Infected Blood Compensation Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Lord Doyle Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Doyle (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness. I want to mention in particular the contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Davies of Devonport, who set out so powerfully the real-world consequences of this scandal: not just the infections but the stigma that went with them. I thank her for doing that in this debate.

I thank the Minister for all her work on this; I know she has been a passionate advocate for change. I also want to use this debate to pay tribute also to the outgoing Paymaster General, Nick Thomas-Symonds, for all that he did to implement the inquiry’s recommendations. We now have an operational, funded compensation scheme that has paid out more than £2.5 billion. The difference this has made to victims is immeasurable. For many infected people, it has brought not only financial security but, after more than 40 years, the sense that they can begin to move forward with dignity and hope.

I pay tribute to the Terrence Higgins Trust for its tireless work in supporting people living with HIV and hepatitis C, and ensuring that victims’ voices have been heard, because there are a couple of outstanding issues for those co-infected with HIV and hepatitis C from contaminated blood and blood products that I want to mention today. The first regards interferon treatment.

Many people co-infected with HIV and hepatitis C could not wait for newer, safer treatments. Their health was deteriorating, HIV treatment options were limited and the pressure to act was immense. Interferon brought severe side-effects, repeated courses of therapy and additional suffering, compounded by HIV infection. The Government have said in the other place that those who suffered side-effects from interferon will receive an additional award and that each course of treatment will be recognised. That commitment is absolutely welcome but, from my reading of them, it is not explicitly in the regulations before us. Will the Minister confirm that this instrument will apply equally to all co-infected victims, including payments for each round of interferon treatment?

My second point concerns bereaved parents. I welcome the proposed exceptional loss uplift for bereaved partners, children, siblings and parents of children who died before 18, but there remains a gap. Many people infected with HIV never had the opportunity to build families of their own because of the stigma, discrimination and fear, and the expectation of an early death. Some died as adults while still being cared for by their parents. Those parents still suffered profound loss and should not be excluded simply because their child lived beyond their 18th birthday. I therefore ask the Minister to consider extending the 50% exceptional loss uplift to bereaved parents whose infected child died aged over 18 without a partner or children.

This scandal caused lifelong physical and psychological harm, compounded for those living with HIV by stigma, isolation and decades of uncertainty. This Government have made great strides towards justice: to rebuilding trust through the scheme and, with the passing of the duty of candour law, to dealing with other such scandals. I hope we can now take these final steps to ensure that everyone impacted receives the fairness, dignity and recognition they deserve.

Contemporary Cultural Boycotts

Lord Doyle Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Doyle (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for securing this debate and Freedom in the Arts for its report, which certainly is rich and detailed. I am sorry that time means that I cannot do justice to all the noble Lords who have spoken before me, but I certainly associate myself with all those who have spoken out about our need to have constant vigilance and zero tolerance of antisemitism.

However, I want to focus on one particular aspect of cancel culture that is identified in the report, and that is the targeting of sponsors of those who fund the arts and who are essential for us to have what should be our starting point—that a healthy arts sector is fundamental to a healthy democracy. Protests, dissent, satire have long been the sources of the best art, and the priorities should always be to enable the most artistic expression possible without fear or favour. That is not to say that art exists in a space free from values. There will always be boundaries. But we should want to make the artistic square as large and inclusive as possible, and that means we need diverse funding, including sponsorship.

When it comes to the choices made, as other noble Lords have said, there should be a clear distinction between things that are illegal and things that simply some people do not like. I look at the recent example of the Sporting Events Bill in your Lordships’ House. There were assorted amendments proposed that would have banned sponsorship from fossil fuel companies and unhealthy food companies. We see within these boycott campaigns that it is not just the companies themselves that are being targeted but even financial institutions that might have minor investments in some of these companies, which are, of course, entirely legal in the activities that they are carrying out. We can take the example of the defence sector, which regularly comes up as being targeted. I regard BAE Systems as a successful British company that employs people in this country in high-skilled, well-paid jobs. If it wants to give something back by supporting artistic or cultural endeavours, then why on earth should it not be able to do so?

I also want to question the role that we have seen some artists take. We need to call out those high-profile artists who have put their names to campaigns to deny funding to the very institutions that those artists benefited from when they were starting out in their careers, when they were in the small theatres and so on that gave them their rise to be the high-profile campaigners that they are now.

