to discuss those issues. He was a great Chair of the Health and Social Care Select Committee, but back in July, we saw a great example of how we can improve things by sacking bad managers.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
One of the lessons from the pandemic is the importance of NHS communications. Last week, I joined victims of the sodium valproate scandal to hand in a petition. They tried to download from the website the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency’s yellow card adverse drug reactions literature, but were unable to do so. Will the Secretary of State look at this as a matter of urgency? People need to be warned about the risks of taking certain drugs.
Wes Streeting
As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am a great champion of patient power, and a key part of giving patients more power and control over their healthcare is better access to information. That is why, as well as improvements to the NHS app—which will provide far easier interaction with the NHS for patients—I am working with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology to make sure all the information held by Government is more accessible for our citizens, particularly where that includes vital safety information and guidance, as the hon. Gentleman has mentioned.
Pamela Nash (Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
Thanks to the decisions that the Chancellor took in the Budget, we are able to provide an additional £26 billion to give the NHS the funding it needs. This will support the NHS in England, enabling it to deliver an extra 40,000 appointments a week to cut waiting lists. Of course, for my hon. Friend and her constituents, the Budget has given Scotland the biggest real-terms increase in funding through the Barnett formula since devolution began. I hope the Scottish Government will use that investment to deliver improved services for the Scottish people.
Pamela Nash
The Labour party is the party of the NHS, and the significant additional investment announced in the recent Budget has reaffirmed that. The Secretary of State has made it very clear in this question session that the benefits of that additional funding must be felt across the UK. Will he join me in urging the Scottish Government to ensure that that funding reaches the frontline and creates the badly needed additional appointments in GP, dental and hospital services that my constituents and people across Scotland badly need?
Wes Streeting
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. It is thanks to the people of Scotland sending 37 Labour Members of Parliament here at the last election—not only have they shown that they value the NHS and are demanding change, but they voted for change—that we are now delivering that change through the Budget. I say to Scottish Government Ministers that, as they know, I said before the election that all roads lead to Westminster and that we all suffered under the Conservative Government, but this year that road is carrying an extra £1.5 billion to the Scottish Government and next year it will carry an extra £3.4 billion to the Scottish Government, so they have no excuse not to act.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
Approximately 220,000 people currently reside in the Solihull borough, and if Government planning reforms go through, the number will increase significantly. My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) and I have written to the Health Secretary about the need for infrastructure and A&E services at Solihull hospital. Will he agree to meet us to see how we can make this Budget work for the people of Solihull?
Wes Streeting
I know, not least because of the mismanagement of the NHS during the last 14 years, that communities right across the country, including the hon. Gentleman’s constituents in Solihull, are struggling with poor services and crumbling estates. We would be happy to receive representations from him, but he has to level with his constituents. If he wants money to be spent in his community, he must support the investment and be honest about the fact that he supports the means of raising it. If he does not support the means of raising it, he should tell us where that investment would come from.
Mr Speaker
We have been very slow to get to topicals, so let us see if we can speed it up. Dan Tomlinson will set a good example.
Dan Tomlinson (Chipping Barnet) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
This weekend, we launched the first in-person consultation as part of change.nhs.uk, the biggest national conversation about the future of the NHS we have ever seen. We know that the Leader of the Opposition wants a conversation about whether the NHS is free at the point of use, and I can tell her, from that first conversation, that no one agreed with her.
Dan Tomlinson
Earlier this month, I visited Barnet hospital to see the way in which it is changing the emergency care department so that more patients can be seen more quickly, freeing up capacity in accident and emergency. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that trusts such as the Royal Free and others across the country get the support they need, through investment and reform, to improve patient care?
Wes Streeting
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. The Royal Free hospital saved my life when I went through kidney cancer, so it holds a special place in my heart. Thanks to the Chancellor’s decision and the investment she put into the NHS at the Budget, and the reform my Department is delivering, we will deliver the change and improvement that his constituents and mine, and the rest of the country, deserve.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
The Secretary of State knows that every year, irrespective of which party is in government, winter is challenging for the NHS. Possibly, it will be all the more so this year with the potential impact on older people’s health of the loss of the winter fuel allowance by many. What winter preparedness steps has he taken, like previous Governments, to increase A&E capacity and to increase the number of beds this winter, and can he say by how many?
Wes Streeting
It is thanks to this Government and the action we have taken that, for the first time in three years, we go into winter without the spectre of national strikes looming over the NHS, and with NHS staff on the frontline not the picket line. It is thanks to the priority this Government have given to prevention that we have already delivered almost 15 million covid-19 and flu vaccinations, alongside the new RSV—respiratory syncytial virus—vaccination to help vulnerable groups for the first time. The shadow Secretary of State mentions the winter fuel allowance. This Government are protecting support for the poorest pensioners to protect them not just this winter, but every winter, and over the coming years the value of the pension will of course rise with the cost of living.
Edward Argar
I am grateful for that response but, just as my hon. Friends have highlighted in respect of the damaging impact of increases in employer national insurance contributions on GPs, hospices and care providers, I fear it was another example of the Government simply not answering the question and not having a plan yet. Either the Government have not done their homework and, as with the impact of NICs increases, they have not thought this through and do not know, or worse, they do not care—which is it?
Wes Streeting
This Government are prepared for winter and we are already standing up the operational response to winter pressures. On funding, the right hon. Gentleman was in government just before the general election. Is he saying that his Government did not provide enough funding for the NHS this winter? If not, why not? If he does accept that it is enough money, he will surely welcome the extra investment that the Chancellor is putting into the NHS from next year.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
The Department has been working with suppliers of medicines used to treat ADHD to seek commitments from them to address the issues, expedite deliveries and boost supplies. We are working with NHS England to approve the modelling for industry and communications regarding ADHD medicine supply issues. We will continue to engage with industry to address the remaining issues as quickly as possible.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
The Conservatives’ disastrous legacy on dentistry means that more than 4.4 million children have not seen a dentist in the past year. In Shropshire, dentists continue to hand back their contracts, including one in Wem in recent weeks. Will the Minister outline his plan to reverse that terrible decline and ensure that the issue is addressed in rural areas where there are dental deserts?
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
There will be 700,000 extra urgent appointments, golden hellos, and a prevention and supervised toothbrushing scheme for three to five-year-olds.
Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)
Wes Streeting
We all know that general practice is under enormous pressure, and that will be a big part of this Government’s agenda. I reassure my hon. Friend that our view is that there should be patient choice, patient control and different courses for different horses. I value online and over-the-phone appointments, but they will not be right for everyone on every occasion. Patients should have a voice and a say.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
Wes Streeting
I would say to GPs who are thinking about staffing for the next financial year that they should hold tight and wait for funding allocations shortly, so that they can make informed decisions about staffing and care for patients.
Damien Egan (Bristol North East) (Lab)
Stephen Kinnock
We have pledged to bring back the family doctor, and we have already invested an additional £82 million in the additional roles reimbursement scheme to recruit 1,000 more newly qualified GPs in 2024-25. We are also committed to fixing the front door of the NHS, for example through £100 million of capital funding that was announced in the Budget. We are fully aware of the pressures, and we will set out further details on funding allocations for next year in due course.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
Wes Streeting
I might resist the invitation to give a specific date today, but the hon. Gentleman makes a valuable point about the ease of use of the NHS app, and I will write to him further on that point.
Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Andrew Gwynne)
The UK rare diseases framework aims to improve the lives of people living with all rare diseases. I am more than prepared to meet my hon. Friend to look at the adequacy of support available to people with Usher syndrome.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Wes Streeting
We have not yet announced allocations for general practice for the year ahead, and we are taking into account all the pressures that general practice is under.
Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)
Andrew Gwynne
We will confirm the 2025-26 local authority public health grant allocations in due course. Local government plays a critical role in delivering the Government’s health mission and driving action on the prevention of ill health. We are committed to working in partnership with local government to tackle the wider determinants of ill health.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
Wes Streeting
I am in no doubt about the state that general practice was left in by our Conservative predecessors. That is why, in making decisions about funding allocations for the year ahead, we are taking into account all the pressures that general practice is under, as we clean up the mess left by the Conservatives.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
In summer 2023, I spoke to Rachel, who suffers from endometriosis. She was told that she might have to wait 18 months for urgent surgery. She is still waiting. In fact, she has had the menopause induced to help tackle her symptoms. Can the Minister tell me what the Government are doing to improve the diagnosis and treatment of women, including Rachel, who have had to wait far too long?
Karin Smyth
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point on behalf of Rachel and many other women suffering from this disease. We are looking urgently at gynaecological waiting lists. They are far too high, including for endometriosis. I welcome the new National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines. We will be looking at women’s health hubs and how they work, and future guidelines will help women to get a diagnosis more quickly and help with situations like Rachel’s.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Respiratory health conditions are one of the main drivers of NHS winter pressures, yet only 32% of asthma sufferers in Bath and across the country can access the most basic level of care. What will the Government do to improve access to basic levels of care for the 68% of asthma sufferers who are currently missing out?
Andrew Gwynne
NICE is reviewing its guidelines for the diagnosis, monitoring and management of chronic asthma, and an updated version is due to be published in late November 2024. I am happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss it further.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
Women with spinal cord injuries face significant challenges in accessing core health services, including breast screening, cervical screening and gynaecological care. Research shows that women with disabilities, including spinal cord issues, are 30% less likely to attend routine breast screening appointments, in significant part due to the physical inaccessibility of the screening equipment. Will the Minister meet me and representatives of the all-party parliamentary group on spinal cord injury to discuss these unacceptable disparities and ensure that women receive the equitable and accessible care they deserve?
Karin Smyth
My hon. Friend highlights a shocking example of inaccessibility in these important services. I will make sure that the Department responds to him and that either me or a ministerial colleague meets him.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
Ludlow community hospital in my constituency provides a great service for the local community, but it is restricted by its location and its building. There is a business model that would be more cost-effective in the long term that involves moving the facility to the eco park. Will the Secretary of State meet me, healthcare stakeholders and the league of friends in Ludlow to take that forward?
Wes Streeting
The hon. Member is welcome to make representations to the Department for the capital investment that he is calling for, but he should welcome the means of providing it, which was the Chancellor’s decision in the Budget.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
I welcome Ministers’ leadership in attacking the record waiting times inherited from the Tories. Will they in turn recognise Guy’s and St Thomas’ efforts to reduce delays, especially in the ear, nose and throat and paediatric spinal surgery teams? Will the Secretary of State outline measures to protect our NHS from cyber-attacks, which was another issue neglected by the last Government but is affecting patients in Southwark?
Wes Streeting
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the question and pay tribute to the work being done by Guy’s and St Thomas’. He is right to raise cyber-security. That is why the capital investment announced by the Chancellor is welcome and necessary, and joint working across Government, including with security colleagues and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, is vital to keep patients’ data and information safe and to keep critical systems running.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
When the Secretary of State reviews GP funding, will he also consider the burden that sits on GP practices when they have to hold the lease for their surgeries and what role integrated care boards could have in holding that risk, which is stopping the recruitment of GPs to join practices as partners?
Stephen Kinnock
NHS England currently accepts ICBs holding leases only as a last resort or by exception due to the significant capital required. While we know that is not the most effective use of ICB resources, it is an important safeguard. We are committed to fixing the front door of the NHS by supporting GPs and ICBs through, for example, the £100 million of capital funding announced at the Budget for GP estate upgrades.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
My constituent Ollie Horobin’s life has been completely transformed after contracting covid, leaving him wheelchair-bound with a feeding tube and battling debilitating symptoms every single day. His story is a stark reminder of the devastating impact that long covid can have. Will the Minister commit to meeting Ollie and me to hear about his experience at first hand, and prioritise further research into the causes, treatments and long-term impacts of extreme long covid?
Andrew Gwynne
As somebody who still suffers from long covid, I know how debilitating and complex it can be, and I am committed to improving support for people affected by it. There are now more than 100 long covid services across England, and £57 million is being invested in long covid research. I recently co-chaired a roundtable on strategies to stimulate further research into treatments. I am more than happy to meet my hon. Friend and Ollie for further discussion.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
Opt-out testing for HIV at A&E has been a great success since it was announced last year, particularly in identifying those who were not aware they had the disease and among difficult-to-reach communities. Can the Health Secretary confirm whether the programme will continue?
Wes Streeting
Opt-out HIV testing has been a great success so far. Of course, we will make further announcements on its future in due course. I would like to say, as a former member of the HIV commission that made the representations to the previous Government, that he has me at a real advantage—or disadvantage, depending on the side of the spending fence. I very much welcomed the approach taken by the previous Government, which this Government plan to continue.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State explain what plans he has—if any—to limit the scope of practice of anaesthetic associates and physician associates, about whom there has been such publicity lately?
Wes Streeting
Indeed there has. Medical associate roles can and do play a valuable role in freeing up other clinicians’ time to do the things that only they can do, but there are legitimate concerns within the professions about scope of practice, doctor substitution and transparency for patients. We need to grip that and address it. We will have a further announcement to make about that shortly.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
South Green surgery in my constituency has been given notice by its landlord that it has to move by the end of March next year. Will the Secretary of State meet me to see what we can do to ensure that other facilities can be provided if available, or to do the best for those local patients?
Wes Streeting
That would be a matter for the right hon. Gentleman’s ICB. I know that he is new to the area, so I am happy to make some introductions.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
My constituent Craig Eskrett was diagnosed with motor neurone disease 12 months ago. He says that the services are there in the local NHS trust, but there is a distinct lack of co-ordination. Will the Minister meet me to discuss what improvements can be made to co-ordinate those services for sufferers of MND?
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend raises a real issue about how we join up the whole of the patient journey. Once diagnosed, patients need appropriate treatment and wraparound care. I am more than happy to meet him and his constituent.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
At the weekend in Devon, I met a psychiatric nurse who previously worked in London and has been recruited to the south-west. She does not have a start date, and is still subject to routine checks after waiting months. Can the Secretary of State expedite these routine checks, given waiting lists for mental health?
Wes Streeting
Absolutely. That is a good example of why investment needs to be matched with reform to speed things up, improve productivity and get staff to the frontline, where they want to be.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
Last week, the chief executive of Forget Me Not children’s hospice visited Parliament with local dad Steve, whose son is supported by the hospice. The hospice provides vital services to families such as Steve’s, but its services are at risk in the longer term without sustainable funding, including the NHS England children’s hospice grant. Can the Health Secretary take urgent steps to improve funding for hospices?
Wes Streeting
I am grateful for the steps that my hon. Friend is taking to make representations on behalf of her local children’s hospice, both on the Floor of the House and outside the Chamber. I recognise the pressure she describes. We are determined to help hospices to overcome them.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Can the Secretary of State confirm what assessment has been made of the number of women waiting for endometriosis surgery across the United Kingdom? What has been done to reduce waiting lists?
Wes Streeting
As my hon. Friend the Minister for Secondary Care said, the wait for women with common conditions such as endometriosis is far too long. That is why we are taking steps to cut waiting times and stop the merry-go-round of repeat visits to the same clinician to get the same answer, until someone finally listens to what a woman has to say.
Point of Order
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance about how this House can obtain answers from the Government, particularly the Department of Health and Social Care. On Budget day I tabled a question asking what the changes to national insurance contributions would cost the NHS both directly and indirectly. On 4 November I got a holding answer, and on 11 November I was given an answer that did not answer the question. On 8 November I tabled a question to break it down into small pieces. Last night I received yet another holding answer. We have had very little clarity from the Minister this morning. Are we truly supposed to believe that, three weeks after their own Budget, which the Government took almost four months to prepare, they do not know or cannot quantify its effects? [Interruption.] Surely, it is a discourtesy not to provide the House with an answer to a written question, and incompetent not to know the answers—
Mr Speaker
Order. First of all, a point of order is meant to be short. And I remind Members who are joining in that I do not need any help.
Dr Johnson
Could you please advise me, Mr Speaker, on how to get to the truth, so that this House and my constituents can understand the magnitude of the effect of these national insurance contribution changes on the NHS?
Mr Speaker
All hon. Members on all sides of the House are entitled to answers. I am sure that Government Members have heard what has been said about the failure to answer within time, and I am sure that it will be rectified. We will leave the point of order at that.
Jailing of Hong Kong Pro-democracy Activists
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government’s response to the jailing of pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong.
The Minister for Development (Anneliese Dodds)
I thank the right hon. Member for her question on this important matter, and I welcome her to her new role. It is a real pleasure to be across the Chamber from her this morning.
I am glad to reassure the right hon. Lady that my colleague the Minister for the Indo-Pacific, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West), has issued a statement on the verdict. She makes clear that China’s imposition of the national security law in Hong Kong has eroded the rights and freedoms of Hongkongers. She makes clear that the sentencing decision was a clear demonstration of the Hong Kong authority’s use of the NSL to criminalise political dissent. As she says, the so-called NSL45 were guilty only of exercising their rights as guaranteed under the international covenant on civil and political rights and basic law, and of exercising their right to freedom of speech, assembly and political participation. China’s imposition of the NSL in Hong Kong has eroded the rights and freedoms of Hongkongers, and the UK Government will always stand up for the people of Hong Kong.
Priti Patel
The jailing of 45 pro-democracy campaigners in Hong Kong under the draconian national security law is appalling. It is a serious blow to freedoms in Hong Kong. The harsh application of this disturbing law to suppress people in Hong Kong cannot go unanswered. In government, my party consistently championed for that law to be repealed, and we gave safe routes for British nationals overseas in need of protection. I am proud to have established that scheme as the then Home Secretary. We also published reports twice a year on the situation in Hong Kong to raise our grave concerns about the erosion of freedoms with the Chinese authorities and at the United Nations.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister met President Xi and said he wanted a respectful relationship where both countries tried to avoid surprises. He even confirmed that he had called in the application for the new Chinese embassy. But less than 24 hours later, the Sino-British declaration has been trampled on yet again, with the sentencing of 45 pro-democracy campaigners. Where does that leave the Government’s reset with Beijing? Did the Prime Minister actually secure any commitments on Hong Kong yesterday? Will the Prime Minister now be holding further conversations with President Xi to convey his concerns about this appalling jailing? Why did the Minister for the Indo-Pacific this morning not call, in her statement, for the repeal of the national security law?
The official No. 10 read-out of the Prime Minister’s meeting with President Xi failed to mention Jimmy Lai’s case. We understand the Prime Minister did raise concerns, but that is not enough. Did he call for Jimmy Lai to be released and for an end to his politically motivated trial? A yes or no answer is needed, because there is an important distinction between the two.
The UK has an historic and moral commitment to the people of Hong Kong. We must stand up for their rights under the international covenant on civil and political rights and basic law. The Government must provide the mettle needed to handle the relationship with China, to stand up for the freedoms and democracy of Hong Kong, and to raise their game.
Anneliese Dodds
The Government absolutely agree about the historic relationship between the UK and Hong Kong and the current incredibly strong and important relationship. In opposition, my party rightly supported the measures for British nationals overseas. We have been crystal clear in our view on yesterday’s sentencing. I repeat that it was a clear demonstration of the Hong Kong authority’s use of the NSL to criminalise political dissent.
Respectfully, I have to say to the right hon. Lady that when she seeks to lecture the new Government on our approach to China she should be aware of what we saw over the past 14 years: a wild oscillation in policy towards China that went from the golden era period right through, finally, to a complete lack of engagement that was out of step with our partners, including the US, France and Germany, which were having those conversations. The new Government have been determined to have those conversations.
The right hon. Lady referred to the Prime Minister’s meeting, where he made very clear his concerns about human rights issues. He did raise Jimmy Lai’s case. That is very clear from the footage of that meeting. If she has not seen it, I respectfully encourage her to look at it. We will continue to raise human rights issues as part of our consistent approach to China.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
The verdicts and sentences of the 45 are, like the 2020 national security law itself and the treatment of Jimmy Lai, clear violations of the Sino-British joint declaration on Hong Kong. Following the meeting between President Xi and the Prime Minister, will my right hon. Friend please share with the House what steps the Government plan to take to ensure that the joint declaration is adhered to?
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the work that she is undertaking on this matter through her leadership of the Select Committee.
The UK Government have been very clear about these issues. The right hon. Lady rightly mentioned the case of the British national Jimmy Lai, whose trial will resume tomorrow and whose case is a priority for the UK Government. The Foreign Secretary raised it during his first meeting with China’s Foreign Minister, Wang Yi, at the summit of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations on 26 July, and, as I have said, the Prime Minister also raised it during his engagement a few days ago. We will continue to call on the Hong Kong authorities to end their politically motivated prosecution and release Jimmy Lai immediately, and we will continue to press for consular access and, indeed, exert pressure in relation to the other human rights issues that are of such concern to everyone in the House.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
We are deeply concerned by the sentencing of the NSL45. Beijing’s assault on fundamental liberties in Hong Kong—liberties that it is obliged to preserve under the joint declaration—continues. We have a moral duty to stand with Hongkongers, not least Jimmy Lai. I met his son Sebastian last week. His father has been held for in solitary confinement for more than four years, despite a serious health condition. Does the Minister understand that meeting Chinese Ministers, as the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have in the last month, without setting out any consequences gives China the green light to continue? We saw under the Conservatives that this passive approach yielded no results, so does the Minister agree that there should be no further ministerial meetings until these human rights abuses are addressed, and specifically, does she agree that there should be no visit by the Chancellor to Beijing until Jimmy Lai is released?
Anneliese Dodds
The Foreign Secretary has also met the family of Jimmy Lai and, like all of us on this side of the House, is deeply concerned about his situation. Jimmy Lai is, of course, 76 years old, and there are deep concerns about his welfare. The UK is absolutely clear about the fact that he must be released immediately. I have to say, however, that I do not agree in any way with the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of the current UK Government’s approach. During the latter years of the previous Government we saw what was arguably a passive approach and a lack of engagement, with no meetings and visits, and that was not the right approach to take. It followed the golden era when there was a very different approach—an approach, some would say, that was not clear-eyed. The current Government are instead being consistent. We are engaging where it is necessary to challenge as well as engaging where it is necessary to compete and, indeed, to co-operate. That is the right approach when it comes to these matters of human rights, as well as our relationship with China more broadly.
Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Hong Kong, I thank Ministers for their efforts and recognise the efforts of the Prime Minister. However, after nearly four years in solitary confinement for Jimmy Lai and with a trial beginning in a court that we know will only ever find him guilty, at what point does the delicate diplomacy have to give way to something more like a demand for his freedom?
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his recognition of that engagement. As I mentioned a few moments ago, the UK Government are deeply concerned about Jimmy Lai’s situation, but we have been crystal clear—and that includes the clarity provided by the Prime Minister, which, in respect of this issue as well as others, was very much in evidence during his meeting at the G20.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I have sat watching both Governments on this one, and I do not think that any Government have the right to accuse the party that was formerly in power and talk about what it got wrong, because that Government got it all wrong and this one are getting it all wrong as well.
The key point is this. The Minister has referred to all those who have been incarcerated but particularly to Jimmy Lai, who is in solitary confinement. Yesterday, when the Prime Minister rightly started to raise the issue of Jimmy Lai and human rights, all the journalists were cleared out of the room straightaway because the Chinese Government did not want them to hear what he was saying. Just before that meeting, President Xi said that China would “brook no interference” when it came to democracy and human rights, and that is one of his four red lines. I put this question simply to the Minister: does she not think that without some kind of sanction, China will go on and on? America has sanctioned many senior officials in Hong Kong for these abuses, and we have sanctioned none. Does she not think it is time for us to say, “We will sanction someone if you do not stop”?
Anneliese Dodds
I believe it is appropriate to make relative judgments so that we can assess the right way forward for the UK’s relationship with China. That is why the UK Government are conducting an audit of our relationship with China so that we can have a consistent approach. We believe that is incredibly important, so I am afraid that I respectfully do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I had a ringside seat for some of the actions of the previous Government during the golden era, and for what was suggested then around trade protections. We need to move forward with a more clear-eyed approach, and the UK Government could not have been clearer on these matters of human rights, including the Prime Minister himself, as the right hon. Gentleman just acknowledged. On sanctions, he will understand, of course, that I will not speculate on future designations, as to do so could reduce their impact, but I can reassure him that the FCDO continues to keep potential sanctions designations under close review.
Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)
Over 5,000 Hong Kong families have settled in Reading over the past few years, including in my constituency, and I have stood alongside Hong Kong activists in peaceful demonstrations here in the UK. The onerous sentencing of pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong will give people a broad reason to fear transnational repression and continued harassment here in the UK. Can the Minister assure us that she will work to upkeep not only the BNO visa programme and the path to citizenship, but the civil liberties of Hongkongers here in the UK who may be at risk of transnational repression?
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue. I have read her fascinating book, which covers human rights in China, and she is clearly an expert on these matters, as well as having constituency experience. The UK Government’s view is that any form of harassment is unacceptable and that political freedoms must be retained, including in the UK and, above all, for BNOs. We will continue to ensure that that is the case.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
In 2023 the Hong Kong police issued arrest warrants for eight overseas activists under the national security law. What are Ministers doing to challenge the extraterritorial reach of the national security law?
Anneliese Dodds
We were very clear, as were the previous Government, at the time of the passage of that law. We believe it is incredibly important that people in Hong Kong and beyond are able to exercise political rights and, indeed, to participate politically. All that the group of individuals who have just been sentenced were doing was exercising their right to political participation. We will resolutely defend that right, including in the UK and elsewhere.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)
I look forward to the Minister’s report on the audit of the relationship with China and of the continuum of actions, from sanctions onwards, that the Government are looking at. In the meantime, may I ask the Minister to raise with the Chinese Government the case of Carol Ng Man-yee, who is a colleague of mine in Unite and a Labour party member? She was involved in organising for Unite in the disputes with British Airways over the years, and she became president of the Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions. She stood in the primaries and lost, but then took no further action. She was sentenced to four years and five months. May I ask the Government to raise her case, and particularly the need for her to have visits from her family and her trade union rep, so that we can impress upon the Chinese Government that, in addition to our lobbying for her release, we need to ensure that there is humanitarian treatment of such prisoners?
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his support for the Government’s ongoing audit of our relationship with China, and for the information that he has provided about one of the individuals who has been sentenced in China. I am aware that an Australian citizen is among those who have been sentenced, but I was not aware of the information provided by my right hon. Friend about his colleague who has been sentenced for her work in the UK. It is very helpful to be aware of that, and I would be grateful if he sent me more information about this matter.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
Today I brought together 118 parliamentarians from 24 countries and the EU to call for the Chinese Communist party to immediately release Jimmy Lai. It is extraordinary for the Prime Minister to meet Xi Jinping in the same week that Jimmy’s sham trial resumes, yet the Prime Minister used just 13 words in support of Jimmy’s cause in his meeting with Xi—and no, he did not call for Jimmy’s release; he just mentioned his poor health. What we learned was that the Government have called in plans for a new Chinese Communist party mega-embassy as a favour to Xi, and at his request. Why?
Anneliese Dodds
I am sure that the hon. Lady, with her considerable experience, will be well aware of the fact that the Prime Minister was at the G20 leaders’ summit, which every member of the G20 attended. I am sure that she will be aware of how these meetings work. On the embassy to which she refers, it is standard for applications to be called in if they affect other Governments. Calling in the application should not be taken as any indication of our views on the merits of the scheme. As this case will be determined by Ministers in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, it would not be appropriate for me to comment further.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
I was pleased to sign the letter from parliamentarians of 24 countries that the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) just mentioned, and I thank the Minister for confirming that a meeting took place with Sebastien and the Foreign Secretary. Can the Minister outline how we will work with other countries in a concerted, co-ordinated effort? As we have heard, many of them have individuals in arbitrary detention in Hong Kong. How can we co-ordinate across those countries to get the release of activists such as Jimmy Lai?
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the need for co-ordination. Obviously, there has been co-ordination among parliamentarians, which has been very positive to see, and the UK Government will continue to co-operate with others on these issues. We have also worked with other countries’ Governments on cases involving dual nationals.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) for organising a powerful letter, and I was glad to be able to put my name on it. Given the concessions that were given to China by the Prime Minister and the particular responsibility that we have to Hong Kong, what did the Prime Minister get out of the meeting? Can the Minister tell us the read-out from the Prime Minister, and when will she publish her audit? Following the question from the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), will the audit include the option of sanctions?
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the hon. Member for his question. The read-out can be easily accessed. I will not read out all of it, but I will underline the fact that it makes it very clear that the Prime Minister said that he wanted to engage “honestly and frankly” on those areas where we have different perspectives, including Hong Kong, human rights and Russia’s war in Ukraine. That is taken directly from the read-out of the meeting. As I said, there is also footage of it, which the hon. Gentleman can easily access. On sanctions, I refer him to my previous response.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
So long as we are limited to saying how cross we all are about our different perspectives and the Minister keeps sanctions under review, China will take not a blind bit of notice, will it?
Anneliese Dodds
The right hon. Gentleman will be aware, I hope, that going into detail about sanctions in advance is extremely problematic for the entire sanctions system—it would reduce its effectiveness—which is why Governments of all complexions do not comment on future designations.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
This is a bad day for human rights, but for the Hongkongers living in my constituency it is a frightening day. Beyond the broad reassurances that the Minister has already given, what specific action will the Government take to protect Hongkongers living in the UK from state surveillance?
Anneliese Dodds
I recognise the concern that will be caused by this matter, as articulated by my hon. Friend the Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang). The UK Government are absolutely resolute in our determination to ensure that BNOs are able to live their lives freely, and without prejudice or fear, in our country. We remain absolutely committed to upholding their human rights, and we will continue to do so. If there are specific instances of concern, I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman informed me of them.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)
My constituent and friend, Sir Henry Keswick, who died earlier this month, was for many years the chairman of Jardine Matheson. He was a great believer in the opportunity for good relations between this country and China. There is an awful inevitability in the fact that, the day after the Prime Minister met the Chinese President and declared a new era of positive relations, the Sino-British declaration was comprehensively breached. Does the pragmatic relationship that the Prime Minister thinks he can have with China include getting assurances that the national security law will not jeopardise the interests and welfare of British businesses and employees working in Hong Kong?
Anneliese Dodds
I would like to communicate my regret at the passing of the hon. Gentleman’s constituent, who seems to have had great expertise and engagement on these issues. The Prime Minister was very clear that while the UK will seek to co-operate with China on areas of mutual interest, we will also compete, and indeed challenge, where we must. That was explicit in his message, as it has been from day one of the new Government. That is why we are conducting the audit—to ensure consistency towards China on all issues across Government.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
It is clear that any Hongkonger who crosses the Chinese Communist party faces grave risks. Will the Government update the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office guidelines on overseas business risks to include more detailed information on the risk posed to businesses by the Hong Kong national security laws, particularly article 23?
Anneliese Dodds
My Department keeps all forms of guidance continuously under review. That includes guidance for business people and, of course, for travellers. That is the case for Hong Kong, as for every other location where Brits might be operating. In those determinations, we will ensure that we look at a whole range of factors covering personal safety and legal risk.
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement. Like other speakers in this Chamber, I have a large Hong Kong community in my constituency, in Colindale, and that community is very worried about transnational repression. Will the Minister meet me and other MPs to discuss this issue?
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the concerns of his constituents. Such concerns have indeed been articulated by others in this Chamber. Either the Minister for the Indo-Pacific, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West), or I would be delighted to meet him to discuss this.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
Last month, the Foreign Secretary told the House that he had made the release of Jimmy Lai his priority, yet the official Downing Street read-out of the Prime Minister’s meeting with President Xi just says that they discussed “different perspectives” on human rights, and does not even mention Jimmy Lai by name. How can the release of Jimmy Lai be a Government priority if, on the eve of his show trial, the Prime Minister’s official read-out cannot even mention his name, after he met the man responsible for his arbitrary detention?
Anneliese Dodds
I would respectfully refer the hon. Gentleman to the footage, which is widely available and which makes the point extremely clear.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I am sure that the right hon. Lady will gather the frustration that we all have, on both sides of the House, about what is going on; she probably shares it. What steps can she take with the Chinese Government to address what can only be seen as political lawfare, given that our Prime Minister seems to have some access to the Chinese President? Does the Minister agree that we cannot sit back while 47 people are found guilty of nothing more than proposing candidates for a democratic election, and that we are watching the death of any pretence of democracy in Hong Kong?
Anneliese Dodds
The UK Government are not sitting back. We are standing up, and we are being very clear indeed about our position. I mentioned earlier the clarity with which the Minister for the Indo-Pacific has stated the UK Government’s position. That follows engagement on these questions from my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who is now beside me on the Front Bench, and of course from the Prime Minister. It is incredibly important that we have a Government who raise these matters directly with the Chinese Government. It is arguable that we had a bit of a vacuum in that respect over the few months prior to the election, but that is something we were determined to rectify.
Ukraine: 1,000 Days
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on Ukraine. It has been 1,000 days since Russia’s full-scale invasion stunned the world—1,000 days in which Ukrainian bravery has inspired the world, and 1,000 days whose horror and bloodshed has dismayed the world. This war matters greatly for Britain and the global order, but first and foremost we must reflect on what it means for Ukrainians. Today, children mourn lost parents, parents mourn lost children, families live with constant fear, and individuals bear scars that will never truly heal, so I say to His Excellency the Ukrainian ambassador in London and to the Ukrainian people: today, as on every one of the last 1,000 days, you are in our thoughts and prayers.
Of course, Ukrainians need not just words but actions, and this Government have not wavered. We have stepped up support to Ukraine, we have ramped up the pressure on Russia, and we have made it clear to the world just what is at stake. In our first week in office, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister confirmed that we would provide £3 billion a year in military aid this year, next year and every year that it is needed. That includes what my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary has announced today. There is more funding for Ukraine’s navy and for drones, and the extension of Operation Interflex, which has trained more than 50,000 Ukrainian troops to date.
I have also increased non-military support. This financial year, we will give at least £250 million in bilateral assistance, including for work to protect the Ukrainian power grid, which just this weekend suffered another Russian onslaught. Crucially, our bilateral support, both military and non-military, will be greater this financial year than in any previous financial year since the war began. Let me pay tribute to the Opposition for their leadership on these issues when they were in office, because the truth is that this House has been able to speak on Ukraine with one voice, and long may that continue.
That is not all that we have done. We have also been finding creative ways to bolster the Ukrainian economy further. We have brought the UK-Ukraine digital trade deal into force, so that Ukraine benefits from cheaper and quicker trade. UK Export Finance has provided over £500 million in loan guarantees, including for Ukraine’s own defence industry. British International Investment is working with the Ukrainian Bank of Reconstruction and Development to support Ukrainian trade. By the end of this year, we will have deployed a further $484 million in World Bank loan guarantees. Tomorrow, this House will debate a Bill confirming a new £2.26 billion loan to Ukraine as part of a G7 package of $50 billion. This extraordinary revenue acceleration scheme will sustain Ukraine in the fight, and is all paid for by the profits from frozen Russian assets.
I have made it my personal mission to do all that I can to constrain the Kremlin. Since July, we have sanctioned almost 40 vessels in Putin’s shadow fleet of oil tankers, barring them from our ports and denying them access to our maritime services. We have sanctioned firms that supply Russia’s military industrial complex, including Chinese firms sending critical components for drones. We have sanctioned cyber-criminals from the aptly named Evil Corp, Russian troops who have used chemical weapons on the battlefield, and mercenaries responsible for destabilising Africa.
We have taken further action this week. Yesterday, in response to Iran’s transfer of ballistic missiles to Russia, I imposed more sanctions, including on Iran Air. Today, I am announcing measures against those monsters who have forcibly deported Ukrainian children for attempted indoctrination by the Kremlin. I am proud of all that this Government have done to support Ukraine, proud of the unity that the House has shown on this issue, and proud that we have shown that Britain will remain Ukraine’s staunchest friend, both throughout this war and in the peace that follows, but we are always stronger when we work with others. I am also proud of what we have done to rally international support for Ukraine. I visited Ukraine with US Secretary of State Tony Blinken—the first such joint visit to any country in over a decade. I discussed Ukraine with the EU Foreign Affairs Council, marking the first appearance by a UK Foreign Secretary at a regular council meeting since our EU exit. Yesterday, I chaired a meeting of the United Nations Security Council on Ukraine, and just this morning, I joined a meeting of close European allies to discuss how we can bolster our support for Ukraine in the coming months.
We are stressing three fundamental truths about the war in all our discussions with allies and partners across the globe. First, Ukraine’s cause is just. It is Putin who chose to invade a sovereign country that posed no threat to Russia; it is Putin who disregarded the UN charter; it is Putin who tried to turn back the clock to an age of empire building, when might made right and ordinary people suffered the consequences; and it is Putin and his allies who are recklessly escalating this war, with Iranian ballistic missiles being used to strike Ukrainian cities, and North Korean troops being sent to attack Ukrainian soldiers. When we support Ukraine, we are not just aiding its fight for freedom; we are also contributing to our fight for our freedom—the freedom of all states, all over the world, to choose their own destiny and future.
The second truth is that Putin’s war is not, in fact, going that well. Russia is almost 1,000 days into a war that it thought would end in days, and we should never forget that. Russia has suffered record casualties in the past two months, with the number killed or injured due to exceed 1 million next year. Russia is slashing welfare payments and raising interest rates to levels not seen in decades, all to fund more arms, and it has had to turn to Tehran and Pyongyang, as reserves of Soviet-era equipment and targets for Kremlin press gangs run low. That is not sustainable. The war is costing Putin dearly—all in a fight for land to which Russia has absolutely no right, a fight for which the Russian people are paying an enormous price.
The final truth is that Putin has no interest in a just peace. It is 1,000 days since his full-scale invasion, over 10 years since he first seized Crimea and sponsored insurrection in Donbas, and even longer since he has sought to meddle in Ukrainian affairs, all to further his own interests. He has a track record of violating past agreements. He shows no sign of wanting peace. He would seek to exploit any pause in fighting to win his troops a respite before resuming hostilities, as he did after the failed Minsk talks.
I underline these truths because they must inform our strategy. If we want to see peace restored in Europe, we need Putin to see that there is no route to military victory. We need to make the price that he pays for his senseless war even higher. We need to remember that the price that we would pay for his victory would be higher still. We need Ukraine to stay strong, so Ukraine needs us to stay strong by its side. That is what this House wants us to do; that is what this Government will do; and that is what we call on our allies to do. Slava Ukraini! I commend this statement to the House.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement and, importantly, to the Government for making time to acknowledge and mark this tragic and terrible anniversary.
Like so many in this House, I remember the early morning of that dark day in February 2022, 1,000 days ago. As Home Secretary at the time, I recall the early-morning call notifying me of Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. It was a day we had all feared, having seen Russian troops gathering close to the border for several weeks beforehand, and indeed over the previous decade, since the invasion of Crimea and Russia’s support for the separatists in Donbas.
The sovereign territory of a European nation has been violated, and as the Foreign Secretary said, we have all watched the horrors unfold over the last 1,000 days. In those early days, we saw the Russian military machine advance deep into Ukrainian territory. I pay tribute to the heroism, courage and bravery of the Ukrainian armed forces and the Ukrainian people, who have proudly defended their sovereign territory.
Let us be in no doubt that Putin expected Ukraine to capitulate and for its Government to fall. He thought he could bully his way into Ukraine’s territory. Instead, President Zelensky and the Ukrainian people have bravely stood tall. They have fought on, and they are fighting every day. The cost to Russia has been catastrophic. Ukrainians are not just fighting for their country; they are fighting for our shared values of freedom, democracy, sovereignty and fundamental rights.
We should be proud that ever since Russian troops crossed the border, and before, this Parliament has stood shoulder to shoulder with our Ukrainian friends. Mr Speaker, you will recall that, in 2022, the entire machinery of government mobilised to support Ukraine. To this day, that cross-party support has been pivotal. We created safer routes to enable 20,000-plus Ukrainians to come to our country, and the Ministry of Defence, under Ben Wallace, was one of the first to supply weapons and key capabilities. We trained Ukrainian troops in this country, and we signed the security co-operation agreement that the Foreign Secretary mentioned. We announced a multibillion-pound funding package, too. The then Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, flew the flag for Ukraine across the world, making the case, imposing sanctions on Russia, persuading others and fighting the cause of freedom. We stand shoulder to shoulder with the Government in every single effort. The commitment has been solid as we have worked unstintingly with all our partners.
I saw the devastation when I met Ukrainians on the Polish border who were fleeing the conflict, and I know that many Members have visited Ukraine and met families over the last 1,000 days. We have all been touched by the personal horror stories of loss and grief from people, including children, whose lives have been shattered. Our thoughts are with them. It is a sobering and stark reminder that, although the modern world has delivered so much progress for humankind, unreconstructed tyrants are inflicting misery beyond comprehension with their contempt for human dignity, democracy and the rule of law. We saw that so clearly over the weekend, with the devastating waves of attacks unleashed by Putin.
I have a few questions for the Foreign Secretary. Will he confirm that we will continue to provide all the resources we can from our own stocks, and that we will work with our NATO allies to ensure that equivalent equipment is available for Ukraine if we do not progress with specific capabilities ourselves? NATO countries, as we know, are able to leverage a collective GDP that is 20 times greater than Russia’s, and a combined defence inventory many times larger than the Kremlin’s, so Russia’s victory in this war is not inevitable.
The Defence Secretary is sitting on the Front Bench, and he will have views on this, but I would welcome an indication on what steps the Government will take to replenish our stocks. Does the Foreign Secretary, on behalf of the Government, agree that this shows why it is important that we have a clear pathway to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence by 2030? Beyond the provision of lethal aid and capability, can he give an update on his diplomatic activity to further isolate Russia and to address the influx of North Korean troops?
We welcome this week’s announcement on sanctioning Iran for supporting the Russian war effort, and we must pursue those sanctions with vigour. We seek assurances that the Government will continue to review the measures on people and entities within the scope of sanctions, so that we can do more to prosecute Russia’s role in this conflict. Will the Foreign Secretary outline the approach that will be taken to engage with the new US Administration more widely, with our allies, to back Ukraine?
It is vital that this House stands united. As we mark 1,000 days of this war, we must ensure we continue to stand shoulder to shoulder on the side of freedom. Slava Ukraini!
Mr Lammy
This is my first opportunity to congratulate the right hon. Lady on taking up her post as shadow Foreign Secretary. We will probably disagree occasionally across the Dispatch Box about a few things, but I hope that we will never disagree on the support that we have to give to Ukraine. Her response to my statement underlines the unity of the House.
The right hon. Lady is right to recall the mobilisation of the last Government back in 2022. I am glad she reminded the House about the way British people have been prepared to open their homes in record numbers to so many Ukrainians, and about her leadership of the Home Office at that time. She is also right to raise our military-industrial capacity. I assure her that since coming into office, my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary has made it his business to get underneath the bonnet of how we procure, contract and ensure innovation. British support is driving immense innovation in Ukraine, which the Defence Secretary and I have been able to see close up. It is something like a Blitz spirit, which is quite incredible; it is a whole-nation effort. Working in partnership can also drive innovation in our own system.
The right hon. Lady raises, quite rightly, defence spending. She will know that there are still countries in Europe and beyond that are not spending the 2% that is necessary. We urge them to do that. Successive US Presidents, long before Donald Trump, have been raising that as an issue. It is our intention to get back to 2.5% of GDP—that was the figure when we left office and we want to get back there. I remind her that this country has now committed £7.8 billion to military support, and the Prime Minister has committed to provide £3 billion a year in military support for as long as it takes.
She is right to raise the huge concerns about the DPRK. Some 10,000 North Korean troops are in Russia as we speak, which is a major escalation. That has been noted deeply in the Republic of Korea, because it links the Indo-Pacific to the Euro-Atlantic. As she knows, our system has been concerned about that subject for many years, but this is a major escalation in relation to those concerns.
The right hon. Lady is right to raise sanctions. The UK has now sanctioned over 2,100 individuals and entities under the Russian sanctions regime, as I have set out. I have gone after the Russian shadow fleet particularly. There is more to come. We will bear down heavily over the coming months and work with partners, both in the United States and Europe, to achieve that. She will have read about my dinner with the Prime Minister and Donald Trump. We discussed Ukraine and he was seized of the important issues. Donald Trump is a winner, not a loser, and I am sure he wants to ensure that the west is on the winning side.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
Members of my Committee and I have been meeting large numbers of European friends and neighbours, not just Ukrainians. Last week we met the Foreign Minister from Estonia, who told us that North Koreans were fighting on European soil only a few hundred kilometres from his country. Yesterday, we met Moldovan Members of Parliament, who pointed out that Russian rockets had been in their airspace the night before. We are hearing mounting concern from everyone that the change in leadership in the United States and potential elections in Germany might mean there is a challenge to the united support that we, in the west, have had for Ukraine over the last 1,000 days. What strategy does my right hon. Friend have to ensure that we remain strong, and that we all understand that a defeated Ukraine and an emboldened Putin is a defeat for all of us?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her leadership of the Foreign Affairs Committee. She is right that Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine poses a serious risk to the UK and Euro-Atlantic prosperity and security, but it is also a direct threat to the international rules-based system, including international principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity. When we think about our joint intelligence and military capabilities with the United States, remembering that many US troops are stationed in our own country and tens of thousands are stationed across Europe, in the end, with the developments we have seen with Korea, I am quite sure that we will continue to stand with Ukraine.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of the statement. I join Members from all parts of the House to mark 1,000 days since Putin’s forces commenced their illegal full-scale invasion of Ukraine. On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I pay tribute to the brave people of Ukraine, including those fighting on the frontline in defence of the democratic ideals that we share; those fighting the nightly terror of Russian missiles and drones, which continue their assault on innocent civilians; and all the Ukrainians who have sought safety here in the UK. I am hugely proud of British families who opened their doors to Ukrainians in their moment of need.
A few days ago, I visited the charity Surrey Stands with Ukraine, in my constituency in Epsom. I met the volunteers who were preparing winter survival kits that will be sent to help Ukrainian families who face a winter with limited power supplies, at best. The work of such community groups, up and down the country, is inspirational. We stood with Ukraine from the beginning, and we stand with Ukraine now.
I am afraid to say that 1,000 days on, Ukraine needs our support more than ever. The Liberal Democrats welcome the US’s decision on long-range missiles, and I hope the Foreign Secretary will be able to shed a little more light on the UK’s stance. However, we must go further. The clock is ticking: on 20 January, President Trump will be inaugurated for the second time. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that with the wavering US, it is incumbent on the UK to lead within Europe now? Will he commit to bolstering support for our Ukrainian allies, should it waver elsewhere? Will the Government begin the process of seizing Russian assets—the assets themselves, not just the interest—so that we can give Ukraine what is needed to liberate its territory and win the war? Let us lead the way and liberate Ukraine. Slava Ukraini!
Mr Lammy
I thank Liberal Democrat Members for their continued support. The hon. Lady is right to evoke the huge volunteer spirit across our country. I think of the thousands of people driving trucks to Ukraine, and the faith groups, non-governmental organisations and others gathering heaters and goods, and ensuring they get to Ukraine. They are doing that month after month. They do not need encouragement and sometimes their work is not in the news, but they know the importance of their endeavours.
This morning I met Foreign Ministers from France, Germany, Poland, Italy and Spain. There is no wavering in our support for Ukraine. If anything, there was a commitment to double down on that support, a determination to ensure that Ukraine is in the strongest possible position in 2025, and a renewed effort to ensure that we co-ordinate even better, particularly over the coming months.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
On this grim milestone of 1,000 days since the full-scale invasion by Russia, we mourn the hundreds of thousands needlessly killed and injured because of Putin’s decision to invade a democratic nation.
I recently met the Ukrainian ambassador, General Zaluzhnyi, and separately a delegation of Ukrainian MPs, who are very grateful for our solidarity but also have some concerns. The Government have rightly provided strong support to our allies, but after the escalatory deployment of North Korean troops on European soil and the constant bombardment of Ukrainian communities by Putin, what conversations has the Foreign Secretary had with the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence about lifting restrictions on the usage of long-range Storm Shadow missiles by Ukraine?
