Privilege

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

The hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) has tabled a motion for debate on a matter of privilege, which Mr Speaker has agreed should take precedence today.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Thursday 4th September 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss:

Lords amendment 2, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 3, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 8, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendments 4 to 7 and 9.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

This House sent the second Chamber a Bill that had a simple and direct objective outlined in this Government’s manifesto, but I have to report to the House that something very strange has happened since then. People said that the Conservatives were in some sort of hibernation since the general election, but it would appear they have found an issue that has awakened them from their slumber. On the order of their Whips, some hundreds of Conservative politicians, finally mustering the strength to make their mark in Parliament and ready to take action for what the 2025 Conservative party believes in, have found their crusade. What is it? Keeping hereditary Lords in the jobs they accessed by accident of birth. I have to say that it is a tale as old as time—the Tories blocking progress. Who knew it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

[Alex Burghart]

It is a pleasure to debate this historic piece of legislation on an historic day; my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) reminds me that it is the 1,100th anniversary of Athelstan being crowned King at Kingston, and I know there are a great many celebrations going on there today. The monarchy lives on—even if His Majesty’s Government are making changes to our ancient Parliament.

The Paymaster General accused the Conservatives of having been in hibernation, but it must be the Paymaster General who has been in hibernation, for he seems to have forgotten the fact that we are fighting a desperate rearguard action against the disastrous decisions that his Government have made—against the enormous damage that his party has done to our country in the short months it has been in power, and the worst Budget that we have seen in a very long time, which has caused 30-year borrowing to be at a higher rate than it ever was under the previous Government, or indeed the Government before. It is a truly terrible state of affairs, and economic experts say that we are heading towards an economic crash. It is already costing jobs in the constituencies of all the hon. Gentlemen across the Chamber every month. It is a serious issue—one that this Opposition called out at the Budget and will continue to call out. I hope that the Government see sense before disaster strikes.

Before I move on to the specifics of the Bill, I want to pay tribute to the quality of debate, first in this Chamber at the outset of the legislation and then the sheer quality of debate in the Lords. It reflects just how significant our upper House is to our constitution in its ability to strengthen legislation through scrutiny. I particularly want to pay tribute to my noble Friend Lord True, who has done so much to hold the Government to account as they have pushed these measures through. The Paymaster General has talked about the Conservatives seeking to block legislation in the Lords. I am absolutely delighted that we have been trying to block their terrible legislation, and I am very pleased that the Lords have sent the Bill back with a number of improving amendments that speak of the decent scrutiny that is being done in the other place.

I agree with the Paymaster General at the outset that we accept the Government’s concession on powers of attorney. It is a sensible change, and I am glad that there is at least one issue on which we can find agreement. We are pleased that during the course of the debate the Labour party has made a number of significant and historic clarifications to its positions. It seems finally that the Labour party has agreed that an elected upper House would be a bad idea. I personally welcome that; I think an elected upper Chamber would totally disrupt the balance of our constitution. It would take away from the primacy of this House and often lead to constitutional deadlock. It has taken the Labour party about 100 years to reach that conclusion, but I welcome it joining the side of right.

I am also very pleased that Gordon Brown’s disastrous plans for constitutional reform, which were published during the last Parliament, have been done away with. They would have caused utter mayhem had they been pushed through by this Government, so I commend those on the Front Bench for kicking Gordon Brown’s terrible ideas into touch.

I was pleased to see that the Government have reneged on their manifesto commitment to kick out peers who are over 80. It was a terrible idea, and I am very pleased that they have seen good sense. There are a lot of excellent peers who are over 80, such as Lord Dubs and, by the end of this Parliament, Lord Blunkett, Lord Clarke, and Lord Heseltine—people who have added to the richness of the House, who bring their experience and who should not be barred on the grounds of age. I congratulate the Labour Government on having admitted their terrible mistake.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Burghart]

I am not sure whether his voters would be that impressed by the Ministers in the Commons at the moment, to be honest. The point of principle still stands: if somebody is a Minister of the Crown, it is perfectly reasonable that they should be paid for doing that job. I would be interested to know what the Government’s plans are to right that wrong.

Finally, on Lords amendment 3, which covers a new status of peers, it was unfortunate to hear some hon. Members belittle the idea, including the sleepy, dreamy hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds) from the Liberal Democrats. [Hon. Members: “Dreamy?”] I appreciate how that came out, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I do not wish—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

If the shadow Minister wishes to correct the record, please, feel free. [Laughter.]

[Alex Burghart]

Well, I don’t know—he looks like he has made an effort today, and he is looking at me in a particular sort of way.

There is a suggestion that everyone is busting a gut to create a new status of peerage when it is unnecessary. Let us put it this way. I think a lot of people in our country recognise that getting a peerage is one of the highest recognitions for service to the country, but there are also a good many people whom I came across when I was a Minister dealing with the honours process who are either late in age—in their 80s or 90s—or infirm and would not want to commit to serving on the red Benches because of that. It seems a bit silly that such a small change should deny them the opportunity of recognition, which costs no one anything but enables us to reward good people who have done the right things by their country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Davies]

Lords amendment 1 seeks to gradually reduce to zero the number of excepted hereditary peers in the other place by ending the elections by which they are replaced. Our rich constitutional democracy has benefited from centuries of gradual evolution, and our democracy has thrived because power is not concentrated in the hands of too few people, which has mitigated the risk of overreach. Even though frustrations are frequently expressed, our parliamentary system is rightly admired around the world.

Several current excepted hereditary peers reside in my constituency. Along with other excepted hereditary peers, they make a valuable contribution and are motivated by public service. When I stood for election to this place and promised I would campaign for local jobs, I was not thinking about the hereditary peers of Mid Derbyshire necessarily, but here we are today.

Reform of the House of Lords has been on the agenda for a very long time and there is broad consensus that it should happen. Indeed, it is telling that the last Conservative Government did not seek to undo the reforms made by the previous Labour Government in 1999. From its origins in the 11th century, the House of Lords has undergone numerous changes, including a period when the Lords Spiritual were removed between 1642 and 1661 and the 11 years during which the other place was abolished altogether, from 1649 until the restoration of the monarchy in 1660. More changes followed, including when legislation was passed in 1958 to create life peerages for people with specific skills and expertise to enhance our democratic processes, and that included admitting women for the first time. That spirit of reform was furthered by the last Labour Government in 1999 when the number of hereditary peers was limited to 92, freeing seats for people with a range of different experiences and expertise, regardless of their lineage.

The principle of the reforms the Government are pushing through today is not necessarily controversial, and Lords amendment 1 does not seek to block the principle of ending the involvement of excepted hereditary peers. Instead, it asks for the conclusion of their participation to be undertaken more gradually, and I believe there is some small merit in what that amendment seeks to do.

I have been lucky to work with some exceptional excepted hereditary peers on joint Committees and all-party parliamentary groups. To end their involvement at the end of the Session, rather than perhaps at the end of the Parliament, risks destabilising some of the good work that is ongoing through some of those parliamentary vehicles. Will the Minister therefore explain in his summing up whether he has considered different ways of managing that transition? For instance, we could seek to end the involvement of the excepted hereditary peers at the end of this Parliament, rather than just ahead of the next King’s speech. That might ensure that the professional relationships we have fostered with our colleagues in the other place, and the pieces of work we conduct together with them, continue to be fruitful, concluding with a natural cadence at the end of the Parliament.

Although I know the Bill has been tightly drafted to deal with the role of excepted hereditary peers only, the Government have plans for wider constitutional reform of the House of Lords, which may come before us at a later stage. I warmly welcome the Government’s commitment to introducing a participation requirement. It is not right that people should use the other place as a social club or a facility that they can use. It is a working Chamber, and people should be in there doing the job to which they have been appointed.

The Government have also said that they seek to replace the House of Lords with an alternative second Chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations. Even though it is key that the other place represents the rich social and geographical diversity of the United Kingdom, it is also essential that the House of Commons remains the principal forum where issues are considered through the lens of locality. The House of Lords, certainly since the introduction of life peerages in the 1950s, has been a vehicle to include the voices and perspectives of experts across a wide range of fields, rather than a focus on locality. I encourage my colleagues to reflect before introducing such a fundamental change to that relationship.

The manifesto that the Government and I were elected on includes a commitment to introducing mandatory retirement from the House of Lords at the age of 80. I would welcome clarification from the Dispatch Box as to whether that remains the case. Although it is necessary to get more younger voices into the House of Lords to enhance its ability to represent and serve the nation, the proposal that peers should retire at 80 would mean we would lose the contributions of Lord Kinnock, who is 83, Lord Dubs, who is 92, and Baroness Beckett, who was given a peerage by this Government aged 81.

A peer may reach their 80th birthday while working on a piece of essential legislation or leading a Committee. The House could therefore benefit from further clarity, if we are to pursue this, about how a mandatory retirement age could affect disruption to business and risk losing essential knowledge and expertise. Will the Minister also share any information, either in his summing up or in the very near future, about how the Government’s plans for constitutional reform sees the future of the Lords Spiritual, one of whom is also my constituent, in any further shake up of the other place?

My advice to the Government, as they rightly seek to make the House of Lords more representative and effective, is that they should tread carefully to avoid unintended consequences. Our precious democracy deserves no less.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats welcome the Bill as a first step to giving the House of Lords a greater democratic mandate and entrenching its valuable role within the constitution and legislature of the United Kingdom. Our democracy relies on a Parliament that equally represents all citizens of the United Kingdom, and that is why the abolition of hereditary privilege in our second Chamber is a long-standing policy of the Liberal Democrats. We have called for this reform for decades and are pleased that the Government are taking steps to address this issue.

