Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

The infected blood scandal, and the 30,000 or so people who were infected with HIV, hepatitis or both, have been discussed in this House many times, but the numbers—the sheer scale of the scandal—are still hard to comprehend. The hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) laid out the background compellingly at the start of this debate, and I congratulate him on securing it.

Other Members have spoken of perhaps the most horrifying element of the scandal: children were subjected to unsafe and unethical clinical testing in the 1970s and ’80s. This testing—this experimentation—continued for more than 15 years. It involved hundreds of people and infected most with hepatitis B, hepatitis C or HIV. The trials involved children with blood clotting disorders, when families had often not consented to their taking part, and the majority of the children who were experimented on are now dead. It is not just about those who were infected, of course; the number of those affected by the scandal is far higher. Although we welcome the steps that the Government have taken in progressing the compensation scheme, it is clear that the job is not yet done.

The changes that the Government have brought in will mean more compensation for those who have been impacted by the infected blood scandal. Payments will be sent out to victims as part of the wider £11 billion-plus allocated by the Government in the 2024 Budget to compensate victims, but in the last two months to June, just 217 people have received compensation payments. At that rate, far too many victims will not receive their compensation by the 2029 deadline. The pace must increase—a point that has been well made in this debate by the hon. Members for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) and for Newport East (Jessica Morden), as well as others.

The Liberal Democrats welcome the improvements to the scheme that the Government set out earlier this year. These changes will hopefully deliver some of the justice that victims have been calling for, but there is clearly a strength of feeling that the scheme still does not go far enough, and the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst laid out some of the well-founded concerns in opening the debate.

The failure to deliver the Hillsborough law has been raised by many Members from across the House, and they are right to do so. It would extend the duty of candour to all public officials, and it was a manifesto commitment from this Government. It is also a promise that has been repeated by the Prime Minister and several other Ministers since. Despite repeated talk of an “unwavering commitment”, this vital reform has still not been delivered, and we do not know when it will be. I would welcome any update that the Paymaster General could give on the progress that we might expect and when we might expect it.

With this scandal, as with too many others, the inability to deliver both timely compensation and complementary legislation extends people’s fears of a culture of cover-up. In so many instances we see the breakdown of trust between the people we represent and our politics, so delivering compensation at pace, and delivering the Hillsborough law, would be a statement of intent to change our political culture. It is one of the vital building blocks that can start to repair this House’s fractured relationship with the public—an essential step to recover trust. That is more vital today than at any other point in my lifetime.

Many Members have spoken of their constituents who have been impacted by this scandal. My constituent Catherine from Marple Bridge is one of so many who provided testimony to the compensation authority. She is a daughter handling the estate of her father, who was infected, and she is affected. Catherine’s thorough, detailed testimony was calm, thoughtful and delivered with remarkable clarity. It was testament to her strength of character. Last year’s damning report on compensation showed that not enough lessons had been learned, and survivors such as Catherine continue to be left out in the cold.

The impact of course extends to those who have lost family members to contaminated blood, such as Angus Lacey-Stewart, who contacted my hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller). Angus’s dad and granddad both died due to health conditions caused by infected blood. Angus lost his dad prematurely, but he also told my hon. Friend how his dad’s infection at the age of 14 changed his dad’s life and robbed Angus of the relationship he might have wanted with his father, who suffered from poor mental and physical health. Angus understands that there are many claims and supports the prioritisation of infected claimants, but he cannot understand why he has been told not to expect payment until 2030. Angus told my hon. Friend that he

“feels let down and ignored by the Government”,

and he will not be alone.

The Liberal Democrats have been consistent in urging the Government to end the record of failure of successive Governments, and finally answer the needs of victims. We committed, along with others, in our 2019 manifesto to act on the inquiry’s recommendations,

“ensuring a just settlement for victims and their families”,

and we have voted in favour of legislation when it has been brought to this House. We encourage the Government to be as effective and visible as possible in the way they deliver the promised compensation scheme for the all-too-many victims. After so many years of secrecy, deceit and delay, the Government must deliver on the start they have made to ensure full transparency on the progress of the scheme and open, ongoing and effective communication with all those affected.