Mr Lammy
This is my first opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend on becoming Chair of the Defence Committee. He asks a question that is in the news at this time. We continue to discuss with Ukraine and international partners how best to support it going into winter. However, I know he will understand that I have nothing new to say on this, because I will not get into operational decisions, which would, frankly, be a gift to Putin. We have gifted military aid to support Ukraine’s right to self-defence against Russia’s illegal attacks in accordance, as my hon. Friend would expect, with international humanitarian law.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I call the previous Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Alicia Kearns.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
It has been a thousand days of Ukraine fighting for Europe’s future, but more than 3,900 days that Ukraine has been under attack and under invasion—3,900 days of bravery, terror and loss. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) for all she did to create the Homes for Ukraine programme when many thought it was impossible. Consistently, though, Ukraine has been underestimated and Russia overestimated—militarily, economically and beyond.
We all know here that personalities matter, and as the Foreign Secretary said, we know that Trump likes winners. The US Government’s new leader needs to see success and victory for Ukraine as a personal victory for him. What is the Foreign Secretary doing to make sure that Trump sees it in those terms and no other?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her work previously on the Foreign Affairs Committee. We were able to work together quite well when I was in my shadow role.
The hon. Lady is right to say that we have a job to do now. The mantra is: one American President at a time. We have another eight weeks first, and Ukraine is going into winter—it may well be a bitter winter. The good news is that we are now getting the money out of the door. Where there have been gaps between pledging and getting the kit and the equipment into Ukraine, there is now a doubling down across Europe and among the international G7 partners to ensure the kit gets there and puts Ukraine in a strong position going into 2025.
I am confident that on 20 January, Ukraine will be in an even stronger position than it is today. That will be because of that combined allied effort and because of the work in the United Kingdom by the Defence Secretary, the Prime Minister and myself to ensure that we are Ukraine’s strongest partner and that we are doing everything we can to support it military, economically and on a humanitarian level.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Indeed, I thank him and our right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary for their joint leadership on this matter.
The key issue, as far as I can see, is the shipment of oil. Oil is the lifeblood for Putin financing his illegal activities, and sanctions are the way we have to stop that. Will my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary give an assurance that there are now no British individuals or companies engaged in the illegal shipment of oil or its financing? If he cannot give that assurance today, what further action will he take so he can come to the House in the relatively near future and do so?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend’s question allows me to say that sanctions have deprived Russia of more than $400 billion since February 2022, which is equivalent to four more years of funding for the invasion. He is also right, however, that there is a shadow fleet, and over the past few months, I have issued more sanctions on those behind that. He is also right to single out the enablers, who might exist in our own country. He can trust me: I keep this under close scrutiny and there is more to come, I suspect, over the coming days. He is absolutely right to make it crystal clear that we cannot have UK businesses and enterprising individuals supporting Russia in its war effort.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement, but I will push him on the issue highlighted by the Chair of the Defence Committee, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi). Britain has continuously led the way, right from the start, whether on the provision of Javelin or main battle tanks, or on the arguments about fast jets. Reading the newspapers, I would have believed that the Foreign Secretary had been leading the way in pushing for Storm Shadow to be used in Russia. He dismisses that and says that the matter is not to be discussed, but when will we hear from the Government that the Ukrainians will have the ability to use Storm Shadow on targets in Russia? Will it be next week, next month, next year? The Americans are shaming us. We should not be shamed; we should be leading.
Mr Lammy
I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s strength of feeling and why, as a Back Bencher, he is doubling down on the issue. I think he will see that this Government have led and continue to lead in the debates right across our allies. He will also understand, however, that we need communication discipline on these issues. That is what we see with our opponents in Russia, the DPRK and Iran. I therefore lament a little some of the debate that we read across the newspapers. Members are not going to get those sorts of leaks or suggestions from me at the Dispatch Box.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Ukraine, I thank the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary for all their staunch work in support of Ukraine.
We have heard a lot of talk about escalation. Last week, we had a group of Ukrainian MPs in Parliament talking about the continued and escalating attacks on the country and particularly on Kharkiv, a city of 2 million people. Today, we have a Moldovan group here talking about an attempt by Russia, using dirty cash brought in suitcases from Moscow, to buy their elections. We are seeing a hybrid war against the whole of Europe, including us in the United Kingdom.
The threats of escalation by the Kremlin are happening irrespective of the action of the United Kingdom or any other country. North Korean troops are in Ukraine now, fighting on European soil. Will the Foreign Secretary reassure me that whatever the threats from the Kremlin, our support will be unstinting and we will not stand back from supporting Ukraine’s right to self-determination?
Mr Lammy
I thank my hon. Friend for all he does in the all-party parliamentary group on Ukraine to champion the country’s cause in this Parliament and beyond, with the visits he has made and his updates to me over the past few years. He raises a number of issues and I want to assure him that we are alongside him and we continue to be alongside the Ukrainian people.
My hon. Friend raises an issue that I think is important and which has not come up so far: the malign activity of Russia and the hybrid threats it is engaged in right across the region. One country in particular—Moldova—is on the front line of Russian hybrid threats, and the interference in its elections has been entirely unacceptable. We stand in solidarity with the people of Moldova and continue to support them against the threats to journalists and the disinformation from the Russian regime, and the other extreme examples being received.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement. As has been acknowledged, this war has been going on not just for 1,000 days, but for more than a decade, with Ukrainians fighting for our freedom as well as for their own country’s independence. I wish to put on record my party’s support for the action that we have taken so far, and in particular our support for Ukraine.
I have a number of questions for the Foreign Secretary. On drone technology, we are seeing delays in releasing some of the licences. Will he mention that to his colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade? Can we get some more in-country co-operation, given how far Ukrainian technology has advanced? Does he agree that we can no longer continue to allow the Russian Federation to able to strike Ukraine with impunity? Finally, $300 billion-worth of Russian assets have been forfeited. Will he at least make a commitment to look into releasing that so that we can fund Ukraine properly? Slava Ukraini.
Mr Lammy
The hon. Member asked me a number of questions. He raised the issue of licences, which I have also seen mentioned in the papers. I can assure him that we have looked at that matter thoroughly. There is no sense of our holding anything up. We have the most robust export licensing regime in the world. We stand by that regime, which was actually put in place by the previous Government, and there is no sense at all of it holding things up unnecessarily.
The hon. Member is right to raise the issue of technology. Drone technology in particular has enabled both the UK and Ukraine to target Russian attacks with precision. I can reassure him that we will continue to lead on the matter of seized Russian assets, and, over the coming months, I intend to redouble my efforts with our allies who are not as advanced as we are on this issue.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement and the details that he has outlined today. Will he provide a little more detail on the discussions that we have had with our friends and allies across the west? Can he also reassure residents in Britain about the part that they can play? He has spoken very eloquently on that. Indeed, my local Ukrainian community centre has played a very important role in our area.
Mr Lammy
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I say to the British people that they should take heart from the fact that this Parliament is speaking with one voice. If we as a country do all that we can to ensure that, militarily and economically, Ukraine can get through 2025, and if we are able to push and nudge our allies to ensure that we are in that place, then things will get a hell of a lot tougher for our Russian opponents, and we should take heart from that. In thinking about the winter, we should continue to do all that we can to send equipment over to Ukraine and to support Ukrainians in this country. It is tough for the people in Ukraine at this time. Some are still leaving the country, for obvious reasons. All of our efforts are not in vain—they are hugely, hugely important, and I am hugely, hugely grateful.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Despite the Foreign Secretary’s congratulatory assessment, the fact remains that Russia is running rings around western sanctions and that it is using black and grey fleets to threaten the global maritime order. I have heard nothing from the Foreign Secretary about what he intends to do about that. Can he enlighten us?
Mr Lammy
I do not take issue with the right hon. Gentleman saying that there are still gaps and holes, and that Putin has been very clever in attempting to get around the sanctions that I put in place. But on 17 October we sanctioned a further 18 oil tankers in the Russian shadow fleet, bringing the total number to 43, and in the margins of the European Political Community summit at Blenheim Palace, we led the call for action on tackling the shadow fleet, which has now been endorsed by 46 countries in the European Union. Therefore, the suggestion that we are doing nothing does not hold. We will also continue to address the circumvention of sanctions, which includes highlighting the risk to partners such as Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates and supporting their efforts to continue to tackle the problem.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
I welcome the statement by the Foreign Secretary. Will he join me in paying tribute to the Huddersfield Ukrainian Club, which continues to support families who have had to flee Ukraine, including many children? It is really important—probably now more than ever—that we work closely with our European allies, so can he set out how we will strengthen that co-operation? As Ukraine faces a long and challenging winter, how will we help it cope with the relentless attacks on its energy infrastructure?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. As I outlined, this morning I spoke to a meeting of the Weimar group of nations across Europe. It is not a forum in which the UK traditionally participates, but I was very grateful to the Polish Foreign Minister, Radek Sikorski, for reaching out at this time and ensuring that the UK, Italy and Spain were part of that group, along with France and Germany. That is an indication of how united we are attempting to be at this time.
My hon. Friend rightly raises the big issues around energy over the next period. She calls to mind the pernicious attacks by Russia over the past 48 hours, which have been driven at those energy supplies and are basically trying to turn the lights out in Ukraine. We must do all that we can in a co-ordinated effort to repel that activity and to help Ukraine repel that activity over the coming months.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
My question for the Foreign Secretary is about security guarantees. As we mark 1,000 days since Russia’s full-scale invasion, we should remember that Ukraine’s allies failed to deter Russia in advance of the invasion. I do understand why a country at war cannot be admitted to NATO, but we must never again offer some meaningless paper pledge like the Budapest memorandum. What is the Government’s latest thinking about a meaningful security guarantee by Ukraine’s allies, from the point when the fighting stops?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman asks a good question, but it is easy to look back in hindsight. Personally, I was critical that the UK did not play a part in the Minsk agreement. We were absent and we could have played a far greater role. Our belief is that Ukraine’s rightful place is in NATO. Allies agreed in Washington that there is to be an irreversible path to full Euro-Atlantic integration, including NATO membership, and that is the right thing to do. In the meantime, the UK and our allies are stepping up support for Ukraine’s immediate and long-term self-defence. The hon. Member is right: we must ensure that when this war ends—and it will end one day—it cannot start again, and that will mean very serious security guarantees for Ukraine.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
May I thank the Foreign Secretary and Members across the House for the very strong cross-party support for Ukraine that has been shown over recent years and no doubt will continue to be shown? On Saturday, I had the privilege of attending an annual art exhibition run by the Helping Our Ukrainian Friends organisation in North West Cambridgeshire. Although it is a small organisation that takes in a number of rural villages, it has raised more than £300,000 in financial support for Ukraine, as well as collecting over 100 tonnes of humanitarian aid, which it has delivered over the course of 20 trips. Will the Foreign Secretary join me in congratulating this group and thanking people across our country for making these personal efforts to support Ukraine?
Mr Lammy
I am pleased to have the opportunity to reply to my hon. Friend. I was once the baby of the House—I was much thinner and much better looking then. I remember sitting in his place 25 years ago. He is absolutely right: the volunteer spirit across this country has been extraordinary. People are making so many missions to Ukraine. They are facing danger as they go into Poland to provide support on the borders. It is quite incredible. Of course, I congratulate all those in his constituency on the work that they have done.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement, but I cannot hide my disappointment that he has nothing to say about freeing the hands of the Ukrainians to use our long-range missiles. How can he lament the attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure when he will not allow the Ukrainians to use our weapons to strike back and retaliate? He says all the time, “We’re doing all we can,” but we are not, and we are now foot-dragging. We used to lead; now the Americans are in the lead. Can I invite him to change the paradigm of this war and lead from the front by setting an example—as the former Defence Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson), described—as we did in the past? Otherwise he is foot-dragging, not leading.
Mr Lammy
I am not foot-dragging. We are leading, but we must be careful not to discuss these plans in detail in the House. I gently say to the hon. Member that we must not abuse the fact that this is a democratic Chamber that Putin and others pore over. Trust me, we are leading in that debate. We want to put Ukraine in the strongest possible position. I was discussing that with the Ukrainian Foreign Minister just yesterday in New York, and I will meet the Ukrainian ambassador after this statement. We will ensure that they are in the strongest possible position.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his personal and relentless leadership on sanctions against those aiding and abetting Russia’s illegal invasion. He will agree that it is vital that those sanctions are well enforced. In his review, will he include the credible allegations of sanctions evasion via Hong Kong? Closer to home, will he do his utmost to end the continued delay to the release of the £2.5 billion from the sale of Chelsea football club, which remains untapped at a time when the humanitarian need is so high?
Mr Lammy
I thank my hon. Friend for that question and for his continued work. We are committed to strengthening sanctions enforcement. Through the October launch of the new Office of Trade Sanctions Implementation, we have introduced new civil monetary penalties for certain trade sanctions breaches and the ability to make details of breaches public. Yes, we will look at the situation in relation to those entities in Hong Kong. I saw that he raised the issue of Chelsea football club during questions to the Defence Secretary just a few weeks ago. Again, I confirm that that definitely remains in view.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement. He said that we would provide £3 billion a year in military aid this year, next year and every year that it is needed. That is very much welcome, not least in Ukraine. Equally, eight weeks from today there will be a new Administration in Washington, so Ukraine needs assistance now. Putin will probably not pay a price in eight weeks’ time because of all the soundings coming out of Washington. Ukraine needs help now to hit back at Putin now.
Mr Lammy
The point the hon. Gentleman makes is precisely the point I made to European allies this morning. I did not have the Northern Ireland accent, but— believe me—I made the point as forcefully as he has just done.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
I want to put on the record my thanks to the hundreds of Exeter and Devon families who have played host to over 500 Ukrainian families over the past 1,000 days. I also thank those Ukrainian families for bringing such life and vitality to the city and for readily sharing their culture with us. What are the Government doing to strengthen European co-operation in support of Ukraine as it heads into this bitter winter?
Mr Lammy
It was important for me to be at the EU Foreign Affairs Council in Luxembourg. It was important for me to go back—the first time for a UK Foreign Secretary—and the meeting I was in this morning was also important. We are serious about that reset with the European Union and our European partners. This is a time for more multilateralism, not less.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I host a Ukrainian refugee in my home, as do many other residents of Mid Dorset and North Poole. I want to publicly thank those residents for opening up their homes and to thank the families who joined them for their contribution. Those families told me this weekend over a cup of tea that they are afraid they will never be able to go back home, and they are terrified for their parents and grandparents stuck in a living hell in Kherson. They do not think they will ever leave and that they will be forever living under occupation. What assurance can the Foreign Secretary give to those people living here that we will extend their visas for as long as needed and that, if necessary, we will allow their families to join them?
Mr Lammy
I thank the hon. Lady for all she is doing and for championing these issues. The United Kingdom is preparing to sign a 100-year partnership with Ukraine. That is the nature and depth of the relationship we are setting out with the Ukrainians for the years to come. That partnership, that support, that standing with them, will survive all parliamentarians—even the baby of the House—in the Chamber today. That is the reassurance. This is a great country. It is a great privilege to stand at the Dispatch Box as Foreign Secretary with the awareness that others have stood here and stood up to tyranny. We will continue to do that, and the hon. Lady must reassure those families that they will prevail.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I welcome the statement by the Foreign Secretary. I am sure the House will agree that 1,000 days of a full-scale war are 1,000 days too many. My condolences and thoughts are with all the innocent civilians, on both sides, tragically killed or affected by the conflict. They did not ask for war. Notwithstanding Ukraine’s right to full self-defence, will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the UK military aid provided to date has not been, and will not be, used against civilians or civilian infrastructure? Will he assure the House that any decision to permit the use of Storm Shadow missiles will ensure the safety of civilians and be in compliance with international law?
Mr Lammy
This is the second or third occasion on which I have been able to answer a question from the hon. Gentleman. He has a humility and gentleness that I am sure will serve him well in the House. I reassure him that all that we do in this country is always in compliance with international humanitarian law. The modern architects of this country, on both sides of the House, gave us the rules-based system. We are one of the champions of it across the world, and so we will always behave in accordance with international humanitarian law.
Aviation (Accessibility)
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the accessibility of air travel for disabled passengers; to make provision about the powers of the Civil Aviation Authority to enforce accessibility requirements; to remove the limit on compensation for damage to wheelchairs or other mobility equipment on domestic flights; and for connected purposes.
I seek to introduce legislation to create stricter regulations for airports and airlines to ensure that they can facilitate the smooth journey of disabled passengers to enter the airport, navigate security, board the aircraft and have a safe journey before disembarking at their destination. The Bill aims to grant greater powers to the Civil Aviation Authority to fine airports and airlines for not complying with regulations to accommodate disabled passengers. It also aims to provide adequate compensation to them and to promote further accessibility in future development in the aviation industry.
Accessibility in air travel is not just a matter of convenience; it is a matter of rights, dignity and equality. It is about ensuring that everyone, regardless of their mobility or physical condition, can enjoy the freedom to travel—whether for work, family or leisure —without facing undue barriers or discrimination.
I pay tribute to Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson, and thank her for spending time last week to discuss with me her direct experience of these issues. I also pay tribute to the Secretary of State for Transport for announcing this month that she is setting up the aviation accessibility task and finish group. That group, to be chaired by Baroness Grey-Thompson, will report back next summer, and will be dedicated to examining the current legislation. It will report on how to break down barriers in order to make air travel better and more accessible for disabled passengers.
My Bill aims to assist with implementing any recommendations, as well as addressing existing issues relating to fines and compensation. I place on record my thanks to Sophie Morgan, Christopher Wood and their colleagues at the Rights on Flights campaign for their work to raise awareness of these issues. Since its creation in 2023, their group has campaigned admirably on accessibility in air travel. My Bill takes into account their work in designing a proposed assisted air travel Act that recommends extending the accessibility and rights of disabled people in air travel. I am grateful for their continued support in the creation of my ten-minute rule Bill.
All too often we hear stories and see videos of wheelchair users being forced to crawl through or off an aeroplane because of a lack of equipment, knowledge and space on board. I am grateful to Frank Gardner, who, like Sophie Morgan and Baroness Grey-Thompson, has highlighted those issues and his own experiences. Such experiences are sadly also shared by blind and sight-impaired passengers. Research conducted last year by Which? showed that the most inaccessible or challenging acts of air travel are navigating the airport, arranging assistance to board and disembark the plane, and getting to and from the airport. The issues of accessibility can occur at check-in desks and security, alongside a lack of clear signage and inefficient procedures. Once passengers have boarded the plane, the issues begin to manifest tenfold for disabled passengers.
The current design of many aircraft does not meet the needs of disabled passengers. There is often inadequate space for wheelchair users to navigate the cabin, and facilities such as accessible bathrooms are limited or non-existent on many flights. Although airlines may offer assistance to board and disembark, the quality and availability of that assistance can vary drastically from one airline to another, and there is little, if any, regulation. Making airports legally liable for the bad treatment and discriminatory practices against disabled passengers would give consumers the ability to sue airlines for disability discrimination. Many air carriers do not provide the space or the safety requirements for a passenger to fly in their own wheelchair. To facilitate that, wheelchair blocks should be included to allow wheelchair users to remain safely in their chairs throughout the flight.
Many of those changes will be an ongoing development in new aircraft, and should also feature wider aisles, larger accessible bathrooms and priority seating for those who require special assistance. I accept that a number of leaders in the field are working to design a new range of airlines that will redesign aircraft to make that part of the journey experience easier. Those who are able to get on to a plane in the first place are often left with the worry of their wheelchair being damaged in transit or because of a lack of knowledge among airport staff. It is therefore paramount that a single set of rules and regulations be applied to all airlines, to promote better knowledge among airport and airline staff and to minimise the risk of damage to wheelchairs and mobility scooters.
It is of paramount importance that a passenger can quickly access and use their mobility equipment once they have reached their destination, but that is hindered by any damage sustained, so measures must be put in place to ensure that air carriers and airport-managing bodies have the means to transfer securely and stow mobility aids. That would avoid all forms of hand-carrying of power wheelchairs and other large mobility aids, minimising the risk of damage and the risk of injury to staff. It also requires further training for airport and airline staff on assisting disabled travellers from the airport to the boarding of the plane. Staff must also be provided with training on manoeuvring disabled passengers and their mobility equipment in an emergency.
There needs to be more consistency in the accessibility services provided by airlines and airports. Too often, the quality of service can vary from one airport or airline to another, and that inconsistency leads to confusion and delays for passengers. We need clearer, standardised protocols that can be relied upon by all. The CAA is responsible for the regulation of aviation safety in the UK, but it is inhibited in that because it lacks the power to fine airlines. Instead, it must rely on taking businesses to court to force them to uphold passenger rights. It is therefore imperative that a suitable compensation and penalty charge scheme is introduced, with new legal rights for complaint-handling, reporting, and enforcement procedures. That would include plans for the CAA to be able to issue financial penalties to airlines that fail in their obligations to disabled travellers, and would ensure that the CAA has legal powers to fine airlines and other actors in the air travel sector if they fail to look after disabled passengers and their mobility devices, whether any harm is due to damage or neglect. That would help to create an equal basis in air travel for disabled people.
Airlines and airports typically have their own claims procedure to follow, which leads to a lack of cohesion and often to more confusion and difficulty for consumers in navigating the process. The combined outcome can lead many consumers not to claim for their owed compensation. In November 2024, the CAA’s independent panel recommended new consumer enforcement powers and reformed alternative dispute resolution schemes. Without the necessary enforcement powers, consumers face lengthy waits to receive assistance and are often misinformed about their rights, and the CAA does not have the powers to investigate concerns.
Currently, the amount of compensation available through those complex rules may be limited to around £1,300, but many wheelchairs are worth six or seven times that amount. The issue is exacerbated by the fact that although airports should be responsible for providing a temporary alternative when a wheelchair or mobility aid is repaired or replaced, that does not have to be on a like-for-like basis. As the parent of a wheelchair user, I fully appreciate the issues outlined by campaigners. Like others, my family have decided for many years that flying would simply be too much hassle, and that the distress of a damaged or lost wheelchair at the end of a flight is too upsetting to consider.
Every person should have the right to use an aeroplane for leisure, family or work purposes. However, the current facilities of airports and airlines, and the CAA’s lack of powers, prohibit disabled passengers from accessing aviation travel. My Bill is applicable to all carriers—domestic and foreign—undertaking flights within, from and to the airspace of the UK, as well as to all airports within the UK. The Bill’s provisions extend to tour operators, ground handlers, service providers, stakeholders and subcontractors involved in providing goods and services to disabled people travelling within or through the United Kingdom.
The Aviation (Accessibility) Bill would make the necessary changes to the law to ensure that airports and airlines are better able to provide facilities for disabled passengers and allow them to access air travel safely. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Daniel Francis, supported by Mr Calvin Bailey, Richard Baker, Antonia Bance, Ruth Cadbury, Jen Craft, Marsha De Cordova, Steve Darling, Mary Kelly Foy, Ruth Jones, Anna Sabine and Melanie Ward, present the Bill.
Daniel Francis accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 July 2025, and to be printed (Bill 134).
Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill (Programme) (nO. 2)
Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
14:53 - The House divided: - Ayes: 344 / Noes: 172 - Question accordingly agreed to.
15:06 - The House divided: - Ayes: 350 / Noes: 108 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendment 2. If that Lords amendment is agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.
Before Clause 1
Purpose: improvement of passenger railway services
The Secretary of State for Transport (Louise Haigh)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss:
Lords amendment 2, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 3.
Louise Haigh
I am delighted that the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill has returned to this House. I thank Members of both Houses for their careful scrutiny, and I commend the collaborative, cross-party approach taken during the passage of the Bill to date. I place on record especially my thanks to the Rail Minister, Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, and to Baroness Blake of Leeds for their valuable support and for leading the Bill so expertly through the other place. Three amendments were made there that we will seek to address today in this House.
Before I speak on the amendments, I remind both Houses that the Government were elected on a manifesto commitment to bring franchises for train services back into public ownership where they belong, in line with the wishes of a clear majority of the British public and in direct response to the failure of the previous Government.