For too long, Parliament’s second Chamber has lacked the democratic mandate that would give it real impact within our legislature. Inherited membership of the Lords only weakens our democratic institutions and decreases public trust in our system. Furthermore, it reinforces the gender imbalance in the second Chamber. As I noted in previous debates on this bill, not a single one of the hereditary peers currently sitting in the Lords are women. Actually, I am taking a quick look around and I think I am the only woman here, so it falls to me—[Interruption.] That is apart from Madam Deputy Speaker; I beg your pardon. It falls to me to underline how important the democratic role of women in both our Houses of Parliament is.

I also note that this reform is not about invalidating our traditions, nor discrediting the contributions of many hereditary peers over previous decades. It is about improving democracy and restoring public trust in politics by making Parliament more representative. Many hereditary peers have expertise and skills that they have given to our political system and to our legislative process.

As I turn to today’s Lords amendments, it is disappointing yet perhaps unsurprising that after years of delays and resistance from successive Conservative Governments, they continue to resist meaningful electoral reform. Their proposed amendments would only water down the Bill or waste further time prolonging the existence of a flawed system.

I therefore wish to speak against Lords amendment 1, which would dilute the Bill and continue the system of hereditary peers. Instead of meaningful reform, it opts for an underwhelming ban on by-elections for hereditary peerages. In practice, that would have the effect of leaving all current hereditary peers in place indefinitely, thus continuing this antique system for many years to come. For years, cross-party efforts have attempted to end the by-election system for hereditary peers, despite successive Conservative Governments resisting this vital reform. Now there is an opportunity to end the entire system of hereditary peerages, and the Conservatives once again continue to resist change.

The Bill and the amendments being considered today highlight that the will of Parliament is to end the hereditary system in the Lords. There has been enough delay; it is time to be decisive and to end hereditary peerages in entirety, here and now. We have the will, the power and the means to end this anomaly before us today. There is no need for the amendment.

I also wish to speak against Lords amendment 2. As outlined by Lord True, 14 Conservative Government-appointed unsalaried Ministers and Whips were in the Lords at the end of the previous Parliament, and Commons Library research confirms that since 2015 there have been at least 30 unsalaried Ministers and Whips in the Lords. Today, the very same party that appointed them seeks to champion the end of such appointments, as if they had not had the power to effect this change themselves on many occasions over the past decade.

I draw Members’ attention to the points eloquently raised by my excellent colleague the Lord Wallace of Saltaire in the other place regarding potential anomalies that the amendment could allow. I want to focus on Lord True, who, in introducing the amendment in the other place, said that it would not apply to any existing Member but only to future ministerial appointments in the Lords. Given that all hereditary peers are current Members of the Lords, I fail to understand what relevance the amendment has to the legislation in front of us. Unusually, I happen to agree with Lord True that all Ministers should be properly remunerated, but I struggle to understand why a piece of legislation that aims to scrap the principle of hereditary peers is the appropriate vehicle to enshrine that point. The Lord True spoke movingly of his shame and anger at being unable to provide remuneration to his fellow Conservatives during the last Parliament—I am not sure I completely sympathise. Remuneration of Lords Ministers is an issue for another occasion.

Liberal Democrats believe that the solution to the issue of democratic accountability and proper remuneration of our Ministers does not lie in this poorly drafted amendment. Instead, we must push for wholesale reform of the House of Lords and our democratic system more widely, including devolving powers so that the decisions that affect people’s lives are made closer to the places where they are put into effect. We therefore urge Members to reject the amendment and instead work with the Liberal Democrats to introduce proper reform of the House of Lords and give it the democratic mandate it needs.

I also wish to speak against Lords amendment 3. When the Bill came to the House, it represented an opportunity for a first step towards meaningful reform of the second Chamber. That is why I originally tabled new clause 7, which would have committed the Government to future legislation on reforming the second Chamber, and new clause 8, which would have increased transparency in the second Chamber by strengthening the powers of the House of Lords Appointments Commission. However, the Conservatives have demonstrated no interest in strengthening or improving our democratic and legislative institutions. Instead, their amendment creates yet another type of peerage. It is an unnecessary amendment that does nothing to strengthen democracy or transparency.

Since Lords amendment 3 before us specifically calls for a new type of peerage, it follows that it is not relevant to legislation that specifically and exclusively deals with the legacy of hereditary peers. If the Conservatives have proposals that could meaningfully improve our second Chamber, they should support Liberal Democrat calls for further reform of the House of Lords. I look forward to their support for our calls to change the opaque appointment process for peers and to reduce the inflated size of our second Chamber. If the Government could update us today on their proposals for legislation for further reform of the House of Lords, then the Conservatives could put forward their proposals for new categories of peerages. This House should look to be ambitious on political reform of the second Chamber. They should not look to expand a democratically flawed system with time-wasting amendments. The Liberal Democrats will therefore be voting to reject this amendment.

We welcome Lords amendments 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9, which are modest but important changes that will improve how the House of Lords functions. The amendments aim to support those peers who may lack capacity to fulfil their duties. Lasting power of attorney has been effective in supporting individuals’ freedoms and dignity, and it is only right that peers are not excluded from those freedoms. We welcome those amendments and will support their introduction into this legislation.

Returning to the Bill as a whole, Liberal Democrats welcome its aims. However, we are concerned that by passing this Bill, the Government will believe that their efforts can end here. Let me be clear: this Bill is a welcome step towards a better democracy, but it should not be the final step. The 2017 Burns report recommended a decrease in the size of our second Chamber, which the Liberal Democrats support. The process of prime ministerial appointments entrenches patronage and elitism within our politics, and the Liberal Democrats support moving away from that system. Labour’s own manifesto committed to a retirement age for peers—another change that we would support.

There continue to be so many opportunities to improve the functioning of our democratic institutions. The Government should now look into those further measures, including what is the most overdue and important change when it comes to the Lords: finally giving it a proper democratic mandate.

I urge hon. and right hon. Members to oppose Lords amendments 1, 2 and 3, which would water down the Bill. The Liberal Democrats will support this once-in-a-generation opportunity to fix part of our broken political system and use it to strengthen democracy in our Parliament and begin rebuilding trust in our politics.

Infected Blood Inquiry: Additional Report

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I entirely agree on the need for a Hillsborough law, and I say to my hon. Friend that this Government are absolutely determined to get it right and to lead that culture of change that we need across public service so that people are not putting their own reputations or the reputation of institutions above public service. We are determined to lead that change.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his statement. We, too, pay tribute to Sir Brian Langstaff and his team for their ongoing work as they continue to investigate this appalling scandal.

Liberal Democrats know that the victims of the infected blood scandal deserve compensation. They and their families have been mistreated and have been waiting for decades to see justice. We welcomed the establishment of this scheme in August 2024 and the commitment shown by Governments from both sides of the House to justice for these victims.

However, Sir Brian Langstaff’s additional report has been excoriating about the glacial pace of payments and the abject failure to listen to victims. One of the report’s most scathing findings stated that victims of the scandal had “not been listened to”. As Sir Brian has reported, the experts who were responsible for the design of the compensation scheme were forbidden to talk with victims and their families. After so many years of secrecy, deceit and delays, excluding victims and their families was wholly unacceptable.

This report has been welcomed by many victims, including many of the 122 haemophiliac boys who attended the Lord Mayor Treloar college in Hampshire. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) has been a powerful advocate for these victims, and I thank her for her work advocating for constituents such as Gary, who welcomed the findings of this report. That is why we are urging the Government to set out clearly and in detail the timelines for delivering compensation. We are calling on the Government to engage properly with victims and their families. Does the Minister agree that it is entirely unacceptable that victims were not involved in the original design of the scheme and that they had been consistently ignored? When can victims of the scandal expect the implementation of Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendation to introduce a formal advisory body of victims for the Infected Blood Compensation Authority?

Infected Blood Inquiry: Government Response

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the Government’s work to respond to the recommendations made in the infected blood inquiry’s 20 May 2024 report. I am grateful for the opportunity to update the House on this work.

On 20 May 2024, the then Prime Minister issued an apology on behalf of the state for the devastating impact that the use of infected blood and infected blood products has had on countless lives. That was echoed by the current Prime Minister, who was then on the Opposition Front Bench. I once again reiterate that apology wholeheartedly. No Member of this House will be in any doubt of the harm resulting from the infected blood scandal. This Government are firm that we must listen to the infected blood community and the inquiry and make tangible changes to the way that our institutions conduct themselves. As the inquiry’s report made clear, however, an apology is meaningful only if it is accompanied by action, and I am here today to set out the actions we are taking to respond to the inquiry’s recommendations.

Last week, the inquiry held further hearings on the timeliness and adequacy of the Government’s response on compensation. I attended to give evidence, along with members of the community who have been impacted by this scandal; I encourage all Members to listen to the incredibly moving testimonies of those impacted. The inquiry has set out its intention to publish a further report, and the Government remain committed to co-operating with the inquiry and acting on its recommendations.

On 17 December 2024, the Government published our initial response to the inquiry’s recommendations. I laid before the House an accompanying written statement, in which I committed to come before the House with a comprehensive update on our response to each of the inquiry’s recommendations within a year of the inquiry’s report. This statement fulfils that commitment. I am grateful for the engagement of all Members across the House, and am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the Government’s progress today. Once again, I thank Sir Brian Langstaff and his team for their work. The recommendations he made are wide-ranging, well considered and necessarily detailed.

The Government have worked closely with the devolved Governments to make progress on the implementation of the recommendations, which we hope will lead to meaningful change. I am grateful to my ministerial colleagues for their co-operation, and in particular the Under-Secretary of State for Public Health and Prevention, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), for her leadership on the recommendations for which her Department is responsible. I also thank Health Ministers in the devolved Governments: the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health in Scotland, Jenni Minto; the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care in Wales, Jeremy Miles; and the Minister of Health in Northern Ireland, Mike Nesbitt. Their engagement has been invaluable in ensuring that our approach is as unified as possible across the whole United Kingdom. The Government will continue to engage closely with the devolved Governments on issues such as support for advocacy charities and implementation by the national health service.

