Public Office (Accountability) Bill

Ian Lavery Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 3rd November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

I thank the Government so much for bringing this much-needed, vital Bill to the House. It shows what a Labour Government can actually do, and how a Labour Government can effect change. It was really positive to hear the Prime Minister say this afternoon that there would be an absolute guarantee that the Bill would not in any way, shape or form be diluted.

That is really important to everybody.

It is not a day for celebration; it is a day far too long in coming. It is not just about history; it is about justice, it is about class, it is about the truth. The tragedies we have all lived through—the Hillsborough disaster, Orgreave, Windrush, Grenfell, the Post Office Horizon scandal, the contaminated blood scandal, plus many, many more—are not isolated events. They are symptoms of a deeper sickness: a system that protects power over people, reputation over responsibility, and privilege over truth. In each case, working-class lives were treated as expendable. Innocent people were pitted against institutions that closed ranks, denied wrongdoing and delayed justice, sometimes for decades. At Hillsborough, 97 Liverpool fans lost their lives, not by accident but because of institutional indifference. They were branded hooligans, not victims, by officers who held deep-seated prejudice against working class communities.

It is about legacy, truth and accountability. It is not just about the Bill today. It has been said today in this Chamber that this was like people turning a blind eye to what happened. It is not turning a blind eye, for heaven’s sake! It is about huge, detailed, organised and orchestrated deliberate cover-ups using billions of taxpayer pounds against ordinary working people.

It has been mentioned today that the chief constable got a knighthood. He has not received any form of discipline whatever. Ninety-seven people killed and not one person has been taken through the courts and prosecuted, but he was given a knighthood. What an absolute disgrace. It shows a huge disregard and indifference to working people. They were allowed to trample on the graves of the victims in the belief that they could do whatever they wanted, because they were the ones with the power and the influence.

That cannot be allowed to continue. We have to remember that justice means justice. Who indeed made these decisions? What police officer shut the blinds, put the coffee on the table and said, “Right, look, we’ve had 97 people sadly passed on, but we’re going to make out like it really wasn’t our fault”? Who then signed it off, because, by the way, I think every one of these injustices gans a lot further than just police officers and people in the public sector at the very top? It has got to have had ministerial sign-off, I am afraid, because it would not have happened.

I support the Bill in its entirety. No more delays. Justice for all. This is a long overdue Bill, which I fully support.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter, which I know is personal to him. We are investing £600 million to improve diagnostic capacity and are rolling out new radiotherapy machines, including, I am pleased to say, in his local trust. We have seen real improvements, with 148,000 more people now having cancer diagnosed or ruled out within 28 days, but I acknowledge that there is more to do. The national cancer plan will set out how we will go further and deliver the best care for every patient.

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

Q8. The big four banks have been allowed to abandon our high streets, basically closing their branches with impunity. Between 1999 and 2025, my constituency alone lost banks in Guide Post, Newbiggin-by-the-Sea, Bedlington and Blyth. Meanwhile, those banks made more than £40 billion profit in the last year alone—they are absolutely drowning in cash. The manifesto pledge to roll out 350 banking hubs is to be welcomed, but its quirky—almost bizarre—qualifying criteria need detailed revision. Will the Prime Minister commit to a wholesale review of personal face-to-face banking, which would enable local residents and businesses, alongside many vulnerable people, to access their own money in their own time on their own high street?

[The Prime Minister]

I know how important face-to-face banking is on our high streets. As my hon. Friend says, we have committed to rolling out 350 banking hubs across the United Kingdom, and over 180 are already open. However, I want to reassure him that 350 is not the limit; although decisions over hubs are taken independently, they can be rolled out wherever a community needs one. I am happy to make sure the relevant Minister follows up with details for him.

Infected Blood Inquiry: Additional Report

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

In relation to registration, as the hon. Gentleman will have seen, IBCA has accepted all of Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendations, including that one. With regard to the estates of those who have sadly passed away, I have just, from the Dispatch Box, extended interim payments, and I hope to be able to announce the timetable for that very soon.