Public ownership will end the gravy train that sees the taxpayer footing the bill for more than £100 million each year in fees to private operators, which ultimately benefits their shareholders, not passengers and not the taxpayer. It will allow us to strip out inefficiency and waste and will pave the way for the creation of Great British Railways, ending the fragmentation of the failed franchising system and bringing together responsibility for track and train under single, unified leadership with a relentless focus on those who use the railway. I made a statement to the House only last week setting out the early progress that we have made in fixing our railways. There is a long way to go in restoring public confidence and pride in our railways after years of failure, but the journey has begun.
I will briefly set out the Government’s position on the two non-Government amendments that were made to the Bill in the other place. Lords amendment 1 seeks to insert a purpose clause in the Bill and to require me to have regard to it. I am sure that the amendment is well intentioned, and I am delighted that after years of declining performance the Conservative party now recognises that reliability and punctuality actually matter to passengers. I am more than happy to reassure the House that improving the performance of the railways is at the top of my priority list, especially in view of the mess inherited by this Government. I really do not need a purpose clause to remind me of that. In my first few months in office, I have spent my time making sure that railway leaders pay much more attention to punctuality and reliability than they have in recent years.
As well as being unnecessary, Lords amendment 1 is misleading and potentially harmful, because it picks out improving the performance of passenger rail services as the sole purpose of the Bill. If that was really its sole purpose, the best thing we could do would be to cut train services from the timetable; the easiest way to make trains run on time is to run fewer of them. I hope that hon. Members on all sides of the House can agree that that would be absurd. Improving performance is of course a vital objective, but it is certainly not the only one. From saving millions of pounds each year in fees to private operators and stripping out inefficiency and waste to simplifying the arcane fares and ticketing system and making rail services more accessible, all those things and many more are priorities that we will address through public ownership and our wider plans for rail reform. The Government therefore cannot support Lords amendment 1, and I urge the House to oppose it.
In my opening remarks, I set out for the House the urgent need to deliver meaningful change. In view of that, the Government cannot accept amendment 2. The practical effect of the amendment would be to delay the programme of transfers into public ownership and prolong the failed franchising system that has inflicted so much misery on passengers. Delaying the transfers would mean deferring the benefits of public ownership, as well as the taxpayer having to pay millions of pounds more in fees to private operators. Clearly, the Government cannot accept that, especially given that we promised the electorate we would manage the transfer without unnecessary cost. The additional cost to the taxpayer is why the amendment triggers financial privilege, as the House will see on the Order Paper and as you have laid out, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I have also made it clear numerous times that this Government will not put up with the appalling standards of service previously tolerated for far too long. Passengers and our constituents deserve much better. I have heard loud and clear the calls for the poorest-performing services to be brought into public ownership first. I understand those calls and deeply regret that the contracts we inherited from the previous Government make it very difficult to do that, but sadly that is the position we must start from.
We have made it clear that we will bring services into public ownership as existing contracts expire, which will allow us to end franchising entirely within three years and, crucially, avoid the need to pay compensation for ending those contracts early. I assure the House that the Rail Minister and I are monitoring the compliance of train operators with their contracts like hawks. If an operator’s performance is poor enough to trigger a right to end its contract early, we will not hesitate to exercise that right and bring its services in-house at the earliest possible opportunity. We will continue to hold operators’ feet to the fire to ensure that they deliver better for passengers. Our plan to bring services into public ownership as existing contracts end is the right plan and the only responsible one. Lords amendment 2 would wreck that plan, and I urge the House to reject it.
Finally, the Government were pleased to table Lords amendment 3 in response to powerful contributions by Baroness Brinton, Baroness Grey-Thompson and others who spoke on behalf of the many disabled people who use our railways. I echo the Rail Minister’s comments in response to that debate. The railways have not done enough to meet the needs of disabled people. We simply must do better, and we will. Lords amendment 3 sends a very clear message by making it explicit in the Equality Act 2010 that publicly owned train operators are subject to the public sector equality duty.
Lords amendment 3 was accompanied by two verbal commitments by the Rail Minister, which I am happy to reiterate for the House. First, the Government will work with representatives of disabled passengers to develop
“an accessibility road map that will explain the actions we intend to take to improve things for disabled people or others requiring assistance in advance of GBR being set up.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 November 2024; Vol. 840, c. 1550.]
Secondly, the Government will now fund the next phase of improvements to the passenger assist app, which is to be delivered in close collaboration with disabled passengers.
Lords amendment 3 was universally supported in the other place, and I am grateful for the constructive discussions that have taken place in relation to it. I am confident that we can continue to work across parties to improve accessibility on the railways, and I urge the House to support the Government’s position today.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
I thank the other place for providing these amendments. Although the measures in this Bill are not a surprise—and we have stated our opposition to its fundamentals from the outset—we have made the case that, in effectively nationalising the operation of our passenger railways, we risk going backwards. Its core provisions will mean that the progress made on passenger services since privatisation will not be carried on.
That said, we do agree that there is a need for reform, and we support the reform laid out in the Williams-Shapps review. But the reforms proposed by this Government go too far and will undermine any potential progress. That is why the Lords amendments we are discussing are of central importance. Neither of the two amendments passed in the upper House descend from the Government’s intention to bring the franchises into public ownership, and they are clearly reasonable and measured. As the noble Lord Moylan pointed out, a
“glaring omission from the Bill is, of course, the passenger.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 November 2024; Vol. 840, c. 1510.]
This is the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill, yet it says nothing about the passenger.
Lords amendment 1 attempts to put that right and put the passenger back at the head of the Bill as the driving force in what the Government are trying to do, and to require Ministers to test their actions under the Bill against the standard of whether it will improve matters for the passenger. It clarifies that the Secretary of State
“must, in taking any actions under the provisions of this Act, have regard to this purpose”,
which is the
“improvement of passenger railway services”.
It is a simple but deeply important amendment that will ensure that the Bill, which is little more than an ideological undertaking if it lacks the proposed amendments, would be required to act unambiguously in the service of passenger railway improvement. How could anyone oppose that? There is little public appetite for ideological measures that are not based on the improvement of the passenger experience, and to reject this amendment would be a tacit admission that the Government are rejecting the principle that legislation directed at the passenger services should be in line with service improvements. In doing so, they would reject the general public consensus. I urge the Government to support the amendment on those grounds. If they choose to reject it, it is incumbent on them to explain why they have decided to make a significant legislative change to our passengers’ railways that could risk worsening services.
Lords amendment 2 contains a simple measure: to ensure that the Government, when terminating existing franchise agreements, consider operational performance and terminate the worst-performing franchises first, enabling franchises that are currently working well to continue. That would clearly be in the best interests of passengers.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Can the shadow Minister tell me how much that proposal would cost taxpayers? Given that he supports the amendment, I presume he has a detailed financial breakdown of exactly how much money he is asking the state to commit.
Gareth Bacon
The point of the amendment is to put passengers at the heart of the decision making we are asking for. [Hon. Members: “How much?”] The point of the amendment is to put passengers at the heart of the decision making, and the proposed amendment would ensure that this legislation is in the service of improving passenger experience, not purely in the service of fulfilling an ideological undertaking.
Lords amendment 2 would also ensure that the Government, alongside stakeholders, consider carefully what performance data is most relevant to passenger experience, and would ensure that that data is taken into consideration when undertaking the actions facilitated by the legislation. I fail to understand why the Government would be opposed to such a clearly reasonable protective measure, but I can guess. In justifying this ideological legislation, the Government have made clear their intention to utilise selective performance data. Rather than clarifying the relevant performance information for its own administrative use or for passenger understanding, they are obscuring it, allowing the Government to fulfil an ideological project untethered from the public’s wish to see their experiences on the railways improved.
Of course, the Government could choose to put politics aside and support the amendment, and we call on them to do so. If they did, that would signal that while they are undertaking this ideological rail project, they are also seriously considering the need for the legislation to make an actual improvement to passenger experience. This amendment will help the Government’s actions, and it is not founded on selective principles. A failure to accept the proposed amendments will also fail to ensure that the ideological measures being undertaken by this Government take into account the needs and experiences of passengers.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
Will the shadow Minister give way?
Gareth Bacon
I am just winding up.
Such a failure will only further the approach—already taken by this Government—of prioritising political convenience over substantive action. We urge the Government to support these amendments and, in doing so, mitigate the negative impacts of their legislation and work to protect and support passengers.
Andy McDonald
Madam Deputy Speaker, you will perhaps be relieved to know that I will not detain the House particularly long. I rise to support the Government, but also to say something in favour of the motion in the Secretary of State’s name relating to Lords amendment 2.
I read the Lords debate on their amendments 1 and 2, and I sympathise with the notion that passengers receiving the poorest service from a train operating company may wish its franchise to be terminated early. However, the point of this Bill is not simply to take over the worst franchises, but to recognise that the private operation of the passenger rail service has delivered a poorer service for passengers in general, and that the remedy is to return all passenger franchises to public ownership and closer control.
I say to Conservative Members that the British public spoke on this issue at the last election. If we look at any of the research and analysis on the passenger rail service, it is abundantly clear that not only do the vast majority of the British public want to take our railways back into public ownership and control, but the majority of Conservative supporters want the same thing. Perhaps that tells us a great deal about why the party opposite is the party opposite—why Conservative Members no longer sit on the Government Benches.
The hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) made many references to ideology. I do not know how many times he mentioned the word, but I ask him to cast his mind back to the Railways Act 1993: if ever there was an act of ideology, that was it. John Major took a step that even she whose portrait must be removed was not prepared to take—she recognised that it was a ridiculous step to take. I suspect that the mover of the motion in the other place was seeking a device to disrupt the orderly transfer of passenger rail back into public ownership, which is best achieved with the least cost to the taxpayer by doing so as each franchise contract expires.
I am heartened to hear Conservative Members be so evangelical about the issues of performance and punctuality. Where were they for the past 14 years? Why were they not doing anything about those issues?
Mr Snowden
The hon. Member has mentioned removing franchises based on performance and passenger satisfaction, but c2c—which operates with a 94% passenger approval rating—will be one of the first franchises to be removed. I actually think that Lords amendment 2 is quite sensible, in that it looks at how we prioritise. Some franchise operators operate very well-recommended and well-approved services.
Andy McDonald
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to tell us where he thinks the dividends go when they ship out of the system. The Conservative party was quite content to see massive dividends paid out to Abellio, Nederlandse Spoorwegen, Deutsche Bahn, and every other nation state on the planet that could subsidise its own transport system because of the ridiculous system imposed on this country’s railways by the Conservative party. Rather than serving passengers and performance, what we got was money shipping out of our system for decades, subsidising other nation states’ transport systems—if that is not a good example of barmy ideology, I do not know what is. We are correcting that, and rightly so.
The Minister in the Lords, my noble Friend Lord Hendy, said that
“the Government do not believe that we should either pay compensation for termination or keep paying fees to owning groups of train operating companies when we do not need to.”
He also clarified that some contracts may end early if their performance requires it:
“if we have the opportunity to put passengers out of their misery by ending a failing operator’s contract early and bringing their services into public ownership, we will do just that.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 November 2024; Vol. 840, c. 1519.]
The Government are clear that they are moving ahead with restoring passenger rail to public ownership. They have a clear plan to do so, but Lords amendment 2 creates obstacles to doing that. It is not in the interests of passengers, and I hope the House will throw it out when we vote later.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
Our current railway system is simply not fit for purpose, and I know I speak for everyone in this Chamber when I say that has to change. If we are serious about growth, we have to get serious about rail. After years of Tory neglect, we must get our network back on track and put the passenger first. Across the world, there are examples of both publicly and privately owned train companies that do exactly that. Because of that, we need not be ideological about ownership; rather, we can take a pragmatic approach. That is why the Lib Dems have been, and remain, agnostic about the ownership model adopted.
As the Government have themselves admitted, nationalisation is not a silver bullet. It will not automatically deliver cheaper fares, a more reliable and frequent service, or a better passenger experience. While nationalisation might offer economies of scale, it comes with new dangers—those of us in this Chamber old enough to remember the travails of travelling on British Rail are unlikely to become misty-eyed at the prospect of going back to that future, although we might well shed a tear.
In short, nationalisation alone will not fix the mess that the Government inherited from the Conservatives. The devil, as so often, is in the detail, and I eagerly await publication of the forthcoming rail reform Bill, which we will scrutinise keenly to ensure that it does not succumb to the same demons that held back rail in this country for decades, whether it was in public or private hands.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
I rise to support the Government motion to disagree with the Lords amendment. Britain’s railways are not working as they should, and nowhere is this clearer than in my constituency of Burton and Uttoxeter. Communities such as ours have faced delays, cancellations and limited services. In Uttoxeter, Sunday trains do not run until 3 pm, leaving passengers stranded or having to resort to driving to their destination. In Burton, high fares and overcrowded trains are a daily frustration. On some services, it is so difficult to get a seat that it is a bit like being a Labour MP at Prime Minister’s questions. We can and must do better.
This is not an isolated issue; it is the direct result of decades of privatisation—a model that promised efficiency, but delivered fragmentation and sky-high costs. It has left passengers paying some of the highest fares in Europe, all while billions of pounds flow into the pockets of private shareholders, instead of being reinvested in better services. Our commitment to bringing rail franchises into public ownership is the first step towards reversing this failure. Public ownership will allow us to reinvest £1.5 billion a year back into the system. That money will improve services, reduce fares and modernise our ageing infrastructure. That is about not just the system but the people it serves. Public ownership means that passengers will have a real say. An accountable passenger standards authority will give local people a voice in how their railways are run. My constituents want more frequent services and affordable tickets, and they want to know that when they wait for a train, it will actually turn up. Public ownership gives us the chance to listen to concerns and act on them.
Cutting fares and investing back in the railways is not just about convenience; it is about connecting people to jobs, education and opportunity. For every £1 spent on the railways, the economy gains £2.50. That money goes straight into creating jobs, supporting local businesses and boosting regional economies. Fixing Britain’s railways is about more than just trains and timetables. It is about building a system that works for people, not profit. This Government’s plan for public ownership puts us on the right track. Now we must go further by investing in infrastructure, lowering fares and ensuring that communities such as mine are no longer left waiting on the platform.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I remind colleagues that their contributions should relate to the Lords amendments.
Mr Snowden
I want to speak to Lords amendment 2. I will briefly make a few points first, but I fully understand that I should not go through the debate we have already had on this Bill. That debate was about Conservative Members’ belief that we will drive improvement in the railways by putting the passenger at the heart of things, and by ensuring greater competition and private sector investment, while the Labour party argued through its manifesto that it can do that through the nationalisation of rail. We have had that debate, but Lords amendment 2 is about pragmatic ways in which the proposals can be better implemented, with the passenger at the heart of them. I fully accept that we are not having the debate over again; in fact, it is quite refreshing to see the Labour party not breaking one of its manifesto promises, but instead actually pushing on with the Bill.
As I said in my intervention, c2c has a 94% passenger satisfaction rate, but it is one of the first franchises that would lose its licence. Labour’s Lord Snape said on 6 November that it would make no sense to remove a franchise such as the Greater Anglia one, which has great public support for the way in which it operates its services. In response, the Minister said that amendment 1 would not make sense, because we could simply play the game of targets. However, the Government can play the game of targets whether or not the amendment is made. It does not really matter whether the Government can stack targets or cut data a certain way. We need to call things out, and put passengers and improved services at the heart of the Bill. Lords amendments 2 and 1 are pragmatic steps to take. We accept that the Labour party is implementing a manifesto promise, but the Lords have made reasonable recommendations on how things could be done better, and how we can put the passenger at the heart of the Bill. The amendments look at where passengers already get good services, and stage changes in a way that will not be disruptive to passengers who already get a good service on the railway network.
Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)
I wish to associate myself with the comments of the Secretary of State for Transport. Having heard what she said about some of the amendments from the other place, I can say that she is a far more generous person than I am. I have not been in this place long, but I can certainly tell mischief when I see it—mischief from the other place and, I am afraid, from the Opposition—because the intention here is not to put the passenger at the heart of the Bill. If Conservative Members, when in government, had genuinely wanted to put passengers at the heart of the railways, they might have acted differently over 14 years of abject failure. I spend a lot of time on the railways, as do many Members across the House when travelling between Westminster and their constituency. I see that failure daily, as I have done most of my adult life, at times when, regrettably, the Conservative party has been in government. Conservative Members cannot even explain how much the amendments would cost.
As I said, rail privatisation has been a failure. The Lords amendments do not seek to overturn the decision of this House—of course not—but they would cause considerable delay. However, rail changes made by this Government will be meaningful, unlike those made by the previous Government. Does anyone remember Great British Railways, which the former Member for Welwyn Hatfield was incredibly proud of? Except there was a problem: the railways were not great, and quite often they were not owned by British companies, although I suppose we do at least have to give him the fact that they were railways. Under this Government, there will be great British railways, with one single train operator, and we will deliver a fundamentally better service.
I come from a part of the country that is proud of our railway tradition. George Stephenson, the father of the railways, came from not too far from my constituency, and each week I walk over a high level bridge designed by his son, Robert Stephenson, which still carries trains to this day. The Stephensons would be appalled to see the state of the British railway system today. We transported railways around the world, yet those travelling across Europe or Asia today will see rail systems that are far beyond what we have in the home of railways. That is a national embarrassment.
Finally, Lords amendment 3 on the public sector equality duty is excellent, and I will support it. The point was well made earlier today, during debate on the ten-minute rule Bill, about the indignities that disabled people too often face on the railways. I thank Members from the other place for tabling that amendment, and the Secretary of State for indicating the Government’s support. Ultimately, the public sector equality duty is a high bar, as it should be, and as this Labour Government bring other services back in house, I would like that public sector equality duty to be applied to them.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
Let me say how grateful I am that the Government have accepted Lords amendment 3. The accessibility of public transport is crucial for all those who wish to use rail services and are currently unable to do so because of their disability needs. All village stations in my constituency lack step-free access, and it is deeply frustrating for train users that they have to schlep into Guildford. Wonderful as Guildford town station is, they should not have to travel that far; they should be able to get on the train and head where they want to go. Accessibility is not just for those with disability concerns, as it improves the service for all users—I think of mums and dads with buggies, and cyclists. Step-free access makes trains more accessible, meaning that more people use them. That improves the level of traffic on our roads, which leads to the goals that we all share to reach net zero and create a greener future. I endorse Lords amendment 3 and will support it. I look forward to seeing the detail of the Government’s accessibility road map, and a step change in the speed of delivery under the Access for All programme.
Graham Leadbitter
The SNP supports the Bill and the Government’s position on the Lords amendments, mainly because the SNP Government in Scotland have already driven forward with public ownership. Sadly, without full and normal powers of independence—those will come in due course—the Bill is the current means to support and underpin those actions by the Scottish Government.
I accept the Secretary of State’s position on Lords amendment 1. To take an example from my constituency, Inverness Airport station was opened relatively recently, and that adds time to the journey between Inverness and Aberdeen. Kintore station in Aberdeenshire was also opened, adding time to the overall length of the journey, but I do not think anybody would dispute that those are good improvements to the railway. They open up the railway to far more people, meaning that more people are using the line, spending money on rail services, and taking cars off the road, even if the overall journey time has not been reduced. Therefore the definition of an improvement in performance is really important, and the amendment gives no indication of how that will be dealt with. For that reason, the SNP does not support it.
We agree that Lords amendment 2 could result in further loss to the public purse and the paying of excessive fees over an extended period. We want that money to come back to the public purse so that it can be reinvested in the railway and increase the usage of our trains. This is not the 1980s. There is a lot of talk about going back to how things were prior to privatisation, but governance and scrutiny are now in a very different place from 40 years ago, and we should acknowledge that. A railway that is publicly owned might bring about a real and sustained age of the train, which we might recall from our youth, with real infrastructure investment like that seen in Scotland. We want to continue to do more of that. That will drag people back on to the railways and move them off the roads, which will contribute to our efforts on climate change and gently improve people’s lives. That is why we support the Government’s position on the Lords amendments.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. The hon. Member for Derby North would have been called sooner if she had been consistent with her bobbing, but I know she has been here throughout the debate, so I call Catherine Atkinson.
Catherine Atkinson
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise to speak in favour of Lords amendment 3 and the public sector equality duty. I welcome the Government’s plans for an accessible road map, and the fact that they will work with disabled communities to ensure that the Bill properly meets the needs of people with disabilities who travel on our trains. In the other place the Minister for Rail noted that although some changes can happen quickly, such as the map, others take longer due to the longevity of rolling stock.
I encourage the Government to work with rolling stock manufacturers to formulate a plan as to what changes need to be made to our trains, so that they can be modernised to ensure that future generations of stock serve the disabled community. Given the direction on accessibility, sustainability and affordability, I know that not only the east midlands rail cluster that my constituency is in but the whole industry will be inspired to be the first, so that other countries will want to follow. I hope that Lords amendment 3 will encourage all those who are championing improvements for our disabled communities.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Secretary of State to wind up.
Louise Haigh
I thank all Members for their important contributions. Let me start by echoing my hon. Friends’ frustration with the Opposition’s position. I sat for two and half years in the place of the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), begging his predecessors who sat in my current seat to take action on performance on behalf of passengers, so forgive me, but I will not be lectured by the party that gave Avanti West Coast a nine-year extension. I will certainly not be lectured about putting ideology before the interests of passengers. This Bill is one step towards the biggest reform of our railways in decades. It will put passengers first, and I look forward to debating with all Members of this House as the railways Bill is introduced and passes through the House.
I appreciate the constructive way in which the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) approached the debate. As I set out in my opening remarks, I am concerned about potentially perverse incentives. We have already published our six objectives for the railway in our “Getting Britain Moving” White Paper, which cover reliability, affordability, efficiency, quality, accessibility and safety. I hope that he and other Members will accept that those objectives adequately and comprehensively support the objective of putting passengers first.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) for his passionate defence of the Government’s position and his comments on the ideological position that the Conservatives have pursued. He exposed the huge flaws in their argument as they attempt to frustrate the Government’s progress on this important reform.
My hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) gave a passionate account of the impact of the poor performance of the railways that we have inherited. It cuts entire communities off, and he outlined the importance of having an accountable railway system, which these reforms will deliver by having a single point of access to Great British Railways, through which Members across this House and, crucially, local people through their local leaders can hold the railways to account.
There were powerful contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson) and the hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) on Lords amendment 3, which will be transformative in ensuring that the railways are accountable under the public sector equality duty, that we lift our ambition and aspiration for our railways, and that passengers, particularly those with accessibility needs, are at the heart of this reform.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter), who spoke for the Scottish National party. I agree wholeheartedly that we are not going back to the ’80s or to British Rail—I am obviously far too young to remember it anyway. This is not Network Rail 2.0 or British Rail rebooted; this is an enormous once-in-a-generation opportunity for a new organisation with a new culture and a new ethos, bringing a genuinely new era for our railways. Finally, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) for her consistent passion and contribution on behalf of the wider supply chain. I can happily commit that we will work with rolling stock manufacturers as part of our accessibility road map.
On that note, I ask the House to support the Government’s position by rejecting Lords amendments 1 and 2 and accepting Lords amendment 3.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
Infected Blood Inquiry
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Infected Blood Inquiry.
I am grateful for this opportunity to come before the House to update it on this vital issue and discuss the findings of the infected blood inquiry’s final report. We are now almost six months on from the publication of that report. I am pleased to have the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Gorton and Denton (Andrew Gwynne) with me on the Government Front Bench today. He will lead on the elements of the inquiry report that are matters for the Department of Health and Social Care. We are as one in our determination to drive forward this vital work and deliver action on the findings of the infected blood inquiry’s report. That is the very least that the infected and affected victims of this appalling injustice deserve.
As right hon. and hon. Members will be aware, I have made a number of statements to this House regarding the progress the Government have made on the compensation scheme. Today is an opportunity to go beyond that and cover the wider issues raised in Sir Brian Langstaff’s report. I am grateful to colleagues across the House for their engagement on this matter. I know that we are united as a House in seeking to deliver justice, in so far as it is possible, for this terrible scandal. We will not shy away from the appalling findings of the inquiry’s report and the horrors that have been inflicted on the infected blood community. I reiterate my thanks today to Sir Brian Langstaff and his team for that comprehensive report. Crucially, I thank the community themselves. I recognise the anger and the mistrust that many, quite understandably, hold towards public institutions that have let so many people down so badly.