I recognise that for many in the community, the Government’s actions come after decades have passed. There is nothing that can put right the damage done by inaction on the part of multiple previous Governments, and it is not my intention for this statement to diminish that. My priority now is focusing on delivering meaningful change to ensure that the scandal of infected blood, among many other scandals, is never allowed to happen again.

I turn now to the recommendations. Alongside this statement, I have published an accompanying paper on gov.uk setting out in detail the Government’s response to each of the recommendations, and I will place a copy in the Libraries of the Houses. Equally, I am firm on the importance of these recommendations to the infected blood community, and I am writing today to community representatives to inform them of the publication of the Government’s response.

The UK and devolved Governments have accepted the inquiry’s recommendations either in full or in principle, and implementation is under way across Government, arm’s length bodies and healthcare settings. Where recommendations are accepted in principle, we have sought to explain the rationale for doing so, balancing agreement with the spirit of the recommendations and their implementation. Some are subject to future spending decisions by the Department of Health and Social Care.

I have noted the recommendations that have, quite rightly, drawn attention from across this House in previous debates, so I will take a moment to touch on those today. I turn first to the recommendation on compensation. I am grateful to those who have attended previous debates on this matter in the House; indeed, many are present today. The Infected Blood Compensation Authority delivered on the Government’s commitment to provide the first full compensation payments by the end of last year. IBCA publishes its data on compensation on a monthly basis; as of 6 May, payments totalling more than £96 million have been made. IBCA continues to scale up its operations to deliver compensation as quickly as possible and has confirmed plans to contact an average of 100 people every week to begin their claims. I am pleased to announce today that the interim chair, Sir Robert Francis KC, who developed vital work to inform the design of the compensation scheme and has overseen its delivery to this point, will continue in his role for a further 18 months.

Another recommendation of particular interest to right hon. and hon. Members is recommendation 10, relating to funding for charities providing patient advocacy services. I am pleased that last week, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), wrote to the charities confirming that £500,000 of funding has been made available for this financial year to ensure that the vital patient advocacy work they do for the infected blood community is sustained. Officials are now meeting the charities to begin the grant process to finalise the awards.

The Government recognise the importance of recommendation 5 on ending the defensive culture in the civil service. It is imperative we get this right so that the public can put their trust in institutions that have let down not just the infected blood community, but victims of other scandals that have taken place over decades. The Prime Minister has committed to legislation on a duty of candour, which he has confirmed will apply to public authorities and public servants, and include criminal sanctions. We are consulting on the issue and working to draft the best, most effective version of a Hillsborough law as part of our wider efforts to create a politics of public service.

The inquiry’s final recommendation relates to giving effect to the recommendations it has made. I am only too aware of the strength of feeling here and the need to ensure that the infected blood scandal does not fade from the public consciousness. A lot more needs to be done, and, as I made clear to the inquiry in my evidence last week, I am open to considering how we can improve the Government’s actions to ensure that we deliver justice for the victims of this devastating scandal. As progress continues to be made, my colleagues and I will report on the recommendations for which we are responsible. We are committed to transparency and accountability, and will be publishing the Government’s progress via a publicly accessible dashboard in due course, which will be regularly updated as progress is made.

The victims of this scandal have suffered immeasurably. I pay tribute once again to the infected blood community for their courage, perseverance and determination to demand justice for the wrongs that have been done to them. I hope that this update provides them with some reassurance that we are learning from and acting on the mistakes of the past, and that where there is more to do, this Government will do it. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Points of order come after the statement.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I think I can anticipate the hon. Gentleman’s point order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have been reassured by the Department that the statement has been sent and is on its way; I hope that deals with that issue.

Let me say to the shadow Minister that the cross-party approach that we have taken has been very important. It was the approach, as he knows, that I took with my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen), to whom I have often paid tribute in this House for the diligent way in which he pursued this matter.

The shadow Minister asked me about the current pace of delivery. I am restless for progress, and will not be satisfied with the pace of delivery until everyone who is eligible for compensation has received it. He asked me about what we will do about the pace of compensation going forward. IBCA has adopted a test-and-learn approach, which has now been completed, and I expect to see a significant increase in the pace of the payments. While respecting IBCA’s operational independence, I will be holding it to account, and quite rightly I will be held to account by this House over the pace of payments. I also stand ready to assist IBCA in whatever way I can to speed up the payments.

On the monitoring of liver damage, a new surveillance registry will be set up. The shadow Minister asked about the blood test prior to 1996; I will ask the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire, who is beside me on the Front Bench, to write to the shadow Minister with the precise figures.

Overall, the whole House is united on this matter. We all want to see the pace of payments speed up, and that is exactly what I am seeking to do.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Before I call any Member to speak, I would like to say that we have looked into Gregory Stafford’s point regarding the lack of copies of the statement. I understand that the Department has now sent the statement to the Vote Office, and it is currently being printed and will be with us shortly. I know that the Minister will be looking into this problem and I am sure that he is as dissatisfied with the situation as the House is.

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

I met two of my constituents who have been tragically affected by this scandal and attended the hearings last week. They told me what an emotional day it had been—almost like a family reunion in some ways—but they also spoke of their immense frustration at still having to fight through the long wait for justice that remains. They told me again that the pace of payments to victims and families is far too slow, and it is still unclear what evidence they need to provide to support their claim.

I welcome the fact that the Government have identified £11.8 billion to pay compensation, and that, for the first time, this has been properly budgeted for, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that the challenge now is to ensure that trust is built and maintained as we complete this process. Will he tell the House what he can do to ensure that the evidential requirements are clear to families to allow them to prepare for being contacted, that payments are accelerated, and that justice is delivered to everybody affected by this appalling scandal?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The hearing last week was an extremely moving experience. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be aware of the evidence that I gave to the inquiry. His point about evidence is important. First, so much happened a long time ago, which makes evidence difficult to source. Secondly, Sir Brian Langstaff’s inquiry also identified evidence of deliberate document destruction. For those two reasons in particular, it is essential that IBCA takes a sympathetic, enabling view to the evidence that is required and has caseworkers assisting victims in finding the evidence that they need.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I thank the Paymaster General for advance sight of his statement. The infected blood scandal is a harrowing story of people being failed not only by the medical professionals who treated them, but by the NHS, which should have been responsible for the safety of their treatment, and by a series of Governments who should have prevented such horror from ever taking place. As the Minister knows, I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues welcome the introduction of the infected blood compensation scheme. The Government were right to introduce the scheme at the start of the Parliament, and I am glad to hear the Minister say that the Infected Blood Compensation Authority is scaling up its operation. However, we are alarmed that the roll-out of the scheme has been far too slow, leaving victims without the justice that they deserve.

Victims and their families have been waiting for decades for answers and recognition of the suffering they endured. So far, only 106 people have received payments from IBCA, and 54 others have received offers. Compensation payouts are not due to conclude until 2029, and that date would rely on a rapid increase in the rate of payments. We are deeply concerned by the speed at which victims are receiving their long-overdue compensation, and I am glad that last week’s hearings looked into the adequacy and timeliness of the Government’s response. To echo the words of Sir Brian Langstaff,

“People infected and affected do not have time on their side.”

To that end, and to provide confidence to victims and their families, can the Paymaster General clarify what deadline he has for the implementation of the inquiry’s recommendations? Moreover, what further steps is he taking to increase the speed at which payments are being made, and can he confirm when all victims can expect to have received their long-overdue compensation? What more can be done to help those who need to provide proof of infection but whose medical records have been destroyed?

It is crucial that there are mechanisms in place to ensure that the concerns of charities, organisations and the affected individuals are heard. Supporting the work of those vital organisations and engaging with them to understand exactly the needs of those affected is crucial.

The Liberal Democrats are backing the survivors’ call for a duty of candour on all public officials. As such, I am glad to hear the sentiment behind the Government’s response to recommendation 5, but when will the Government bring forward proposals to that effect so that such a scandal is never repeated? Can the Paymaster General clarify why there has been a delay, given that relevant legislation was originally meant to be published in April?

UK-EU Summit

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

I am grateful to be able speak in this Opposition day debate ahead of next week’s UK-EU summit. I campaigned for, believed in and continue to believe in the promise of Brexit. At its core, Brexit was a vote for the importance of national democracy, a vote for national sovereignty and a vote against regionalisation and government by bureaucrats. I believe strongly in international co-operation, but I do not believe in institutionalisation. I do not believe that decision making gets better in aggregate. My experience has taught me that it only gets worse. It gets more remote, less well informed and riddled with compromises that barely satisfy anyone and please no one. I continue to believe that the UK—its people and its Government—deciding its own future, not locked into continental bureaucracy, provides the best possible future for us.

Behind all the carefully choreographed language from Ministers about resets, there is one inescapable truth: this Labour Government risk laying the groundwork and taking the first steps to betraying the full promise of Brexit. That should not be any surprise, given that they are led by a man who campaigned for the leadership of the Labour party on the basis of restoring freedom of movement. He supported a second referendum and he voted against Brexit 48 times. We on this side of the House are not prepared to watch this slow train wreck in silence.

Many issues have been raised by many Members, but I want to raise just two that are of particular importance. First, on the youth mobility scheme, the fundamental issues that made freedom of movement so unpopular would remain at the core of any youth mobility scheme. The level of economic disparity across EU member states is fundamentally incompatible with the scheme becoming anything other than yet another route for mass low-skilled migration, at a time when the Government tell us they want to drive that down.