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

The very fact that Sir Brian Langstaff reopened the scheme for the additional report bears testimony to the fact that there is something sadly wrong with the initial scheme. I am wondering whether the infected blood victims will be warmly welcoming my right hon. Friend’s statement, or whether they will be a bit apprehensive, frustrated or disappointed because the Government have said that they will accept, at this point, only seven of the nine recommendations. Only 460 victims have settled to date, but many others have sadly passed on. Can my right hon. Friend clarify what will happen to those waiting to start their claim? They are the Tuesday night lottery club—they have been waiting for months for a phone call to tell them that they will get an invitation to apply for compensation. Will new invites be put on hold while IBCA revisits the settled claims? Is it still a priority to start all living infected claims by the end of the year?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The answer is yes, absolutely. I would not have made such a substantial number of changes without assurance that it would not delay the ongoing payments. IBCA has said that there will be offers to all the living registered infected by the end of the year. That is unchanged by the changes I have made to the scheme today. The promise that we made to start the affected by the end of the year also stands. As I said a moment ago, IBCA has accepted the recommendation about registration. It has also accepted Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendation about cohort prioritisation and is looking at that. I hope that my hon. Friend, who is a powerful advocate on these matters, will see that having said at the inquiry that I would look constructively at these issues, that is precisely what I have done. On the recommendations where we are consulting, that is precisely because I want the voice of the community to be heard.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Thursday 5th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The only thing that has been surrendered is the credibility of the Conservative party. This Government have used the independent post-Brexit trade policy to secure a deal with India, a deal with the United States, and a deal with the EU that is good for jobs, good for bills and good for borders. The Conservatives will have to explain at the next election why they want to undo all of it.

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

6. What steps he is taking to relocate civil service roles to locations outside London.

[Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)]

18. What steps he is taking to relocate civil service roles to locations outside London.

[Ian Lavery]

I welcome that reply, and it is really progressive that the Government are now relocating jobs away from London, but can I urge the Minister to look closely at how people in places like my constituency of Blyth and Ashington—people everywhere, in rural and semi-rural constituencies as well as in more urban ones—can benefit from this fantastic policy? We all need to be able to benefit from this policy, not just certain peoples in city constituencies.

[Pat McFadden]

I very much hear what my hon. Friend says. I cannot stand here and say that there will be a civil service location in every single constituency in the country, but we are happy to have dialogue with MPs and local authorities from all parts of the country to get the biggest benefits possible from these decisions to locate civil service jobs around the country. The truth is, in this day and age, not everyone has to work in central London. We can get better value for money and, as I said, a public service that is closer to the public it serves.

Infected Blood Inquiry: Government Response

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

First, with regard to the current position on payments, just over £96 million has been paid, and IBCA has invited 677 claimants to begin the process. I want to be clear about the 2029 date to which the hon. Lady referred. It is correct to say that there are, as I regard them, backstop dates of 2027 for the infected and 2029 for the affected, but that is what they are—backstops. They are not targets. The target is to make the payments as soon as possible.

The hon. Lady asked about evidence, which I dealt with in response to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper). She refers to a situation where someone’s medical evidence has for whatever reason been destroyed, and that is precisely the kind of situation where we expect IBCA to take a sympathetic approach.

On the duty of candour, the Government remain committed to bringing in duty of candour legislation, but it is important that we get it right and ensure that the legislation will actually achieve the shared objective that I am sure the whole House has of trying to prevent this type of scandal from happening again. We must ensure that there are no unintended consequences, so it is because we want to get the legislation right that we are taking a bit more time.

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

I thank the Paymaster General for his statement. I am in constant contact with the contaminated blood community, and they are furious and frustrated in equal measure at the lack of progress with the claims being processed. I was speaking to a haemophiliac, who as a child was unknowingly used for research all those years ago. He asked why it is that he is likely to get less in compensation after being used in an experiment than a drunken driver who crashed his car and needed a blood transfusion. I think that is a fair question. He also asked whether Members of this House understand the stress and mental torment that individuals are going through, when they are waiting on a Tuesday night for close of play to see whether they are one of the lucky hundred to have their claims processed the following week. I thank my right hon. Friend very much for everything he has done, but I think those are fair points. Does he think they are fair?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is and has been throughout this process a powerful advocate for the victims. While this is a broad tariff-based scheme, it is vital that individuals’ suffering and circumstances are reflected in the awards that are made. To his latter point, I know the agony that victims are still going through in having to wait, and I know that he shares my desire to push forward with the payments as quickly as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ms Oppong-Asare]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this important issue. We work very closely with local authorities and local resilience forums when considering issuing an emergency alert, to ensure that the response is as adequate as possible.

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

2. What steps his Department is taking to help ensure the resilience of local government digital infrastructure against cyber-attacks.