When the infected blood inquiry reported in May, the now Prime Minister and I were clear that an apology is meaningful only if it is accompanied by action. It is action that we are taking. That is why I was so determined to move quickly to establish the infected blood compensation scheme and why I expect to see payments begin by the end of this year. The Prime Minister committed to delivering the Hillsborough law to help address the institutional defensiveness so powerfully exposed by Sir Brian’s report.
Today, I want to update the House on the work we are driving forward across the other key findings of the report to do everything possible to ensure that an injustice such as this is never allowed to happen again. I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor provided, for the very first time, specific funding for the compensation fund: £11.8 billion in the Budget. That makes clear the scale of this Government’s commitment to justice, and I am proud that we are driving that work forward. Compensation delayed for generations will be delivered.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend rightly pays tribute to Sir Brian Langstaff. Everyone should be grateful to him for what he has done. In recommendation 14 of his second interim report, he was quite clear that the compensation body should be at arm’s length from Government and chaired by a completely independent judge with sole decision-making powers. Do the Government accept the core of that recommendation?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The Infected Blood Compensation Authority has operational independence. The Government have stewardship over the amount of money allocated. As my hon. Friend will appreciate, the £11.8 billion is a huge and substantial commitment. I do not pretend for a moment that any amount of money can actually provide recompense for the scale of the injustice, but at the same time it is an indication of the commitment—from the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and across the Government—to deliver justice.
In saying that, I should say that I am grateful for the work and co-operation of hon. Members across the House. In particular, I once again thank my predecessor as Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen), for his efforts in government. As I indicated in the debate last week, I look forward to continuing to work in that spirit with the new shadow Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), on this hugely important issue. I also thank my ministerial colleague, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), and the former Member for Worthing West. Their tireless campaigning and representation of the community’s interests over so many years has been invaluable.
Much progress has been made in responding to Sir Brian’s report, but much more remains to be done. I will set out the Government’s fuller response to the recommendations to the House in line with the timetable Sir Brian set out, but I hope in the course of this debate to assure right hon. and hon. Members, and most importantly those in the community, that we have listened, we have learned and we are taking long overdue action.
The inquiry’s report is persistent in uncovering the truth, unshakeable in its honesty and damning, frankly, in its criticisms. It is absolutely clear that fundamental responsibilities of patient safety in healthcare were repeatedly ignored, and that
“what happened would not have happened if safety of the patient had been paramount throughout.”
The culture of wilful ignorance runs through the report, and continued to proliferate as the scandal developed. It speaks to Governments across decades and a state more focused on discharging its functions, whatever the risk and whatever the cost. The report chronicles suffering of almost unimaginable scale: thousands of people died prematurely and continue to die every week; lives completely shattered; evidence destroyed; victims undermined; families devastated; and children used as objects of research.
It is a truly horrifying injustice.
However, Sir Brian’s report goes much further. He lays bare the institutional defensiveness that existed within the Government, and indeed the civil service, which led to the truth being hidden for so long, compounding the pain and the injustice. Sir Brian highlights
“the consequences of civil servants and ministers adopting lines to take without sufficient reflection, when they were inaccurate, partial when they should have been qualified, had no proper evidential foundation…or made unrealistic claims that treatment had been the best it could be.”
These actions are the very antithesis of public service, and that is why I know there is such collective determination to learn the right lessons and to act on them.
There is so much that can be said about the volumes of evidence that Sir Brian has uncovered, and I know that during this debate many Members will raise vital issues, but let me be absolutely clear: the report details utterly unacceptable failings on a chilling scale, and this Government will do everything in their power to address them. Through acting on these lessons, we must ensure that all those who have suffered, and those who have campaigned, have not done so in vain.
Let me now turn to the 12 recommendations that the inquiry made in its report. First, I will touch briefly on the progress that has already been made. I know that Members on both sides of the House are keen to hear the details of what the Government intend to do in response. The recommendations are wide-ranging, and are being given full consideration. As I have said, I will provide an update to Parliament by the end of the year against each and every one of those recommendations.
I will begin with compensation. I have already updated the House on a number of occasions on the progress that is being made. I am grateful to Members on both sides of the House for their contributions to the debate on the regulations that we have made to establish the Infected Blood Compensation Authority and the core route for compensation for infected people, but I am also grateful, crucially, for the support there has been throughout the House to ensure that the delivery of compensation is not delayed in any way by Parliament.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
What assurances can be offered that the Infected Blood Compensation Authority has sufficient staffing and resources at its disposal to meet expectations of the swift payments promised by the Government?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I can assure the hon. Lady that the Government will ensure that the authority has the support it needs. I expect it to be making the first payments to infected people by the end of the year, and to start making payments to affected people next year. Further regulations will be required for people who are affected, but that will not disturb the timetable that I have set out. I intend the second set of regulations to be in force by 31 March next year. More than £1 billion has already been paid out in interim compensation, and the Government have opened applications for interim payments of £100,000 to the estates of deceased people who were infected with contaminated blood or blood products and have not yet been recognised.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Ind)
Last week a constituent came to my office whose mother had died 50 years ago, eight months after a blood transfusion she had received when giving birth to her fourth son. When the family went back to collect the medical records, they found that they had all been destroyed. When we talk about a cover-up, they rightly make that link. Is there anything the Government can say to reassure my constituent that her case will be heard?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The Infected Blood Compensation Authority will obviously take—and I know this because of the discussions I have had with Sir Robert Francis—a sympathetic view of the level of evidence that will be required. Sometimes the problem is that the issues complained of date from so long ago, but another chilling aspect of this scandal is, in some cases, the wilful destruction of documents. That is something that we have to take into account when it comes to securing justice for people. I have had the privilege of meeting several members of the community, and I am grateful to them for continuing to campaign on this issue. Let me also openly express my gratitude to Sir Robert Francis and David Foley of the Infected Blood Compensation Authority for continuing to work with the community to drive that delivery of compensation forward.
Ending the defensive culture in the civil service and Government is a cultural change that should unite all of us throughout public life. That is why work is under way across Government to strengthen responsibilities relating to candour and transparency for public servants. In the King’s Speech that opened this Parliament, the Government set out their commitment to legislation to introduce a duty of candour for public authorities and public servants, and the Prime Minister confirmed at the party conference that such legislation would be delivered. He said:
“It’s a law for the sub-postmasters in the Horizon scandal. The victims of infected blood. Windrush. Grenfell Tower. And all the countless injustices over the years, suffered by working people at the hands of those who were supposed to serve them.”
He also said that the Hillsborough law would be introduced to Parliament before the anniversary of that event, on 15 April next year.
Becky Gittins (Clwyd East) (Lab)
One of my constituents contacted me recently to talk about the death of her husband, who contracted hepatitis C as a result of infected blood. The impact on her and her family has been massive, even with the interim payment that she and they have received. Can the Minister confirm that the Infected Blood Compensation Authority has been established and is undertaking the necessary work to deliver payments to victims of this injustice as soon as possible?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I can indeed confirm that. The authority is working in a way that will allow it to scale up as quickly as it possibly can. The need for speed in delivering compensation payments is paramount.
Memorialisation will be really important in how we remember the victims of this scandal. Sir Brian Langstaff makes a compelling case about the need to recognise what happened to people, and for it to be recognised by future generations. Officials have begun the necessary work to respond to Sir Brian’s recommendations on memorialisation, and we recognise that this is an incredibly sensitive issue that we need to get right.
Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendations call for fundamental changes to the way that politics and Government operate, and for one of the largest compensation schemes in UK history. That is entirely in line with the scale of the injustice that he has uncovered. Given the scale of the recommendations, I am committed to updating formally on them within the 12-month timeframe set out by Sir Brian Langstaff, but I assure Members of this House, and, indeed, the infected blood community, that we will drive forward this vital work. We will deliver the changes that are needed, which will stand as a testament to the bravery and determination of people who have been so badly failed.
I pay tribute to all those who fought so hard to bring us to this moment. Their efforts are monumental, and we commit again today to ensuring that they have not been in vain. I commend the motion to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Before I call the shadow Minister, I wish to make a short statement about the House’s sub judice resolution. I understand that several legal cases relating to contaminated blood products have not yet concluded. However, given the public interest in this issue, Mr Speaker has exercised his discretion to allow reference to specific proceedings where necessary, as they concern issues of national importance.
I call the shadow Minister.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
The infected blood scandal is one of the most painful and shameful chapters in the history of the British state. For decades, hundreds of individuals with bleeding disorders and other conditions were infected with HIV, hepatitis B and hepatitis C due to the use of contaminated blood products such as factor VIII and factor IX, which were often imported from overseas. Not only were those infections preventable, but warnings from the medical community were ignored by successive Governments and the national health service.
The victims and their families have endured unimaginable suffering, including the loss of loved ones and social stigma, and, tragically, many have even been blamed for their own illnesses. The health service that was supposed to treat them, heal them and look after them, and the parts of the state that were supposed to protect them, betrayed them. The institutions of this country failed the victims and their families at such a scale that it is almost beyond comprehension.
I am pleased that this subject has been brought forward to be debated today, because a subject as important as this deserves to be thoroughly discussed in the House. As this is my first debate as shadow Minister for the Cabinet Office, I want to put on the record that although there will be much that the right hon. Gentleman and I disagree on, this issue is not one of them. He can be sure of our support as he works to put right a historical wrong, which continues to have a devastating impact on families across the country. This issue is simply beyond party politics. I thank the Paymaster General for updating the House today, and for the tone and tenor that he has already struck in this place since the general election.
The infected blood inquiry, established in 2017 by the former Prime Minister Theresa May, was only started because of the tireless efforts of victims and their families, but it has shed a horrifying light on the true scale of the tragedy. I echo the Paymaster General’s thanks to Sir Brian and his team for the great service that they have given in conducting the inquiry. It stands as a testament to the power of the victims’ voices and to the need for transparency, justice and accountability at all levels.
Although I am here today on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, I want to reiterate the words of the previous Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), who apologised on behalf of not only the previous Government, but Governments stretching back to the 1970s. I know that this sentiment is shared by the current Leader of the Opposition and the whole of our party. We are truly sorry that successive Governments and the NHS failed to listen to medical experts, victims and their families, and the inquiry reveals a decades-long moral failure at the heart of our national life. A great many of its victims and loved ones sadly died before they ever saw the truth being acknowledged. I am pleased that this Government and the previous Government have publicly recognised the scale of the damage and acknowledged the mistakes, and, most importantly, are now taking steps to try to make amends and provide support and compensation for the many victims.
We on this side of the House will continue to support the Government’s ambition to make the first payments before the end of this year. It is important that the Government are pushing ahead with the compensation scheme, which is of the size and scale that is rightfully deserved by the victims, including those who are sadly now deceased, and their families, and that it will take into account all the medical, financial and emotional suffering. As I have said, the Minister will have our full support on this side of the House. An apology is, as he has said, meaningless without not just redress but redress at speed.
In addition, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be working further with the Health Secretary to help implement stronger medical screening protocols, as well as safety measures to ensure that the UK’s blood supply continues to be safe and free from contamination. A scandal like this cannot be allowed to happen again, so the Government must continue to ensure that the global standards for blood safety are met and regularly updated. This includes improving regulations, where appropriate, around the sourcing of blood products, and constantly updating, where possible, the methods for virus detection.
It is also important that we further enhance training and education for our healthcare professionals regarding ethical practices, patient consent and the safe use of medical products. I know that a lot has changed in the national health service in the nearly 50 years since the start of the scandal, but a key aspect of this total failure was the lack of informed consent and the failure of healthcare professionals to adequately communicate the risks associated with treatment.
As the inquiry has shown, there were numerous cases of disrespectful attitudes towards infected patients, which is completely unacceptable. Patients were often blamed for their condition or treated as though they were a burden. As the inquiry has recommended, training must include the ethics procedures as well as patient-centred care. This scandal, sadly, is a painful case study on what happens when this is not the case. Medical staff in the NHS should always approach patients with dignity and empathy, as we know they almost all do on a daily basis. They should ensure that all risks and benefits are clearly communicated and that the rights of patients are upheld.
Adding to this point, and perhaps more broadly as a society, we must continue the great work of recent years on destigmatising those with conditions such as HIV and hepatitis—I note the exceptional work of the Terrence Higgins Trust on the former in particular. As has been said, the victims of the infected blood scandal were victims not only of the NHS and the many Governments’ failings, but of social stigma and discrimination. As the inquiry found, they faced vilification despite the fact that many had received contaminated blood products through the same NHS that was blaming them through no fault of their own. I encourage the Government to continue with public education campaigns to combat the stigma surrounding blood-borne viruses and HIV, as well as implementing better protections in the workplace and public life, so that we can be sure that those infected are not subject to the pain of further discrimination.
I would like to put on record my own thanks to the brave victims and their families. As I said at the start of my speech, we would not be here today if it was not for them and for their campaigning; their hard work; their faith to keep going when nothing seemed to be changing; and, when the message simply did not seem to be getting through, their relentless will to fight, knowing that a great injustice had been done; and their love for their friends and family members, many of whom are sadly no longer with us today, who are all impacted by this terrible situation. Their courage is truly awe-inspiring, and no amount of compensation will ever undo the great tragedy, so great is the pain and suffering they have been through.
I sincerely hope that they will have some peace one day; peace in the knowledge that their Government and their health service have listened, and that all their hard years of campaigning, and the abuse and vile vitriol that many have faced, were not for nothing. In the end, after far too long, they have indeed been heard, and because of all their combined efforts and sacrifices, we can now come together to ensure that nothing like this ever happens again.
They have moved the nation and this Parliament with their deeply personal stories, and we are all deeply sorry for everything they have been through and for everything and everyone they have lost. I thank them all for their extraordinary bravery.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
In the past three years alone, I have spoken in this House at least 10 times about the delays that the victims of contaminated blood have faced in obtaining the justice and compensation they deserve. Progress has been painfully slow and, as my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General said, there is much anger, frustration and mistrust for us to deal with, as it has not gone away. It has not been diluted by the general election, and those seeking compensation are rightly angry and mistrustful.
In May 2024, the inquiry found that more than 3,000 people had sadly died as a result of this scandal. Roughly one victim dies every two days, many without receiving compensation. I would not like to calculate how many people have died since I first spoke about contaminated blood in the House. My right hon. Friend mentioned further legislation and, between now and then, more people will sadly pass on as a result of this scandal.
I appreciate that my right hon. Friend has had only a few months to try to rectify the consequences of the previous Government’s slow response to Sir Brian Langstaff’s demands. Again, I urge my right hon. Friend to do everything in his power to ensure that the Infected Blood Compensation Authority hires the staff needed to address the challenges and to design the procedures required with the utmost urgency. I am sure that my right hon. Friend has got the message.
I have spoken in the House many times of my constituent Sean Cavens, who was one of the youngest people in the country to be infected with hepatitis C as a result of being given contaminated blood. He has campaigned tirelessly on behalf of fellow victims of the scandal. Many people have died waiting for justice.
At the current rate of settling claims, which is another huge issue, victims and others are concerned that many more people will die without seeing a ha’penny of compensation for themselves or their families. They question whether the Government are acting quickly enough, with only 270 claims expected to be dealt with by the end of the financial year and more than 4,500 claims in limbo. I share their concerns; I am not sure if that is good enough.
Sean is now 43 years of age. He was infected with hepatitis C and other viruses in 1983. He wonders where he fits in the selection process. He will not be alone in wondering whether he must simply hang on and hope to survive long enough to see justice done for him and his family.
While the scheme currently has no effect on payments made through the infected blood support schemes, that will cease to be the case in the new financial year. I hope my right hon. Friend the Minister will review that approach and extend the deadline, so that people who receive payments after 31 March 2025 do not see that deducted from compensation through the new scheme. Will my right hon. Friend the Minister consider that point?
Fundamentally, Sean and others are concerned that those currently on the infected blood support schemes are not automatically being offered the core route payment. They wonder why they cannot be offered a lump sum payment equivalent to payments up to the average life expectancy of 86. They are also concerned that the rates of compensation to be offered are rumoured—I emphasise the word “rumoured”—to be only 20% of current annual payments. I am sure that will be outlined by my right hon. Friend in his winding-up speech.
The uncertainty about the compensation scheme’s date of infection criteria is causing concern for victims. The burden of proof for those who were infected after screening for relevant viruses began is deemed by the Infected Blood Compensation Authority to be “higher”, but without any clarification on what that actually means in practice. Will the Minister provide such clarification? Screening began for HIV in November 1985 and for hepatitis C in September 1991, but for hepatitis B it was as early as December 1972. As I mentioned, Sean was infected with hepatitis B in 1983. He needs to know how that will affect his final compensation. For instance, will the IBCA take into account that the screening test for hepatitis B in 1983 is estimated to have been only 43% effective? Will the IBCA recognise that victims were treated for hepatitis C with the retroviral drug Interferon, which has well known serious side effects on patients’ mental health? Will that be reflected in their compensation?
Will the Minister confirm that Sir Brian Langstaff’s recent guidance, contained in his letter dated 13 November 2024, regarding the siblings of victims who deserve compensation, will be accepted by the IBCA and reflected in any compensation scheme that it designs? Will, as Sir Brian has recommended, any family member whose relationship was “so close” to the victim that damage to their own mental or physical health caused by witnessing their sibling’s suffering was “reasonably” foreseeable receive full compensation, if they were so damaged? It has been reported that the IBCA will only compensate siblings of victims if they lived with the victim in the family unit for a full two years. Will the Minister ensure that that arbitrary restriction is not contained in any IBCA compensation scheme?
Will the Minister confirm that the family of any victim who dies before his or her application to the IBCA has been completed will receive full compensation? There are indications that the IBCA interpreted the inquiry’s final report as saying the contrary—that it intends to pay only those who live long enough to receive a final reward. That cannot, in any way, shape or form, be correct. It is not fair and it is not just.
Will the Minister ensure that those who, as children, were purposefully infected with contaminated blood in the name of medical research are awarded enhanced punitive levels of compensation, to reflect the country’s abhorrence at such horrific criminal behaviour, carried out by medical professionals who had sworn to dedicate themselves to healing the sick? That is one thing I just cannot understand. The whole tragic scandal is an absolute disgrace, but it is really abhorrent that this great country of ours experimented on little children. Those children, many of whom have not survived, deserve the compensation. How much they should be awarded is obviously to be determined, as has been stated, but bearing in mind the abhorrent nature of what we have done as a nation, I ask the Minister to ensure it is enough.
The infected and contaminated blood scandal is just one of far too many injustices in the UK in recent decades, in which powerful people have treated institutional reputations, career prospects and, in a number of cases, profits as being more important than working-class lives. Hillsborough, Orgreave, the postal service Horizon scandal and Grenfell all share this shameful characteristic: each one sent out a message that ordinary working-class lives do not matter. The Minister can take this opportunity to show that this Labour Government think that the lives of ordinary people matter by ensuring that the victims of contaminated blood products receive just and meaningful compensation without any further unconscionable delay.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this incredibly important debate. I begin by paying tribute to all those who had their life destroyed by the infected blood scandal, and everyone who has campaigned for justice. They include my constituent Gary Webster. For those who are not familiar with his story, Gary was born with haemophilia, and at the age of nine he was sent to Treloar’s college, a specialist boarding school in Hampshire. His parents hoped that the school’s on-site medical facilities would enable Gary to lead as normal and happy a childhood as possible. All the boys at the school and their parents trusted the doctors who saw them implicitly, but in fact, the boys were being given contaminated factor VIII blood products imported from the US. Gary was in his final year at school when he was told that he had been infected with HIV/AIDS and hepatitis, and that there was no guarantee that he would be alive in six to 12 months. Of the 122 haemophiliac boys who attended Treloar’s between 1973 and 1986, 80 have since died.
The infected blood inquiry report by Sir Brian Langstaff found that
“deaths, illness and suffering were caused needlessly to people with bleeding disorders by…Treating children at Treloar’s with multiple, riskier, commercial concentrates, prophylactically and as objects for research”
and
“Treating children unnecessarily with concentrates (especially commercial ones) rather than choosing safer treatments.”
One can only imagine the pain of the survivors and all the families, and it beggars belief that it has taken so long for them to get justice.
The thousands of victims of the infected blood scandal and their families from across the UK have been waiting far too long for justice, accountability and compensation. The Liberal Democrats welcome the introduction of the infected blood compensation scheme. We are glad that it will bring the victims of this gross miscarriage of justice, including those who were infected and those who have been affected, closer to the justice that they deserve. It is crucial that this compensation scheme is implemented as quickly and effectively as possible. We are also backing calls by the survivors for a duty of candour on all public officials.
The infected blood scandal campaign organisation Factor 8 has highlighted that the guidance on the Infected Blood Compensation Authority website states:
“Should an eligible affected person die during the application process to the Scheme, their compensation award will not be paid. This is in line with the Inquiry’s recommendation.”
However, Factor 8 has examined the inquiry’s second interim report, and in the summary of conclusions, on page 14, at conclusion t), Sir Brian Langstaff says:
“Where an affected person who has not made a claim dies, the sums that they might have received if they had claimed should not become part of their estate.”
The key wording is
“who has not made a claim”.
Will the Government update their policy and ensure that all affected persons who make an eligible claim have their claim honoured? That is important for those affected who are elderly or ill, and are concerned that they may not live to see the end result of the claim process. I hope the Minister will look at that as a matter of urgency.
The infected blood scandal has highlighted the importance of robust blood safety measures and tools. Will the Government look into the merits of pathogen inactivation technology to ensure that no one else unnecessarily suffers from infected blood, and that we have a safe, reliable supply of blood products?
I spoke with Gary Webster on Friday, and as he put it,
“the whole process needs speeding up”.
After so many years of secrecy, deceit and delay, the Government must ensure full transparency about the progress of the scheme, and open, ongoing communication with all those affected. As for the families who have been impacted by this appalling scandal, please give them a national memorial, and reassurance that measures will be put in place to ensure that nothing like this can ever happen again.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call Michael Payne to make his maiden speech.
Michael Payne (Gedling) (Lab)
It is the honour of my life to speak for the first time in this House as the Member of Parliament for my home town of Gedling. To be given the opportunity to represent your neighbours and the place you are proud to call home in the greatest democratic Chamber in the world is a tremendous privilege and responsibility. To the people of Gedling who sent me here to speak up for them, thank you. I am eternally grateful for your support and trust. In my time in this House, I shall work tirelessly to repay that trust, representing each and every one of you to the very best of my ability.
My immediate predecessor was Tom Randall. He and I had our differences, but the fact that two young boys who grew up in Arnold and attended Redhill comprehensive school went on to represent their home town in Parliament says so much about the power of education and the value of our democracy, both of which must be cherished and protected. In particular, I thank Tom for his work in standing up for Hongkongers in Gedling and across the United Kingdom. At the count on election night, I promised that I would continue that important work, and I am pleased to be able to restate that promise on the Floor of the House today.
In 1997, Gedling elected its first Labour MP, my friend Vernon Coaker, now Lord Coaker. For 22 years, Vernon served the people of Gedling with distinction. He was widely respected across this House, just as he is now in the other place. As a kid growing up in Gedling, I was inspired by Vernon visiting my school, so I would like to place on record my thanks to Vernon and his wife Jackie for their service to Gedling.
Since the general election, as I have listened to inspiring contributions from Members across the House, I have been constantly reminded that the privilege of being elected to this House brings with it a duty to speak up for those who feel voiceless, powerless and ignored—people like my auntie, Tara Payne, whose first husband, Thomas Muir, died on 1 August 2013 at just 55 years of age, a victim of the infected blood scandal. Thomas and tens of thousands of others lost their life because their country failed them. It is only because of the courage, perseverance and resilience of those affected and their families that this Government finally committed to compensating them for this horrifying injustice. The victims of the infected blood scandal learned through heartbreaking experience that the words of Martin Luther King are as true today as when he first spoke them:
“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”
Thirty-six years ago, if you had told the young working-class boy growing up in a terraced house in Arnold, just outside of Nottingham, that he would one day be representing the place he owes everything to in the United Kingdom Parliament, he would never have believed it, and I still do not today. The values that our great country and this Parliament stand for, and the parliamentarians and trailblazers who have gone before us, mean that kids from backgrounds like mine can achieve their dreams and ambitions, irrespective of their birthright. During my time in this House, I promise to do all I can to ensure that children in Gedling and across our country have the best possible start in life and are given the support and education to realise their dreams and their full potential, because if we are not here in this House to leave a better society for future generations, what are we here for at all?