Secondly, there can be no dynamic EU rule taking or ECJ oversight. Any agreement on food standards, services or carbon trading must not come at the price of automatic alignment. We did not leave the EU to find ourselves bound to it in everything but name. We must demand mutual recognition and independent dispute resolution, and that is the only thing we should accept. That would reflect a relationship of mutual respect. These are not unreasonable demands. They are the bare minimum that any sovereign state would expect when engaging in talks with a foreign bloc.

The United Kingdom voted to leave the EU, whether the Prime Minister and his Ministers like it or not. Is it any wonder that they are looking for answers internationally when we look at their domestic picture? They are restricting winter fuel payments, inflation is still biting us, business confidence is shaken, working families are being hammered with job-destroying taxes, and growth is stalling. We must not allow this to serve as a diplomatic distraction from their domestic failure. We will not allow Labour to turn a reset into a roll-back, and any future Conservative Government will not be bound by any agreement that breaches these clear red lines. We will not allow Brussels to disguise control as co-operation, and we will not let the democratic choice of the British people be eroded by stealth.

Brexit was not a pause; it was a pivot. It was a huge opportunity for our country, and I believe that the benefits will accrue for decades to come. The Government might be able to hide their true intentions this week but they will not be able to hide them forever, and we will be here to make sure that the British people know what they really believe in. It is not the freedom and sovereignty of Brexit.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

With regret, it may not be possible for all Members to speak in the debate, even with this time limit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)]

Diolch, Dirprwy Llefarydd. The people of Wales have been let down by those who promised that Brexit would lead to a brighter future; instead, it has caused huge damage right across our communities and economy. The hard Brexit pursued by the previous UK Government has cost the Welsh economy up to £4 billion and reduced the value of Welsh exports by up to £1.1 billion, and post-Brexit trade deals, such as those with New Zealand and Australia, have been unfavourable for Welsh agriculture and manufacturing. Since Brexit, Wales has lost out on £1 billion in European structural and rural development funding, which could have been used to support our deprived communities. That is despite the promise made by the then Conservative UK Government in 2019 to

“at a minimum match the size”

of former EU funding in Wales and the other nations across the UK.

In my constituency, the port of Holyhead, which is a strategically vital port for UK-EU trade, has seen dramatic falls in traffic since Brexit. I note that following the closure of the port after Storm Darragh in December last year, the value of trade going through Holyhead has dropped by £500 million. At the time, I called for the Government to establish a hardship fund to support businesses impacted by the closure of the port. I urge the Government, as part of their strategy towards the EU, to make clear commitments to safeguard the port against future crises, given its strategic importance.

We need a relationship with Europe that works for Wales, and the opportunity to improve relations at the upcoming UK-EU summit is welcome. Given that Wales is more reliant on exporting to the EU than the rest of the UK, it is crucial that we make trading between Wales and Europe easier. I have seen the challenges that exporters in my constituency face, with local business The Lobster Pot telling me that it has struggled to export under the post-Brexit system. A veterinary agreement covering plant and animal health to cut red tape and costs for our exporting businesses will be vital. The Government should create a youth mobility scheme and join the Erasmus+ programme so that our young people can study and work abroad, creating new skills and opportunities for the next generation. We also need to see co-operation on the environment, the arts and defence.

I hope that next week’s summit will be the start, not the end of strengthening our ties with Europe. This Government have said that their first mission is to grow the economy, and I can see no better opportunity to improve growth than by committing the UK and Wales to the long-term goal of joining the single market and customs union. Wales has been made to suffer badly by those who championed the false promises of Brexit. This Government must now take action to fix our damaged relationship with Europe to protect the Welsh economy.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

Conservative Ministers ask questions, but they may not want to hear the answers. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order.

[Stephen Doughty]

We are absolutely clear: we are taking serious action to reduce net migration, but we support controlled schemes that create opportunities for young people to experience different cultures, travel and work. Important questions were asked about issues such as the Pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention. It is of course right and responsible that we look at it, ensuring that any final decisions are made in the national interest.

However, I want to address a very fundamental point, which is this absolutely absurd and nonsensical suggestion of surrender. What an absolute disgrace to be talking Britain down—talking Britain down! In fact, what we see is strength. We see strength from this Prime Minister and strength from this Government. In a world of turmoil—

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

I have answered that question already. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. The Minister will be heard.

[Stephen Doughty]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have been absolutely clear: surrender—what nonsense! Instead, we see strength in standing up for our steel and our car manufacturers, delivering trade deals with the US and India, investing in green energy, leading Europe with our key allies in the defence of Ukraine, tackling illegal migration and serious and organised crime, and boosting funding and support for our national defence after shameful disinvestment by the previous Government. That is talking down Britain; we are standing up for Britain.

Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.

Trade Negotiations

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Before I call the Minister to make his statement, can I say how disappointing it was to see details of the India trade deal released to the media a few hours ago, before the Minister came to this House?

[The Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security (Mr Douglas Alexander)]

I wish to make a statement on the progress that this Government have made towards a UK-India trade deal. I am delighted to inform the House that we have now concluded negotiations on a comprehensive, modern agreement with the fastest-growing economy in the G20.

Hon. Members will no doubt be aware that India is expected to be the third-largest economy in the world by 2028. By the end of this decade, it will be home to an estimated 60 million middle-class consumers, and with trade between the United Kingdom and India already standing at north of £43 billion, we know that this powerhouse economy is and will remain a hugely important market for British businesses. While past Governments have failed to negotiate a deal with India, this Government have today succeeded. We have brokered the most generous trade deal ever agreed by India in its history.

From day one of this deal coming into force, it will make trade between our countries cheaper, easier and quicker. UK exporters will benefit from much lower tariffs across a whole host of sectors, including those that we are prioritising in our industrial strategy. It means simplified customs processes for businesses in advanced manufacturing and aerospace, in the food and beverage sector, and in the creative sector, which will benefit from improved copyright protection.

For our world-leading financial and professional services companies, this deal locks in access to India’s fast-growing market. It will ensure that UK banks and finance companies are placed on an equal footing with Indian suppliers, and it encourages the recognition of professional qualifications, so that UK and Indian firms can access the right talent at the right time, whether they are in Mumbai or Manchester. This deal will unlock new opportunities for businesses in every part of the United Kingdom, including our advanced manufacturing companies in the north-east, our iconic Scottish whisky brands and our car plants in the west midlands. In all, we will have secured over £400 million in tariff reductions in the first year alone, doubling to around £900 million after just 10 years.

Crucially, the deal we have negotiated will provide bespoke support for small and medium-sized enterprises to enter the Indian market, alongside a firm commitment from India to address the trade barriers that those businesses face. Since taking office, we have committed to hardwiring the views and interests of small businesses into everything we do, and the deal we have negotiated is evidence of that. For the very first time, British businesses will have guaranteed access to India’s vast procurement market, covering goods, services and construction. They will be able to bid for approximately 40,000 tenders worth at least £38 billion a year.

The deal that we have just got over the line is further proof that this Government are using the power of international trade and investment to raise living standards here at home. Indeed, experts predict that it will boost our bilateral trade by some £25.5 billion. It is also projected to increase UK wages by £2.2 billion each year, while adding nearly £5 billion to our GDP over the long run.

We have done all that while defending stoutly the UK’s national interest. We have brokered a deal that protects our NHS and upholds our high food standards. It ensures that our points-based immigration system remains unaffected. The deal demonstrates our commitment to both workers and businesses, staying true to our Labour values while contributing to our primary mission of economic growth.

I recognise that this House will need time to scrutinise the deal before the ratification process. My Department will follow the process set out in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 in sharing the finalised treaty text with hon. Members. The House will, of course, have the opportunity to scrutinise any legislation associated with its implementation.

This deal sends a powerful message about the UK and India’s shared commitment to free, fair and open trade. The UK-India relationship has deep, enduring roots, exemplified by the living bridge of 1.9 million people of Indian heritage living in the United Kingdom. While I do not personally lament that the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) is no longer the UK’s Prime Minister, it would be wholly wrong of me not to acknowledge his significant achievement as the first British-Indian Prime Minister, which is a testament not just to his own ability but to the close bonds that unite our two nations.

The Government are proud to back open markets and free trade. We recognise that Britain has always been an open, outward-looking trading nation, and we believe that open markets and free trade are fundamental building blocks with which the UK can secure its opportunities and prosperity at home and abroad. Through our upcoming trade strategy, we will set out our ambitions to engage with more industrial giants, like India, to ramp up trade and investment over the coming months and years.

Today, though, as close trading partners and as friends, I am proud that we have secured this deal with India. It is a deal that affords UK businesses certainty and stability during a time of global uncertainty and instability, and a deal that will give British businesses access to one of our biggest markets abroad, while raising wages and driving growth here at home. That is what this deal delivers, and I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alexander]

I thank my hon. Friend and fellow Scottish Member of Parliament. One of the commitments that we made when we were both elected—in my case, re-elected—to the House back in July was that we would seek to ensure a Labour Government delivering for Scotland. The cut that we have secured in whisky tariffs for the huge and significant market in India is a clear and tangible example of the difference we are making. He does not need to take my word for it. These are the words of Mark Kent, the chief executive of the Scotch Whisky Association:

“The UK-India free trade agreement is a once in a generation deal and a landmark moment for Scotch Whisky exports to the world’s largest whisky market. It shows that the UK government is making significant progress towards achieving its growth mission, and the Scotch Whisky industry looks forward to working with the UK and Indian governments in the months ahead to implement the deal”.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. At a time when Donald Trump is fuelling global instability through protectionism, international co-operation is more important than ever. A UK-India trade deal is a positive step, and we look forward to seeing the detail of the deal. Parliament must be able to scrutinise the details carefully, especially the proposed changes to national insurance contributions. When Labour was in opposition, it agreed with the Liberal Democrats that there should be a vote on trade deals. Both my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) and I have made the Lib Dem position clear: there should be proper scrutiny and a vote on a trade deal.