I close my remarks by paying tribute to the victims and their families, and particularly the doughty campaigners who have worked for decades for the compensation and justice they deserve.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Monday 1st June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement, and I thank members of the ISC and the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) for their work on this matter. I acknowledge again the women and girls who found the courage to come forward about the abuse that they endured at the hands of rich and powerful men. As we continue to discuss this matter, we must remember that those women are owed justice.

When Peter Mandelson was appointed, UK Security Vetting advice was overridden. The then permanent secretary at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office suggested that he was subject to constant pressure, and there is a line in today’s files suggesting that senior people expressed interest that the vetting process go smoothly. Given the Minister’s repeated assurances that there was no pressure from Government relating to vetting, what does he think that line refers to?

We now know that Cabinet Ministers were privately praising and flattering Mandelson from before his appointment all the way until after his dismissal. Senior Ministers showed a staggering lack of judgment. Will the Chief Secretary explain why so much business relating to one of the most controversial public appointments in recent years appears to have been conducted over WhatsApp? It was private, informal and outside the official record. Government by WhatsApp, which the Lib Dems have continually called for an end to, must end, because informal messaging outside official channels creates accountability gaps that should trouble us all. Does the Chief Secretary agree that Government by WhatsApp must come to an end?

Documents released today display concerning evidence that Peter Mandelson lobbied Ministers on behalf of his clients. That would appear to be a serious breach of the code of conduct for the other place, yet an initial reading of the files seems to suggest that many Ministers were pliant and responded warmly to him. Will the Minister confirm whether any Ministers reported their concerns about this seemingly egregious lobbying?

The Government have outlined their plans for the removal of peerages Bill. At first glance, it is a narrow and woefully unambitious Bill that completely fails to rise to the moment. Will the Minister outline what it will take for the Government to make meaningful reforms to the second Chamber?

Senior Cabinet Ministers asked Mandelson for advice on a range of issues, despite many of those issues falling outside the scope of his role. Issues of how we run this country stretch far beyond this scandal. The ministerial code, which should strongly inform the conduct of those who hold the highest offices in the land, continues to exist as guidance rather than the law. Ministers who breach it face no legal consequences. The Prime Minister can choose whether to act on the findings of independent advisers, which means that accountability is optional, and it is far from clear what consequences follow when rules are broken. Will the Government use this moment to bring forward legislation to enshrine the ministerial code in law?

Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Tuesday 19th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

This House did not pass the motion on the Humble Address so that Ministers could decide, four months later, which inconvenient information they would prefer that Parliament did not see. Given the ISC’s concerns that the Government are redacting information far too broadly, we must ensure that the Government are not just withholding documents and information from Parliament on their own say-so. Every day this pantomime drags on, public trust erodes further. Parliament asks for transparency, Epstein’s victims deserve justice and the public deserve answers, not redactions. The point is not that any Member of this House wants a junior civil servant’s personal data to be published, but that it is not the Government’s decision where the line is to be drawn.

Given that documents on Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s trade envoy role are also due to be laid before this House shortly, will the Minister confirm that he will personally ensure that those are produced without redaction, too?

[Darren Jones]

On the first part of the hon. Lady’s question on the assumptions about the Government withholding information that we should not withhold, I am afraid that that is just incorrect. This is the most extensive disclosure of information, I think ever, in relation to a Humble Address. The sheer depth of the document when it is published will illustrate the point that the Government have gone to great lengths to ensure that we are complying with the Humble Address. That is why we established the process with the Intelligence and Security Committee and the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, with independent KC oversight: to ensure that the process is done properly.

On the hon. Lady’s question about the motion in relation to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, that Humble Address is being administered by the Department for Business and Trade, and I understand the document is due to be published very shortly.

Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response Update

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I thank the Chief Secretary for advance sight of his statement. The women and girls who spoke out against Jeffrey Epstein and those connected to him did so at enormous personal cost. We must never lose sight of the fact that their bravery is the reason we are having this conversation at all.

