Oral Answers to Questions

John Glen Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Bridget Phillipson]

I agree with my hon. Friend that it is absolutely crucial that we take action on regional inequalities. He champions that cause very strongly on his constituents’ behalf. He will know that we have set out an ambitious plan for the future of the minimum wage, and we are taking action to make sure that all workers receive more money in their pockets to spend. He also draws our attention to the importance of children having a great start in life, which is why we as a Government are committed to making sure that more children than ever arrive at school and get the support they need, so that, by the end of reception, they are ready to move on to the next stage in their journey.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

In the City of London, one of the big remaining challenges is to ensure that the maximum number of people from the widest socioeconomic backgrounds can get into that industry. Recently, I met people from Progress Together. Vincent Keaveny, a recent Lord Mayor of the City of London, has made massive progress to understand that the data collection process does not need to be expensive. Will the Secretary of State get in touch with her ministerial colleagues and the Financial Conduct Authority to alert them to the opportunity to collect data at little expense, which would really raise the profile of the remaining challenge?

[Bridget Phillipson]

I am more than happy to do that. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his work in this area and the attention that he has drawn to it, because it is a cause that we can all get behind. There is more that employers can be asked to do, as he describes, and more that we can do as a Government. That is why it is important that all young people have access to good work experience and careers guidance, so that they understand the full range of opportunities out there in the world.

G20 and COP29 Summits

John Glen Excerpts

Thursday 21st November 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I raised it personally myself because it is such an important case, and it is very important that we continue to do so. It is raised by Government Ministers every time we engage with China. It is such an important case—this House knows the details—which is why I took the opportunity in the meeting I had earlier this week to raise it directly with the President.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

Everyone in the House welcomes high ambitions for our country, but given the complexity of delivering against the ambitious targets that the Prime Minister set out, there will be apprehensiveness about other countries going down the track at a different pace, which will have implications for our economy. May I draw his attention to the excellent comments made by his Chancellor about the financial services industry last week at the Mansion House? What assessment has he made of the prospects of another economic and financial dialogue with China, building on the one I attended in 2019 in London, as an opportunity to extend economic dialogue, which has to be positive for the UK economy?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for referencing the Chancellor’s excellent Mansion House speech last week. On matters economic, I do think there is a dialogue to be had with China. It needs to be pragmatic and serious, and it needs to sit alongside the frank discussions we need to have, as we have referenced in this House, on the issues on which we disagree. But I do think there is room for that dialogue in the national interest—in our own interests.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

John Glen Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 12th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Snell]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Madam Chair. I will keep my comments brief, because I know that that will entertain the Committee more. [Hon. Members: “More!”] I have not started yet—give me time. I very much enjoyed the Bill’s Second Reading, which is why I have come back for a second go.

I genuinely welcome the new reforming zeal of the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson), and I believe there are merits to some of the amendments that bear his name. I am glad that the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) has said that those amendments are part of our manifesto, because they are, as is this Bill. I am sure that means that he will want the Salisbury convention to be accepted in the other place when the Bill reaches it, meaning that Opposition Members in the House of Lords will make no attempt to prevent its successful passage. I am sure that at some point in today’s proceedings, an Opposition Front Bencher will be able to confirm for the record that the Bill will pass smoothly once it has passed this House.

We have just heard the importance of the primacy of this House stated eloquently by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart). This House is going to make a decision on the Bill today—to decide whether we believe there should be a role for hereditary peers in the House of Lords—and it will then be sent to the House of Lords. Given the importance of convention, history and statute, I am sure that he will be able to confirm that the House of Lords will happily pass it, without any attempts by Opposition Members to amend it. I doubt it, but I hope so.

The point of the Bill, and the reason why I believe it deserves support from all sides of the House, is that—as my hon. Friend the Minister pointed out—this is the first step in a package of House of Lords reform.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is a serious individual on the Government Benches, and I respect him very much, but does he not understand that given the delicate set of constitutional arrangements we have, it is not unreasonable to expect the Government to come forward with a plan that sets out several steps, taking us on the journey that they intend to go on, with some substance behind it? Given the number of years the Government have had since the previous changes over a quarter of a century ago, it is not unreasonable to expect a little more detail on those second, third and fourth steps, or a timetable.

[Gareth Snell]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and to a degree, I agree. That is why we set out in our manifesto the package of reforms and changes that we hope to see made to the other place during this Parliament, in order to deliver on the promises we made in the election. He is absolutely right to say that constitutional reform is a delicate thing; that is why it is important that we make these reforms with consideration and in small steps, to make sure that the unintended consequences of large-scale reform are not felt.

The Conservative party made modest reforms during previous Parliaments, such as giving Members of the House of Lords the ability to retire from it. That was a small change, but one with consequential impacts—far more Members have left the House of Lords under that provision than will be impacted by the provisions in this Bill. That was done thoughtfully, carefully, slowly and, I think, consensually.

