Infected Blood Inquiry: Additional Report

Mike Wood Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement and for advance sight of it.

On behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, I thank Sir Brian Langstaff for his initial work on the inquiry and for all his follow-up work. This additional report, focusing on compensation, is a significant and thorough piece of work that has been done in good time. Our thanks also go to those working at the Infected Blood Compensation Authority to get the money out to those who desperately need it. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) welcomes the valuable insight that he gained from his recent visit to the team on the ground in Tyneside. Above all, we pay tribute to the victims, the families and the campaigners who have fought relentlessly and bravely on this issue.

I have previously raised in the House the concerns of victims and their families about the speed and structure of the compensation scheme. They have been repeatedly frustrated by a failure to speed up payments. Although there are signs that the pace is finally starting to increase, I know that their frustrations remain, and we share them. This scandal happened over decades, under successive Governments of different parties, but we all have a responsibility to do what we can to right the wrongs of the past as quickly as possible, and the Opposition will support the Government when they are doing the right thing in doing so.

I have also raised the issue of engagement and called on the Government to further solidify ongoing consultation and communication with victims and their families. It was disappointing to see that, as Sir Brian laid out in his additional report, sufficient progress has not yet been made on that. I welcome the Government’s response on that matter, but I urge them to ensure that that engagement work is carried out rapidly and urgently. Victims and their families deserve real action and, as the additional report makes clear, they have had far too many assurances but not yet enough substantial engagement.

I am pleased that the Government are now taking action on some of the issues relating to atypical personal or health impacts and supplementary routes, which I raised when we discussed the infected blood compensation scheme regulations in March. I know that will bring great comfort to many of those who have been infected with the diseases mentioned.

I appreciate that the Government are taking forward Sir Brian’s recommendation on a grievances mechanism, and I am certain that across this House we all hope that implementation of this recommendation and the others from the report will meet the terms of reference of Sir Brian’s inquiry and will complete the compensation and resolution process. However, the Government must ensure that this mechanism is an active one, not simply a recording device. While it is incredibly important that lessons are continuously learned from this tragedy, it is also really important that those cases that contain difficulties with regard to compensation eligibility—which we know make up a significant proportion—are addressed as a matter of urgency, and that all such cases, many of which will probably come through this new mechanism, are considered carefully, and that all information on the claim status and decisions made on it are communicated clearly and frequently to the complainant.

Above all, learning those lessons must not come at the cost of delaying payments to those who simply cannot afford to wait any longer. To that end, I would appreciate the Minister’s clarity on the number of personnel whom he expects to be tasked with the grievances mechanism and the oversight structure that will be put in place over it. Will that be the advisory board being established and, if so, what specific oversight powers will the advisory board have?

We support the Government in taking these measures forward, and we will do what we can as the official Opposition to help these actions be implemented, but it is incredibly important that the Government are clear to this House what measures they are putting in place to ensure that the steps announced here today are carried through and enacted efficiently and effectively. No amount of money can undo the harm that was tragically inflicted on so many, but a comprehensive and effective compensation scheme can offer a lifeline to victims and their families who have suffered far too much for far too long.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I thank the shadow Minister for his contribution and, in particular, for its tone. The cross-party way in which this has been approached has been crucial—I took that approach in opposition. I pay tribute to my predecessor as Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen), for the work he did in driving this forward. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this additional report is a very significant piece of work, and I echo his thanks to IBCA’s staff.

On the speed of payments, the hon. Gentleman referred to the number of payments and of course IBCA has used the “test and learn” approach, but I want to tell the House that I have announced today a substantial number of changes to this scheme, but it has to be on the basis that that will not affect the current speed of roll-out of payments. That is why I still expect IBCA to contact all registered infected people to begin a claim before the end of the year, and indeed to open the service to affected people by the end of the year.