The Prime Minister promised honesty, integrity and accountability. Instead, we have a tawdry saga of a political ally waved through despite serious security concerns, a senior civil servant forced out, and a Government who have descended into recrimination and infighting rather than dealing with the very serious issues the country faces. Parliament asked for transparency, and the public deserves answers. Every day this drags on, trust in our institutions erodes further.

Even though Lord Mandelson has stepped away from the House of Lords, will the Government bring in formal legislation to revoke his peerage? Will the Chief Secretary confirm whether the Government plan to bring in further legislation for much-needed reform of the other place? The deputy Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), asked in business questions on Thursday about potential further redactions made on grounds other than national security or international relations. Will the Chief Secretary confirm that there have been no redactions in what he said will be sent to the Committee by the end of today?

It has been reported that the Prime Minister is set to whip Labour MPs to oppose his referral to the Privileges Committee. Even Boris Johnson did not block his MPs from voting for scrutiny. Labour MPs must surely be given a free vote and not be forced into feeling like accomplices to a cover up. Will the Chief Secretary confirm whether Labour MPs will be whipped on tomorrow’s vote or not?

[Darren Jones]

It is not for the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister to speak about whipping arrangements at the Dispatch Box. I will leave that to the Chief Whip and the usual channels. The hon. Lady asked me two questions about reform to the other place, in particular the removal of peerages. I can confirm that legislation will be introduced shortly to bring forward the proposals that I have talked about at the Dispatch Box. She asked me further questions about redactions policy; I refer to my previous answer on that question.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Thursday 23rd April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

At Prime Minister’s questions yesterday, when asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), the Prime Minister failed to deny that he knew that his team were lobbying for a head of mission role for Matthew Doyle, and that they were doing so with his authority. Under the ministerial code, he has clear duties of transparency to this House. For No. 10 to ask the Foreign Office to find a plum diplomatic job for another Labour mate who was friends with a convicted sex offender, let alone to then keep it secret from the Foreign Secretary, is completely shocking. The Prime Minister has shown another catastrophic lack of judgment. Will the Minister ensure that an inquiry is launched by the Cabinet Secretary to determine who did the lobbying and why, and what the Prime Minister knew and when?

[Darren Jones]

The Prime Minister has spent very many hours at the Dispatch Box this week being held to account and answering questions on a whole range of issues. In respect of the particulars of the hon. Lady’s question, I refer her to the Prime Minister’s words of only yesterday.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

Earlier this year, the NATO Secretary-General said:

“We are not at war, but we are not at peace either.”

Trump’s reckless war in Iran has shown how vulnerable our country is to external shocks, while Putin’s imperial ambitions pose a once-in-a-generation threat to our security and our way of life. The UK is not resilient or prepared enough for future shocks and threats. We have seen press reports this week describing the risk of shortages of certain foods and medicines, brought about by Trump’s idiotic actions in Iran. What specific steps are the Government taking to address those potential shortages, and how does the Minister plan to communicate with the public to ensure that our constituents are not left without information or support, should the availability of the medicine they need fall victim to Trump’s foolishness?

[Dan Jarvis]

I agree with the comments from the Secretary-General of NATO that the hon. Lady cited. From previous conversations that we have had, I think she understands the seriousness we attach to those issues. The Cabinet Office co-ordinates a whole-of-Government response and we work closely on those issues with partners, including in the Ministry of Defence. She is right about the need to communicate those issues to the public, and we are looking at how we can do that most effectively.

Government Procurement Strategy

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

We need to do far more to back British small businesses through public procurement, both to boost growth and to ensure our national security. Public procurement amounts to hundreds of billions of pounds a year. The Procurement Act was meant to ensure that more of that money reached British small businesses, but in practice many report that it has made things worse. Payment rules are being flouted by middlemen who face no consequences, suppliers who complain are threatened with losing future work and bad debts are mounting. Public money is disappearing into a vacuum and there is a security risk. There are businesses that are asking, “What is the point of legislation that rogue traders can ignore with complete impunity, while loyal British SMEs are being pushed out of the market they built?” Does the Minister agree that the target for Government spending with small businesses should be far higher than the current level? Will he explain when the payment reporting transparency will implemented?