Similarly, I think that the principle of this Bill—that hereditary peers will no longer have the right to sit in the House of Lords—has already been established in this House. None of the amendments that have been tabled today seeks to overturn that; none of them seeks to make a case for the continuation of hereditary peers. As such, the consensus that the right hon. Gentleman rightly talks about exists in this Bill. The more we seek to tack on to the Bill—taking other elements of constitutional reform and adding them to the Bill—the more we risk that consensus falling apart. We risk this House not having a settled position, creating the opportunity for potential wrecking amendments. I do not suggest that Opposition Members are tabling wrecking amendments, but they could be tabled elsewhere to completely flatline what is a very modest and sensible reform.

Cabinet Office

John Glen Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2024 Written Corrections

The following extract is from Cabinet Office questions on 24 October 2024.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

I turn to another area of national resilience. National security experts have been warning about the Chinese Communist party’s use of genomics companies to harvest DNA data globally and dominate the genomics industry supply chain. Given the increasing importance of genomics for public healthcare, and the potential dual-use application of the technology, will the Minister confirm whether her Department is conducting a risk assessment on the data privacy, national security and ethical risks posed by genomic companies linked to systemic competitors?

[Ms Oppong-Asare]

The right hon. Member is right to raise that question. We will ban China’s economic engagement, and make sure we strengthen our national security.

[Official Report, 24 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 393.]

Written correction submitted by the Parliamentary Secretary in the Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Ms Oppong-Asare):

Oral Answers to Questions

John Glen Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister, John Glen.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

I turn to another area of national resilience. National security experts have been warning about the Chinese Communist party’s use of genomics companies to harvest DNA data globally and dominate the genomics industry supply chain. Given the increasing importance of genomics for public healthcare, and the potential dual-use application of the technology, will the Minister confirm whether her Department is conducting a risk assessment on the data privacy, national security and ethical risks posed by genomic companies linked to systemic competitors?

[Ms Oppong-Asare]

The right hon. Member is right to raise that question. We will ban China’s economic engagement, and make sure we strengthen our national security.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

I warmly welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s announcement on the £100,000 interim payments to the estates of the deceased infected, thereby maintaining the momentum that was established earlier this year, and I thank him for his thorough statement to the House yesterday introducing the statutory instrument. Will he confirm that it is his intention to ramp up rapidly from the payouts to the test case cohort of 20 infected? Can he give the House as much detail as he can about when others in the infected cohort should expect to receive their payouts?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the constructive tone he has taken throughout the debates under this Government. That continues the work we did when I was the shadow Minister, when we worked together to try to deliver these payments as quickly as possible.

The whole purpose of having the test cohort is to enable a range of different cases to be considered by the Infected Blood Compensation Authority, to give us the best possible opportunity to ramp up as quickly as possible. That is why I expect the first payments to be made before the end of this year. I then expect payments to the affected to begin next year, and I will ensure that regulations are placed before this House to make sure those deadlines are reached.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

The Opposition support the new Government’s aspirations for the highest ministerial standards, and we acknowledge the significant experience that the Prime Minister’s former chief of staff can bring to her role as envoy to the nations and regions. Why then, in breach of Cabinet Office guidance, have Ministers not published a word on her terms of reference, her new salary or her special adviser severance payment, and is she correct in her understanding that she is at the top of the list of new peers?

[Ellie Reeves]

Anything in relation to the former chief of staff will be announced in due course. It is not right for me to comment on the terms and conditions of any individual.

Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

John Glen Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2024 Commons Chamber

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

I thank the Paymaster General for advance notice of the statutory instrument being laid, as he has always given. He rightly reminded the House of the injustice that victims of the infected blood scandal have been subject to—one that has spanned several decades. I hope that we are now in rapid delivery mode. My role is to ensure that the Government are doing all they can to deliver compensation as swiftly and effectively as possible for the infected and affected, following the passage of the Bill under the previous Government.

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is also my duty to work collaboratively with the Government on this matter, supporting them and scrutinising them where appropriate. To that end, I wish to set out some issues raised with me by representatives of the infected and affected communities. First, I draw the right hon. Gentleman’s attention to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s second report of the Session, which found the explanatory memorandum to be

“overly complex and technical, while lacking basic information about the policy”.

To some extent, I very much sympathise. This is a very complicated matter. I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that this critical information should be easily accessible to all. Can he assure the House that he will do everything he can to ensure that the explanatory memorandum to the second set of regulations will be much clearer in language and in outlining how the policy will work practically? He rightly referred to the detailed policy paper that he published in August, with the case studies and the reference to advice and support, but the implication of what has been said is that an improvement can be made.

On the Infected Blood Compensation Authority, I echo my previous comments in welcoming the Government’s pledge to deliver the first payments by the end of the year. I know that the Paymaster General and I align in recognising the paramount importance of delivering this compensation as quickly as possible. However, currently, there is no defined timetable for when applications can be made and when payments will be processed.

Furthermore, I know the Paymaster General will find it as troubling as I do that groups of victims have previously described meeting the end-of-year deadline as “nigh on impossible”. We need to solve these trust issues. Can he outline the steps the Government and the IBCA are taking to ensure that payments will be made by the end of the year—just 10 weeks away? Can he confirm what proportion of the eligible infected community will receive their payments by the end of the year?