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Pat McFadden)]

The Government are working hard to improve the cyber resilience of the public sector, because cyber-attacks can be against central Government institutions, local authorities and, of course, individuals and businesses. With regard to local authorities, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has launched a cyber assessment framework for local government. It sets a clear cyber-security standard for the sector, and the Department also provides monthly cyber clinics to support local authorities in improving collaboration, sharing intelligence and tackling vulnerabilities in this area.

[Ian Lavery]

Local councils manage mountains of sensitive data, deliver essential services and lead on emergency responses to critical incidents, among much more, yet 15 years of Tory underfunding has left outdated digital infrastructure, leaving them particularly vulnerable to cyber-attack. Does the Minister agree that improving cyber resilience in local authorities is of paramount importance if we are to protect our citizens� data and continue to deliver essential services without interruption from hostile actors?

[Pat McFadden]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: not all the systems used across central or local government are as up to date as they should be. This is a constant battle and a constant challenge. It is really important that we put every effort into ensuring that we are as well protected as possible against hostile acts from both state and non-state actors.

Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

On the right hon. Gentleman’s point about tariffs, they have been set out and published. There are then assessments to be made about severity within the tariff bands. There is also, as I have indicated, the supplementary route for more complex cases. I cannot give him a single figure across these cases as they obviously vary, but the House will gradually see the overall amount being published by IBCA.

On the right hon. Gentleman’s second point, a victim making an application to the IBCA will be given a particular claim manager—I met the first claim managers only in recent weeks—to speak to and guide them through the process, which is crucial. I know that the culture imbued by Sir Robert Francis is an enabling one about helping victims, particularly with evidence. I have also signed off both legal support and financial support, because it is about receiving what are, in many cases, life-changing sums of money.

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

May I first thank my right hon. Friend for the update? Despite his sterling efforts—I really mean that—the process has taken far too long. Victims are dying at the rate of two per week, never having seen the compensation they deserve. Victims are very much unaware of, and desperate to understand, what and how much compensation they might even be due under the process.

Can the Minister say how many of the 5,000 infected victims will be invited to apply to the scheme during 2025? Has he considered, or is there potential to consider, allowing victims to take support scheme payments as a lump sum without any reductions?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

On people’s having a sense of the amount of money they will get, the Government published explainer documents in August last year—and in recent days—that are on the Government website. The Infected Blood Compensation Authority is intending to publish a compensation calculator for the infected core award by the end of March.

On my hon. Friend’s other points, the number of victims paid will be regularly published by the IBCA during the course of the year. The payments to the infected have started, and I expect payments to the affected to begin before the end of the year. As regards the support schemes, one change that the Government made was to allow both a lump sum payment and the continuation of the support schemes. That came through from the consultation that Sir Robert Francis undertook during the general election campaign. I have made that change to the scheme, and how that works precisely is set out in the explainer document.

Outsourcing: Government Departments

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) for bringing this timely debate to the Chamber. As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy.

I want to dispel some myths in the few minutes that I have got. I want us to wake up and smell the coffee, because this is not “outsourcing”. What is outsourcing? It is privatisation. One hon. Member said it is privatisation by the back door, but it is not; it is just privatisation. We have got to get to grips with how privatisation in this country is getting out of control. Who benefits and who does not benefit? The reality is that the companies are making fortunes and the workers are struggling to make ends meet.

There are some private companies that are actually providing food banks in their places of work for the people they employ. How obscene is that? It is not about socialism or about even left-wing ideology; it is about decency and respect. It is about ambition and giving people a fair deal. That is what we should be about in a prosperous country like the one we live in. Who suffers under privatisation? I was one of the people who worked in a nationalised industry that was privatised over a period of time, so I have got experience of this. Who suffers? It is the workers.

It has been mentioned: reduction in pay, sacking of the labour force, lack of trade union recognition—even trying to fight back—nae sick pay, nae holiday pay. It is absolutely absurd. It served them! We need to be saying what it really is, and the Government Departments are ridden with individuals who are working under the most horrendous of conditions. I pay tribute to the many workers who have worked tirelessly. Many of those in privatised companies are claiming universal credit. The company directors are trousering fortunes, while the workers are losing out on the rights that I have just mentioned. It is horrendous. Some of them cannot make ends meet. Many of them are going to work when they really should not be there, because of sickness, for example. It is just wholly unacceptable.