[Chris Ward]

I basically agree with the hon. Lady’s assessment of the procurement system and how it does not do what it should do. As I say, £400 billion of taxpayer money is being spent. We need to ensure, as far as we can, that every pound that is spent supports British industry, supports jobs and delivers fairness, and it must also support SMEs. The Procurement Act made progress towards helping SMEs, but it does not go far enough. It is not the job of this Government to defend the status quo; it is the job of this Government to change it, so we will do that. I will come back to her on the specific point about payment thresholds.

Antisemitic Attacks

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Monday 20th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right that we all have an absolute responsibility to call out racism and bigotry, wherever we experience it. He is also right that a range of malign forces is seeking to sow division and disharmony across our country and in our communities. I give him an absolute assurance that there is an extensive programme of activity across Government Departments to ensure that we have the requisite tools and resources to counter the misinformation and disinformation from those who would seek to divide us.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

Our Jewish community has contributed to our national story for centuries, and we are right to be proud that our country welcomes citizens to our shores who fled persecution elsewhere, including my nan, who came here in the late 1930s, fleeing the Nazis. Much of the discussion this afternoon has understandably been about those from overseas who seek to stoke division, hatred and antisemitism in the UK. I welcome the work by the Government, including the Rycroft review, and the amendments coming to the Representation of the People Bill about funding those who seek to divide us. But there are those in this House who are funded by known British antisemites. Can the Minister tell us more about what he is doing with colleagues across Government to tackle the people who are funding those who seek to divide us?

[Dan Jarvis]

The hon. Member is right that we should be—and I think are—very proud of our collective Jewish heritage. I pay tribute to her nan. I hope the hon. Member would acknowledge that the Rycroft review is an important step forward in tackling some of the issues that she raised. I hope she understands how seriously we take the commitments that we have made. As the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government has described, we will bring forward amendments as soon as we can.

Security Vetting

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Monday 20th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

That is why I have asked for a review of the entire process: so that it can be looked at from start to finish, including the question of whether there should be any circumstances in which the recommendation of UKSV could not be followed.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I am going to try again, because a number of right hon. and hon. Members have asked this question, and I am not quite sure I have heard an answer from the Prime Minister. Why did he choose to ignore the advice from the then Cabinet Secretary, Simon Case, to seek security vetting before confirming Peter Mandelson as his pick?

[The Prime Minister]

I understood the procedure to be that the appointment was made subject to the security vetting. [Interruption.] That is what I was told. The question the hon. Lady raises is the question I raised in September, which is why I asked Sir Chris Wormald to look at the process, and in particular at the advice in the letter from Simon Case, to answer the question of whether the process was followed, and he—[Interruption.] Well, he gave me the answer that he thought right, having concluded that process.

Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. I especially welcome in his remarks the recognition of people’s individual experiences and the commitment to compensating them fairly in a way that minimises the administrative burden placed upon those who have been harmed.

The infected blood scandal is one of the greatest failures in our national health service, which was unacknowledged for far too long. Over 30,000 people were infected across the country and faced the devastating consequences of that systematic failure. Yet there are people who continue to feel that the scheme has not gone far enough, including one of my constituents, from Marple, who feels the scheme should investigate more potential conditions.

Thousands of victims and their families have waited decades for the justice they deserve. Sir Brian Langstaff was straightforward in his findings: victims have been ignored and frozen out of the process they fought for decades to secure, while payments have proceeded at an infuriatingly glacial pace. The Liberal Democrats have long stood with the victims. The Government are right to seek to answer the needs of those infected and affected by setting out a clear timeline for how compensation can be delivered to them. My colleagues and I will continue to hold this Government to account until every eligible person receives the justice they are owed.

Sir Brian Langstaff rightly highlighted how victims have not been listened to by successive Ministers, and we welcome the new feedback mechanism that the Minister has set out today. Will he expand a little on his remarks and confirm that that will be a formal advisory body of victims to IBCA, as recommended by the Langstaff inquiry?