There is a suspicion, of which I am sure the Paymaster General is aware, that achieving payouts for the previously mentioned user group of 20 individuals by the end of the year will be used to technically satisfy the obligation he undertook to get money out of the door by the end of the year. The infected community as a whole will want to know that all of them—beyond the 20—will receive their payments in their bank accounts, and what will be the interval between the end of the year and that happening. Please could the Paymaster General explain how the user group of 20 people have found the new scheme, and how quickly their lessons can be applied to the rest of the infected community? I understand that the IBCA recently confirmed its intention to invite increasingly larger groups of people to test the service before it opens to those who are eligible. Can the Paymaster General confirm when the scheme will open to larger groups? How many will be involved? Will they include all victims, including those affected from the infected estates?

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned issues around the burden of proof. I seek clarification on the proof that victims need to provide. It appears that the burden of proof once again falls to victims, which risks going against the letter and spirit of both Sir Brian Langstaff and Sir Robert Francis’s recommendations. I recognise and am sympathetic to the challenges, given Cabinet Office officials’ advice to me when I was in his position. Locating medical records could be an issue, given that the latest case date specified in the regulations is more than 30 years ago. Can the Paymaster General outline the decision-making process of the IBCA in circumstances where medical records are apparently unavailable? What steps is he taking to ensure that rightful compensation is received when proof of infected conditions is not readily available?

I would like to move on to affected persons. In his report in May, Sir Brian Langstaff made it abundantly clear that both infected and affected persons were to be given interim payments as quickly as possible. I am therefore concerned that part 3 of this instrument defines eligible infected persons but not the affected persons. Can the Minister offer some reassurance to the affected community and confirm that he has not ignored Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendation for the affected community? The affected community are concerned that the Government’s delays in laying the second set of regulations for them means that many elderly parents of infected victims or bereaved partners will not live to see their rightful payouts as affected individuals.

I acknowledge the drafting and timetable challenges, but it will be 10 months from the final report this May to the end of next March without any defined regulations or timetable for making a claim as an affected person. That will distress many in the affected community. I am absolutely sure that the Paymaster General does not think it is fair for those affected people to feel like second-class citizens, but will he explain what processes will be under way between now and the end of March, and will he look to publish, even in broad outline, a timetable for affected communities’ applications and the interval before payments will be received?

I am also concerned that no impact assessment has been published for this statutory instrument. Parliamentary scrutiny from all sides needs to be balanced, and fairer legislation will ensue if we can have maximum information on impact in advance, so that the evaluation process can be better informed. I know the Paymaster General has previously said that the costs of the infected blood scheme will be recognised in next week’s Budget. Can he confirm whether the Government have calculated the impact and cost of the regulations?

I shall conclude by thanking the Paymaster General for his work in this area and his transparency with me. This legislation is very technically challenging and difficult to get right. I have enormous sympathy and respect for him. However, I urge him to ensure that critical information is as readily accessible as possible to all victims, infected and affected alike, bringing as much specificity as possible to the timelines for those different communities to this House as quickly as possible, and outlining the cost of the scheme.

For many of these victims, time is of the essence, which is why we must do all we can to deliver justice as quickly and effectively as possible. I remain committed to supporting the Government where I possible can and asking questions that are as reasonable as possible where answers still need to be provided.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I hope to be able to make an announcement about it shortly. I have told the House previously how important I think the memorialisation proposals are, and they will certainly form part of the update that I will give the House before the end of the year.

I join the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), in congratulating the students whom she has had with her and on the work that they did in researching this subject for her speech. What she said about a culture of cover-up was important. What Sir Brian Langstaff said was not that there was some specific conspiracy between individuals, but that there was something far more pervasive, which he described as a culture of “institutional defensiveness”. People and institutions put their own reputations above the public interest, and to tackle that the Government will be pushing forward with a duty of candour. That, in my view, will be a powerful lever that the House can pull for change, but it is not just about a change in the law. It is about leadership as well, and it is about culture and changing the culture, in order to bring about a system in which the public interest is put first and we collectively do all that we can to minimise the chances of a repetition of what has happened in relation to not just this scandal but others, such as Horizon and Hillsborough.

The hon. Lady and a number of other Members asked about the severity bands. The scheme is tariff-based, and the tariffs were developed through the work of the infected blood inquiry response expert group, whose members were appointed by the right hon. Member for Salisbury when he was Paymaster General. They were clinical and legal advisers, assisted by social care specialists. The Government then chose to improve the scheme after the engagement exercise that Sir Robert Francis carried out, as I mentioned to the right hon. Gentleman during the general election campaign.

The comparison between HIV and hepatitis C has been raised. For people infected with hepatitis C there are four severity bands, and they are designed in line with clinical diagnostic markers. Recognised health conditions, for example liver damage, have, therefore, been informed by the work of the expert group. It is correct that in comparison there is a single severity band for people infected with HIV. That is because HIV is a lifelong infection. The vast majority of people infected with HIV through blood products have experienced progression to advanced symptomatic HIV disease, including AIDS conditions, and have died as a consequence of the infection. Those who survived continue to be severely impacted by the infection, and the view of the expert group was that it was disproportionately complex and onerous to disaggregate that category into different experiences, and that contrasted with hepatitis, where there is a wide range of experiences, including both acute infections with long-term limited impacts and very serious and ultimately fatal infections. That is the approach, based on the expert group, that the Government have adopted.

