Infected Blood Inquiry: Government Response

James Naish Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

To be absolutely clear, the cut-off date is about registration for the support schemes; it is not a cut-off date for entitlement to compensation. When issues around this were raised with me at the inquiry last week, I said that if there was a particular issue around a gap between cessation of payment and when compensation might be received, I was willing to go away and look at it, and I will do that. The test that I apply is whether we are pushing this scheme forward. We have to ensure that I, and collectively we, do not do things that would cause even further delay.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

One of the first pieces of correspondence that I received as a new MP on 10 July last year was from my constituent Robert Dickie, who passionately told me about his brother, who died aged 31 from AIDS and hepatitis C after being infected with contaminated blood products. I therefore welcome today’s update. The Government recently announced that they have allocated funding for charities, which is a recommendation from the inquiry. Will the Minister outline what steps he has taken with the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that the funding gets to those charities?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. The charities have done a remarkable job in supporting victims and in patient advocacy. I know that there have been meetings already with officials, and he can be assured that I am working with the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), who is here on the Front Bench, to ensure that that money gets to the charities as quickly as possible.

UK-EU Summit

James Naish Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Richard Baker]

I could not agree more. On the issue of learning, it is so important, good and welcome to hear that, ahead of this vital summit, the Minister for the constitution and European Union relations, my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), attended a meeting with SAFE in Edinburgh yesterday. I understand that it was held at the Scotch Whisky Association, so I hope he enjoyed an excellent afternoon.

This is a good point at which to mention that our trade deal with India is securing £1 billion for the Scottish whisky industry over the next five years, and 1,200 extra jobs. This fantastic deal is in no way frustrated by our pursuing a better deal with the European Union. At that event yesterday, the Minister met young people who look to our future in Europe, rather than seeking to debate the battles of the past. They asked the Minister to find ways to ensure that they have the opportunity to work and study in Europe. I hope he can think inventively about how that can be achieved within the policy framework that the Government have set out, because the previous Erasmus+ scheme was important not only for the young people who participated, but for Scotland’s economy. It was worth £340 million annually, delivering £7 in value for every £1 invested.

Economic growth is rightly the priority for this Government. If they changed course in these negotiations in the way proposed by the Opposition, that would not be putting the national interests first. The Minister and his colleagues should proceed with the vital work that they have taken forward with their European counterparts ahead of the summit. That is the right thing to do for economic growth and in our national interests.

The Government’s approach, which is absolutely essential, recognises the EU’s status as our biggest trading partner. It accounts for 41% of our exports and 51% of our imports. I am encouraged to hear from the Minister that issues that are vital to growth in my constituency of Glenrothes and Mid Fife—including closer co-operation on energy policy, which I hope may include increasing co-operation with the North Seas Energy Co-operation—are the issues on the agenda next week.

I hope that there will be measures that benefit small businesses in my constituency, particularly in the creative sector. Rightly, at the election, our party committed to making it easier for musicians to tour in Europe. That is vital for the future of our brilliant creative sector in Scotland, and in the UK, and I hope that we can make progress in this area.

Of course, we have to respect the decision of the Brexit referendum. However, while we should not simply repeat the debate on Brexit in this House, as we seem to, neither should we repeat the mistakes of the previous Government, who failed to ensure that our new relationship with the European Union created the right environment for trade and co-operation in key areas of policy. This Government have already made significant progress on resetting the UK’s relationship with the European Union in our national interests, and particularly in line with this Government’s policy on economic growth.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend has covered a range of groups—he mentioned farmers, businesses, young people and the creative sector—but is it not the truth that all these groups are simply looking for practical measures that the Government can take to improve their lot, and to improve our relationship with Europe? That could involve cutting red tape, unlocking energy and deepening security co-operation, without being to the detriment of the previous agreement.

[Richard Baker]

I could not agree more. This will absolutely be in line with previous agreements. In our new relationship with Europe, we are doing far better than the previous Government, who agreed very poor deals, which resulted in economic decline; we could have achieved more with a different approach.

I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to go further, faster, on this policy area and Government priority. I urge him not to be deflected by Opposition Members who wish to fight the battles of the past. The Government are right to seek a better relationship with Europe, and to be ready for the opportunities, and indeed the tests, that lie ahead for our continent.

European Union: UK Membership

James Naish Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for opening the debate.

My constituents in Rushcliffe have long been outward-looking, internationally minded and overwhelmingly pro-European. They understand that Brexit has not delivered the promised benefits, and they feel that the economic, social and geopolitical consequences of Brexit can be seen in their daily lives. I thank the 311 people from my constituency who signed the petition, and congratulate the lead petitioner for bringing us to the point of debating this matter today.

As so many of my colleagues have already said, it is clear that the UK’s trade has suffered, its productivity has fallen and investment has stalled since it left the EU. We have heard about the OBR estimates, but I believe that Goldman Sachs suggests that UK GDP has fallen by an even greater amount—maybe 5% or even up to 8%—and is therefore lower than it would have been without Brexit. One of my colleagues has already referenced the fact that 1.8 million fewer jobs were created by 2023. Our small businesses, in particular in sectors like agrifood and manufacturing, are bearing the brunt of new barriers to trade. We have also heard that 16,400 small businesses have ceased exporting to the EU since 2021.