I am only able to stand here and speak from these Benches today for three reasons: a loving family, an excellent education and a wonderful community. Let me begin with the community that I am proud to call home. Gedling is a constituency that may not be known by its name, but it certainly should be known by its nature: a beautiful collection of towns and villages to the north-east of the city of Nottingham and bordering the banks of the River Trent. It is surrounded by the historical footprint of the ancient Sherwood forest and the rural beauty of Nottinghamshire county.
My home town of Arnold is a market town with a proud history of hosiery. It was the centre of the framework knitting industry in the 19th century, and the site of the first frame-breaking incident of the luddite riots in March 1811—not that I agree with the rioters’ view on technology in the workplace, but their cause, increased pay and conditions and improved living standards, is just as important today as it was then. That is why I am proud to serve as part of a Government who are introducing the biggest advance in workers’ rights for a generation.
The town of Carlton was once home to a thriving textile industry, and is famous for its brickworks, as well as being home to the late, great actor Richard Beckinsale. It is now primarily residential, as is the smaller railway town of Netherfield, the beautiful village of Colwick and the bustling high-street community of Mapperley and Porchester. Gedling is also home to several picturesque villages that form part of rural Nottinghamshire: Burton Joyce, Stoke Bardolph, Lambley, Woodborough and the former mining village of Bestwood, where the original 1876 Victorian winding engine house still stands in its full glory, thanks to the work of the winding engine house volunteer group and Friends of Bestwood Country Park.
At the heart of the constituency is the historical village from which the constituency took its name: Gedling. It is home to All Hallows church, whose beautiful spire was an inspiration to one of the architects of this Palace, Augustus Pugin. All Hallows stands proudly in the landscape of its surroundings and at the foot of the former Gedling colliery. Gedling colliery was one of the most important collieries in Nottinghamshire, and was known as the pit of nations in honour of its diverse workforce, including from the Windrush generation. It was there that my grandad served as a coal miner. I still remember the tear in his eye when, on the 25th anniversary of the colliery’s closure, I accompanied him and his fellow former coal miners on a visit to Gedling country park, which now stands in the place of the colliery, and which I was proud to play a part in creating as deputy leader of Gedling borough council. The miners of our past powered this country’s future. We owe them an eternal debt of gratitude. That is why I am so proud be part of a Government who are finally ending the miners’ pension injustice.
My family have lived in Gedling for generations. They mean everything to me. I grew up in a home where hard work, respect, playing by the rules and honesty meant everything. Those are values that matter to most families, and they are the values that will guide me during my time in this place. Growing up as the son of a mechanic, watching my dad work hard at three jobs just to keep a roof over my head and pay the bills, I learned the meaning of hard work and the true meaning of family. Growing up watching my grandad and nana spend many years raising much-needed funds for Derrymount school—a school for children with special educational needs and disabilities—I learned the meaning of compassion and never looking down on anyone. Growing up as the son of a mum who went without so that I could be the first in my family to go to university, I learned the meaning of true love and selflessness.
My politics and beliefs are important to me, but, like millions of other people across this country, nothing is more important to me than my family. It is for that reason that making this maiden speech has not been easy. There are two people I desperately wish were watching from the Public Gallery today: John Herbert Waplington and Joan Edna Waplington—my grandad and my nana. Their love and compassion, and the values that they and my parents taught me, are the reason I am who I am today. They are the reason I believe in helping others. My nana and grandad were so proud to see me elected to serve my home community on Gedling borough council in May 2011, and they would have been even prouder to see me elected to this place to serve our home community. It is true that love really is the greatest gift that one generation can leave to another, and I am forever blessed to have been loved by them both.
Gedling is full of people with compassion and a desire to serve others. I have had the privilege of meeting so many of them over the years. Helen Lloyd and the volunteers at Arnold food bank; Tina Simpson and the team at Netherfield St George’s Centre; Nathan Kenney and Mapperley All Stars; Joel Baldry and the team at the Ark in Gedling; the Friends of Gedling Country Park; Daybrook bowls club, which is celebrating its centenary this year; the wonderful musicians of Burton Joyce community brass, and many more extraordinary people and groups, make Gedling such a wonderful community. Gedling is also home to brilliant schools with inspirational teachers and staff. I spent many happy years at Richard Bonington primary school and Redhill comprehensive school. Like so many others across the country, I owe so much to my teachers for their encouragement, support and inspiration.
Being elected to serve my home town in this place was the second greatest moment of my life. The first was marrying my husband, Kyle Robinson-Payne, on 1 July 2022. I am delighted that he is in the Public Gallery today, just as he has been with me on every step of my journey to this place. We live in a world where far too many people continue to be persecuted for who they are and who they love. For as long as I am in this place, I will use this platform to speak up for them and their rights. As our much-missed and beautiful friend Jo Cox taught us, whatever our differences, we always have so much more in common than that which divides us.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
May I first commend the hon. Member for Gedling (Michael Payne) for his maiden speech? I think we can all agree that it was very moving, and that he does great credit to his family and constituents. I apologise for not having been here for the first few minutes; I was running over from Portcullis House.
I had the privilege of being the Minister with responsibility for the infected blood compensation scheme. On 21 May, I brought the scheme to the Floor of the House, speaking from the Government Dispatch Box. In the six months prior, I had been determined—not knowing when the election would be called—to do everything I could to bring that compensation scheme to life after so much delay. That delay has been, as the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) rightly said, totally unacceptable for too long.
In my remarks to the House, I will pay tribute to the victims, explain some of my experiences as a Minister, and make some observations on what lessons and next steps may need to take place. First, I acknowledge the work of my successor as Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds). He has done virtually everything that I would have done, had the electorate overall given us a different outcome. Though I will always be available to members of the public to ask questions in this House, as is my responsibility as an Opposition Back-Bench MP, I believe that he is doing everything he can to move the scheme forward as quickly as possible, and I will come on to the mechanics of that in a moment.
During the month of May, I participated in 18 meetings. I met representatives of 40 groups in London, Leeds, Birmingham, Cardiff, Belfast and Edinburgh. Each meeting was a profoundly emotional and moving moment for me and the officials who accompanied me. I met people who had gone through unimaginable suffering and uncertainty for not just a matter of months, but, in some cases, a number of decades. Some had been infected through their marriage. Some had been born as haemophiliacs and had been treated in ways that had the consequences we have spoken about today. Some had transfusions when giving birth to their children. Some received blood transfusions from imports that proved to be defective. Some had hepatitis C or hepatitis B. Some had HIV. Many had a combination of different conditions. Some had been family members of those who had been infected. It was a humbling but tragic set of moments. In those conversations, I looked those individuals in the eye and said, “I am deeply sorry on behalf of the British state.” It was a great privilege to be asked to do that on behalf of His Majesty’s Government, but we must learn lessons collectively from the enduring failure to come to terms with what has happened over the course of so many Governments and so many decades.
Many of the individuals I met had campaigned relentlessly, and I pay tribute to them today. I will not draw on individual names, because there are just so many people, and it would be unfair to all those whom I met. It was right that we brought forward a second interim payment, and it was right that we recognised the affected communities as well as the infected communities. It was tragic to see that there were sometimes disputes and divisions among many of the communities, because so much time had passed and so much fear existed around who would be looked after first, and about whether there would therefore be constraints on the money available.
I will step back to last year. After the Remembrance weekend in 2023, I was asked to move from my long tenure in different roles in the Treasury to the Cabinet Office to become Paymaster General. The year before, I had had some exposure to the challenge of making provision for compensation, and my immediate predecessor, the former Member for Horsham, had done a lot to try to ascertain what had been done collectively in government. The truth is that there was a very wide envelope: it may have been between £2 billion and £20 billion, and it had moved around according to what analysis could be done. That was because the parameters were fundamentally going to be based on how much compensation we would pay the different groups who were infected and affected. My predecessor started that process, and I pay tribute to him for what he did.
I also pay tribute to the former Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt), who said to me when I left the Treasury, “You have one duty in that job. That is a moral duty to resolve the compensation scheme.” I honestly believe that he was critical in ensuring that we got to where we did on 21 May. I pay tribute, too, to the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), who did so much. At every question session, she sat just behind where I stand now, challenging me on what I was or was not doing. As the Paymaster General knows too well, there are always constraints; his officials will say, “I wouldn’t say that at this point.” We are always trying to say more, but I was acutely aware of how frustrated all the communities were, and that unless what I said was crystal clear, it would set off another storm of speculation on social media.
On the advice of my officials, I appointed Sir Jonathan Montgomery, who in the early months of 2024 assembled a small group of technical experts to advise on how to translate the compensation study of Sir Robert Francis into a full compensation scheme. We asked how, across the five heads of loss—injury impact, social impact, autonomy, the care award and the financial loss award—we could put a number on the relative suffering across all the different conditions. How could we put a number on the loss of a normal life, the loss of the ability to work, the loss of a sense of respect from the community in which people lived, and the stigma that other Members have referred to?
It was suggested to me at the time that I had done it the wrong way round—that I should have engaged with the community. I took the view that we were not going to get this resolved if we had done it that way round, but I knew it was critically important for all the communities to be engaged with, and I always had that expectation and intention. That is why, when I announced the scheme to the House on 21 May, I established a series of engagements where Sir Robert Francis met representatives of the infected and affected communities to go through the scheme and establish where changes needed to be made. Those engagements happened in June. I pay tribute to my successor, the Paymaster General, who engaged with the output of that work and—as per the timetable that had been agreed—made virtually all of the changes that were requested.
Today, understandably, I hear speed being urged across the House—that this should happen quicker to get the payments made. I totally understand that, and to some extent, I agree with it. However, I want to reassure the House that David Foley, who is now setting up and, I think, heading up the Infected Blood Compensation Authority as an arm’s length body of Government, is a superbly experienced civil servant. Neither I nor the Minister could have written the cheques ourselves to set up the processes and systems for evaluating entitlement and getting money out as quickly as possible. For those infected individuals who are alive—around 4,000—speed is obviously an imperative. The reason I took the decision on the £210,000 second interim payment, alongside the £100,000 from October 2022, was that I received advice, and I pressed and challenged my officials to get to a number that was the maximum that everyone would receive.
However, it is of course wholly necessary not just to get a first tranche fully paid out, but to get everyone else paid out. I acknowledge that there are questions about how to verify the date of infection, but despite all the bad things that have happened, obviously we must reconcile speed and effective decision making with ensuring that we pay the people who are entitled to the payments.
In Sir Brian Langstaff’s seven-volume report, of which I went to see the publication on Monday 20 May, he made a number of recommendations, and the Minister has indicated the Government’s willingness to honour those—the national memorial, and biannual meetings with those who have suffered in order to get to grips with the duty of candour. I want us as a House to be clear and honest about what we are really asking for, because the report spanned decades and different generations of Ministers, civil servants and orthodoxies in the medical profession. We need to encourage curiosity among individuals who see things going wrong but are held back from being truly candid because there tends to be group-think which prevents a thorough interrogation of what should be done.
Distortions happen, recollections have varied and medical professionals would make different judgments now from those they would have made at different points in the past. We need to be wise about what the duty of candour will look like, but we need to grasp the core argument that Brian Langstaff makes: we have to change the culture across Government and public service and in politics. I hope the Minister does not move on, but if he does, I hope he moves up. If he stays in his position, however, he can have an impact over time. When Ministers move, they have a received wisdom from their officials of a previous iteration, and we sometimes need to encourage the infusion of new Ministers to ask challenging questions and allow progress to be made.
I have profound concerns about public inquiries. A lot has been said in recent months about the multiple public inquiries that have occurred—how we can make them more systematic and aligned; the secretariats and the processes they run can obviously be streamlined. They are presented as the only cathartic method for the British state to come to terms with something that has gone wrong, and they are often not constrained in any way. They are typically led by retired High Court judges, and I have nothing against them, but we sometimes need to broaden the expertise such as by having economists and other people involved in looking at these things.
I pay tribute to Brian Langstaff, because the inquiry was a massive undertaking, but seven years is an enormous amount of time. I am not an expert on this, but let us think about the read-across to the covid inquiry. Many people have expectations of what that will deliver, but in other countries such analyses have brought forward recommendations and changes much more quickly. We have to get the balance right—not to cover up anything, but because we end up putting things into the long grass for so long. We as a Parliament need to come to terms with that.
I have probably spoken for too long, but I hope I can be forgiven for doing so given the role I had. I want to pay tribute to the work that has been done by those responsible for bringing us to this point. I pay tribute to all the victims and campaigners who have been so determined despite numerous knock-backs from Governments over the years. My own Government absolutely have to take their full share of the blame. Interim arrangements were made and ad hoc compensation schemes were set up, but responsibility was not taken by the British state, and it is absolutely right that we have done so now.
I do not think that social media is very helpful in trying to come to terms with the trauma of all this, or in giving clarity to those who need it. I wish David Foley and the IBCA well. I think there will be a series of letters about how to interpret individual recommendations, but he is setting up an efficient mechanism which, once it starts delivering, will deliver more and more rapidly—I am convinced of that. For some it cannot come soon enough, but I hope that very soon we can draw the right enduring lessons from this national scandal, and I hope it will never happen again.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Michael Payne) for his maiden speech. It is clearly special for him to represent the area in which he grew up. He has so much personal experience and memories, and he spoke passionately about his family. I am sure they are very proud of him today, and that he will be an excellent representative for Gedling. I remember his Labour predecessor well. We were both elected on the same day, and perhaps I can challenge my hon. Friend a little and say that he has big boots to fill as his predecessor was an excellent Member of Parliament.
It is worth reminding ourselves of how we got to this stage. In spite of everything we have heard about the excellent progress being made in response to Sir Brian Langstaff’s report, there is still an enormous amount of frustration out there among victims and their families. In the 1970s and 1980s, as many as 6,000 people with haemophilia and other bleeding disorders were treated with factor concentrates contaminated with HIV and hepatitis viruses. Almost all of them were infected with hepatitis C, and around 1,250 people, including 380 children, were also infected with HIV. Some of those unintentionally infected their partners or other family members. More than three quarters of those infected with HIV have since died, as have around one third of those infected with hepatitis C. Of those still alive, many are in poor health due to liver damage, or from living with long-term HIV. Additionally, around 26,800 people were given blood transfusions that were infected with hepatitis C. All that was avoidable.
By the 1970s, blood and blood products were already known to transfer viruses. It was known that the use of pooled blood products significantly increased the risk of infections. Those risks were ignored by leading clinicians, Ministers and civil servants, and they failed to take appropriate action to end the use of those products and ensure the use of safer products. Pharmaceutical companies and leading clinicians did not share appropriate information about risks with patients and patient groups. They failed in their duty of candour. It is no wonder that the victims of those crimes mistrust the state—the state that should be there for them, to protect them and be on their side.
We are here because, despite many dying along the way, and with one victim dying every four days, the surviving victims refused to give up. They refused to be defeated. They won their battle, and over and above that they won the right to be included in the decisions, as Sir Brian Langstaff made clear in his report. All along, the victims have been lied to, refused access to information, their records have mysteriously gone missing, and more recently they have found themselves repeatedly let down by the Government, it has to be said, in the form of the Cabinet Office.
The Cabinet Office controls the decisions of the Infected Blood Compensation Authority. I hear what the Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office said to me earlier about operational independence, but ultimately the Cabinet Office is making the decisions and victims are not included in the way that Sir Brian recommended. Victims feel that decisions are being made without their involvement. Those suffering with hepatitis C feel particularly excluded and do not feel that their suffering has been fully recognised in the compensation scheme.
In his interim report, Sir Brian Langstaff said that there should be an arm’s length body. I will not read the whole recommendation, but he said:
“I recommend that an Arms Length Body…should be set up to administer the compensation scheme, with guaranteed independence of judgement, chaired by a judge of High Court or Court of Session status as sole decision maker”.
The report goes on to state that the body should
“involve potentially eligible persons and their representatives amongst those in a small advisory panel, and in the review and improvement of the scheme; and…permit the hearing of applicants in person.”
None of that is part of the compensation process, yet it is clearly there in the report, and it was Sir Brian Langstaff’s intention that the victims should be involved much more.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
In terms of listening to the victims, there was an extensive consultation exercise during the general election campaign. My predecessor set that up, and it continued under the aegis of civil servants in that period. Afterwards, 74 recommendations were made, having listened to the community about changing the scheme. The Government accepted the implementation of 69 of those 74 recommendations. I suggest to my hon. Friend that that shows listening to the concerns about the scheme’s original formation. In respect of the Infected Blood Compensation Authority, I strongly recommend that he, as chair of the APPG, meets Sir Robert Francis and David Foley. He can speak to them about precisely the involvement of the infected blood community, which is hugely important.
Clive Efford
I am fully aware of the consultation that took place, but what Sir Brian Langstaff describes is the ongoing involvement of the victims in the process, by their being part of an advisory panel and continuing to advise the compensation board.
I know that David Foley was at the conference at the weekend for the organisation that represents people with hepatitis. That organisation was pleased with the discussions it had with him, but none the less and in spite of that, people who were at that conference have since made clear to me that they feel frustrated and that, ultimately, the Cabinet Office is in control of the decision-making process. My right hon. Friend may take issue with that, but he should take note of the fact that that belief is out there, and we need to deal with it.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman is right to labour the point. All that we are hearing from the representative groups—those who make sure that they represent all those in the infected or affected communities—is that they want consultation with Government. They just want to be listened to and properly consulted as all these regulations are designed going forward. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I do not understand the Minister’s sensitivity around all this. He has to be aware—I am pretty certain that he is—that there is this sensitivity when it comes to the community.
Clive Efford
I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. I am trying to make my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General aware of the strength of feeling out there that needs to be addressed. We will not satisfy people about the process unless we address those concerns.
One thing driving that concern is that the current process is not what was described in Sir Brian’s report, and it is not what was expected at the time he published his reports. The victims and their representatives feel excluded. On top of that, they feel enfeebled because of the lack of resources for advice and advocacy. There is further to go, if the victims are to have complete faith in the process. There is frustration that the people they have been battling against have been put in charge of the reparations. Surely my right hon. Friend can see their concerns. The death rate is now one every three days, and the increase in the rate is largely due to the fact that those with hepatitis have been suffering with long-term chronic liver disease. The Red Book for the Budget sets out that compensation will be paid over five years. At that rate, another 600 people will die without getting justice. The Treasury must not become another reason for justice for victims being delayed. Will my right hon. Friend guarantee that that will not be the case?
I am aware that Sir Brian Langstaff has written to my right hon. Friend about the rule on siblings of 18 years of age at the time the sibling passed away. Will he explain to the House—or write to me on this—exactly where that ruling came from? It does not seem to appear in any of the recommendations or in Sir Brian’s report.
I have spoken before about the £15,000 offered to former pupils of Treloar school, which they consider derisory. It is another example of what happens when victims are excluded from the process.
I also draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to the report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which is an excoriating criticism of the Cabinet Office. It exposes what it describes as a lack of clear and understandable information in the explanatory memorandum and a lack of preparedness for delivering the compensation scheme. The Committee doubts that the Cabinet Office will be able to pay compensation by the end of the year. Is he confident that the Committee is wrong and that payments will be made by the end of the year?
Lastly, large amounts of money were made by pharmaceutical companies and others while victims were being exploited and, in some cases, even being experimented on. That did not come about because of mistakes; they were deliberate actions, which in many instances were criminal. The British taxpayer must not pay the full cost alone. Those who made money from this appalling scandal should be required to make a significant contribution. In spite of what my right hon. Friend may consider a negative speech, I welcome the progress that we have made, but there is much further to go to deliver the justice that Sir Brian Langstaff set out in his report.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
It is always difficult to follow somebody who has said almost exactly what I had intended to say in my speech. What I will try to do for you, Madam Deputy Speaker, is rephrase it in a way that will hopefully be helpful and useful to the House. I am grateful to follow the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford), who raised a number of really important issues about which those on the Government Front Bench should listen carefully.
I noticed the Paymaster General’s reaction to the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst; he has got to relax a little. We are trying to help and to be the voice of the community, who are telling us these things. They want to be engaged and properly consulted with. They want to be part of the process. That is what they are telling the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood, and that is what we are hearing from all the representative groups right across the United Kingdom. Perhaps the Paymaster General should just take on board some of the things that we are trying to put forward about the feelings and opinions of a lot of the community and what they are saying to us directly as a consequence of what is happening.
I congratulate the Government on honouring their commitment to have a debate. It is a pity that we did not get the full day, but one thing I have noticed is that it is getting a bit quieter in the Chamber when we have these debates and statements. I hope that there will not be fatigue when it comes to discussing important issues relating to the infected blood scandal, as we as a House will need a detailed approach to the ongoing compensation schemes.
I really hope that we will not get to a stage where the Government see this as “job done” and another box to be ticked, thinking, “There we go: infected blood is dealt with and we can now move on.” It is incumbent on all of us who were involved in the campaign to ensure that we continue to press the Government, ensuring that we talk up on behalf of our constituents and those impacted and affected.
I really hope that we start to see some newer Labour Members, in particular, taking a bigger interest—we used to have really involved, detailed debates where people turned up and played their part—as I am sure that many of them represent people who are impacted and affected. It would be good to see a few of them turn up.
John Glen
I think it is it is a good sign that there are fewer Members of Parliament in the Chamber, because it shows that there has been meaningful progress. I do not see tetchiness from the Minister; what I see is somebody who has listened carefully to the representations of the community and acted on them. I accept and acknowledge that there are outstanding matters, but actually, when infrastructure has been set up—in some cases for 20 years—to campaign, it can be quite difficult to adjust to delivery mode.
Pete Wishart
There is no one in the House more experienced than the right hon. Gentleman. I pay tribute to what he did in government and how he brought this issue forward. He is right; we must be a bit careful, but all of us involved are just trying to take the debate forward. He is possibly right that there may be satisfaction that things have moved on and we are at a different stage in the campaign, but it is still important that we continue to ask questions of Government. That is what we are all trying to do in this debate.
Pete Wishart
I will, so long as the hon. Member does not poke me in the back, as he did the other evening.
Jim Shannon
My constituent has mentioned an outstanding issue that must be addressed. Current proposals only include siblings who were under the age 18 and lived in the same household as an infected person for at least two years after the onset of the infection. The requirement for siblings to have lived in the same house should be removed. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the loss and suffering of a sibling who did not live in the same household for two years is no less than that of a sibling who did?
Pete Wishart
I do, and I am happy that my speech has provided the hon. Gentleman with another opportunity to make one of his interventions, as he does in practically every debate that he attends. He makes a good point, which the House has now heard.
I want to reinforce the point about IBCA’s arm’s length process. The hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst is right that it is abundantly clear, in both the interim and the full report, that there is a general expectation that IBCA will be truly at arm’s length, divorced and separate from the Government. We cannot get into the head of Sir Brian Langstaff when he designed the scheme, but I think that he expected there to be a proper arm’s length body that would be responsible to Parliament, not Government. What we have is the other way around, and that will probably be okay, but for extra security, those of us who are interested would like to make sure that it is properly independent, according to Sir Brian Langstaff’s original intention.
As long as there is a sense that this is a Government-influenced body, there will be continuing suspicions—from a community that has been let down so badly for decades by decision makers and Government—that this is the same old approach that we have seen in the past. I ask the Minister to find a way to ensure that we get that proper judge-led, arm’s length body that is responsible to us as the representatives of the people of the United Kingdom, and not just exclusively to Government. I have no issue with all the tributes that people have made to David Foley and all the other people involved, because they have been fantastic, but we are already beginning to see Cabinet Office-based appointments coming through for IBCA. Again, we are not really seeing consultation with those at the sharp end of all this. We need some more of that.