Similarly, on siblings, which several Members have raised, the scheme is based on recommendations from Sir Robert Francis’s framework compensation study. It does not exclude siblings over 18 who may have been carers and provided care.

[John Glen]

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that when he assessed the June engagement exercise that Sir Robert Francis supervised, he did not resist any of the recommendations from the expert group that interrogated the scheme—apart from four or five where he thought the Government could do better—and there was no attempt either by the previous Government or his to resist the advice of the expert group who are engaged with the communities?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. He took exactly the same approach that I did to the expert group. I accepted, as I told the House, 69 of the 74 recommendations, including, crucially, the continuation of the support schemes. On the other five, there were reasons of simplicity or speed—of getting compensation to people more quickly. I hope the House will take the assurance that there is that imperative to act as quickly as possible.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

John Glen Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 15th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

It is my privilege to wind up the Opposition’s case on the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill. In their first 100 days, the new Government have come out of the general election at lightning speed, but at times they have found themselves struggling to keep the wheels from spinning off the wagon. It is perhaps no surprise, therefore, that this gesture at constitutional modernisation is being rushed through Parliament without pre-legislative scrutiny, without meaningful cross-party engagement and without proper consultation.

This is a five-clause Bill with no detail on the next steps. The Government had 14 long years in opposition to ponder how to complete the changes from when they last addressed the matter in the House of Lords Act 1999, yet we see a Bill without ambition. It is incomplete, and without due consideration of the wider implications, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden) set out so eloquently. It is a Bill that provokes questions that are not answered despite repeated assertions to the contrary; and, sadly, in line with many aspects of Labour’s first 100 days in power, there is no clear plan. There is the hope of one— I acknowledge that—but the complexity and variable geometry of our constitutional settlement and history and traditions need serious examination.

[Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)]

I admire the right hon. Gentleman’s elegant efforts to slide past the 14 years when his party was in charge and had an opportunity to change some of these things, but I also note that he is circumventing having to try and defend the indefensible, which is the idea that people have a birthright to be in our Parliament. We are surely long past that point, and if he agrees he and his party should be supporting our party’s proposals.

[John Glen]

I am not hiding at all from that; I am saying that it must be one part of much wider reforms, which many Conservative Members would agree with. If we are to make a large number of changes, it is only reasonable when taking the first step to want to know what the next steps are, because we then address the final overall effect on our constitution and national Parliament.

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

If the right hon. Gentleman is so keen for the Government to set out additional steps, why was he not so keen for the Government of the last 14 years to set out any steps? He described this Bill as lacking ambition; how would he describe the last 14 years when his Government did absolutely nothing to reform the House of Lords?

[John Glen]

I was a member of the Government for seven years and did quite a lot in financial services and other aspects. I totally recognise that significant steps forward were not taken on this matter and I do not deny the need for reform, but doing this in one step without stating what the further steps will be is not the right way.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[John Glen]

I will make a bit more progress before giving way to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), who, like me, has been here for well over four hours.

Making one’s maiden speech is a key moment, and I pay tribute to the five or six Members who have done so amid 22 speeches from across the House, including some excellent contributions. I turn first, however, to my parliamentary neighbour and friend my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), the newly elected Chairman of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, who expressed very well the challenges of defending the hereditary principle, but in his usual way pointed also to the lack of coherence and made the case for a series of ambitious amendments that could be made to the Bill. He also made a very reasonable point about the case for life peerages for the hereditary peers who have made such a significant contribution, and that merits further consideration.

I turn now to some of the maiden speeches. The hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Claire Hazelgrove) made a brilliant maiden speech; she talked of her experience working for the Tony Blair foundation, her commitment to fairness, her enthusiasm for financial education, and her devotion to her constituency. I wish her a long career in this House. The hon. Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) spoke of the warm affection she had for her background in the trade union movement and her commitment to the people from the council estates and the working class that she comes from. I also noted her commitment to apprenticeships and the energy transition, and I wish her well in this place. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell) on his maiden speech, too, and his commitment to serve the many not the few, even if his perspective differs somewhat from that of his father, who many of us will know.

The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) said that the Bill did not go far enough. I suspect he would want to take it to a different place than we would, but I wish him well in his time in the House. The hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Maureen Burke) spoke of her deep commitment to Glasgow and paid a moving tribute to her brother David and the inspiration he has given her to serve here.

There were a large number of other thoughtful speeches, which I will not have time to go over. I just say that it is right, as we all know, that there is a constant review of parliamentary institutions; at times, evolution is in order so that they remain relevant to the public that Parliament is designed to serve. The Government’s view of this evolution has also been on a journey. In September 2022, the Prime Minister, who was then Leader of the Opposition, made a speech at the launch of the Brown report making the case for abolishing the House of Lords entirely—I acknowledge that is a principled position—to replace it with a new elected Chamber. He was reported as saying that he would do that to “restore trust in politics”. The question that many will be asking today is: what happened? Here Labour is, in government with an enormous majority, and what is its big idea or grand plan to deliver on all that?

[Tom Hayes]

Today, Conservative colleagues have said that the reforms go too far but not far enough, and too fast but not fast enough. They have said that we should abolish the hereditary principle and that we should keep it. What is the official Conservative position? May I ask whether what we have seen today is exactly the reason that the Conservative manifesto said nothing about the hereditary principle?