For my constituents, those are not abstract figures; ultimately, they translate into higher prices at the checkout, fewer opportunities for our young people and, for all of us, diminished global influence. However, although rejoining the EU is a goal for many in my constituency, and a position that I would like us to pursue, we must be pragmatic about the challenges that that process will entail.

[Katie White (Leeds North West) (Lab)]

I think the vast majority of people in the room and, certainly, across my constituency have their eyes open to the challenges of Brexit and the obstacles we faced. Does my hon. Friend agree that the world has changed and that, in the new world order, what is possible for Europe, including our own country, will change too? As he says, we need pragmatic and creative solutions to strengthen and protect our place in an increasingly uncertain world. Does he agree that a new bargain, in which we have access to the single market in exchange for security assurances and a mechanism for reasonable, but not legally required, regulatory alignment, where the benefits outweigh the costs—not with free movement—could be a route forward?

[James Naish]

The reality is that there are several routes forward, and a number of them have been mentioned today. I implore the Government to think creatively about them. I will come to a couple of my own suggestions in a moment.

Rejoining would be a long and complex journey. It would require unanimous agreement from all 27 EU member states, and we would need to demonstrate sustained public and cross-party support over several years. I say this as someone who, in 2013-14, was living in Albania and working for the Government there. Albania became an official candidate for accession to the EU in June 2014; 10 years on, it is not a member.

[Pete Wishart]

I do not think that anyone in this Chamber, or the petitioners, expects the Labour party to lead us back into the EU tomorrow. What we want to hear from this Labour Government is a commitment that that is their objective and that is what they will work towards.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Naish]

It is forward movement and momentum that many of my constituents want to see. I will come to a couple of the things that I think could be done to achieve that.

We cannot afford to wait 10 years to address some of the very real challenges that we face as a country. Practical, tangible steps can be taken to help to build a stronger and closer relationship with the EU. Many of those things have already been mentioned, including negotiating a security and defence partnership to co-operate on international development, and access to the EU’s new €150 billion defence financing instrument. We could reach a veterinary agreement to reduce costly border checks. We could join the pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention. We could align on emissions trading schemes with the EU, to avoid costly charges to UK exporters. We could explore a youth mobility scheme, as we have with countries such as Australia and Canada, so that the next generation can build relationships and young people can have the chance to work, study and build connections across Europe.

Those measures would not only strengthen our economic ties, but restore trust and co-operation with our European partners at a time of geopolitical uncertainty. Russia’s aggression continues to grow, and global challenges are significant, so closer collaboration between the UK and the EU is not just desirable, but essential for our security and prosperity.

Next year, 2026, will mark 10 years since the Brexit vote. As I have said to many constituents on the doorstep, I can picture the newspaper columns, TV programmes and extensive discussion that will take place as we approach June 2026. I believe that it is a perfect time for a national conversation about what our future relationship with Europe looks like, and I am sure that many Members present will want to be part of that conversation.

[Tom Hayes]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, in particular on that point about our nearing the decade anniversary. Does he agree that, in some senses, we need to put the vote behind us and reflect on the management of the Brexit decision? It is hard to believe that I will say this often, but does he agree with the Leader of the Opposition, who said in her 2025 new year speech:

“We announced that we would leave the European Union before we had a plan for growth outside the EU…These mistakes were made because we told people what they wanted to hear first and then tried to work it out later”?

[James Naish]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the position has changed. There were a lot of mistakes. We do not need to go back to the past and examine all that, but I think we will need a national conversation about where our relationship with Europe is in 2026. Indeed, we are having that conversation today, but I feel that that will be a natural springboard, 10 years on from the vote, and I sincerely hope that, as a nation, we take that conversation to heart.

My constituents in Rushcliffe understand that Britain is strongest when it is connected, co-operative and engaged with its European neighbours. My constituents expect us in this House, and the Government, to act decisively to help rebuild that relationship. That is the path we must take, and I implore the Government to think creatively about the best ways of doing that.

Ukraine

James Naish Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I think the hon. Gentleman has heard my answer on that. We are looking at what can be done, but it is complicated, and it has got to be done—if it is to be done—with others.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

I spoke to dozens of people on the doorstep over the weekend who welcomed the significant steps that the Prime Minister has taken to protect Europe’s borders and genuinely valued his leadership on this extremely important matter, so I thank him on behalf of my constituents. He will be aware that over the past week, Russia has launched more than 1,000 attack drones, nearly 1,300 aerial bombs and more than 20 missiles at Ukraine. Population centres continue to be targeted, with the aim of killing Ukrainian civilians. Does he agree that strengthening Ukrainian air defences is pivotal and does he welcome Lithuania’s announcement last week that it will soon hand over RBS 70 short-range air defence systems to Ukraine?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. We should not lose sight of the fact that while we are discussing security guarantees and the like, Russia has been unrelenting in its attack on civilians, ramping it up while we talk of how to resolve this issue. Of course, we should do everything we can to assist Ukraine with their air defences.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Naish Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Member has to shout because the SNP Members are so far away at the back and there are so few of them that otherwise they would not be heard.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

My constituent Matthew and his mum Catherine, alongside Emma Murphy and Janet Williams, have campaigned for many years to get compensation for families affected by the epilepsy drug sodium valproate. Twelve months on from the Patient Safety Commissioner’s report on this matter, those harmed are still waiting for the recommendations to be implemented. How much longer will the individuals and families impacted by valproate need to wait for the clarity they seek? Will the Prime Minister arrange for a Health Minister to meet valproate campaigners to discuss this important matter?