The Government’s own export Minister, the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), said that the current ratification process is “not fit for purpose”, and he is right. Does the Minister of State agree that denying a vote not only contradicts Labour party policy, but sets a dangerous precedent, especially ahead of any future US deal? Can he explain the Government’s massive U-turn since entering government? Finally, will the Government push for a new UK-EU customs union—the fastest way to boost our economy—at this month’s political summit?

Church of Scotland (Lord High Commissioner) Bill

Judith Cummins Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 4th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Pat McFadden]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for the Bill. I will come on to the timetable that, by necessity, we have had to adopt.

Legislation of this kind is not always preceded by a consultation. Some hon. Members may remember our late friend David Cairns, whose position in this House was facilitated by legislation removing barriers on ordained priests being elected to the House. As I understand it, that particular piece of legislation did not have a consultation before it either.

I turn to Lady Elish Angiolini, whose appointment as the Lord High Commissioner for this year will be facilitated by the passage of the Bill, if it proceeds. Lady Elish has a distinguished background in law, justice and academia. She was appointed Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire for services to the administration of justice in 2011. In 2022, she was appointed by Her late Majesty the Queen to the Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle, and in that role she participated in the coronation in 2023. Lady Elish has also been principal of St Hugh’s College, Oxford since 2012 and was made a pro-vice chancellor of the University of Oxford in 2017.

The announcement Lady Elish’s appointment as Lord High Commissioner has been widely welcomed in Scotland. The appointment would make her the first Catholic to undertake the role of Lord High Commissioner and would be a significant symbol of unity, good will and collaboration between the Church of Scotland and the Catholic Church in Scotland. It builds on the spirit of the St Margaret declaration, signed at Dunfermline abbey in 2022. That was a historic declaration of friendship between the Church of Scotland and the Catholic Church in Scotland, and the legislation before the House builds on the spirit of that.

The hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) referred to the circumstances and the timetable. I say to the House that the Bill is on an accelerated timetable, which is necessary to ensure that Lady Elish’s appointment can be finalised ahead of the General Assembly in May. We hope to have all the parliamentary stages completed by the end of next month when, subject to Royal Assent, the formalities of the appointment can begin. That process will include a formal commission for the office, accompanied by a royal warrant, and the speedy passage of the Bill is to allow the formalities necessary to enable Lady Elish to act as Lord High Commissioner and address the General Assembly at its opening and closing sessions in May.

Were the appointment not able to proceed, that would be a setback to recent progress and an outcome that I do not believe anyone wants. I therefore hope that the Bill can proceed today with the support of all parties in the House. While the Bill relates to the reserved matter of the Crown, I have spoken to the First Minister of Scotland and to representatives of both the Church of Scotland and the Catholic Church in Scotland about the Bill and the desire to facilitate the appointment of Lady Elish. I thank them all for their constructive and collaborative approach. I have also had the pleasure of discussing the matter with Lady Elish directly, and I have no doubt that she will be an excellent Lord High Commissioner.

Moving on to the Bill itself, there are two clauses. Clause 1 makes provision to allow a person of the Roman Catholic faith to hold the office of the Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, and clause 2 sets out the territorial extent of the Bill and its commencement, including that the Bill will commence on Royal Assent. It is a small step to remove a religious barrier. Without it, neither Lady Elish nor any other Catholic could take up the appointment by the sovereign. The Bill changes that and ensures that the announced appointment can go ahead. It is short and simple, but still in its own way an important Bill. I hope it will receive a broad welcome, and I commend it to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2025 Commons Chamber

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

Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to provide an update to the House on the progress made to provide compensation to victims of the infected blood scandal.

In May 2024, the infected blood inquiry’s report exposed a catalogue of failures at the systematic, collective and individual levels. Thousands of lives were needlessly lost, and too many people continue to suffer as a result of failures stretching back decades. I welcome the commitment across the House to holding the Government to account on responding to the inquiry’s recommendations, and I will continue to provide regular updates on the Government’s progress.

In December 2024, I published the Government’s response to the infected blood inquiry. In that response, on behalf of the UK Government and working closely with the devolved Governments, I accepted either in full or in principle all 12 of the inquiry’s recommendations. I will provide a further update on those recommendations in May of this year, as requested by the inquiry.

I will now update the House specifically on the inquiry’s recommendation on compensation. In August 2024, I established the infected blood compensation scheme in regulations. That enabled the Infected Blood Compensation Authority to begin making compensation payments to people who are infected. I was pleased that IBCA delivered on our shared commitment to make the first compensation payments by the end of last year. That was a significant step, and the work to progress payments quickly continues as an absolute priority.

Yesterday, I laid before Parliament the draft Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Regulations 2025. As those regulations are subject to the draft affirmative procedure, there will be an opportunity for parliamentarians to debate and approve them before they become law. When laying before the House the previous regulations to establish the scheme for people who are infected and are claiming compensation under the core route, I made a commitment on the Floor of this House that those regulations would come into force by 31 March, subject to parliamentary approval. I would welcome the support of the House in approving those regulations, enabling us to deliver compensation to those who deserve it as quickly as possible.

I am fully aware of how important it is to the House, and to the many victims of this appalling scandal, that the Government provide clear and regular updates on our progress in establishing the infected blood compensation scheme. I have therefore come before the House today to explain the steps that have been taken and what they mean.

Once approved by Parliament and in force, the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Regulations 2025 will provide IBCA with the powers it needs to begin making payments to eligible affected people. By way of a reminder, those affected include partners, parents, children, siblings and, in some instances, carers. Those people have suffered terribly from the impact of infected blood on their loved ones, and these regulations mark a significant milestone for them. The Government will do all we can to support IBCA’s aim of the first compensation payments to eligible affected people being made before the end of this year, and by laying these regulations we are a step closer to achieving that aim.

As we set out in August, the infected blood compensation scheme is tariff-based. The tariffs are intended to work in a way that would be appropriate for the majority of people applying to the scheme. However, we know that the impact infected blood has on people’s lives varies hugely. Each person’s experience is unique and heart- breaking, and the Government recognise that there are some exceptional cases where the level of compensation offered through the core route does not sufficiently address a person’s individual circumstances. For that reason, the Government have provided for higher levels of compensation for specific awards through the supplementary route, where people can demonstrate their eligibility. The regulations I have laid before Parliament set out the details of that supplementary route.

Once in force, the regulations will allow IBCA to make payments to eligible people through both the core and supplementary routes. All applicants will need to go through their initial core route assessment before applying to the supplementary route, but doing so will not delay payment of that initial core compensation offer. The regulations I have laid propose to restate and consolidate the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Regulations 2024, which were approved by Parliament in October last year. We have done that primarily for reasons of simplicity. Having a single set of regulations that consolidates the provisions means that it has been possible to cover all compensation routes for all eligible people in a single place.

Alongside the draft regulations, yesterday we published an accompanying explanatory memorandum and equalities impact assessment. We also updated the compensation scheme explainer on gov.uk. I have heard from the community the importance of a simpler document, so I commit today to the publishing of a wider, simpler document. I have already engaged with several hon. and right hon. Members across the House in recent days, and I will continue to do so on the substance of these regulations in the coming weeks.

I would also like to welcome the progress being made in delivering compensation. In addition to the over £1 billion of interim compensation payments that have been paid so far, IBCA has now invited 113 people to claim compensation. So far, 23 offers have been made, totalling over £34 million, and 14 offers have been accepted and paid, totalling over £13 million. IBCA remains on track to invite 250 people to apply by the end of March, and it will continue to publish its monthly statistics on its website. However, this is only the beginning, and there is much more work to do.

This week, IBCA set out its plans to open the compensation service in stages to make sure it is effective and secure for all those claiming. This decision was taken independently of the Government by the IBCA board. The groups that IBCA will work through as it builds the claim service will be as follows. The first will be people who are living infected and are already registered with a support scheme. IBCA already has the details of those people through the infected blood support schemes, and it began making payments to this group in 2024. IBCA intends to accelerate the number of claims it is processing from April.

The second stage will be people making supplementary claims. The regulations I am laying provide IBCA with the ability to process these claims. As IBCA develops its service, this will it to process the different types of evidence needed for supplementary claims and allow people to settle their claims in full as quickly as possible. People who have registered estates are in the third group IBCA has set out. This is where an estate has already been verified as eligible for compensation through the interim payment scheme that I announced in October last year. This will ensure that significant compensation can reach multiple people, who could include both those who are infected and those who are affected.

People who are affected and linked to a registered infected person or a registered estate will be in the fourth group. If an infected person or an estate is registered, this will allow IBCA to progress an affected person’s claim more quickly. The fifth group that the service will be developed for is people who are infected, but not registered with a support scheme. The sixth group will be people who are either applying on behalf of an infected person who has not previously been registered with an infected blood support scheme, or people who are affected and not linked to a registered claim. IBCA expects that it may take slightly longer to work through the claims of people who have not previously been registered for compensation.

The IBCA board assures me that this is in no way intended as a prioritisation of different claimants, but is the best way of building the service so that IBCA can get to the point where it can progress all claims as quickly as possible. Crucially, it does not mean that all claims in each group need to be finished before developing and opening the service for the next group.

IBCA has communicated its decision on its website and through the regular community update, and it has written to members of the infected blood community and right hon. and hon. Members with whom it has previously engaged to inform them of its plans. Determining these groupings is a heavy responsibility, and I am pleased that IBCA sought feedback from the infected blood community in reaching this decision. The community must, after all, be kept at the centre of all this work.