[John Glen]

If the hon. Member takes the trouble to read the reasoned amendment, he will know the position of His Majesty’s Opposition. Let me get back to what his Government have not done. Their plan is simply to kick out 92 peers from the other place. I am afraid that just will not cut it.

[Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[John Glen]

No, I will make some progress, as there is not much time.

As with many areas of policy, and as witnessed in these first 100 days, the Bill exposes that, despite all those months sat on the Opposition Benches, the Government do not have a coherent plan with the next steps set out.

[Gareth Snell]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[John Glen]

I will in a moment. I said that I would, so I will. As Lord Adonis has reminded us,

“there is no consensus on reform.”

The Government did have, as they kept telling us when it was the other way round, 14 years to deliver. They had 14 years to come up with that plan. Now they have an enormous majority, and they have just set out one step.

[Gareth Snell]

I thank the shadow Minister for giving way. He has diligently listened to all the debate this afternoon, and I thank him for that. He talks about a package of reforms. The last reform that his party brought forward in 2014 was a very small reform, with the expulsion of people for non-attendance, the right to resign or retire and the expulsion of those who committed a crime. Since then, 187 Members have retired or resigned and 16 have been expelled for non-attendance. If that was perfectly acceptable as a stand-alone reform without consideration of the consequential impacts, why is this Bill any different?

[John Glen]

I am sorry, but it is the hon. Gentleman’s Government who are now in charge of the agenda before Parliament. It is for them to be accountable for it. I am so challenged by the poverty of ambition that exists on the Government Benches. We are given to believe that they are planning a new wave of peers, and the Prime Minister’s former chief of staff has reportedly been overheard saying that she is top of the list. The Prime Minister was previously reported as trying to make our political system better, because it had previously been undermined by “lackeys and donors” appointed to the other place. Sadly, it seems that as soon as he got into Downing Street, he discovered the Government’s own lackeys and donors were already waiting for him. I think that reflects this Government’s wider approach and attitude to constitutional reform and our institutions.

[Pete Wishart]

I am glad that, at last, somebody else has mentioned the donors, because to me they are the biggest problem we have with the House of Lords. Will the right hon. Gentleman back an amendment that says something along the lines of anybody who has given any more than, say, £20,000 to a political party should not be able to get a place in the House of Lords?

[John Glen]

I do not think we should rule out people who are successful in all walks of life, but I would look seriously at all amendments from colleagues throughout the House.

We need to come back to the facts of the matter. The House of Lords is not there as some ornamental, archaic decoration in our Parliament: it is an embodiment of Magna Carta—of power that devolved from beyond the Crown and beyond the Executive. So what is next? Is this all just a foreboding of the kind of parliamentary flagellation we can expect from this new Government? Well, not if we on the Opposition Benches can help it.

Our reasoned amendment recognises that this Government have no recognition of the need for a reasonable process for constitutional evolution and reform. Our amendment is about the careful and considerate review of change, as well as the acceptable or effective method of enacting major constitutional change. Surely it is reckless at least, and grossly irresponsible at worst, to seek to cast aside the experienced and independent voice of excepted hereditary peers, so many of whom play a crucial role in scrutinising parliamentary legislation in our nation—and some of whom have played an instrumental role in delivering government—without setting out a clear, coherent plan or narrative for what comes next, which should be scrutinised, discussed and refined. I hope colleagues will join me and support the Opposition’s amendment.

Reporting Ministerial Gifts and Hospitality

John Glen Excerpts

Monday 14th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Minister to make a statement on the reporting and acceptance of ministerial gifts and hospitality.

[The Minister without Portfolio (Ellie Reeves)]

I wish to update the House on the action that the Government will take to enhance transparency in relation to ministerial gifts and hospitality.

Transparency is a critical part of restoring public faith in politics, and the Government recognise that changes are needed. Under the last Government, the rules for Ministers declaring hospitality were less transparent than those for other Members of Parliament. Lists of hospitality received by Ministers were published by Whitehall Departments only once a quarter and did not include the value. In contrast, MPs’ and shadow Ministers’ interests must be declared within 28 days, and must include the cost of the hospitality. Tory Ministers used this loophole even when events appeared to have had little connection with their Government roles. Both the House of Commons Committee on Standards and the Committee on Standards in Public Life have called for that disparity to be removed.

Under the last Government, Labour Front Benchers who attended events could end up sitting next to their Tory counterparts. Labour MPs had to declare details in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—importantly, including value—while Tory Ministers did not, under the equivalent ministerial process. The Government will correct this imbalance: the Tory freebies loophole will be closed. In the future, the Government will publish a register of Ministers’ gifts and hospitality on a basis broadly equivalent to that which is published in the registers of Members’ and Lords’ interests. This will bring the publication of ministerial transparency data more closely into line with the parliamentary regime for gifts and hospitality. The Government intend that these arrangements should be in place as soon as possible and will set out further details in due course.

The Prime Minister intends shortly to issue and publish an updated version of the ministerial code, in which he will set out his expectations for the conduct of all who serve in Government as Ministers. As well as confirming these new reporting arrangements, this will include additional guidance for Ministers on the principles that they should apply when considering whether to accept gifts of offers of hospitality, as part of the Government’s work to restore public faith in politics as a force for good.

