Sovereign Grant Bill

Chris Vince Excerpts

Committee of the whole House & 3rd reading
Monday 14th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)]

I will turn briefly to each of the short clauses in the Bill.

Clause 1 gives effect to the central purpose of the Bill. It sets the amount of the sovereign grant for the financial year 2027-28 at £99.9 million. In doing so, it resets the level of the grant following the completion of the Buckingham Palace reservicing programme. As that programme nears completion, the temporary funding associated with it is no longer required. Both the previous Government and this Government recognised that the level of the grant should therefore be reset and that legislation would be necessary to achieve that outcome. That is what clause 1 does: it establishes a grant of £99.9 million for 2027-28, reflecting the conclusions of the 2026 royal trustees review. The practical effect, therefore, is that funding falls from £137.9 million in this financial year to £99.9 million in 2027-28.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I desperately tried not to intervene at all, but I could not stop myself. I was on the Modernisation Committee when it had the opportunity to visit Buckingham Palace to see some of the regeneration work being done. Does the Minister feel as reassured as I do that the renovation work was done as efficiently and practically as possible, bringing in apprentices from elsewhere—I do not think any of them came from Harlow, unfortunately—to ensure it was successful?

[Dan Tomlinson]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight that the works on Buckingham Palace over the past 10 years have been carried out with efficiency and effectiveness. In fact, the National Audit Office took a look at the programme of work and was able to commend it for its effective use of taxpayer money, which is of course very important. Clause 1 delivers, therefore, the intended reduction in funding following the completion of that work, and implements the conclusions of the royal trustees review to establish a new baseline for future years.

Having reset the grant for 2027-28, clause 2 turns to the framework that will determine grant funding in future years. The grant has, since 2012, been linked to the performance of the Crown Estate. That underlying principle remains unchanged by the Bill. Clause 2 updates the percentage of Crown Estate profits used within that calculation, so that the framework remains appropriate after the grant has been reset through that bottom-up calculation. It sets the relevant percentage at 20.5%. Returning to conversations we had on Second Reading, I want to reassure Members that that figure is not arbitrary. It comes directly from the conclusions of the June 2026 royal trustees review, which assessed both the royal household’s expected expenditure requirements and the Crown Estate’s forecast revenues over the period 2031-32.

Clause 3 introduces targeted safeguards to ensure that the funding framework can continue to operate effectively in exceptional circumstances. This is to ensure that where royal trustees conclude that the amount produced by the statutory formula would result in the sovereign grant reserve falling below 10% of annual expenditure or exceeding 50% of annual expenditure, and where the existing framework can adequately correct that outcome, the trustees must explain that conclusion in their annual report and identify the new amount they believe would be appropriate. The Treasury must then implement that through regulations. This reform allows greater flexibility to prevent reserves becoming either too large or too small, and it means that action can be taken before reserve levels move outside of a sustainable range, rather than waiting until existing statutory mechanisms have been triggered.

The second mechanism is a limited power to increase the grant during a financial year in genuinely exceptional circumstances, and is intended as an emergency power. It can only be used when unforeseen circumstances arise during a financial year that cannot be reasonably addressed through the normal annual funding process. Clause 4 contains standard provisions relating to commencement and the short title of the Bill; I commend this and all other clauses to the Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Vince Excerpts

Thursday 10th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

2. What steps her Department is taking to improve national resilience.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

5. What steps her Department is taking to improve national resilience.

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

10. What steps her Department is taking to improve national resilience.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising those important points. I understand the concern that the closure of any fire and rescue station brings to people. We have seen in recent weeks, with widespread wildfires, just how crucial fire and rescue services have been to saving lives and keeping the public safe. Decisions on fire services in Scotland are a matter for the Scottish Government, but we have given them a record level of funding, with the biggest block grant in the history of devolution.

[Chris Vince]

I welcome the Parliamentary Secretary to the Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson), to his rightful place on the Front Bench. As Ministers may be aware, in late July there was a severe wildfire off Second Avenue in Harlow; I thank the fire services and fire officers who attended and dealt with the issue so well. What is the Minister doing to increase awareness of fires starting, particularly in the dry weather, which is likely to continue next year as well?