While the roll-out of the scheme is an operational decision for IBCA as an independent body, I fully support its commitment to moving forward as swiftly as possible, and I was encouraged to see the dedication of its staff and leadership in my visit to the organisation last month. As compensation applications increase, I know that IBCA is determined to ensure payments are made to people as soon as possible. I will set out more detail on this in due course, but it will include key performance indicators that IBCA will be working towards to make sure that compensation claims are dealt with effectively and efficiently. Of course, decisions on the parameters of and eligibility for the scheme remain ones for the Government, subject to parliamentary approval, as is set out in the regulations I have laid, and are not impacted by IBCA’s decisions.

Let me conclude by saying that in laying these regulations, we are one step closer to having the entire infected blood compensation scheme fully established in law. I understand the importance of providing an opportunity for everyone across the House to debate this matter. This will be another significant moment for all those who have waited too long. On 30 January, I was able to meet a number of representatives from the community to update them on the Government’s plans. As ever, I found it an invaluable experience, and I am hugely grateful to those who shared their thoughts and experiences.

On my appointment to this role in July, I was determined to meet the first statutory deadline of 24 August for the first set of regulations. Over the past seven months, I have been insistent to my officials and the community on the importance of making sure that, after 40 years of injustice, justice is now finally being delivered and compensation rightly being paid. The Budget announced £11.8 billion of funding for this compensation scheme, showing the scale of this Government’s commitment to concrete action. I hope parliamentarians across both Houses will support the regulations, so we can finally focus solely on delivering compensation to those who have waited for justice for far too long. I commend this statement to this House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I remind the Minister that statements should be limited to 10 minutes and that it is courteous to let the Speaker’s Office know if a statement will exceed this time. The Opposition will of course be allocated additional time. I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work he does as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood. Obviously the tariffs were set on the basis of the expert group chaired by Sir Jonathan Montgomery and I compliment him on the work he did in that regard. However, the tariffs and the scheme also recognise particular individual circumstances and cases that are more complex. That is why the supplemental route is being put in place. I would add that I saw when I visited IBCA—I understand that my hon. Friend will be visiting shortly—the sympathetic, compassionate approach being taken with regard to evidence, given how long ago so much of this happened.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement.

The Liberal Democrats are glad to see the introduction of this legislation and the extension of the infected blood compensation scheme. This scandal is a chilling story of people being failed not only by the medical professionals who treated them but by the NHS that should have been responsible for the safety of their treatment, and by a series of Governments who should have prevented the scandal from ever taking place.

We are glad that the new regulations will move the victims, both those infected and those affected, closer to long overdue justice. However, we are deeply concerned by the speed at which victims have been receiving compensation, with only 25 people having been invited to claim by December last year. It is right that the Government are now widening the scheme so that compensation reaches many more people as soon as possible.

It is also crucial that there are mechanisms in place to ensure that the concerns of the charities, organisations and affected individuals are heard. To that end, and to provide confidence to victims and their families, will the Minister outline a timeline for when all victims can expect to have received their long overdue compensation? Furthermore, will the Government introduce a duty of candour on public officials so that such a scandal is never repeated?

Covid-19 Inquiry

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I would like to make a statement on the Government’s response to module 1 of the covid inquiry. In July last year, Baroness Hallett published her report from the first module of the inquiry. It concluded that the UK was not as prepared as it should have been for the pandemic and that more could and should have been done. In my statement to the House immediately following the publication of her report, I committed to responding in full within six months.

Before I turn to the Government’s response, I want to place on record once again my thanks to Baroness Hallett and her team for the work they have done so far in the inquiry. I also pay tribute to the families and friends who lost loved ones during the pandemic, some of whom are with us in the Gallery. Earlier this week I visited the national covid memorial wall just across the river from here. I am grateful to the friends of the wall who have so lovingly cared for it and maintained it over the past few years.

As I said in my statement in July, the Government’s first responsibility is to keep the public safe. That is why since we were elected, we have taken steps to strengthen the UK’s resilience. I announced a review of national resilience. Work on that review is proceeding, and I will update the House on its conclusion in the spring.

The Prime Minister has established a single Cabinet Committee for resilience, which I chair, which meets to ensure clear and rigorous ministerial oversight. We have adopted the 2023 biological security strategy to protect the UK and our interests from significant biological risks.

In April, the new UK Resilience Academy will be launched. It will train over 4,000 people in resilience and emergency roles every year and help them plan for and manage a range of crises, including pandemics. I should also acknowledge, as I did in my first statement back in July, that in some areas these improvements build on work carried out by the previous Administration.

The improvements that we have made to our resilience have been put to the test over the last six months. Those include the Prime Minister chairing a number of emergency Cobra meetings to address the violent disorder that occurred over the summer and working across our four nations to anticipate and contain clade 1 mpox cases in the UK.

Since July, we have also sent two emergency alerts to provide advice to the public in life-threatening situations. During Storm Darragh, because of a very rare red—danger to life—warning, an alert was sent to over three million people in affected regions. More recently, we issued a very localised warning over flooding danger. The Government will carry out a full national test of the emergency alert system later this year. That will ensure that the system is functioning correctly, should it need to be deployed in an emergency.

The covid module 1 inquiry found that years of under-investment meant that pandemic planning was not a sufficient priority, that our health services were already suffering and beyond capacity, and that there were high levels of illness and health inequalities. All of that meant that the state was ill-prepared to manage a crisis on this scale. Therefore, apart from the specific recommendations, delivering on the Government’s missions—particularly in this context, building a national health service fit for the future—will contribute in important ways to the UK’s resilience.

Pandemic planning and resilience are about not just specific resilience measures but ensuring the underlying fundamentals of our country are strong. I thank the devolved Governments for their co-operation in preparing our response today. We will continue to work together for the safety of the communities we serve.

I turn to specifics. There are three new commitments that I wish to highlight. First, the inquiry recommended that the UK Government and devolved Governments should together hold a regular UK-wide pandemic response exercise. We agree and will be undertaking a full national pandemic response exercise later this year. It will be the first of its kind in nearly a decade. It will test the UK’s capabilities, plans, protocols and procedures in the event of another major pandemic. It will be led by senior Ministers, involve thousands of participants and run across all regions and nations of the UK. Alongside the Health Secretary, I have written to all Cabinet Ministers to ask for their commitment to full participation. The exercise will take place in the autumn over a number of days. The Government will communicate the findings and lessons of the exercise as recommended by the covid-19 inquiry.

Secondly, the inquiry found that the pandemic had a disproportionate impact on vulnerable groups and continues to affect many people in those communities. A new national vulnerability map created by the Cabinet Office with the Office for National Statistics will geographically map population numbers of those who may be vulnerable in a crisis. It will do that by sharing data including age, disability, ethnicity, and whether someone is receiving care. The map will improve the Government’s understanding of the scale and location of disproportionately impacted populations ahead of and during crises and enable targeted local support when required.

Thirdly, as the inquiry reminds us, the risks we face are changing more quickly than ever before, and we live in an increasingly volatile world. It therefore recommended a better approach to risk assessment across the board, which we accept. Today, I am publishing an updated national risk register: the public-facing version of the national security risk assessment, which provides businesses and the voluntary and community sectors with the latest information about the risks they face to support their planning, preparation and response. We will ensure that it continues to be updated regularly. A significant proportion of the risks will be subject to reassessment over the next few months, and we will publish a further updated risk register as needed once the process is complete.

I want to mention two further recommendations where the Government accept the underlying objectives and propose to take them forward in specific ways. First, the inquiry recommended Cabinet Office leadership for whole-system civil emergencies in the UK. We agree with that, as for whole-system emergencies such as a pandemic, the centre of Government needs to play a lead role. But for lower-scale emergencies, we believe that the lead Department model still has value. It remains important for Departments with the day-to-day responsibility for an issue to lead the work to identify serious risks and ensure that the right planning, response and recovery arrangements are in place. Therefore, in some circumstances we will retain the lead Government Department model, because, in those cases, responsibility and oversight should sit with the body with the best understanding, relationships and mechanisms for delivery to identify and address risks. There will be an enhanced role for the Cabinet Office to improve preparedness and resilience for larger-scale catastrophic risks.

Secondly, on the question of independent input into whole-system civil emergency preparedness and resilience, we agree with the need for independent strategic advice and challenge, including the use of so-called red teams. We are establishing eight expert advisory groups to combat group-think in our understanding of risks. Alongside that, through the crisis management excellence programme we will increase training in red teaming. We want to work with the local resilience forums that exist around the country who provide critical knowledge and expertise.

The Government are also committed to introducing a duty of candour on public authorities as a catalyst for a changed culture in the public sector to improve transparency and accountability. We also welcome and will draw on the expertise of multidisciplinary pandemic science institutes that provide world-leading academic and scientific expertise such as the excellent Pandemic Institute in Liverpool, which I was pleased to visit yesterday. In the end, the Government must remain responsible and accountable for the policy and resource allocation decisions they take, but we believe that the external input of those bodies can add value to that decision making.

The impact of the covid-19 pandemic was unprecedented in modern memory. It caused the loss of far too many lives. My thoughts, and the thoughts of the whole Government, continue to be with all those who lost loved ones during the pandemic. Many of them feel not just grief but anger that, as Baroness Hallett’s report sadly confirmed, the country was not as prepared as it should have been.