Sir Brian Langstaff said that two expert panels—one representing the legal parts of the issues, and the other the health parts—would work almost simultaneously and in concert with each other, to feed back to the chair of the board. It would be good to see that starting to emerge. He also said—not as clearly, but it was intended—that an expert panel would comprise those representing the community, both the infected and the affected. They would have a similar role to feed into the chair of IBCA. I hope that some of that will happen.
There is widespread support for what this Government have done, and £11.8 billion is a significant sum that everyone is confident will go most of the way towards meeting the compensation expectations, but there are issues. Members have touched on some of them. I will rattle through them—I do not want to detain the House and I have raised them before—but I just want to make sure that we do touch on them.
The hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst is absolutely right that the £15,000 for those caught up in unethical research is far too low. This is coming back to all of us again, so I really hope we are able to revisit that. Then there are those who were treated with interferon as a matter of course. They have not been properly and fully included in the compensation scheme, so again I hope the Government are able to look at that. There is concern that hepatitis C payment bandings do not match and reflect the suffering caused. That is what I have been hearing from constituents involved in the campaign, so I hope the Government will be able to look at that.
There is the issue about bereaved parents and children, who will receive very low compensation payments if they are not the beneficiary of the estate of bereaved family members. I think that could be addressed. No compensation has been paid to siblings for their loss and suffering if they were over 18. Compensation for lack of earnings should consider future career progression that was prevented from occurring, rather than simply existing careers that were cut short. Lastly on my list, which is not long but is substantial, is the fact that the need for a date of infection is causing a great deal of anxiety and confusion among the community.
I believe that most of those issues could be properly addressed with the full involvement of community representatives if they have full and open access to Government Ministers and are able to play their part in designing any future schemes. The community should be involved to provide valuable information and advice on the most pressing issues that need to be addressed.
One issue that I want to turn to in the bulk of my remarks is the part of Sir Brian Langstaff’s report that has probably received the least attention thus far: the “why” of all this. Why did this happen? Why were we misled for such a long time? We have had useful discussions about compensation and it is great to see that progress, but unless we explore and examine the reasons why it happened, we will not learn all that much as we go forward. The duty of candour Bill, which I will come on to, is a useful, positive and helpful development, but unless we have a proper examination of what went so badly wrong, then I am not entirely sure we will learn the full lessons of what happened over the past couple of decades.
The inquiry uncovered shocking revelations about the Government’s handling of the issue, including failures to provide full information to those affected by contaminated blood and the delay in acknowledging the extent of the problem. Sir Brian’s inquiry found that both Ministers and civil servants adopted lines to take, or strategies to avoid providing full and candid responses to the crisis. That lack of openness contributed to the suffering of those impacted, leaving many victims and their families feeling unheard and ignored for decades. Those of us in the House in the noughties who were raising these concerns and issues on behalf of constituents who presented in our surgeries remember being dismissed by “nothing-to-see-here” letters from successive Health Ministers. I would not say we were fobbed off exactly, but we were certainly told that there was nothing we should really be concerned about. With all the serious issues that were raised, there was a real sense that none of it was being taken seriously.
Sir Brian Langstaff recommended that Ministers and senior civil servants should be legally required to provide candour and completeness in their responses to public concerns. That brings us to the duty of candour Bill promised by the Government. I think all of us involved in this campaign were delighted to see it featured in the King’s Speech. We look forward to the Government introducing it. Most of the Bill is predicated on the response to Hillsborough. Key lessons have been taken from the infected blood scandal, and from other scandals such as the Horizon Post Office scandal. All of us who have been involved in these campaigns will look forward to our opportunity to debate and design the Bill.
A statutory duty of candour for all public servants, including civil servants and Ministers, would hold public officials accountable for their actions and require them to be transparent in their dealings with the public. Such a law would compel civil servants and Ministers to act with integrity and fully disclose all relevant information, even when it might be uncomfortable or damaging to the Government’s reputation.
In the course of the Langstaff inquiry, Andy Burnham pointed out that during the tainted blood scandal and even earlier, in various materials, the Government had frequently employed the phrase
“no wrongful practices were employed”.
In our debates on this issue, I often refer to Andy Burnham’s evidence to the inquiry, because it was particularly compelling and very helpful. I probably received more letters from him when he was Health Secretary than I did from any other Health Secretary. He talked about the letters that he used to send to Members of Parliament, and expressed his concern about the inaccurate lines provided by departmental officials. He believed that those lines perpetuated false narratives that failed to address the needs of those whose lives had been so devastatingly affected. He emphasised that the Government’s response to the infected blood issue was driven primarily by a fear of financial exposure, and he believed that explained the comprehensive failure to address the concerns of the victims over five decades.
I have called for a further investigation or inquiry into why this was allowed to happen in a major Department of State, given that it clearly led to many of the difficulties that we are now addressing through various compensation schemes. Much of the debate has touched on the Langstaff inquiry, but a separate look at what went wrong would be useful and cathartic for the Government, and would help them to shape their duty of candour Bill. I am not here to criticise them, although it sometimes sounds as though I am; I think that they have made a good start with all this, and we are all grateful for the £11.8 billion for the compensation schemes.
I became involved with this issue when a couple of my constituents were caught up in it. I remember those early days when we did not know what was going on, and the letters from the Department of Health made the situation all the more confusing. Over the decades, I have come to know members of the community. Some have come down to the House of Commons, told their story, and asked us to question Ministers. I pay tribute to Haemophilia Scotland and the Scottish Infected Blood Forum, which have made excellent representations on their behalf. The fact that we are discussing the issue now and have been able to see a clear way forward is largely due to the case that they put, and the fact that they were able to confront Members of Parliament, the Government and Ministers, and we should give them due credit for what they have done to bring us here today.
Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)
I want to record my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson) and the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) for their tireless efforts in seeking justice for the victims of the infected blood scandal. The issue has had an impact on countless families, and I welcome the Government’s ongoing work to address it with the seriousness that it deserves.
Today I want to share the story of Jean Anziani, the mother of one of my constituents. Jean was a nurse who came home with a cut on her hand after a patient struggled during a blood draw, causing the glass syringe to break. Within just over a week, her health had declined so rapidly that she was rushed to hospital, where her children, 17-year-old Kenneth and 15-year-old Christine, had to wear full protective gear just to visit her. By then, Jean was unable to recognise her children. Only 13 days after receiving that cut, she passed away at the age of just 39. Christine shared that story with me; it was truly heartbreaking, and brought a tear to my eye.
Jean had contracted hepatitis B. The current support schemes focus only on those diagnosed with hepatitis C or HIV, leaving victims like Jean without the acknowledgment or the compensation that they deserve. The schemes were originally designed to address the most commonly identified infections, but they have unintentionally excluded people infected with hepatitis B. As a result, Jean’s daughter Christine is unable to receive any compensation or recognition for her loss. I would be extremely grateful if the Paymaster General could look into this matter for me and have further discussions.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
This truly has been one of our nation’s worst ever scandals and injustices. Thousands of patients contracted HIV or hepatitis viruses, or both, from contaminated blood, and this was not an accident or something that could not be avoided. Nor was it down to pure negligence or people not being sufficiently attentive, although there was plenty of that. The report is clear about the
“systematic, collective and individual failures”
in identifying and managing infection risk from blood products, and in the response of the health service and the Government.
This issue affects the constituents of very many MPs, but it has a particularly tragic depth of salience in my constituency. East Hampshire is home to Treloar’s, a non-maintained special school and college that delivers outstanding education, nurture and care to children with some of the most profound disabilities. However, it was also the place where there was a terrible concentration of victims of this scandal. Because 40 to 50 haemophiliac patients were there at any one time, it came to be seen as a unique opportunity to study the disease, and a haemophilia centre was established at the nearby hospital in 1972. Towards the end of the 1970s, the hospital still catered to the needs of the wider community, but the haemophilia centre was relocated to the school grounds. The inquiry report dedicates an entire chapter to the experiences of pupils at Treloar’s, and to how research objectives often outweighed the best interests of the children. The inquiry heard that of the 122 pupils with haemophilia who attended the school between 1970 and 1987, only around 30 remain alive.
I have spoken to a number of my infected or affected constituents over the years, including Adrian “Ade” Goodyear, a man who speaks with remarkable dignity and determination. I will quote briefly from his most recent message to me:
“The camaraderie and unity of we former pupils—well the handfuls of us that are left…We have stuck together to get to the truth due to the promises and pacts we made towards our lost when they were living, as well as for their families.”
We have been waiting a very long time for the truth about a string of failures, omissions and wrongdoing, starting with the failure to achieve domestic self-sufficiency, and the decision to allow the importation of higher-risk factor VIII concentrates, which in many cases were procured via commercial arrangements that made infection more likely because the products came from high-risk groups, including prisoners and drug users. We were complacent about the risks of hepatitis C and slow to respond to the risks of AIDS, and we permitted research to be conducted on people without telling them—or, in the case of children, their parents—or informing them of the risks. In some cases, we failed to tell people that they were infected, thus closing down the possibility of their managing the progression of their disease or its transmission to others. In other cases, people were told starkly and insensitively about a diagnosis of HIV. There was defensiveness, a lack of candour, the active destruction of evidence and, of course, the absence of a meaningful apology or redress for so many years.
In his statement on 21 May, my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) rightly accepted Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommended five categories of pay awards and confirmed additional interim compensation payments. There now needs to be clarity about the basis on which claims can be assessed, and the speed of those payments. Campaigners have raised concerns about the information sources available, and I hope that the Minister can provide assurance that steps will be taken to ensure that there is easily accessible information to support people making compensation claims.
I have been asked by former pupils at Treloar’s to ask about the compensation amounts of £10,000 and £15,000, which have been mentioned by the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford). It would be helpful to have on the record, and in Hansard, an explanation of those sums of money.
We have talked about memorialisation and the national memorial. The inquiry also recommended that there be a memorial dedicated specifically to the children at Treloar’s, and that it be provided at public expense. I hope that the Minister can provide an update on that, either in his closing remarks or in follow-up correspondence.
I hope that one of the positives that can come from this generation will be the instituting and institutionalising of a duty of candour, in both letter and spirit. The report recommends a review of the existing statutory duty of candour, which requires NHS organisations to be open and transparent about mistakes and harm in care, and requires leaders in health service organisations to be personally accountable for responding to concerns about safety. I think we all welcome the Bill appearing in the King’s Speech. For this generation, we need to make the duty of candour an established principle across the whole of public service, which is something in which we are all involved, in our different ways, as parliamentarians and members of the Government.
Nothing can ever make up for all these failings, but we can at least ensure that the compensation scheme works as well as it can, and that we as a state face up to our failings and truly learn the lessons, so that we can have confidence when we say, “Never will this happen again.”
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
We must always remember that at the heart of any public scandal, there are people. So many of my hon. Friends this afternoon have told tragic stories, but also stories of courage and humility. Alongside other brave, courageous victims and their families, Becca, Jess and their siblings have campaigned for justice for people infected and affected, in loving memory of their father, Joe. Like me, they welcome the decisiveness and commitment from this Government. With families like them in mind, I would like to ask the Minister to outline when he expects the second set of regulations to be laid before Parliament, how victims and their families can continue to be involved and informed of progress, and how claims can be made.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I should probably start by paying tribute to my predecessor in this role, my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen), who has also been Paymaster General. He has done so much on this issue, and I will touch on his comments a bit later. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) for opening for the Opposition today. I will just mention to the Paymaster General and other Ministers in the Department that they obviously continue to have our broad support.
We should never stop acknowledging the size and scale of this issue, which is almost unimaginable to Members from across the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire said that we needed to see justice, and that is what all the victims would like. I thank all Members who have spoken in this debate, and agree that what happened to the victims of the infected blood scandal was profoundly wrong and should never be repeated.
The establishment of the inquiry in 2017 was the right first step towards doing what we can to repair the damage, inasmuch as that can ever be possible. I am pleased that the work started by the previous Government to adopt the recommendations put forward by the inquiry is being continued by this Government. I must point out, though, how important it is for the Government to stay on schedule and start delivering payments through the Infected Blood Compensation Authority by the end of the year, as the Paymaster General outlined. We will ensure that that happens. It is incumbent on us all in this House to do our part to restore trust in our state, because that has been damaged, as well as thousands of lives. Ensuring that those payments go out, as was committed to, is an important part of that. More broadly, I will reflect on the challenges ahead.
Before I do that, I will touch on a couple of remarks made by Members in this debate. The hon. Member for Gedling (Michael Payne) made his maiden speech, and he spoke kindly of his predecessor, who is a good friend of mine. He probably does not remember, but I campaigned against him back in 2014 when my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) was a young by-election candidate. Today, the hon. Gentleman spoke very strongly of his personal story. He clearly has the clarity and volume of a town crier so, even if we do not always agree with him, we will certainly hear him from this side of the Chamber. I welcome him to his place.
The hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery), the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford), who speaks for the APPG, and the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) talked about different aspects of this subject, but they each mentioned the children who were used for research. I am sure that the Minister will want to reflect on that in his closing comments.
All three hon. Gentlemen touched on the patient’s voice. One recommendation is that the patient’s voice should be improved with the routine collection of patient satisfaction data, and with funding for patient advocacy groups and charities. Perhaps that is one way that patients and those affected could continue to be involved.
My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) mentioned the obvious impact of the cases in his constituency, as well as the need for a memorial to those affected. I hope the Minister will touch on that, too.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury touched on broader issues not just for the Cabinet Office but for Ministers in all Departments. It is important that we encourage curiosity rather than group-think. We all have a duty of candour and, thinking of those who work for us, it can sometimes be difficult in a political environment. The Minister should also reflect on my right hon. Friend’s point about public inquiries. It is obviously important to get to the truth, but the Cabinet Office might want to reflect on the speed at which we do that, as well as on who can achieve it and how.
We have heard about the need for stronger medical screening protocols and safety measures to ensure that such a scandal can never happen again. It is also important to acknowledge the need to continue interrogating our risk assessment and mitigation measures more broadly across our health services and the Government.
While I settle into my new role as shadow Paymaster General, I look forward to working with the Government to see what assistance I can offer, as well as fulfilling the Opposition’s job of holding them to account. I will do so in the same spirit shown by Labour Members on this issue. I will hold the Government to account to ensure that we do all we can, across all areas of Government, to implement the strongest possible risk assessment, mitigation and response procedures. It is important to have considered communication with affected groups, too.
The inquiry acknowledged that there was a failure within the NHS to properly implement informed consent and to ensure that patients, at all stages of the healthcare system, understood how their personal care related to the larger risks. While I appreciate the good work being done to make progress on this issue, we must not take our eye off the ball on any aspect of the Government’s work.
I am sure that there is still work to be done in the Department of Health and Social Care, in the Cabinet Office and across Government to ensure that informed consent and patient communication are working properly at all times, and to ensure that Government frameworks in our health and care system are being properly and continually evaluated so that the need for holistic informed consent does not fall victim to a complex and often disjointed system. That requires not only work on the health and care front, but on broader governance frameworks and improved cross-Government collaboration.
That speaks to the core issue raised today, with which I agree: the Government must continue to ensure that global standards for blood safety are met and regularly updated, as hon. Members have mentioned. I look forward to working in opposition, alongside hon. Friends in other shadow roles, and undertaking cross-party work to ensure that the regulations around the sourcing of blood products and virus detection are strengthened. As with the other measures mentioned, I want to ensure that that is done robustly and ahead of time, and not as a reactive measure, as has sadly been the case in the past.
One of the most difficult elements of such an inquiry process is to acknowledge that, too often, we make the changes that are needed to prevent a problem only when the consequences of that problem have reached intolerable levels. We need to resist boxing the issues raised today into direct consequences for our health and care practices, when a much more fundamental interrogation of our governance and practice framework is needed, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury noted.
As numerous speakers have said, the inquiry shed clear light on the continuous failure on the part of institutions to properly address the issue as it came up. In far too many cases, infected patients were distrusted, disbelieved and, at points, treated with outright disrespect. Although it is important to acknowledge the significant changes that have happened across our health systems to tackle that, we should never become complacent. We must remain vigilant about the need for medical staff in the NHS to approach patients with trust, dignity and empathy. We must ensure that our communications frameworks and staff training properly reflect those issues.
The inquiry made it clear that the victims of the scandal were victims not only of institutions, but of widespread stigmatisation and prejudice. Whatever our party affiliation, we can all agree that we should continue to progress the good work that has happened since that time and to support the fantastic organisations that continue to take on that important activism.
I put on record my thanks to the brave victims of this scandal and their families. They have stepped forward bravely and steadfastly to fight for their dignity, against the wrongs committed upon them and for proper recognition. I thank the former right hon. Member for Maidenhead for introducing the inquiry back in 2017. I also thank the inquiry leaders for the essential work they conducted, without which we would have made much less progress at an even slower pace.
No amount of compensation will ever make up for the wrongs committed and the tragedies suffered. Of course, many who have been affected are no longer around to see the small benefits of compensation. I offer a small amount of hope to those affected: I am confident that hon. Members in this House, from all parties, have heard them and trust them. We know the suffering that has been brought upon them. They have fought valiantly and relentlessly, and I hope that they can take some comfort from knowing that their fight led to the recognition of the scale of the scandal and to the action that Governments of both colours have taken to ensure such a scandal never happens again. I hope history will show that further such suffering is avoided because the victims of this scandal exposed the wrongs of the past.
In closing, I once again express my deep regret for the continuous failure of Governments over the years on this issue. I express my support for the cause of those who continue to fight. I assure the infected and affected who are still fighting, and Members of this House, that I and my colleagues on the Conservative Benches will do all we can to continue our cross-party work, which we know still has to be done.
In the relatively non-political spirit of this debate, I ask the Minister, as he continues to work with Opposition Members to address the outstanding issues for the victims and their families, to be open about making adaptations and changes to address those issues, and to ensure that in the process of undertaking compensation, we do not end up alienating segments of those involved and ignoring the suffering of those who have been affected.
I thank hon. Members who have spoken today, the victims and their families, and all those who have played their part by doing what they can to ensure that something like this never happens again.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Andrew Gwynne)
I stand here as the Minister for Public Health and Prevention, humbled and with a large degree of humility. The Department of Health and Social Care is rightly hated and despised by the infected blood community. We let them down. For that, I am personally sorry and my Department collectively is sorry.
I say that in a heartfelt way because for the past decade and a half, both as shadow Public Health Minister and as a Back Bencher, I have raised the issue of the infected blood scandal on behalf of the campaigns and of my constituents who were infected and affected. Now that I stand here as a Minister in the Department responsible, I feel it is incumbent on me to give that heartfelt apology. It is too late coming for so many, but I hope that those who are still here and their families and loved ones will accept it in the spirit in which I give it: I am sorry. We let you down and we must make sure it never ever happens again.
I welcome the two new Opposition spokespeople, the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) and the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood). I want to start in the way the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay finished, by assuring him that the Government will work collectively and constructively with Members from across the House, from whichever party they come and whichever part of the United Kingdom they represent. This is an issue that has stained the body politic of our country for too long, and it is incumbent on us to work together across parties and across artificial divisions to make sure that we get the best deal for our constituents and their families.
I also thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Michael Payne), who made an incredibly powerful maiden speech, setting out how he will be a champion for the people of Gedling in the years to come. The people of Arnold, John and Joan, and his husband Kyle are all rightly proud of him today, from wherever they were viewing the speech. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford), who has played such a pivotal role in this campaign over a large number of years, as well as my hon. Friends the Members for Swindon North (Will Stone) and for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin).
On the Opposition Benches, I thank the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen), who led on this matter in his former ministerial position. We thank him for his work. I know that sometimes I was frustrated with him, from just behind where he is sitting, but I appreciate the work he put in behind the scenes as well as at the Dispatch Box. The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) has similarly been a tireless campaigner, as has the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds).
The infected blood scandal is one of the most appalling in our nation’s history. It was an institutional failure of the highest order, spanning decades. From the national health service to the civil service to Ministers across successive Governments, at every level, those the public trusted to protect them fell short in ways that were both tragic and catastrophic. They let down victims, their families and our country. In the course of this debate, we have heard the names: Sean, Gary, Thomas, Jean, Ade and Joe. They remind us of the real people—those who are deceased, those who were infected, and those who are affected. They are real people, not statistics, and it is important that we never forget that. Victims were denied the truth; many passed away before they saw justice. The state worked to protect itself, and those people paid the price.
I must echo the tributes that have been made to Sir Brian Langstaff and his team by Members from across the House. Their steadfast pursuit of the truth finally brought this decades-long scandal to light. Sir Brian and his team have set us on a path towards beginning to right the terrible wrongs that were committed. They uncovered a litany of collective and personal failures, as many hon. Members have highlighted by sharing stories from their communities and constituencies. Each one is significant in its own right and together they add up to a complete disaster.
Sir Brian found that this national scandal could have been prevented. It was already known that these treatments were contaminated, yet the warnings were disregarded time and again. People in positions of power and responsibility had multiple opportunities to halt the transmission of these infections, but, on each occasion, they chose not to act.
Many in this House have campaigned for justice for a long time, giving voice to those who had been repeatedly silenced. In particular, I wish to pay tribute to my right hon. Friends the Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention and the Secretary of State for Wales. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West), and for Newport East (Jessica Morden), and the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake). I also thank the former Member for Worthing West, Peter Bottomley, and the now Mayor of Manchester, Andy Burnham. In this debate today, we have again heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Eltham and Chislehurst and for Blyth and Ashington, the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire, and the former Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for Salisbury.
As a Government, we will do our utmost not to repeat the mistakes of the past. We were elected on a manifesto that committed to act on the inquiry’s findings and to put right historical injustices. The public rightly expect nothing less of this Government than fulfilling our moral obligation to compensate victims, and we aim to do so without delay.
In October 2022, the previous Government spent £440 million on initial interim payments of £100,000 to the living infected. Following the publication of the inquiry’s final report in May, a further £728 million was paid as a second interim payment of £210,000 to all UK-registered living infected victims. The Government have also committed, in legislation, to paying £100,000 to the estates of the deceased infected to recognise those who have not yet received a payment and to ensure that some of those affected—such as parents, children and siblings—are supported. That scheme opened on 24 October. We recognise that money can never make up for the heartbreak that victims and their families have experienced, and much of the inquiry’s criticisms apply to the way that my Department—the Department of Health and Social Care—and its predecessors operated.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
My constituent Brendan lost his left leg while serving with the British Army in 1979. Decades later, he discovered that he had been infected with hepatitis C during the operation that saved his life. I know having talked to Brendan that, while he is pleased that the Government have committed to providing compensation, he is keen for us all to understand that, because of his community’s lived experience, there is an inherent distrust of the state. His instinct on being told that the state will spit out a number is understandably not to trust the process. Will the Minister reassure Brendan that all compensation offers will include a detailed breakdown of the data and rates used to make the calculations?
Andrew Gwynne
I can give my hon. Friend and Brendan the commitment that we will do just that, to reassure those who rightly have lost all trust in public authorities, and particularly in my Department, because of the dreadful actions that led to their infection. She has my assurance that we will do what we can to reassure Brendan and many others like him who rightly have no trust left in us that we will rebuild that trust.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I am sorry not to have been here for the opening speeches. Does the Minister recognise the fundamental similarity between the way in which the victims of this scandal and those of the Post Office scandal, and no doubt other terrible scandals, were treated by the state? Does the Government have any plan, possibly on a cross-departmental basis, to try to educate the bureaucracy that when terribly difficult and potentially expensive things like this crop up, they should not follow this well-worn path of denial and cover-up?
Andrew Gwynne
The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Indeed, it was acknowledged by my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office in his opening speech that this is just one of a number of scandals that follow a similar pattern—when the scandal has been uncovered, rather than trying to protect the victim, the state has tried to protect itself. It is absolutely crucial that the state learns not just from each individual scandal, but collectively; that it is the same mindset that has led us to all these different scandals with similar outcomes for victims. That level of learning has to be genuinely across Government, and I know my right hon. Friend will lead on that in the Cabinet Office.