[John Glen]

I thank the hon. Lady for her response. On the steps of Downing Street on 5 July, the Prime Minister pledged to put

“country first and party second”.

Labour Ministers have been beset by a series of scandals involving freebies. The Prime Minister has claimed that this was all a “perfectly sensible arrangement”. Does the right hon. Lady still believe that?

What gifts and hospitality can Ministers now accept? Can Cabinet Ministers continue to party in DJ booths in Ibiza? Will Ministers be banned from Oasis 2025 tour junkets, or was it just Taylor Swift that was a handout too far? What role did Downing Street play in the VIP escort for Taylor Swift, further to the free Taylor Swift tickets from Universal Music? Have all the political staff in the Prime Minister’s parliamentary office correctly declared their financial interests and hospitality received? The new chief of staff’s entry seems very empty. Have all ministerial donations in kind been declared at their full market value? Why do Ministers refuse to say, in answer to parliamentary questions, when the new ministerial transparency platform will go live? Is the sheer scale on which the Prime Minister benefits from others’ largesse now a conflict of interest? Will the hon. Lady confirm that the Prime Minister is taking a donation in kind of £100,000 a year from Arsenal football club, and will he now recuse himself from involvement in the football governance Bill?

Amid scandals such as “cash for croissants”, “free-gear Keir” and “passes for glasses”, where is Labour’s new ethics and integrity commission, and what have Labour donors got in return for their generosity? What discussions did the Prime Minister’s former chief of staff and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster have with Lord Alli on ministerial and public appointments? Will Ministers place in the Library all the documents relating to Lord Alli’s “Operation Integrity”? Finally, can the Minister explain to this House why the millionaire Prime Minister cannot clothe himself without gifts from others?

[Ellie Reeves]

As I said to the right hon. Gentleman in my first response, this Government are committed to rebuilding trust in politics. The Prime Minister has commissioned a new set of principles on gifts and hospitality, which will be published shortly. That will outlaw the Tory freebie loophole, because this Government are committed to being more up front and open than our predecessors.

We will take no lectures from the Conservative party on gifts and hospitality, standards in public life or trust in politics. Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman what shattered trust in politics: the behaviour of the Conservatives in their 14 years in power. They partied in Downing Street while the whole country sacrificed its freedom. They handed lucrative covid contracts to friends and donors, and failed to expel MPs who were caught breaking the rules. That is the difference between this Government and the last one.

We are strengthening the rules. When Owen Paterson was found to have broken the rules, the Conservatives tried to rip them up, and now they want us to believe that they care about trust in politics. This is utterly shameless. Of course, it was not just Tory sleaze and scandal that eroded trust; just as corrosive has been the complete and utter failure of Conservative politicians to keep the promises they made to the British people. Now the work of change begins. As I have already set out, it starts with rebuilding trust in our politics, which we are committed to doing. The cynical and confected outrage that we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman today is fooling no one. If Conservative Members really want to help repair the damage they caused to trust in politics, they would do well to back the changes we are making, and to say sorry for the sleaze and scandal that plagued their 14 years in power.

Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

John Glen Excerpts

Monday 2nd September 2024 Commons Chamber

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

I thank the Paymaster General not only for early sight of the statement, but for his communications with me over the recess, when he kindly updated me and gave me advance notice of his intention to make a statement to the House today.

The Paymaster General rightly reminds the House of the gruesome nature of this part of our state’s recent history with respect to the infected blood scandal. He points to the fact that people were misled over treatments they needed and received, and Members on both sides of the House will need to take ownership of the enormous delay in bringing justice to those who have suffered so much over several decades.

I am grateful for the Paymaster General’s update on the work that the previous Government commissioned. After the infected blood inquiry’s final report was published on 20 May, we took swift action to establish the Infected Blood Compensation Authority on 21 May, when we also appointed Sir Robert Francis as interim chair of the authority and asked him to work with Sir Jonathan Montgomery as chair of the expert group to undertake an engagement exercise with the infected and affected communities. The right hon. Gentleman kindly updated the House on 26 July, when he confirmed that he was considering the outputs of that engagement exercise.

Those conversations were always intended to be a critical step in ensuring that the Government—whichever Government—delivered a final scheme that brought justice to the deserving victims, and was seen by them to do so. I welcome the Government’s determination to continue listening to the concerns of the infected and affected communities.

Could the Paymaster General confirm whether thought has been given as to how representatives of the infected and affected communities will be embedded in the organisational structures of the compensation authority? In my 18 meetings across the UK in May, it was very clear to me that their levels of trust in any Government would likely remain low, so determining exactly how their voices will be heard in future is critical.

In essence, the statement acknowledges that the Government have met their obligation under the statutory deadline imposed by the Victims and Prisoners Act to lay regulations to enable the scheme to be operationalised by 24 August. I warmly welcome that. The statement makes it clear that the Government will accept 69 of the 74 recommendations of Sir Robert’s June engagement exercise, and they offer a better practical solution for the five that they do not accept. Having read them, that seems sensible.