We need a mixed economy of cultural funding that encompasses philanthropy and corporate sponsorship. That means we need a climate in which responsible sponsors feel able to support culture without expecting to become the next target of a campaign. Otherwise, we create a structural disincentive to private investment precisely at the time when the sector needs it most. There is a role for government here and for all of us. Institutions need to know that they have the support of politicians in order to resist the pressure of a small minority. We also need leadership in the arts sector. Policy cannot be made by social media, by tactics rather than strategy. There needs to be solidarity within the arts sector because while the beam of the lighthouse might not be at you at this moment, you can guarantee that it will come round to you next.

We are all in this together and, together, common sense can prevail so that we can have the arts and culture we need as a country.

Democratic Institutions: Threats

Lord Doyle Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Doyle (Non-Afl)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for making today’s debate possible. We have already heard some very interesting contributions. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, who has set out a compelling case around the challenges of the politics we face today. We have both had the privilege of spending time working in No. 10, and I think I know where some of his frustration comes from.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Stowell of Beeston and Lady Featherstone, rightly challenged us to make sure that we do not look at this debate through just one end of the telescope. We can do two things at once; there is more we need to do to put our own house in order while recognising what I will focus on—the legitimate concerns around misinformation and disinformation in our politics today. This is not to absolve ourselves but to ensure that we can get across to citizens the information they need to make informed choices at elections.

Two things are happening at the same time: the rise of misinformation and the collapse we have seen in local media as it has moved more online, with the rise of Facebook groups and similar platforms for local news. This has been highlighted in the report by the Social Market Foundation No News is Bad News: The Hidden Threat of Unchecked Local Misinformation, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. Some of its key findings were that nearly half of Britons seek out local news through social media—more than any other source except television—and that more than a third use local social media groups as their main news source.

The problem is that we face an epidemic of misinformation online. The SMF’s analysis showed that nearly one in 26 news-related posts on Facebook was misinformation. On X, that figure jumps to an alarming one in four. This matters even more because there is not that balance of respectable journalism for people to compare and contrast the information with. The local media landscape is completely different—and in places non-existent—from the one I started working in 25 years ago. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Frost, I very much welcome the Government’s announcement this week that trustworthy information will be more visible, but what do we do where there are not local news sources to boost? We need to make sure that there is a national focus on maintaining vibrant local media.

It should come as no surprise that elections are a ripe target for those at home and abroad who trade in this misinformation. Recent council elections and parliamentary by-elections have shown just how intense this can be. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not prosecuting this argument motivated by single-party interest. Misinformation has been tracked as being directed across the board at a range of individuals, parties and issues. In the Makerfield by-election, misinformation quadrupled as a share of news posts. The Social Market Foundation report found that one in six items shared in groups contained information that was false. This cuts through to voters. Luke Tryl from More in Common confirmed that misinformation about the candidates, such as Andy Burnham,

“has come up unprompted consistently in focus groups we’ve run in Makerfield, seemingly largely from Facebook: some believe it others don’t, but no doubt this stuff has a real impact”.


We have rightly spent a lot of time in this House debating the impact of social media on children, but I humbly suggest that we need to spend more time looking at educating adults too. I do not mean a ban, obviously, but a recognition of the need to increase digital literacy and awareness to build more resilient citizens in our democracy. Can the Minister set out what the Government are doing to increase digital literacy? Is the Defending Democracy Taskforce looking at this, given the overlap with ensuring that we have free and fair elections?

Of course, this proliferation of mis and disinformation has done great harm outside of election time, too. We see it with conspiracy theories as they relate to international events or to domestic tragedies that we have seen—the noble Lord, Lord Cryer, spoke of the Southport tragedy. Can my noble friend the Minister update the House on the Government’s experience of working with platforms at times of crisis and their level of responsiveness? Would the Government consider a clear duty requiring platforms to respond rapidly when local authorities, police and the NHS identify false content during a crisis?

As we have said, not all this misinformation is with an explicit desire for a political outcome. Plenty is driven by opportunists attempting to use AI-generated content to simply profit from political division in the UK. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester spoke very eloquently on this and the challenges there are, and I am sure many in your Lordships’ House will have seen some of the recent content involving the leader of Reform UK and the Governor of the Bank of England, which has been designed simply to promote financial investment schemes.