[Dan Jarvis]

Let me take the opportunity to pay tribute to the tireless efforts of fire and rescue services across the country, including in my hon. Friend’s Harlow constituency over the summer. As the House will know, the Government issued an emergency alert to advise people of the steps they should take to avoid inadvertently contributing to already widespread fires. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is exploring ways to expand its “Fire Kills” campaign to deliver targeted messages and resources to the public.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Vince Excerpts

Wednesday 9th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Simon Lightwood]

Let me be clear: this Government are committed to protecting the dignity and safety of trans people. That is why we are introducing a full trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices, per our manifesto. I would be delighted to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss his further queries in person.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

5. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to help remove children from poverty.

[The Minister for Women and Equalities (Bridget Phillipson)]

I continue to work with Cabinet colleagues to drive forward ambitious actions to tackle child poverty. I am proud that the decisions that this Labour Government have taken will see over half a million children lifted out of poverty—the biggest reduction in any Parliament. We know, however, that our work is not done, and we will continue to drive action to cut the cost of living and raise families’ incomes.

[Chris Vince]

Across my constituency, 18% of children live in poverty, which rises to 30% in areas such as Mark Hall and Netteswell. Around 12% of children in Harlow will benefit from Labour’s lifting of the two-child cap, which parents and I welcome. However, child poverty remains deeply uneven across Harlow and the UK, and too often, children’s chances in life are shaped by where they grow up. What further steps is the Minister taking to tackle those regional and local disparities and to ensure that children growing up in our most deprived communities benefit from the Government’s drive to reduce poverty?

[Bridget Phillipson]

I know my hon. Friend will always stand up for children and families across Harlow. He is right to say that we must go further to bear down on many of the drivers of child poverty, such as housing costs and parental employment, that require long-term structural change across society and Government. I am proud that, alongside removing the two-child limit, we have delivered a huge expansion in free school meals and new breakfast clubs opening from this term.

Rewiring the State

Chris Vince Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Louise Haigh]

The staffing of No. 10 North has been done on an interim basis to get it set up and running. We will recruit permanently and, of course, those roles will be based in Manchester.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Bearing in mind your family connection to the fire services in Harlow, Madam Deputy Speaker, I pay tribute to fire officers across my constituency. I also welcome the First Secretary to her place; I know that she is a friend of Harlow. I thank the Government for their investment in our town, not just through the UK Health Security Agency, but through funding for rough sleeping and the 48 businesses that will benefit from the defence investment plan. On rewiring the state, I think previous Governments have seen working with the charity and voluntary sector as a cheaper option, yet volunteers and community services have expertise that we can utilise. We need to think about how they are funded properly and supported in the long term.

[Louise Haigh]

My hon. Friend is right. Working with the charity and voluntary sector at local and regional level can be far better if we ensure they are properly funded and empowered to make decisions, procure and work in partnership. Through double devolution closest to the ground, we will ensure that the CVS is properly utilised and funded.

Direction of Government

Chris Vince Excerpts

Tuesday 1st September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Chris Vince—and how I have missed him!

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and may I wish you a very happy birthday?

I thank the Prime Minister for making one of his first visits as Prime Minister to Harlow. It was almost as if he knew that I was going to mention Harlow quite regularly. Very seriously, I want to refer to an announcement made recently by the German Government about an incident at Leipzig airport. Does he agree that we should condemn this outrageous act of Russian aggression, and send our support to our German allies?

Payment Scheme

Chris Vince Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)]

I beg to move,

That the draft Infected Blood Compensation Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2026, which were laid before this House on 18 June, be approved.

Before I begin the debate, I do want to pause and reflect on the reason that we are once again here today. Thousands of people had unimaginable suffering and hardship inflicted upon them through the use of infected blood. There are thousands of individual stories—in recent years, I have had the solemn privilege to listen to many of them—of how lives were upturned, changed and, in some cases, tragically lost. I know many Members across the House will, as they always do in these debates, very movingly share their constituents’ stories, and it is important that we keep those at the forefront of our minds. It is also essential that we base our work on these stories, and that the compensation scheme reflects the lived experience of those to whom it seeks to bring justice.