I also agree with the hon. Gentleman about the need for an active consultation mechanism, and I entirely agree about clarity of communication. I very much hope that we can continue this cross-party spirit into the delivery phase as that is so important.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Wood Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

As the Minister will be aware, under the existing framework, the UK is entitled to take unilateral measures to protect the internal market where there is a diversion of trade. The Federation of Small Businesses Northern Ireland says that a third of businesses that previously traded between Great Britain and Northern Ireland have ceased to do so. We know from his interview yesterday that the Minister does not consider three quarters of deportations being voluntary to represent a majority, but does he consider a third of businesses to be a diversion of trade? If he does not, what would be a diversion of trade?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

On 1 July, we introduced the phase 3 checks under the Windsor framework. The Windsor framework was negotiated by the previous Government, and we supported it from the Opposition Benches. I assume that the Conservatives continue to support those arrangements. Obviously, we monitor the issue of trade diversion very carefully, and we stand ready to help businesses adjust to the new arrangements.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Wood Excerpts

Thursday 5th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

I do not know how much longer the love-in will last. [Hon. Members: “Aw.”] I will start off nicely.

The Minister has been commendably clear that the youth mobility scheme must be capped, and has made comparisons with agreements reached by the previous Government with countries such as Australia, Canada and Uruguay. He will know that last year 9,750 youth mobility visas were issued to Australian nationals, 3,060 to Canadians and just 140 to Uruguayans. Will he be equally clear in setting out what he thinks would be a reasonable level for that cap, or is it just a matter of whatever Brussels tells him he has to accept?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

It certainly will not be; it will be subject to negotiation. I genuinely welcome the Opposition’s support for a youth mobility scheme. I think it came as a bit of a surprise to some of their Back Benchers in that debate, but none the less I welcome it. What I have said—and this is what the wording of the common understanding sets out—is that it has to be balanced, capped and time-limited. That is the negotiation we will take forward.

EU-UK Summit

Mike Wood Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sam Rushworth]

I was not in the previous Conservative Government, so I cannot answer that, but it is absolutely clear that what people voted for actually got worse.

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

According to the House of Commons Library, in 2018, out of more than 5,000 requests under the Dublin III regulation, just over 200 were granted. That is not the silver bullet—and never was—that the hon. Gentleman imagines it to have been.

[Sam Rushworth]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is disagreeing with the shadow Home Secretary, because I was quoting his words.

Is it not also the case that Brexit ended our co-operation on policing and ended intelligence-sharing? I welcome the fact that, with this deal, the Government have negotiated access to EU facial imaging data to help to catch people smugglers and dangerous criminals, and to increase co-operation to track down rapists, murderers and drug lords. Is that not also something the European Union has put on the table that Britain benefits from?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, Mr Vickers. The more that we learn about the reset, the clearer it becomes that far from being the win-win that the Prime Minister promised, it is little more than a bundle of missed opportunities wrapped in hollow rhetoric and enfeebled by untenable concessions.

The Prime Minister heralds this agreement with the EU as a monumental win, but in reality it shackles us once more to the whims of Brussels and undermines the very principles underpinning the genuinely historic decision of 17.4 million voters in 2016 to take back control. Instead of taking back control, these agreements entwine us within the jurisdiction of a foreign court. They mean we are beholden to decisions made elsewhere about the quality of British food. That is the very antithesis of taking back control. It is no wonder the Government were so reluctant to let Parliament know what the Prime Minister was planning to concede.

We support efforts to reduce unnecessary trade barriers that clearly damage both sides and to reach an agreement based on mutual recognition between partners that respect each other and their sovereignty, and that work together for mutual benefit. Instead, we are presented with a one-sided deal that sees us forgo rights that are enjoyed by virtually every other independent country in order to sign up to EU schemes on EU terms.

Ahead of the summit, we set out five tests against which we would judge whether the Government’s deal actually respected the referendum result, as they promised. There obviously could be no return to free movement, no new payments to the EU, no loss of our fishing rights, no compromise on NATO’s primacy in European defence, and no dynamic alignment with EU rules. From the details published so far, it is hard to see how the agreement can possibly meet all five of those vital tests.