As the Paymaster General will know, however—I recognise the pressure that he will feel—what victims want to hear from him is when all the regulations will be laid, when the claims will be processed, and when the deserved payments will be transferred into victims’ bank accounts. The statement does not offer anything specific in that regard. I would welcome any further details on the timetable for the laying of further regulations pertaining to the infected communities core route for compensation delivery.

As the Paymaster General knows, those communities have suffered the most and the urgency of their need for the final balancing payment remains acute. Today’s statement does not give them clarity on the timetable they can expect. It was my understanding that the Infected Blood Compensation Authority was aiming to make the final balancing payments on the core route by the end of 2024. I think he committed to that, and it would be good if he reconfirmed that in his response.

I will move on to the supplementary route outlined in the statement, which involves a commitment to provide a supplementary additional autonomy award of up to £15,000 to those subjected to unethical medical research. Further, a recommendation to increase the social impact award for affected individuals has been accepted. We on the Opposition side of the House support these new developments, but I have a few questions about the implications for delivery.

I ask the Paymaster General to clarify the additional autonomy awards for unethical medical research, especially for the nearly 100 haemophiliac children from Treloar’s, who the Government have now stated will be paid a higher £15,000 award. Comments have been reported from some in the Treloar’s community who appear unhappy with these relatively modest supplementary amounts. It would be helpful if he reiterated and explained how unethical research can be quantified, graded and added to the heads of loss that already take account of loss of autonomy and social impact.

Furthermore, it continues to trouble me that those who determined that this research should take place in the first place appear unaccountable for those decisions. I recognise that is not the Paymaster General’s personal responsibility, but we need to keep that in focus in the broader response to Sir Brian Langstaff’s report. May I also ask when the estates of the infected who have died will be paid? Many thousands of individuals who have lost family, friends and loved ones will be entitled under the terms of the scheme, and they now need to know a realistic timeline for those payments to be made. Equally, when will the work to evaluate the affected communities’ individual entitlements begin, and what is the timeframe for when payments will be made to those qualifying individuals?

Finally, I would like to address the decision of the Government to continue the existing payments of the infected blood support scheme beyond the final payment from the Infected Blood Compensation Authority. There is now surely a risk of administrative complexity whereby victims continue to interact with existing support schemes and the newly enabled authority. I urge the Minister to consider the trade-offs between efficient speedy delivery of final compensation packages with administrative overlaps and the confusion arising amid a very troubled and vulnerable group of distinct communities that can often disagree with each other.

I conclude by thanking the right hon. Gentleman sincerely for his openness and clarity about what he is intending to do. However, I urge him to bring more specificity on the timelines for different communities to this House as quickly as he is able. I note he acknowledges that the victims have waited too long for justice, and I am encouraged that the Government are beginning to deliver, but as he used to urge me, speed is of the essence, and granular timetables that some of his officials will be reticent for him to specifically commit to are now required if good will is to be generated from the combined efforts of all parties in this House in 2024.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman not only for his work in Government in seeking to deliver this compensation package, but for the constructive tone he has taken in responding to the statement. I will try to deal with the issues that he raised. First, he is right to raise the continuing importance of engagement with the infected and the affected, which I know is a priority for Sir Robert Francis in how he conducts the business of the Infected Blood Compensation Authority.

The right hon. Gentleman asked me about some of the timelines. In respect of the estates of deceased infected persons, there will be a further interim payment of £100,000, and applications for that will be open from this October—next month. I can confirm, as he asked me to, that the timetable for payments to the infected on the core route should start to be made by the end of this year. In relation to the affected, which he also asked me about, I would expect those payments to start to be made next year.

The right hon. Gentleman also asked about the payments for unethical medical research. I should say to the House that no amount of money is ever going to make up for the horrors we have seen as part of this scheme, but the recommendations made to us by Sir Robert Francis were in the sum of £10,000 for unethical medical research generally, and because of the very specific breach of trust at Treloar’s, that those payments should be £15,000. The Government have accepted those figures, and these amounts of compensation serve as a marker of those appalling unethical medical practices. However, it should be pointed out that, given the other heads of loss, that will form but a small part of the overall amounts I would expect to be paid out under this scheme.

On accountability, the shadow Paymaster General will be only too aware that individual prosecutorial decisions are quite rightly independent decisions for the prosecuting authorities. However, I can confirm that on 9 August I wrote to the National Police Chiefs’ Council—I think he has had sight of that letter—to make it clear that the Cabinet Office and, indeed, the Government will co-operate fully and make any evidence within our control and possession available, as appropriate, so that decisions can be made about people being held to account.

The final point the shadow Paymaster General made about complexity is a sound one, and I think one of the priorities—and I know it is a priority for Sir Robert Francis —is to ensure that the Infected Blood Compensation Authority operates in a way that does give those making claims to it the most appropriate possible experience with appropriate support from caseworkers. I think it is absolutely essential that it does that.

Infected Blood Inquiry

John Glen Excerpts

Friday 26th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate you on your elevation. I thank the Paymaster General for his statement, and thank him very much for the customarily early sight of his statement this morning.

The findings of the infected blood inquiry remain a shameful moment for the British state. First of all, I reiterate our apologies to all those whose lives have been changed as a result of this appalling tragedy, which never should have happened. On 20 May 2024, the day of the inquiry’s final report, the then Prime Minister confirmed that the Government would pay comprehensive compensation to those who have been affected and infected, as quickly as possible.