My Department will monitor the implementation of the commitments made in response to the covid-19 inquiry. In all this, we must remember that the next crisis may not be the same as the last. There is a need for flexibility in our planning and learning, and we will build that into what we do. The Government also remain committed to engaging fully with the inquiry, and await Baroness Hallett’s findings and recommendations in subsequent module reports as she continues her important work. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pat McFadden]

That will all be tested in the exercise we have planned. Past planning exercises have sometimes planned for the wrong thing—that is the danger. That is why I say all the time that we have to make sure that we learn from what happened throughout the pandemic of a few years ago, but not make the assumption that the next pandemic or the next crisis will be exactly the same. That is what we have to do.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

The findings of the inquiry are a harsh confirmation of what we already knew. They are that the UK was woefully unprepared for the pandemic: the focus was wrong, the leadership was lacking and the lessons from past crises were not learned. I am sure I speak for all hon. Members when I say that our hearts remain with those who lost loved ones during that tragic time, and I thank the family members who are in the Public Gallery today.

To do right by them, crucially, we must ensure that this is a turning point. It is essential that the new Government take swift and decisive action to prepare for next time. I therefore welcome the Minister’s announcement of a pandemic response exercise this autumn; however, will that be a one-off or are further exercises planned and, if they are, how frequently?

As well as the different, more proactive approach to disease outbreak preparedness that Baroness Hallett cites in her report, we must invest in public health, rather than simply throwing money at crises when they materialise. One of the key findings is that health inequalities and a less healthy population has left the nation less resilient. Does the Minister agree that public health should be a priority and that the public health grant, with a proportion set aside for those experiencing the worst health inequalities to co-produce plans for their communities, would be a step in the right direction?

We need to help more people live more years of their life in good health. When I think back to those covid years, I think of the appalling loneliness and isolation of those in hospital or in care homes. Do the Government agree that patients and care home residents should be given a new legal right to maintain family contact in all health and care settings?

Finally, on resilience forums, will the Minister confirm what funding plans there are in future for resilience forums? I was aware before Christmas that there was some lack of certainty about that—certainly, that is what I was hearing from my own Sussex resilience forum. We cannot risk our country not being ready for the future, and those are important questions.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Judith Cummins Excerpts

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

Considered in Committee

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Judith Cummins)]

I remind Members that, in Committee, Members should not address the Chair as “Deputy Speaker.” When addressing the Chair, please use our name, “Madam Chair,” “Chair,” or “Madam Chairman”—we are all quite flexible.

Clause 1

Exclusion of remaining hereditary peers

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The First Deputy Chairman]

With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

Amendment 26, in clause 2, page 1, line 8, at end insert—

“(3) Jurisdiction in relation to claims to hereditary peerages is to be exercised by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.”

This amendment provides explicitly that the jurisdiction in relation to claims to hereditary peerages passes to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

Clauses 2 and 3 stand part.

Amendment 25, in clause 4, page 2, line 16, leave out from “force” to end of line 17 and insert—

“only when the House of Commons has agreed a resolution which—

(a) endorses the conclusions of the report a joint committee appointed for the purpose specified in subsection (3A), and

(b) determines accordingly that this Act shall come into force at the end of the Session of Parliament in which this resolution is passed.

(3A) The purpose of the joint committee of the House of Commons and the House of Lords referred to in subsection (3) is to consider and report upon the Government’s stated plans for reform of the House of Lords, including—

(a) the removal of the right of excepted hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords,

(b) the introduction of a mandatory retirement age for members of the House of Lords,

(c) a new participation threshold to enable continuing membership of the House of Lords,

(d) changes to the circumstances in which disgraced members of the House of Lords can be removed, and

(e) changes to the process of appointment of members of the House of Lords.”

This amendment provides that the Bill would only come into effect after the report of a joint committee on wider reforms of the composition of the House of Lords has been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.

Amendment 24, page 2, line 17, leave out “this Act is passed” and insert—

“the condition in section [requirement on Government to publish legislative proposals] is met”.

This amendment provides that the Bill would only come into effect at the end of the Session of Parliament in which the government publishes legislative proposals meeting the requirements set out in NC19.

Clause 4 stand part.

Amendment 12, in clause 5, page 2, line 21, leave out “(Hereditary Peers)” and insert “(Appointments and Membership)”.

This amendment would change the short title of the Bill and is consequential on NC9 and NC10.

Amendment 7, page 2, line 21, leave out “(Hereditary Peers)”.

This amendment is consequential on NC3, NC4, NC5 and NC6. It would amend the short title of the Bill.

Amendment 1, page 2, line 21, after “Peers” insert “and Bishops”.

This amendment is consequential on NC1. It would amend the short title of the Bill.

Amendment 8, page 2, line 21, after “Peers” insert—

“and Proposals for a Democratic Mandate”.

This amendment would change the short title of the Bill and is consequential on NC7.

Amendment 10, page 2, line 21, after “Peers” insert “and Appointments”.

This amendment would change the short title of the Bill and is consequential on NC8.

Clause 5 stand part.

New clause 1—Exclusion of bishops—

“(1) No-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of being a bishop or Archbishop of the Church of England.

(2) No bishop or Archbishop of the Church of England is entitled to receive, in that capacity, a writ of summons to attend, or sit and vote in, the House of Lords.

(3) Nothing in this section prevents a person who is, or has been, a bishop or Archbishop of the Church of England from receiving, and exercising the entitlements under, a peerage for life in accordance with section 1 of the Life Peerages Act 1958.

(4) Nothing in this section prevents a person who is, or has been, a bishop or Archbishop of the Church of England from being permitted to enter the House of Lords for the purpose only of leading prayers in accordance with arrangements made by that House.”

This new clause provides that bishops of the Church of England will no longer be entitled to membership of the House of Lords.

New clause 2—Exclusion of bishops: consequential amendments etc.—

“(1) In the House of Lords Precedence Act 1539—

(a) omit section 3 (places of the Archbishops and Bishops);

(b) in section 6 (place of the King’s Chief Secretary) omit the words after “aforementioned”.

(2) The Bishoprics Act 1878 is repealed.

(3) In the Welsh Church Act 1914 omit section 2(3) (writs of summons to be issued to bishops not disqualified by the 1914 Act for sitting in the House of Lords).

(4) In the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, in section 1(1) omit paragraph (za) (disqualification of Lords Spiritual).

(5) In the Northern Ireland Act 1998, in section 36(6) omit paragraph (b) (a person is not disqualified for membership of the Assembly by reason only that he is a Lord Spiritual).

(6) In the Scotland Act 1998, in section 16(1) omit paragraph (b) (a person is not disqualified from being a member of the Scottish Parliament because he is a Lord Spiritual).

(7) In the House of Commons (Removal of Clergy Disqualification) Act 2001, in section 1, omit subsection (2) (Lords Spiritual disqualified from being a Member of the House of Commons).

(8) In the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, in section 41, omit subsection (6)(b) (members entitled to receive writs of summons to attend the House of Lords by virtue of being an archbishop or bishop); but this subsection is without prejudice to the continued application of that provision in relation to tax years beginning before the commencement of this Act.

(9) In the House of Lords Reform Act 2014, in section 4(3), omit “or as a Lord Spiritual”.

(10) The Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015 is repealed.

(11) In the enactment formula used for Acts passed after the passing of this Act, where the phrase “by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons” appears, the phrase “by and with the advice and consent of the Lords and Commons” is to be used instead.”

This new clause makes repeals and amendments to other Acts consequential on NC1, as well as providing for changes to words of enactment.

New clause 3—Mandatory retirement at the age of 80—

“(1) A member of the House of Lords who reaches the age of 80 during a Session of Parliament ceases to be a member of the House of Lords at the end of that Session.

(2) No-one shall be eligible for a peerage for life to be conferred in accordance with section 1 of the Life Peerages Act 1958 after they reach the age of 80.

(3) A member of the House of Lords who has reached the age of 80 shall not be entitled to receive a writ to attend the House under section 1 of the Life Peerages Act 1958 or by virtue of the dignity conferred by virtue of appointment as a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary.”

This new clause provides that peers who are over the age of 80 will no longer be entitled to membership of the House of Lords at the end of the parliamentary session they turn 80 and that no one can be appointed a Life Peer after they reach that age.

New clause 4—Minimum contribution in the House of Lords—

“(1) A member of the House of Lords who is a peer and does not participate in the proceedings of the House of Lords or its committees during a period of eight consecutive sitting weeks ceases to be a member of the House.

(2) A person participates in the proceedings of the House of Lords for the purposes of subsection (1) if they undertake any activity which qualifies for financial support allowance under the scheme agreed by the House of Lords and then in force.

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to a peer if—

(a) the peer was disqualified from sitting or voting in the House, or suspended from its service, for the whole or part of eight consecutive sitting weeks, or

(b) they fall within the terms of a Standing Order of the House of Lords providing for exemptions from the provisions of subsection (1) for reasons related to parental leave, illness, bereavement or other specified circumstances.”

This new clause provides a minimum participation requirement for members of the House of Lords of one contribution every eight sitting weeks. A member who does not meet the minimum contribution requirement can no longer be a member of the House of Lords.

New clause 7—Duty to take forward proposals for democratic mandate for House of Lords—

“(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to take forward proposals to secure a democratic mandate for the House of Lords.

(2) In pursuance of the duty under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must carry out the steps set out in subsections (3), (5), (6) and (7).

(3) Within twelve months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a consultation paper on methods for introducing directly elected members in the House of Lords.

(4) After laying the consultation paper under subsection (3), the Secretary of State must seek the views on the matters covered by that paper of—

(a) each party and group in the House of Lords,

(b) each political party represented in the House of Commons,

(c) the Scottish Government,

(d) the Welsh Government,

(e) the Northern Ireland Executive,

(f) local authorities in the United Kingdom,

(g) representative organisations for local authorities in the United Kingdom, and

(h) such other persons and bodies as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(5) Within sixteen months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a report on responses to the consultation.

(6) Within eighteen months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a draft Bill containing legislative proposals on each of the matters mentioned in subsection (3).”

This new clause imposes a duty on Ministers to take forward proposals to secure a democratic mandate for the House of Lords through introduction of directly elected members.