The Government will set out our formal response before the end of the year, but given that there is absolutely no time to waste, I want to take this opportunity to update the House on the work already under way to address some of the inquiry’s recommendations. To prevent future harm, the Department continues to explore options to enhance candour and openness across the national health service. To empower patient voices, the NHS is reviewing clinical audits related to haemophilia services to identify any gaps in patient involvement, alongside work on a new clinical service specification, which will set standards for services across England. To protect haemophiliacs, the NHS has convened an expert group to hear advice from the specialised blood disorders clinical reference group. A dedicated taskforce has been set up to consider its recommendations. The General Medical Council is working with NHS England and others to look at ways to ensure that lessons learned are reflected in training for doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals.
Let me be clear to the House: the Government do not see this scandal in isolation. Sadly, repeated patient safety failings have eroded public confidence in our health and social care system, so we are taking steps to fix the culture of the national health service. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has been clear that we will not tolerate NHS managers who silence whistleblowers. Openness and honesty are vital to ensuring patient safety. NHS staff must have the confidence to speak out and come forward if they have concerns. There will be no more turning a blind eye to failure.
Our wider reforms to NHS performance will provide greater transparency for the public who pay for it. Measures will ensure that top talent is attracted to the most challenged areas, and persistently failing managers will be sacked. That is about ensuring that the right people are in post to lead our NHS with the resources they need to do their job. If we get that right, we will be able to look back on this moment as a turning point for patient safety and for leadership.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker; I was in Committee at the start of the debate, but I did have my name down to speak. Some of my constituents were impacted by the scandal, and it has taken them this long to summon the courage to come forward. Obviously, I represent them and Northern Ireland. We have talked about the Hillsborough law and the need for a duty of candour. Does the Minister agree that it is important that that is rolled out not just in England and Wales, but right across the UK, so that, as he said, those families are never again impacted in that way?
Andrew Gwynne
I hope that I can reassure the hon. Lady that although health is devolved across the four nations, and I can speak only on behalf of the NHS in England on a number of the recommendations, both the Department of Health and Social Care and the Cabinet Office are working closely and collaboratively with Ministers in the devolved Administrations. Indeed, I and my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General recently had a meeting with Ministers from Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales to talk about how to take forward the recommendations, on a four-nation basis where possible, and with mutual support across the four nations where there are individual recommendations pertinent to the devolved parts of the United Kingdom. I hope that that reassures her that we are working together. Although I cannot comment on the changes that will be needed for health services in Northern Ireland, which are a matter for the Minister of Health in Northern Ireland, Mike Nesbitt, I am quite certain that those services will carefully and closely consider our work here in England, and the work in other parts of the United Kingdom.
We have waited too long for these actions. People have waited too long for compensation. Indeed, right hon. and hon. Members have waited too long for this debate. More than 3,000 people died before they saw justice; families and our country were let down. There was a level of suffering that is so difficult to comprehend, because questions were not asked at the time, institutions did not face up to the failings, and facts were covered up. Now we know the truth. As we reflect, we are making a concerted effort to improve, because that loss need not be in vain.
I will respond to some of the questions raised throughout the debate, and will refer to other questions directly in the relevant part of my contribution. Should I miss anything because of time constraints, I will write to Members. In opening for the official Opposition, the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire talked about destigmatisation of HIV and hepatitis C. I hope that he understands that the Labour party made a clear manifesto commitment to ending HIV transmission in England by 2030. Officials at the Department of Health and Social Care, the UK Health Security Agency, NHS England and a broad range of system partners are now working together to develop a new HIV action plan, which we aim to publish by summer next year, and destigmatisation will be a key part of that plan.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington asked about psychological support for family and friends. I reassure him that NHS England has established the infected blood psychological support service in England, which supported its first patients in late August. That includes supporting not just the infected, but the families and friends affected.
I want to turn to departmental failings. The report outlines a comprehensive condemnation of the organisation of blood services, licensing decisions, blood safety and patient safety, with harm compounded by the reaction and handling of Government. I again recognise humbly the criticism of the Department that I stand at this Dispatch Box to represent and its predecessors, and I am committed to ensuring that a tragedy such as the infected blood scandal can never happen again. This Government will prioritise patient safety to ensure that the NHS treats people with the high-quality, safe care they deserve.
Repeated inquiries and investigations have highlighted significant issues with patient safety, which has caused a deterioration in public confidence, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker) in an earlier intervention. We must absolutely fix that. The Health Secretary has been clear that we will not tolerate NHS managers who silence whistleblowers. A culture of openness and honesty is vital to ensure patient safety. We want NHS staff to have the confidence to speak out, and we will give them that.
The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) raised the question of the safety of blood products. While no medical treatment can be completely risk-free, current safety standards for blood donation and transfusion are rigorous, and England’s blood supply is one of the safest in the world. Processes are in place throughout the blood donation journey to ensure the safety of blood and blood products, including the donation safety check form, testing for specific infections, donor deferrals, regulations and informed consent. According to Serious Hazards of Transfusion, the risk of serious harm because of blood transfusion in the United Kingdom is low, at one in 11,000 blood components issued.
Turning to timelines, so far more than £1 billion has been paid in interim compensation payments to victims of the infected blood scandal. As we heard earlier, applications opened on 24 October for interim payments of £100,000 to the estates of deceased people whose deaths have not been recognised. Parliament has now approved regulations that give the Infected Blood Compensation Authority the powers necessary to pay compensation through the core route to the infected, both living and deceased. The Infected Blood Compensation Authority has begun to process its first claimants under the infected blood compensation scheme.
Jim Shannon
In my intervention on the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart), I asked about the siblings who qualify. One sibling seems to be worth more than another sibling, and that seems absolutely wrong. I understand that there has been no reply to that in the Minister’s summing up. Maybe he is coming on to it—if he is, I apologise—but I would love to have a response, because my constituents have asked me to ask that question and ensure that we have a response.
Andrew Gwynne
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Minister for the Cabinet Office is carefully considering this matter. If the hon. Gentleman would like, the Minister for the Cabinet Office will write to him, but he is considering it.
We expect the Infected Blood Compensation Authority to begin making payments to people who are infected under the infected blood compensation scheme by the end of this year. Payments to the affected are expected to begin in 2025, following a second set of regulations.
Turning to a question raised by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire about the independence of IBCA, it is rightly operationally independent. Parliament would clearly expect the Government to have oversight of a scheme of this size and for there to be proper management, given the amount of public money going into the scheme. It is true that there are only two non-departmental public bodies that are independent of the Government: one is IBCA and the other is the National Audit Office. It is absolutely right for IBCA to have that independence.
Clive Efford
On that point, the National Audit Office is directly accountable to Parliament through the Public Accounts Commission. Is the intention to create a similar sort of arrangement, as envisaged by Sir Brian Langstaff, in which there is direct accountability to Parliament, rather than to the Department?
Andrew Gwynne
I should clarify for my hon. Friend that IBCA is operationally independent—that is important —but it is absolutely right that Members of this House are able to scrutinise its operations, its working and, indeed, its use of public money. We are talking about a great deal of public money, and IBCA has to be democratically accountable to this House, albeit operationally independent of Government Ministers in its day-to-day business.
Pete Wishart
This is a really important point—both myself and the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) have now raised it with the Minister. He has rightly identified the experiences of so many people caught up in this crisis, and the fact that they do not trust the Government or Government institutions. Would it not be more of a comfort to them to know that IBCA is like the National Audit Office: accountable to Parliament, rather than to Government?
Andrew Gwynne
I agree with the hon. Gentleman, which is why IBCA is operationally independent—that is the crucial thing here. It does not have the fingerprints of Ministers all over it, because that is where the distrust comes from. It operates independently, but as a public body it is accountable to this House for how it spends that money and how it operates as an organisation. While IBCA is operationally independent to ensure a separation between Executive Ministers and the functioning of that body, it is accountable to this House. I think that is absolutely the right balance.
John Glen
I endorse what the Minister has said about the way in which IBCA has been set up. It seems to me an entirely sensible arrangement that respects the need to have some distance from Government, but clearly there cannot be a bespoke arrangement for every single entity that is set up. This was the point I was trying to make, respectfully, about Sir Brian Langstaff earlier: he did a brilliant job, but some aspects of this issue will need a slightly different judgment made by Ministers. I welcome the decision that the Minister and his colleagues have made.
Andrew Gwynne
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I hope that Members across the House can see why we have set IBCA up in the way we have. It is for precisely that reason: we have to have that operational separation from Ministers and the Executive, but there also has to be political oversight from all quarters of this Chamber, because this is a public body spending public money—and a great deal of public money at that.
As I have said, we are aiming for the second set of regulations to be in place by 31 March 2025. That will support our intention that payments to the affected begin next year. There are important details, especially in relation to Sir Robert Francis’s recommendations, the majority of which the Government have accepted, that must be worked through ahead of the second set of regulations. This includes details such as the eligibility criteria for people who are affected, and how the Government should define the parameters of the definition of unethical testing.
Turning to payments, the selection of those who have been contacted for first payments was a decision for the Infected Blood Compensation Authority. The first group of people who are receiving invites to claim are: first, those who are known to be already eligible for compensation; secondly, those registered with support schemes, which means we are likely to have much of the necessary information for these people already; thirdly, those from areas across the UK; and fourthly, those who represent a range of infection types and of severity within those infections.
Let me turn to some of the questions raised about this area. The hon. Member for Eastleigh mentioned people dying before compensation is awarded. I hope I can reassure her that when a person with an eligible infection has, tragically, died before receiving compensation, we will ensure that their personal representatives can claim compensation on behalf of the deceased’s estate. I hope that clarifies the point for her.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon North talked about the exclusion of victims with hepatitis B from the compensation scheme. People with chronic hepatitis B and those who die in the acute period are eligible for compensation, as are their loved ones as affected. I suggest that my hon. Friend writes to the Minister for the Cabinet Office with his constituent’s details, so that we can look more closely at his case. My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst asked whether there will be payments by the end of the year. The answer is yes, and as I have said, there will be payments to the affected from next year, when we have the new regulations in place.
The right hon. Member for East Hampshire asked about the steps taken to provide accessible information on compensation. I want to spell out to him that Sir Robert recommended that there should be a higher award of £15,000 for children subject to unethical research at the school in his constituency. That is why there is a difference, which I hope clarifies that point for him. As I have said, at the start of November the Infected Blood Compensation Authority invited the first cohort of people to make compensation claims.
Candour in the civil service and in Government was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst and the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire in their contributions. The King’s Speech set out the commitment to bring forward legislation to introduce a duty of candour for public authorities and public servants. This legislation will be the catalyst for a changed culture in the public sector. The Prime Minister confirmed at the Labour party conference that legislation on the duty of candour would be delivered by this Government. He confirmed that the duty will apply to public authorities and public servants, and it will include criminal sanctions. The Bill will be introduced to Parliament before the next anniversary of the Hillsborough disaster in April 2025.
In closing, today I hope the House has heard how we are starting to deliver compensation and how we are starting to respond to the inquiry recommendations. Admittedly, they are still small steps, but they are steps in the right direction. This work is far from over. We owe it to the victims and their families to see it through, and we will of course regularly update the House as this progresses. I reiterate on behalf of the Government and the Department of Health and Social Care, and as a mere ordinary Member of Parliament for Gorton and Denton, representing some of the infected and affected, that we are truly sorry. We let you down. We will learn from these lessons, and we must never ever let anything like this happen again.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the Infected Blood Inquiry.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise for raising a point of order out of sequence, and I will explain why I am doing so. It relates to the case of Mr Alaa Abd el-Fattah and a point of order that I raised over a week ago. Some Members may recall that he is a British citizen who was imprisoned for his human rights campaigning in Egypt. He has served his sentence of five years and should have been released in September, but was not. His mother, a well-known academic at Cairo University, has been on hunger strike for 50 days. Anyone who has had any experience of hunger strikes knows that this is a critical period.
A number of us wrote to the Foreign Secretary over 10 days ago about this case, urging him to make further representations to the Egyptian Administration to secure Mr el-Fattah’s release. As of close of play today, we have not received a response. Through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, could I urge the Foreign Secretary to respond and, more importantly, take action? I am now fearful for the life of Laila, Mr el-Fattah’s mother, because as I said, the hunger strike has entered its 50th day.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
The very serious matter raised by the right hon. Member is not one for the Chair, but he has placed his concerns on the record in the hearing of the Foreign Office.
Ryan Cornelius: Detention in UAE
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to hold this debate on a matter of great importance, namely the arbitrary detention of a British citizen by a close ally and friend of the United Kingdom. This case is deliberately being raised as we approach the national day of the United Arab Emirates, 2 December, in the earnest hope that the authorities in Dubai will consider granting clemency and pardoning Ryan Cornelius as a gesture of friendship towards our country, building on our important alliance. As Members will know, this is not the first time that Ryan’s case has been raised. His name has featured in the press, and the matter has been scrutinised by the United Nations and raised by our Foreign Affairs Committee, and now by the new all-party parliamentary group on arbitrary detention and hostage affairs, of which I am proud to be vice-chair. Before we start properly, I pay tribute to Ryan’s wife Heather, and her family, Chris, Diane, Gilly and Sam, who are in the Gallery.
Before getting to the details of the case, I would like to reflect briefly on the important relationship between the UAE, particularly Dubai, and the United Kingdom. The relationship is built on a long history of friendship. Since its foundation in 1971, the United Arab Emirates, particularly Dubai, and the UK have been trusted friends. The country, and the emirate specifically, have been a source of stability, economic growth, and innovation in the region, and successive Governments in the UK have been a valued partner in its pursuits. Trade between our two countries covers a variety of areas, including energy, financial and professional services, education, healthcare, infrastructure, defence and aerospace.
In an era of global insecurity, the UK and UAE have a long-standing strategic defence partnership to preserve peace and stability in the Arabian gulf. The UAE is the UK’s third-largest trading partner outside Europe, behind China and the United States. More than 5,000 British businesses operate in the Emirates, and around 240,000 British nationals live and work in the UAE. Total imports and exports between the UK and the UAE reached £24.2 billion in 2023. It is a valuable trading relationship. According to VisitBritain, in 2023 the UK welcomed 477,000 visitors from the Emirates. Going the other way, there are approximately 1.4 million visitors from the UK to the Emirates every year. Those statistics demonstrate the closeness of our nations on matters of tourism, business and defence. However, I am increasingly worried that the continued arbitrary detention of Ryan Cornelius will start sending the wrong message to tourists, expats and businesses, potentially threatening our valued and historic relationship.
Before his detention in Dubai, Ryan had worked in the middle east since at least the 1980s, specialising in property and construction. At the turn of the millennium, with cheap credit, a booming market and plentiful opportunities, we all know that the Gulf began to attract many entrepreneurs, Ryan among them. He became an investing partner in three very large projects in Dubai, Bahrain and Pakistan. In the wake of the global financial crisis, Ryan’s lender, a German venture capital group, found itself unable to fund Ryan’s projects. Due to the dearth of alternative funding, he found himself drawn into restructuring negotiations between that group and their lender, the Dubai Islamic Bank. These negotiations resulted in a three-year repayment schedule, secured against Ryan’s businesses and personal assets. Repayments were made on schedule. The collateral provided by Ryan and his partners was considered more than enough to cover the borrowing from the DIB. Indeed, the Pakistan project that I mentioned—the Indus refinery—received two separate valuations in excess of $1 billion.
In 2008, when Ryan was returning from a trip to Karachi to find a potential buyer for the refinery so that he could clear his outstanding debt—which, as I say, he was servicing on time—he was arrested while transiting through Dubai. He was detained and placed in solitary confinement for six weeks, and the Dubai Islamic Bank commenced seizure of his personal assets and businesses, eventually including his London home. In 2010, Ryan was put on trial for fraud. The case was initially dismissed for lack of evidence. Following a retrial, Ryan was charged with theft from a public body and sentenced to 10 years in prison. He was ordered to repay the outstanding balance and handed a $500 million fine. In May 2018, he was issued with a 20-year extension to his imprisonment, meaning that he will not be eligible for release until May 2038, when he will be 84 years old.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First, I commend the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. I spoke to him before it. I have always been a speaker for human rights, as he and the House knows. Whenever I hear stories like the one he has outlined so well, it tells me that there is injustice. The friendship between the UK and UAE does not matter; this is about justice and doing right when somebody is discriminated against. Does he not agree that the inaction of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s—I say that respectfully—in respect of one of our citizens is incredibly concerning? The fact that Mr Cornelius has served his sentence, only to have the goalposts moved, does not speak of international justice, but injustice. I believe that our Foreign Office has an absolute duty to advocate for this British citizen.
Tim Roca
The hon. Member makes an important point. I will return to the FCDO in a moment and perhaps address some of what he mentioned.
As I said, Ryan was issued with a 20-year extension to his sentence in 2018. The law sanctioning such extensions was not brought in until after Ryan’s arrest. In April 2022, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention completed a detailed investigation that found that the UAE’s treatment of him contravened eight articles of the universal declaration of human rights, to which the UAE is a signatory. The group ruled that Ryan has been held in conditions amounting to “torture”, that he had not received a fair trial, and that his detention was “arbitrary”. It called for his immediate release. As things stand, he has not been released. He remains an arbitrarily detained British national in the United Arab Emirates—a country that is an ally.
Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate, and pay tribute to him for his work, not just on behalf of Ryan Cornelius but on political prisoners and the rule of law more generally. Does he agree that it seems we live in a world where increasingly autocratic countries will take citizens of other nations into arbitrary detention, and that when it comes to the toolkit that was normally available to countries such as ours, options such as having consular access that makes a difference, and making representations, have been eroded? Does he feel that we need a new toolkit for this different landscape?
Tim Roca
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point. He has also been vocal in his support for British citizens who have been arbitrarily detained, and on wider human rights issues. I commend him for his work on that agenda. The FCDO point about the toolkit is really important. The difficult question that we have to ask ourselves is: how have we have reached the situation where one of our citizens is languishing in the jail of a friendly country—a close ally—with all the potential damage to UK-UAE relations that that does?
I have huge admiration for the work of the FCDO and its staff, and I know from colleagues and friends around the globe how much its work is appreciated and respected on the world stage. We have many fine diplomats and public servants, but I have to say in all candour that it has been failing for many years in its handling of state hostage taking and arbitrary detention of British nationals abroad, Ryan Cornelius included.
In the last Parliament, the Foreign Affairs Committee published a significant report with a number of recommendations, not all of which were taken up. It criticised the FCDO for its “unnecessarily defensive culture” in this area, which “impedes scrutiny”, harms victims and their families and undermines public trust. The report found that previous Governments of all stripes had failed to learn the lessons from responding to such situations, and had been slow or unwilling to call out guilty countries. Our Atlantic allies, the United States and Canada, have learned those lessons, and created official roles to co-ordinate the response to state hostage taking and arbitrary detention in order to get their people home, which is, of course, a priority for all of us. Indeed, the creation of such a role was one of the Committee’s recommendations to the Foreign Office and the Foreign Secretary.
This time last year, when the Foreign Secretary was the shadow Foreign Secretary, he committed a Labour Government to creating a special envoy for arbitrary detention and state hostage taking. I warmly welcome the Minister of State to her role—I think I can still call her a new Minister a few months into the new Government —and I know that she takes these matters seriously. I ask her to reflect back to her colleagues and the Secretary of State that we should stick to that commitment. Let us follow in the footsteps of Canada and the United States, and let us not be advised out of that promise by officials.
As I conclude, I return to the heart the debate with one simple request to His Highness Sheikh Mohammed. As a gesture of friendship, for the continued prosperity of our countries and for our mutual security, I hope that he will grant clemency to Ryan Cornelius. The UAE’s national day, Eid al Etihad, is only around the corner on 2 December. I hope that on that day of great celebration, the Dubai Government will find the good will to extend a pardon to Ryan and allow him to return home to the United Kingdom and his family.
The Minister for Development (Anneliese Dodds)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) for securing a debate on this difficult case. He referred to the fact that I am a new Minister—that is correct—but he is also a new Member, who clearly is doing his utmost to represent his constituents as powerfully as he can. He spoke eloquently about the case of Mr Cornelius, which I will come to in a moment. He also talked about the close relationship between the UK and the Emirates in business, tourism and defence. I agree that it is an important relationship. As he did, I recognise the many other parliamentarians who have been active on these issues, working on behalf of Mr Cornelius and his family both in this Chamber and in the other place.
The Minister for the Middle East—the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Hamish Falconer)—is unable to take part in this debate because he is travelling on ministerial duties, so it is my pleasure to respond on behalf of the Government. I want to begin by recognising the awful toll that the past 16 years will have taken on Mr Cornelius, his wife and children, and the rest of his family and friends. I was humbled to hear from my hon. Friend that we are joined by some of them here this evening. I appreciate their presence.
Supporting British nationals overseas is at the heart of the work of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. Our consular staff endeavour to give appropriate and tailored support to them and their families 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The new Government are reviewing how to strengthen our support for British nationals overseas, which includes the appointment of an envoy. We will ensure that we do as much as we can to learn lessons from what has worked and what may not have worked in the past. It is important that we draw on that evidence moving forward.
On this particular case, let me assure the House that since his detention in 2008, FCDO consular staff in the UAE have visited Mr Cornelius on a regular basis, most recently at the end of October. Consular staff here in the UK are in regular contact with his family. Let me also reassure the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is so active on these issues, for which we are very grateful, that there has been ministerial activity as well as consular activity, which I will go on to explain.
On 23 October, my hon. Friend the Minister for the Middle East met members of Mr Cornelius’s family. It was clear to him that Mr Cornelius’s detention has had a devastating impact on them. The family has demonstrated great strength and resilience over many years, under very difficult circumstances. The Minister wanted to listen to the family during his meeting, and he made it clear that Mr Cornelius’s case remains a priority for the Government, and the FCDO will continue to provide consular support to him and his family. He also reassured them that the case will continue to be raised with the UAE authorities, senior officials and Ministers. Shortly after that meeting with the family, on 30 October the Minister wrote to His Highness Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, the ruler of Dubai, to reaffirm the UK Government’s interest in Mr Cornelius’s case and welfare.
The House will understand that I will not share personal information relating to Mr Cornelius’s case in this place. However, I will set out the factors that have guided the response. When a British national is detained in another country, our priority is to ensure that they have access to legal representation and that their welfare needs are met by the local authorities. The Vienna convention on consular relations requires that, in providing consular assistance, we do not interfere in the judicial affairs of another state. We therefore cannot get people out of prison or interfere in criminal or civil court proceedings. Consular staff are not trained lawyers and cannot offer legal advice, but they provide information on the local jurisdiction and lists of English-speaking lawyers to support British nationals.
If there are allegations of torture or mistreatment from any detained British national, we will always offer to raise them with local authorities, with the detainee’s consent, and ask for them to be investigated. Where there are concerns that legal procedures may not be being followed correctly or do not meet internationally recognised standards, we will decide our approach on a case-by-case basis. In doing so, we will be guided by the appropriate experts, including human rights advisers. I want to provide that assurance, given the broader issues mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield. The best interests and welfare of the detainee are at the forefront of everything we do, and that has informed the approach to supporting Mr Cornelius and his family.
I will now turn to some of the legal aspects of the case. In 2022, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention published its opinion that Mr Cornelius is arbitrarily detained, and made several recommendations. It is for the UAE, as the state detaining Mr Cornelius, to respond to those recommendations and take any necessary action. We take the working group’s findings extremely seriously. Where we have specific concerns about Mr Cornelius’s case, with his consent, we raise them with the UAE authorities. Mr Cornelius has local lawyers representing him in his challenge to his ongoing detention. FCDO consular staff have regularly attended hearings as observers. We are determined to continue to demonstrate the UK’s close interest in this case.
Let me reassure the House that this case remains a priority for the FCDO. Our officials and Ministers will continue to support Mr Cornelius and his family as best we can. I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield for initiating the debate, and others who have intervened during it.
If I may, Madam Deputy Speaker, another consular case was mentioned a couple of moments before the beginning of this debate—that of Mr Alaa Abd el-Fattah. I would like to reassure my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) that the case has been raised at the highest level, including on 14 November directly with the Foreign Minister of Egypt by our Foreign Secretary. I will of course write to my right hon. Friend, but I wanted to provide that update given that the case was mentioned a couple of moments ago.
Question put and agreed to.