I would like to briefly update the House on the delivery of compensation. Since it opened in 2024, the compensation service—the Infected Blood Compensation Authority—has contacted all infected people registered with the support scheme to start their claim. By December last year, it had opened its service to all cohorts, including to affected people. It has made offers of over £2.7 billion and paid out over £2.1 billion, in addition to the £1.4 billion that has already been paid in interim compensation.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Paymaster General for his speech and the way he is framing the debate by talking about the victims of this scandal, which is really important. Can he confirm the number of interim payments of £100,000 that have already been paid out?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I will be delighted to write to my hon. Friend with the absolute up-to-date figure, but he is absolutely right to draw attention to the importance of progress. I know that Members across the House will, as they always do, welcome that progress. I also acknowledge, quite rightly, the House holding me, and indeed IBCA, to account on the speed of compensation. We always want to see swifter delivery of compensation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

On my hon. Friend’s first point, what we have before us is based on extensive consultation with the community. On the laying of the regulations, I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will see that the timing of this debate is designed so that we can speed up payments as quickly as possible going forward. That is why, as I am sure the House will appreciate, I have done all I can to get the debate scheduled before the summer recess.

[Chris Vince]

On that point, will the Minister give way?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I will, and then I will come back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford).

[Chris Vince]

I thank the Minister for giving way again; he is being very generous with his time. It strikes me that the victims of these sorts of scandals—sadly, this is not the first we have discussed; I think of the Horizon Post Office scandal—are put in this position through no fault of their own and do not necessarily have degrees in how to access compensation schemes. What support—for example, through some sort of caseworker—is he giving to people who are looking to claim?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

I would like to start by thanking the Paymaster General for bringing forward these important regulations and also to say thank you to the former Minister for Public Health, the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), for her valuable work when she was in office.

This debate takes place in the shadow of one of the gravest injustices in modern British history. The infected blood scandal caused unimaginable harm, with lives lost, families devastated, careers destroyed, potential never realised, children robbed of parents and many victims forced to fight for decades just for recognition and to be heard. Compensation is not a gift from the state; it is a duty owed to those who were failed by the state. That duty must be delivered with urgency, compassion and fairness.

The regulations make a number of amendments to the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Regulations 2025. Many of the changes appear to address concerns raised by victims, families and campaigners about the structure and adequacy of the scheme and, obviously, those contained in the additional report. His Majesty’s Opposition welcome the Government bringing forward these amendments to address the lessons learned from the early stages of the compensation scheme, to fill in some of the gaps and to implement the recommendations of Sir Brian Langstaff’s additional report.

However, the existence of this instrument also underlines the importance of getting the scheme right. Victims and their families have already waited far too long. They must not be required to navigate repeated technical changes, uncertainty or delays before receiving the compensation and recognition they deserve.

The regulations also amend the method for calculating past and future amounts for certain awards, including financial loss awards. I would be grateful if the Minister sets out clearly how the Government will ensure that those changes are properly communicated to victims and to families so that people understand how their entitlement will be calculated and whether they may be better off as a result. The changes are sensible but, by necessity, regulations can appear rather daunting. My degree was in economics and law, and I am reasonably comfortable with legal texts and with algebra, but at first glance we can wonder what language some of it is written in, so it is obviously important that they are communicated in a way that can be properly understood.

His Majesty’s Opposition also welcome the changes to the autonomy award for those infected as children. The fact that some people were infected at such a young age, with consequences that shaped their entire childhood and adult life, must be properly reflected in the scheme. This is not simply a question of medical impact; it is about lost childhoods, lost opportunities and the lifelong trauma experienced by those who infected when they were at their most vulnerable.

There are also changes in relation to unethical research practices, which we have discussed many times in the Chamber. We greatly welcome the increase in the relevant award amounts and the extension in provision to those who received treatment for bleeding disorders before 1986. Given the seriousness of the issue, will the Minister confirm how the Government will identify those who fall into that category and what evidence he expects they will have to provide so that the process does not become another source of distress for victims and their families?

We also note the creation of a new “severe health condition” category for qualifying chronic hepatitis-associated conditions based on support scheme categories. Again, we would welcome clarity from the Minister on how he expects that to work in practice and in particular how the Government will ensure consistency across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The amendments to affected injury awards are also significant. Families were not bystanders to this scandal; partners, parents, children and siblings lived with the consequences every day. Many provided care, endured bereavement, suffered stigma and experienced profound emotional and financial harm. The scheme must continue to recognise that the damage caused by this scandal extended far beyond those directly infected. Therefore, while these technical changes matter greatly, the central question remains delivery. Victims and families need to know when they will receive compensation, including as a result of the new regulations. They need to know how quickly claims will be processed, what support will be available to them to navigate the scheme, and how the Government will ensure that truly no one is left behind.