We have got to get to grips with this privatisation. We have got no other option. We need to protect people in this country from the abuses and the exploitation by privateers, who are making fortunes at the cost of those in the industry. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to listen to what my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) said about the legal presumption of in-house employment, because the reality is that we cannot control what we do not own.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

I thank all hon. Members who have spoken for their restraint. It has allowed me to get one more hon. Member in, but I ask her to please bring her remarks to a close at 10.30 am.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Wood]

Numerous reports, not least by the Institute for Government, have found that, in many areas of Government activity, outsourcing and public procurement from private providers improves service and value for money for the taxpayer. Of course, it can be done badly, and the Probation Service is the obvious example where it clearly never worked. Although the pandemic brought things to a critical point, it was becoming increasingly difficult even before then to argue that that private provision was providing a satisfactory service.

We are still waiting for the national procurement policy statement, less than four weeks before the Procurement Act is due to commence. The new Government claim that the Act, in its current form, does not meet their vision for harnessing public procurement to deliver economic growth, value for money and social value, but it looks increasingly as though what they mean is that they want to use public contracts as a vehicle to expand trade union influence in Government, imposing costly and unnecessary regulatory burdens on businesses. In the absence of a national procurement policy statement, the Government are introducing further restrictions and bureaucracy through what they call “Make Work Pay”, but for a lot of employers that looks a lot like just making jobs more expensive.

Businesses seeking Government contracts are to be required to demonstrate trade union recognition, access for union organisers, collective bargaining arrangements, adherence to so-called fair work standards that go well beyond legal obligations, and other social commitments. Recent parliamentary answers have confirmed that those requirements will apply not only to large firms, but to small and medium-sized enterprises, undoing a lot of the good work in the Procurement Act that aimed to open up public procurement contracts to a wider range of smaller businesses.

This is not about ensuring fair treatment of workers. UK employment law already provides robust protections. This is about allowing unions to dictate the terms of our public procurement, favouring firms that meet ideological criteria rather than those that offer the best value and most efficient service.

[Ian Lavery]

Does the hon. Gentleman think it is right that in certain private companies, individuals are able to claim universal credit, while directors of the very same companies are trousering thousands of pounds, as are the dividend holders? It is a burden on the taxpayer—does he agree?

[Mike Wood]

Businesses have to fulfil their legal obligations. The previous Government introduced the national living wage, which will increase this April under the current Government, and of course where businesses of whatever type are failing to pay the national living wage, there must be proper enforcement and legal consequences.

We need to be clear about what the Government’s changes mean in practice. Instead of being awarded contracts on the basis of cost-effectiveness and efficiency, businesses will have to navigate a minefield of additional requirements, making it harder for SMEs to compete for public contracts. The added complexity will inevitably drive up costs and reduce competition, and it will ultimately mean that taxpayers get less for their money and a poorer service.

Beyond increasing costs and inefficiencies, this approach risks distorting the market by prioritising ideology over quality. Public contracts must be awarded to the best providers, whether in house or private. That means those that offer the most efficient service at the best price, rather than those that can best navigate a politically driven procurement system. The increased focus on trade union influence in procurement raises serious concerns about political favouritism and undermines the principle of fair competition.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I will be carrying out another round of engagement with victims next week. As I said in answer to the former Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen), the role of user consultants in the Infected Blood Compensation Authority is vital as well.

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

There are still, sadly, two victims of the contaminated blood scandal dying on a weekly basis. Will my right hon. Friend say what is preventing the Government from instructing IBCA to issue core payments today to all living infected victims registered with the existing support schemes?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

IBCA is operationally independent, but I expect the first payments for the affected to be made before the end of this year. I am restless for progress and will do all I can as a Minister to drive this forward.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Pat McFadden]

We have been monitoring the situation closely for some months. I assure the right hon. Gentleman and the whole House that the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Defence and all parts of Government are putting in place the necessary measures, should the situation on the ground change to a point where we judge that more needs to be done to get people out of the country.

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

T2. The Minister will be well aware that thousands of low-paid workers are being exploited on outsourced contracts in Government buildings, including cleaners, security guards and people in catering. Will he update the House on what progress is being made to in-source these jobs? After all, they are critical to the efficient operation of Parliament.

[Pat McFadden]

Whether workers are working in-sourced or outsourced, we always want them to have a good deal and a fair deal at work. That is why the Government brought forward this week a powerful Bill to improve employment rights for people right across the board. We believe that when people go to work they deserve fair pay and decent conditions.