After so many years of secrecy, deceit and delay, the Government should ensure full transparency over the progress of the scheme and open ongoing communication with all those affected. Enshrining a statutory duty of candour is a long-overdue reform championed by those infected and affected by the scandal, and the continued delays to passing the Hillsborough law are shameful. Victims and campaigners should not be made to wait any longer, so will the Minister say when the Government will get that vital piece of legislation moving again and finally get the Hillsborough law on the statute book?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

First, in respect of the feedback mechanism, I wanted it to be not simply somewhere that would receive correspondence, but a proper mechanism to sift the various queries coming in. Some might be administrative things to do with the scheme that might be dealt with relatively quickly and some might be more serious things that need to be elevated either to IBCA’s board or to the Cabinet Office.

Secondly, with regard to IBCA and the voice of victims, I have been on more than one occasion to IBCA’s offices in Newcastle. It already has what are known as the user consultants, who provide the voice of the community on the premises and who have been encouraged by Sir Robert Francis to do that. I think they make a very important contribution. Thirdly, on transparency, I could not agree more. That is why, on the technical expert group for example, I take the view of publishing everything. I think we have to continue to do that. Fourthly, on the issue of the Hillsborough law, work is ongoing. I have been very involved in that in recent months and, certainly, we are committed to delivering it.

Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill

Lisa Smart Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 17th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats believe that people should be paid fairly to do a job, and that it should not be only the wealthy who can afford to be a Minister.

Ministers will face enormous demands on their time, for there is much to be done, and the Government should prioritise finding talent across both Houses to fill these positions. We recognise the importance of having a well-rounded and efficient Government, but expanding the ministerial payroll is only justifiable if it comes with transparency, accountability and a genuine commitment to public service.

When the previous Conservative Government—or maybe it was the one before that, or the one before that —were in power, we witnessed a merry-go-round of Ministers. We had the shortest serving Prime Minister ever, endless Cabinet reshuffles and a revolving door of Secretaries of State that left Departments directionless and policy in a constant state of flux.

Instead of everyone being famous for five minutes, almost every Conservative MP in the last Parliament was a Minister for 15 minutes. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches believe that Ministers who hold office for only a few days or weeks should not be entitled to handsome severance payouts. Under the chaos of the last Government, we witnessed severance payments to Ministers who had been in post for under a week. That is an insult to the taxpayer, and this Government must ensure that such practices are consigned to history.

In recent months, we have seen that those we should be able to trust in positions of government do not always have our best interests at heart, from Mandelson’s dismissal and the sharing of confidential information to a former Cabinet Office Minister being implicated in efforts to discredit journalists. Those scandals have led to further corrosion in public trust, which we should be doing everything in our power to rebuild. Last year, YouGov found that only 4% of people feel that politicians are doing what is best for the country, while 67% feel that politicians act out of self-interest. Our political system is under enormous strain, and public outrage at the numerous instances of corruption, lawbreaking or just poor judgment is a gift to those at the political extremes. Meek promises to tweak some processes are not enough.

With this legislation, the Government are adding an estimated £600,000 to £850,000 a year to the cost to the taxpayer. If the Government are demanding that amount of taxpayers’ money each year to pay for these additional salaries, they should be able to provide a guarantee that the public are getting full value for that money. The Government should commit that none of the newly salaried Ministers or any Minister drawing a taxpayer-funded salary will be permitted to hold a second or third job. If the Government are expanding the payroll to fit the size of the Government that they need, there is no excuse for those Ministers to be dividing their time with outside employment.

That being said, the work that Ministers do should be recognised. The Government have 120 Ministers, of which two in the House of Commons and nine in the other place are unpaid. Expanding the ministerial payroll must come with greater accountability, not less. The Liberal Democrats call on the Government to enshrine the ministerial code in law so that the standards we expect of those in office are not merely guidelines to be ignored at will, but legal obligations with real consequences.

We also call for the ethics adviser to be made truly independent. They should be empowered to initiate their own investigations, determine breaches and publish findings without interference from the very Prime Minister they are supposed to hold to account.

This Bill does not tell us very much new about what responsibilities the additional Ministers will take on. Before we nod through this additional taxpayer expenditure, I would welcome an assurance and a clear explanation from the Minister on what the roles will be and why they are needed. Transparency when signing over this amount of money should be an expectation, not a request.