There can be no doubt that platforms need to be made less fertile for misinformation. I believe Ofcom should test platforms’ ability to tackle misinformation and fake accounts, publish the results and take action against poor performers. The tech companies must set out their plans, such as surge moderation and boosting of trusted information. Social media platforms should be mandated to heighten vigilance towards deceptive, synthetic content, and ensure any media relevant to the election that is manipulated by AI is labelled as such.

I do not see this debate as a counsel of despair but a wake-up call that we need to look at the forces ranged against us in our democracy. I believe there is still time to ensure we can preserve the values we all cherish and to ensure we can move forward, confident in our democracy and the way it operates.

UK-EU Customs Union

Lord Doyle Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Doyle (Lab) (Maiden Speech)]

My Lords, I rise for my maiden speech with a real sense of the responsibility that comes with joining a body so rich in experience, expertise and public service as your Lordships’ House. I thank Black Rod, the indefatigable doorkeepers, the police and security officers, the clerks and officials and everyone who has made me feel so welcome. I also thank my noble friends Lady Armstrong of Hill Top and Lord Liddell for their support and guidance, not only at my introduction but over many years, and I pay tribute to my fellow maiden speakers today.

I am profoundly grateful that my parents are here today. When I say that I would not be here without them, I do not just mean that scientifically. They taught me so much, above all that every single individual can make a difference, and when you are born into that way of being, it really is a gift. I also remember my sister Catherine, who we lost more than 30 years ago; we still miss her every single day. Catherine was born with Down syndrome and, although she did not live to see it, the progress that has been made in healthcare and opportunities and visibility for people living with Down really has been wonderful to witness.

My journey here began at the University of East Anglia, where I joined the Labour Club and met an inspiring dean of biology, Dr Ian Gibson, who was Labour’s candidate for Norwich North. One day, they asked for a volunteer press officer: cue awkward shoe-gazing around me, and then suddenly I found my hand in the air. Little did I know that I would spend the next three decades at the intersection of politics, media and public service. I may have worked for some famous names in that time, but the real privilege I have had has been helping to tell the stories of those who have been left out and left behind, both at home and abroad. I pay tribute to and thank all the colleagues I have worked with over those years, many of whom are now here in this House, including my noble friends Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lady Smith of Basildon, who I thank for all their guidance and support thus far.

I also want to remember two former Members of this House in particular: Lord Gould of Brookwood and Baroness McDonagh, both of whom were remarkable inspirations for me.

I chose Great Barford for my introduction. It is where my sister and I were born. This is an exciting time for Bedfordshire, with East West Rail, the new Universal Studios theme park and, at Tempsford, a new town. I intend to champion these projects and more, because Britain needs to stop prevaricating and start building. Growth is not an abstract theory but an expression of our responsibility to future generations.

One of the privileges I had growing up in Bedfordshire was a fantastic free county youth music programme. The inspiring teaching gave me opportunities I could never have imagined, including the chance to sing at the Royal Albert Hall. Fortunately for the audience, I sang with several other hundred young people as well. But somewhere along the way, we seem to have lost the consensus that the arts, music, film, theatre and dance matter as an essential means of developing confident, creative and capable citizens. I very much hope that the Government’s curriculum review will mark a decisive turning point in rebuilding a shared understanding that creativity, culture and learning are key to what makes life worth living, as well as essential drivers of our national success.

It is my belief in the creative industries that made me so keen to make my maiden speech in this debate on our relations with Europe. There is much we can do to reduce self-defeating barriers post-Brexit. Take the example of touring artists and crews. For them, those barriers are not an abstract concept but lost work, lost income and lost opportunity. This does not have to be our reality. Let us fix the visa waiver programme, flex the 90-day rule for those touring and cut the costs to make moving equipment less expensive, which has also done such harm to our haulage industry. As Sir Elton John put it:

“It’s heartbreaking to see the hopes of Britain’s next generation of creative talent downtrodden and destroyed by bureaucracy and red tape”.


When I nervously collected my first parliamentary pass almost 30 years ago, I could not possibly have imagined that one day I would stand here as a Member of your Lordships’ House. I have learned so much over my career, but I have never lost sight of that simple lesson my parents taught me: that change is made by people and that the world does not improve by chance. Government matters because it gives individual effort collective backing. It allows values to be translated into action and hope into reality. As we consider our future relationship with Europe, we must recommit ourselves to the values we share: dignity, respect, democracy and the rule of law. Because even in these times—especially in these times—I believe that when we choose purpose over complacency and co-operation over conflict, progress is possible.