On the first test, there is little detail about the youth mobility scheme. We support limited youth mobility schemes with effective controls—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”]— as we agreed in government with countries such as Australia and Canada, but they have to be done right and they need controls. Without controls they could become the back door to free movement.

I hope the Minister will be able to help in his summing up, because the briefings from the Government and the European Union are worrying. It is clear that the two sides have different ideas as to what is on the table, and the common understanding does absolutely nothing to clear up that ambiguity.

Will the Minister fill in some of those gaps? Will participating EU nationals have to pay the NHS surcharge, or will British taxpayers be left to foot the bill? Will EU students pay the overseas rate or the home student rate for higher education tuition fees? If the latter, will the Government recompense universities for the lost income? Crucially, what does he expect the cap on those numbers to be? Does he expect the number of EU participants to be around the 10,000 mark, as for those who come to the UK under the Australian version of the scheme, or does he expect a higher number?

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

There is another question. A truly bilateral youth exchange arrangement would be fine. It would be like the trade and co-operation agreement, with no reference to the European Court of Justice. Or is this going to be an extension of the withdrawal agreement arrangements involving EU citizenship, which is subject to the European Court of Justice and temporary and time-limited? The real question that the Minister has to answer is: what will be the involvement of the European Court of Justice in overseeing this arrangement?

[Mike Wood]

That is an important question for the Minister to answer. This should not come as news. The Leader of the Opposition was quite clear on Tuesday that of course we support the principle of mobility schemes. After all, we negotiated so many of them, which the Minister did not support when he was shadow International Trade Secretary.

The Government’s deal clearly also fails the tests on payments to the EU and on fishing rights. Our fishermen stand betrayed. Instead of the four-year transitional arrangement they had under the previous agreement, they have been lumbered with French, Spanish and Dutch mega-trawlers being handed long-term access to their waters. That will become the new permanent state of being, and it will have to be negotiated away from. From Cornwall to Tobermory, fishermen find themselves devastated by a Government prepared to sell them short. That is not what they were promised, and certainly not what they deserve.

Again, it is difficult to judge from the information published on Monday whether the security and defence partnership could undermine NATO. There is clearly a need for western Europe to take greater responsibility for the security of the region and to improve its collective capability. There is no question but that closer co-operation can bring benefits for Britain—particularly for contractors able to bid for projects funded by safe loans—but of course none of that is ensured in any of the material published so far. It is surely true that our partners will benefit at least as much from the incredible contribution that the British armed forces will make to that security so, given such mutual benefit, there should be no case for additional payments or concessions.

[James McMurdock]

To my mind, the core of the issue is the sense of suspicion. No one disagrees that trade barriers are a bad thing and that clearing them is a good thing for trade, but there is an awful lot of suspicion about the exact details and about how much the benefits are real benefits, not just the removal of punitive hurdles.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Wood]

The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly reasonable point. There are clearly barriers that it would be in both sides’ mutual interest to remove. That should not be difficult to do, but the fact is that it has been difficult. I speak as someone who spent seven very happy years working in a European institution before deciding, on the basis of that experience, that Britain could do better. Sadly, after Brexit, the European Union’s negotiating position seemed determined to treat the United Kingdom less favourably than most other third countries, with which it did not have such a strong trading relationship.

That brings me to what is clearly the greatest betrayal of all in these documents, which is the effective surrender of this Parliament’s right to decide what laws apply and do not apply in this country. Last July, the Prime Minister promised that he would not accept any deal that meant laws being introduced without the consent of Parliament, but it is clear that he has found a way round that promise by agreeing that the UK will immediately adopt new EU laws in a range of areas, but after the pretence of a vote in which no is not a genuine option.