I therefore ask the Minister to address the following points. First, what is his intended timetable for payments under the regulations, and how many people do the Government expect to receive compensation in the coming months? Secondly, how confident is he that that the Infected Blood Compensation Authority has the staffing, expertise and resources it needs to process claims under the regulations quickly and sensitively?

[Chris Vince]

This is a friendly intervention, because the hon. Gentleman’s response has been very supportive, and we all recognise the cross-party consensus on getting this right. As he will be aware, last week the Prime Minister made a formal apology to the women impacted by the forced adoption scandal; some of the evidence that we got on the Education Committee was about the way that they were treated when they tried to get the records. Does he recognise the importance of the front-facing organisations that support victims of these scandals being sympathetic and supportive?

[Mike Wood]

I could not agree more. It is particularly important that infected and affected victims and their families, who for many, many years were not listened to, heard or believed, and who faced officials who denied what all the evidence later proved to be the case, now feel that they are being treated with respect and sensitivity.

Thirdly, will the Minister clarify further, as I asked earlier, how the Government will communicate the broader changes to victims and their families in plain English, rather than simply relying on the legal and technical language in the draft regulations? Finally, what appeal or review mechanisms will be available if individuals believe that their reward has been calculated incorrectly or does not reflect their full circumstances?

The Opposition strongly support the regulations, which build on work that has proceeded through this House with support from across the Chamber, and continue work that began before the last election. We recognise that they contain changes that many victims and families will welcome.

I am sure that the Minister will agree that our responsibility as Parliament, and his as a Minister, does not end with the passing of statutory instruments. It ends only when victims and their families have received the recognition, justice and compensation that they have waited decades to secure. This scandal was defined by delay, denial and institutional failure, and the compensation scheme must not be defined by the same failings. The regulations are a strong and positive step towards ensuring that that is not the case, but the Government must now deliver them with urgency, transparency and humanity. That is the very least that victims and their families deserve after all this time.

Historical Forced Adoption

Chris Vince Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend, and thank him for highlighting the example in his constituency. I suspect there are other examples in all constituencies. We would not be here today without the hard work of the campaigners. Let us be blunt and honest about that. Their work was not heeded quickly enough, in my view. I am glad that we have got to this day; it is an important day for them, but it is also an important day for us, because we need to recognise that this is about the state—how the state responds and how the state acts. It is important for all of us.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Prime Minister for coming here with this heartfelt apology. I also thank all the campaigners for being here today and for the evidence they gave to the Education Committee. I was proud to be on the Committee when we reopened this inquiry. I pay tribute to the Chair of the Select Committee, to my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) for her work, and to the Ministers. We heard compelling evidence from mothers whose babies were so cruelly ripped away from them, as many have described, and from those who were adopted—I see Sally in the Gallery; she spoke about a feeling of not belonging. Does the Prime Minister agree that supporting the victims of this terrible injustice is about supporting not just the mothers, but the babies, now adults, who were adopted?

[The Prime Minister]

I know the testimony was really powerful, and I thank the Select Committee again for its work. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we have to see and hear everyone who was affected—the mothers, the now adults who were adopted, but beyond that the extended families and siblings, and those who, sadly, passed before we reached today. If we are going to hear, if we are going to see, we have to hear and see everyone who has been affected by this, not just some of them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Vince Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I would just say to the Minister: live long and prosper. This heatwave may be considered as much man-made as naturally occurring. I am really concerned about the heat, not just in Westminster but in my constituency of Harlow. What are the Government doing to ensure that the country is resilient when it comes to heat? I know that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has had conversations about water safety, and what we can do to ensure the safety of young people, or others, who take risks in water because of the hot weather.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I know that the extreme heat has extended even to Harlow, which has surprised some people; it indicates the nature of the threat. We have had a red alert. I will repeat the advice to drink plenty of fluids, and those who are travelling should take a lot of water with them, and be sensible and careful in these conditions. Clearly, water safety is an important issue. The National Fire Chiefs Council has issued good advice about water safety. If you are too hot, jumping into a very cold body of water is not a good idea, tempting though it may seem.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Vince Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Member for sharing his personal experience and, notwithstanding that, congratulate him on his achievements at the London marathon. I agree with him that patients should receive high-quality, consistent care, wherever they live. Through national improvement programmes such as Getting It Right First Time, we are making sure that best practice is shared to drive up standards, and I am happy for Ministers to give him the details.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q15.  Many happy returns to you, Mr Speaker.It is Carers Week, so I take this opportunity to thank all the young carers and young adult carers in my constituency of Harlow for all that they do, all year round.As a former teacher, I spend a lot of time talking to students, parents and teachers in Harlow about the dangers of social media. They are very concerned that the big tech companies are not taking their responsibilities seriously, so can I ask the Prime Minister what he is doing to hold big tech firms to account, to ensure that our young people are safe online?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for his great work supporting young carers for decades. We have given tech companies a deadline: introduce the device-level controls that already exist to prevent children from sending and receiving sexually explicit images or we will change the law, with fines for companies or even criminal liability for bosses who fail to comply. When it comes to the safety of our children, standing by is not an option, and further steps will follow.

Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address

Chris Vince Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Fleur Anderson]

This Humble Address has been worked on by Ministers and civil servants very diligently, independently and scrupulously, but that has led to some huge costs, which I am going to outline. Maybe that is a lesson that should be learned for future Humble Addresses. As the Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), said earlier in the week, £1 million has been spent by the Cabinet Office alone. A further £1 million has been spent by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, and there have been further costs, including the cost of the independent King’s Counsel; the 16 to 20 civil servants entirely dedicated to this role; the time that the Intelligence and Security Committee has spent on this matter; and the many other civil servants from all the Departments involved in this. Those are huge costs.

My constituents in Putney want Government money to be spent on making their lives better, so we should always question whether this inquiry is making their lives better. When we use parliamentary powers, we have a duty to use public money responsibly and proportionately. I want full transparency, but full transparency must be smart, targeted and proportionate. A Humble Address should be a power of last resort, not a blunt instrument. Because this one was drafted on the hoof and without limits, it is taking up huge resource and time, and in doing so risks making future scrutiny harder, not easier. Most Humble Addresses ask for papers relating to a specific decision; this one asked for

“all papers relating to Lord Mandelson’s appointment…including but not confined to”

nine wide-ranging categories spanning from pre-appointment to post-departure, plus all electronic comms and minutes. The breadth of that request is why the Government said:

“Given the breadth of the motion, this process will clearly take some time”—[Official Report, 23 February 2026; Vol. 781, c. 41.]

It will obviously take even more time because of the police investigation. Meanwhile, the cost is now £2 million and rising.

I reiterate the need to be able to use Humble Addresses as an Opposition tool. Maybe one day, Labour will be in opposition, and we will want to be able to use it. I absolutely agree with that, but I think that some guardrails should be put in place. I ask the Procedure Committee, alongside the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, to review how Humble Addresses are used.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making an important and well-thought-out speech. She has talked about guardrails, and my constituents in Harlow will feel the same as hers about the time this process is taking and the amount of Government resources that are being used. It is really important that we get transparency, but does my hon. Friend agree that one of those guardrails should be to protect minor officials? That is what the redactions—which, of course, there has been some discussion about—are seeking to do. What should happen in this process is that those who are guilty should be punished, but those who are innocent should not be.

[Fleur Anderson]

My hon. Friend raises another good point. The rules around redactions were mentioned earlier, and we should ensure that they are consistent between inquiries. We can learn many things from this, and we should build in those things for the future.

I will make three points—only three. First, we need scope and limits. Motions should set out the subject, the time period and the type of documents sought much more rigorously than this Humble Address did. Secondly, we need a proportionality check. When we voted on this Humble Address, we were not given financial information. Before the House votes, we should have an estimate from the Government of the likely cost, staff time involved and how long compliance will take. That should be part of our measured judgment. We can weigh that against the public interest and use that information when voting. Thirdly, we should use the right tool for the job. There are Select Committees, as we well know—the Foreign Affairs Committee has been rigorously looking at this issue—as well as written questions, freedom of information requests, police investigations, as there are in this case, and evidence under oath. There are other routes to transparency, too. I am not saying we should have used those things in this case—this is the right one for this matter—but we should be prepared to check with future Humble Addresses whether those other routes should not be used.