New clause 8—Life peerages not to be conferred against recommendation of the House of Lords Appointments Commission—

“(1) The Life Peerages Act 1958 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 1, after subsection (1) (power to confer life peerages) insert—

“(2A) The power under subsection (1) may not be exercised in relation to a person if the House of Lords Appointments Commission has written to the Prime Minister to recommend a peerage should not be conferred on that person.””

This new clause would prevent a life peerage being conferred on a person if the House of Lords Appointments Commission has recommended against the appointment.

New clause 9—Life peerages only to be conferred on persons who meet propriety standards—

“(1) The Life Peerages Act 1958 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 1, after subsection (1) (power to confer life peerages) insert—

“(2A) The power under subsection (1) may not be exercised unless the Prime Minister has received a letter from the House of Lords Appointments Commission stating that, in their view, the person on whom a peerage is be to conferred has met appropriate standards of propriety.

(2B) For the purposes of this section, “propriety” means—

(a) the person is in good standing in the community in general and with the public regulatory authorities in particular; and

(b) the past conduct of the person would not reasonably be regarded as bringing the House of Lords into disrepute.””

This new clause would prevent a life peerage being conferred on a person unless the House of Lords Appointments Commission had confirmed to the Prime Minister that the person met the appropriate standards of propriety.

New clause 10—Expulsion of peers on grounds of prior propriety advice—

“(1) It shall be the duty of the House of Lords Appointments Commission to inform the Lord Speaker by letter of each instance where a peerage has been conferred on a person who has been found in their view not to meet the appropriate standards of propriety.

(2) For the purposes of this section, “propriety” means—

(a) the person is in good standing in the community in general and with the public regulatory authorities in particular; and

(b) the past conduct of the person would not reasonably be regarded as bringing the House of Lords into disrepute.

(3) The Lord Speaker must lay before the House of Lords a copy of any letter received under subsection (1) on the next day on which the House of Lords sits.

(4) Any person who is the subject of a letter under subsection (3) ceases to be a member of the House of Lords on the day after the day on which a copy the letter is laid before the House of Lords.

(5) Where a person ceases to be a member of the House of Lords in accordance with this section, section 4 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 (effect of ceasing to be a member) applies as if that person had ceased to be a member in accordance with that Act.”

This new clause would mean that any Member of the House of Lords who had been appointed despite the House of Lords Appointments Commission finding that they didn’t meet the appropriate standards of propriety would cease to be a Member of the House of Lords.

New clause 11—Expulsion of peers who have made donations to a political party—

“(1) A member of the House of Lords who has made one or more donation or loan to a political party with an aggregate value of more than £11,180 since 1 January 2001 ceases to be a member of the House of Lords on 1 February 2026 unless the condition in subsection (2) is met.

(2) The condition in this subsection is that the political party which received the donations or loans pays to the relevant member of the House of Lords the full aggregate value of those donations or loans on or before 9 January 2026.

(3) Where a person ceases to be a member of the House of Lords in accordance with this section, section 4 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 (effect of ceasing to be a member) applies as if that person had ceased to be a member in accordance with that Act.

(4) For the purposes of this section—

“donation” means a donation which is published by the Electoral Commission in its register of recorded donations under section 69 of the of the Political Parties Elections and Referendums Act 2000;

“loan” means a transaction published by the Electoral Commission in its register of recordable transactions under section 71V of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.”

This new clause provides for a member of the House of Lords who has made registered political donations or loans of over £11,180 since 2001 to cease to be a member of the House of Lords unless those donations and loans were repaid.

New clause 12—Life peerages not to be conferred on donors to political parties—

“(1) The Life Peerages Act 1958 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 1, after subsection (1) (power to confer life peerages) insert—

“(1A) The power under subsection (1) may only be exercised to confer a peerage on a person in respect of whom the conditions in subsections (1B) and (1C) are met.

(1B) The condition in this subsection is that the person has provided the Prime Minister with a declaration that, since 1 January 2001, that person—

(a) has not donated or loaned more the £11,180 to a political party; or

(b) had made such a donation or loan, but that it has been repaid in full.

(1C) The condition in this subsection is that the Prime Minister is satisfied that the declaration made under subsection (2) is true.

(1D) For the purposes of this section—

“donation” means a donation which is published by the Electoral Commission in its register of recorded donations under section 69 of the Political Parties Elections and Referendums Act 2000;

“loan” means a transaction published by the Electoral Commission in its register of recordable transactions under section 71V of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.””

This new clause would prevent a life peerage being conferred on a person unless they had declared that they had not made a donation or loan to a political party of over £10,000.

New clause 13—Exclusion of life peers who have recently been members of the House of Commons—

“(1) No person who was a member of the House of Commons shall be a member of the House of Lords—

(a) during the Parliament in which they were a member of the House of Commons;

(b) during the Parliament following the last Parliament in which they were a member of the House of Commons;

(c) during a period of five years commencing on the last day on which they were a member of the House of Commons.

(2) Where a person ceases to be a member of the House of Lords in accordance with this section, section 4 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 (effect of ceasing to be a member) applies as if that person had ceased to be a member in accordance with that Act.”

This new clause provides that no one who was an MP in the current or previous Parliament, or in the previous five years, is eligible for appointment to, or to remain as a member of, the House of Lords.

New clause 14—Removal of power to make political appointments—

“(1) The Life Peerages Act 1958 is amended as follows.

(2) After section (1) (1) (power to confer life peerages) insert—

“(2A) No recommendation may be made to His Majesty to confer a peerage except by the House of Lords Appointments Commission.””

This new clause would prevent peerages being conferred under the Life Peerages Act 1958 unless done so on the recommendation of the House of Lords Appointments Commission.

New clause 19—Requirement on Government to publish legislative proposals—

“The condition in this section is that the Government has published a draft Bill containing—

(a) provisions to remove bishops and Archbishops of the Church of England from membership of the House of Lords,

(b) provisions to reduce the number of members of the House of Lords to no more than 650, and

(c) such other provisions as the Government considers are appropriate to give practical and equitable effect to the provisions mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b).”

This new clause requires the Government to publish a draft Bill to remove Bishops from the House of Lords and reduce the membership to 650 or less.

New clause 20—Purpose of this Act—

“Whereas it has not been expedient at present for the Government to bring forward legislation to reform the House of Lords, the purpose of this Act is to provide that the Lords Temporal are peers appointed under section 1 of the Life Peerages Act 1958 on the recommendation of the Prime Minister.”

This new clause describes the purpose of the Bill.

Amendment 2, in title, line 2, after first “Lords” insert—

“to provide for bishops of the Church of England no longer to be entitled to membership of the House of Lords;”

This amendment is consequential on NC1. It would amend the long title of the Bill.

Amendment 3, line 2, after first “Lords” insert—

“to make provision for mandatory retirement from the House of Lords;”

This amendment is consequential on NC3. It would amend the long title of the Bill.

Amendment 4, line 2, after first “Lords” insert—

“to make provision for the expulsion of Members of the House of Lords for non-participation;”

This amendment is consequential on NC4. It would amend the long title of the Bill.

Amendment 13, line 2, after first “Lords” insert—

“to provide for a requirement for members of the House of Lords to meet standards of propriety;”

This amendment would change the long title of the Bill and is consequential on NC9 and NC10.

Amendment 14, line 2, after first “Lords” insert—

“to exclude from membership of the House of Lords persons who have made certain political donations or loans;”

This amendment would change the long title of the Bill and is consequential on NC 11 and NC12.

Amendment 15, line 2, after first “Lords” insert—

“to exclude former members of the House of Commons from membership of the House of Lords for a specified period;”

This amendment would change the long title of the Bill and is consequential on NC13.

Amendment 16, line 2, after first “Lords” insert—

“to preclude the conferral of life peerages other than upon the recommendation of the House of Lords Appointments Commission;”

This amendment would change the long title of the Bill and is consequential on NC14.

Amendment 9, line 3, after “peerages” insert—

“to impose a duty in connection with securing a democratic mandate for the House of Lords”.

This amendment is consequential on NC7.

Amendment 11, line 3, after “peerages” insert

“to preclude the conferring of life peerages against the recommendation of the House of Lords Appointments Commission;”

This amendment would change the long title of the Bill and is consequential on NC8.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way in his entertaining speech. He makes several references to our manifesto, but I would like to make some references to the Conservative party’s manifesto—

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I hope the hon. Member’s intervention is on the House of Lords and within the scope of the Bill.

[John Slinger]

It is related to references to reform of the House of Lords. There are no references to reform of the House of Lords in the Conservative party’s manifesto. There is one reference to peers but not to peers in the other place, and there are a few references to the constitution but not to our unwritten constitution. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House why he is now so fascinated by these measures?

--- Later in debate ---

[Josh Fenton-Glynn]

Will the right hon. Member remind me how long a parliamentary term is and therefore how long we have to implement our manifesto?

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means]

Order. I remind Members that they should be in for the duration of the debate, or make an effort to be in for a considerable duration, before making interventions.

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

Thank you for your firm chairmanship of this debate, Madam Chairman. The hon. Member made a strong and powerful intervention, which I hope is noted down. I can see him being the Parliamentary Private Secretary for the junior Minister in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs very soon. I am not sure if my commendation and support helps him in his endeavours, but I hope that it does. Of course, the hon. Member makes a thoughtful and interesting point. The Government do have time to introduce further legislation, but the reality is that pressure on time in this place is one of the greatest pressures—time is the most precious thing. I certainly would not engage in any form of political betting—I hope that can be recorded in Hansard—but if, perhaps in a previous age, I were a betting man, I might have offered this wager to the Paymaster General. I would wager a whole £5 that the Paymaster General will not be in a situation of getting any more legislation on Lords reform. I will give way to the Paymaster General, who is going to refute that.