This Government and their predecessors talk of devolution—something that we Liberal Democrats strongly support. We believe that the best decisions are those made closest to the people they impact, and this Government have taken some steps to devolve power and funding closer to the communities we all represent. They have not necessarily done it in the way that we Lib Dems would have done it, but we acknowledge that they have made some progress.

In his closing remarks, will the Minister comment on how he sees the number of Ministers changing over time? If the number of decisions taken locally or in the regions and the amount of power in those regions increases, does that mean that he expects the number of Ministers needed at a national level to decrease? Liberal Democrats will support measures that make Government work better, but we feel that this Bill expanding the ministerial payroll is a missed opportunity to strengthen ministerial accountability or do anything truly meaningful to rebuild the public trust that has been so badly damaged.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Ward]

The number of Ministers in the current Government is virtually the same as it was in the previous Government. I think actually it is one lower than the previous Government. The intention of this Bill—this speaks to a point raised by a couple of Members—is not at all to increase the number of Ministers or the size of Government; it is simply to rectify the anomaly of unpaid Ministers in the other place. The right hon. Gentleman served in several Governments of this size over the past 10 years, and he asked why this Bill should come forward at this time. One answer to “Why now?” is that the leader of the Conservative party in the House of Lords proposed it in an amendment. It was put forward by the Conservative side. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position that that was wrong. That is one of the reasons this has come forward, and it is one of the reasons for addressing the inequality with which we are dealing.

Let me refer to a point that was raised by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart). The Bill will allow, but will not require, one additional salary at Secretary of State rank. It is for the Prime Minister to decide whether or not it goes to a Secretary of State; Parliamentary Under-Secretaries can be rewarded as well, as can Ministers of State. The Bill also allows four additional salaries at Minister of State or Secretary of State level, and 11 additional salaries overall. As I have said, those limits are cumulative, which means that the Prime Minister has discretion to make the awards. There is no prior intention; it is about discretion.

Let me turn briefly to what the Bill does not do. As the Paymaster General said, it does not alter the salaries of Ministers, much to the disappointment of the former Deputy Prime Minister. They will remain frozen, as they have been since 2008. The Bill does not necessarily create additional ministerial roles; this is a point that was raised. Indeed, it simply reflects the average number of roles since 2010. It does not alter the maximum number of paid Commons Ministers, which remains at 95—it effectively reserves 25 places for Lords Ministers—and, of course, it does not affect MPs’ pay, which is rightly entirely independent of this House. All that the Bill will do is increase the maximum number of salaried Ministers, so that it is in line with the average number of Ministers over the last few Parliaments. As I have said, the size of the Government remains unchanged, and the Government have no intention of increasing it. The purpose is merely to allow higher numbers to be paid, and to remove that inequity.

The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) raised the issue of the amount of minimum service for severance pay. The Government have already addressed that by introducing a power requiring a Minister to serve for six months before any severance payment can be made, thus removing some of the absurdities under the last Government, which she rightly pointed to. People were being paid for a day, or in some cases a few hours, in the job. She also raised the matter of second jobs. I remind her that the Labour party has a manifesto commitment to address that, and to ensure that second jobs are permitted only in particular circumstances—for doctors, for instance. The Modernisation Committee is dealing with that issue. I am keen for it to be addressed as quickly as possible, but it will come back to the House.

The hon. Lady mentioned the ethics adviser. Let me emphasise again that at the beginning of this Government, the Prime Minister made changes; there was an increase in the role and the independence of the independent advisers, so that they are truly independent—we have seen that they are, on several occasions—and the ethics adviser can now initiate his own inquiries. That is an important point. The hon. Lady also asked what roles the new salaried Ministers would fulfil. As I have said, that is a matter for the Prime Minister, and we have no intention of changing that.

[Lisa Smart]

The Minister of course will know that the Prime Minister is responsible for the contents of the ministerial code. While the ethics adviser can launch an investigation, the Prime Minister reserves the right to raise concerns about any such investigation, so that the independent adviser does not proceed. Have I understood that correctly?