Before the election was called, on 22 May, I took a number of steps to ensure that interim compensation of £210,000 would be paid as quickly as possible to those registered with existing infected blood support schemes, as well as those who registered with the support scheme before the final scheme became operational, and to the estates of those who passed away between then and payments being made. I am delighted that the Paymaster General this morning confirmed that over £1 billion has now been paid during the run-up to the general election.

The legislation passed on 24 May established the Infected Blood Compensation Authority to administer the compensation scheme, and appointed Sir Robert Francis as the interim chair. Sir Robert had previously led the infected blood compensation framework study, and I understand from engagement with senior officials right up till the day of the general election that he undertook a meaningful series of engagement meetings, as the right hon. Gentleman confirmed, with representatives of the infected and affected communities during the purdah period.

We also accepted the then Opposition’s call for regulations to set up the scheme to be made within three months of the legislation receiving Royal Assent. We asked for an update to be provided to the House within 25 sitting days of the inquiry’s final report being published. I believe that the statement this morning honours that. I welcome the fact that the new Government have continued to prioritise this issue, and to keep the House and, of course, the victims and their families updated on progress. However, there remain questions, and matters on which I think the infected and affected blood communities would, respectfully, expect me to challenge the Government.

Will the Paymaster General confirm that the debate that I promised after the Whitsun recess could be scheduled for September? That would give Members a reasonable amount of time over the recess to study this considerable report. Will he reiterate my commitment to respond to Sir Brian’s recommendations one by one, as quickly as possible, within a comprehensive response to the report?

I am grateful today that the Paymaster General is considering the advice from Sir Robert’s engagement with the infected blood community in June. I hope that he will not just consider it, but decide to publish it in advance of the 24 August deadline for making regulations. In my modest experience, any regulations laid would be open to misinterpretation unless the Government set out Sir Robert’s considered reflections on the engagement exercise that he supervised and his considered judgment on what changes, if any, to qualifying criteria and parameters may be required to ensure that the scheme has maximum credibility. I believe that the Paymaster General’s new ministerial colleague, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), would also advise him that maximum early transparency will yield maximum understanding and acceptance of the path forward.

I am anxious that the guarded optimism I heard during my 18 meetings with representatives from 40 groups in May will be sustained, and that the good will generated on the path the delivery will not be squandered. I give my commitment this morning that I will seek to support the Paymaster General as he completes the delicate process of finalising regulations by building on the engagement exercises and the invaluable work of Sir Jonathan Montgomery and his expert team.

On wider matters, can the Paymaster General confirm that the £1 billion he referred to represents the completion of the 90-day interim compensation commitment, or indicate to the House what quantum is outstanding and confirm that that will be paid within the 90 days that I set out on 21 May? It is critical that Sir Brian’s forensic assessment of culpability across the medical, civil service and ministerial domains is properly addressed as part of the Government’s evolving thinking on legislation on the duty of candour. While recognising that this is ultimately a matter for this House, it would be good if the Paymaster General could define what role the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee could play in scrutinising the Government’s progress.

Following my statement on 21 May, the Paymaster General referred to potential criminal charges and asked me to ensure that all relevant evidence would be made available for consideration by the prosecuting authorities. Will he update the House now on whether he is in a position to be able to do so? I also ask him to reiterate my acknowledgement of the call for memorialisation and to say whether he will appropriately frame the commitment the Government will make to the recommendations by the end of 2024, as I committed to do.

Finally, I wish the Paymaster General every success in this delicate work. I believe that he is well supported by an excellent team of civil servants to complete this work, and he will have my full support as he operationalises the legislation that the previous Government passed on 24 May.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the characteristically collegiate way in which he approached his perfectly reasonable questions. I shall deal with them one by one.

I will certainly push for the debate to be scheduled as soon as possible. It is really important that across the House we are able to comprehensively consider not just the recommendations, but the level and scale of the criticisms that have been made. Yes, the Government will respond one by one to the 12 recommendations made by Sir Brian Langstaff. In relation to Sir Robert Francis, I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the need for transparency. I certainly undertake to publish those findings and that report ahead of the regulation to operationalise the scheme being laid by 24 August.

In relation to the right hon. Member’s point about the 90 days, my understanding is that the payments were completed on 24 June, which is within that 90-day period, but there will be, as I announced in my statement, additional interim payments to the estates of infected people and that process will begin from October.

With regard to parliamentary scrutiny, I welcome the scrutiny that there rightly will be on this, whether it is by PACAC or, indeed, by the House more generally. I certainly undertake, as the right hon. Gentleman did, to ensure that all relevant information is provided to the prosecuting authorities as they see fit for any action that needs to be taken against specific individuals.

Finally, in respect of memorialisation, Sir Brian Langstaff set out that there should be memorials in the constituent parts of the United Kingdom, and also a specific memorial to those children who were sent to Treloar’s for protection, but who ended up in the hideous situation of being experimented on when they were at their most vulnerable. I look forward to taking forward the process, as the right hon. Gentleman committed to do, of ensuring that we do have appropriate memorialisation, which is crucial to recognising the scale of what happened.