Worse, judgments about whether Britain complies with those new EU laws will be adjudicated by the EU’s own European Court of Justice, so the key difference between this and the puffin case that the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) referred to is that cases involving dynamic alignment would, by definition, be matters relating to whether the UK is complying with an EU law. As the ECJ is specifically set out as the arbiter on questions of EU law, it will be able to rule on those matters, so it will become the arbiter.

[Sir John Hayes]

My hon. Friend comes to the nub of the issue, which I described as the debate about governance —it might be said to be a debate about jurisdiction. There is a kind of schizophrenia on the Government Benches: some Members want to say that this is a fundamental change, and a step back towards where we once were—that is clearly what the Liberal Democrats want—while others say that it is a matter of detail and simply a different kind of agreement. Essentially, however, the issue of governance and jurisdiction lies at the heart of this debate. I simply invite my hon. Friend to affirm the fact that on the Conservative side of the Chamber, whatever we have said in the past, we are now absolutely clear that the national interest will always be the supreme consideration of this party and a future Conservative Government.

[Mike Wood]

My right hon. Friend is clearly right, and the national interest cannot be served by a dynamic alignment that effectively requires us to automatically take on other people’s rules. On Tuesday, the Prime Minister either could not or would not tell us what measures would be open to the EU in the event that Parliament chose not to adopt a new EU law under paragraph 27 of the common understanding. Can the Minister do better? Would remedial action be restricted to suspending parts of this agreement, or could it result in a broader trade dispute?

Labour fought Brexit at every turn over the last nine years. The Prime Minister backed a second referendum; he stood on platforms calling for us to stay in the EU, and demanded we entered into a customs union that would have made the trade deals reached since Brexit impossible. Now he says that he wants to make Brexit work, but his version of making Brexit work is about dragging Britain backwards.

This deal is not about fixing Brexit; it is about reversing it and undermining it. Let us be absolutely clear: this deal resubmits the UK to foreign courts, foreign laws and foreign control. We will pay into EU budgets, follow EU rules and even have our food standards determined by Brussels. We will be paying into EU schemes with no say on how those funds are spent, and taking EU laws with no say over what they are—the worst of both worlds. No vote. No veto. No voice. Taxation without representation. The Prime Minister complains—[Interruption.] Sorry, is the hon. Member for Walthamstow trying to intervene?

[Ms Creasy]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way. We have talked about the puffin case; the previous Government, which fought the puffin case, relied on European law in making their argument, and cited it in their own submissions. It was good enough for the previous Government to look at European law and at questions about proportionality, as they did in their submission. The idea that moving to an independent arbitration system, which is what this summit will do, is somehow surrender is misplaced.

[Mike Wood]

No, I think the hon. Lady misses the point completely. When we are being taken to an international court by an institution such as the European Union, it is a perfectly sensible and effective legal strategy to cite its own rules as evidence that we have not broken either its rule or the international rule that it is citing.

Now, the Prime Minister complains about us doing exactly what we were elected to do—holding this Government to account and calling out where they are getting things wrong. On this, the Government are getting things wrong, and we will not make any apology for doing our duty, which is to oppose these concessions, to honour the will of voters and to retain our sovereignty. It is time to stand firm for the integrity of our democracy and for the ability of our sovereign Parliament to make decisions in the interests of our great nation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I will certainly give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I want to make some progress first.

I did enjoy the shadow Minister’s speech. After hearing his comments in the middle about both the youth experience scheme and working in Europe, if he wants me to go and see his leader and put in a word for him to keep him in his job, I am more than happy to do so. I am not sure that the Back Benchers here got the memo about the line he was going to take, but I am sure they will become a bit more coherent in due course. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow quoted the “Frozen” song “Let It Go”, but I am afraid, looking at the Conservative party, it is more a case of “Let the storm rage on”—that is clearly what they are doing today.

The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness said what a significant week it was in parliamentary history, and I entirely agree with him. Whenever we have these debates on UK-EU relations, people with a real interest in and passion for it turn up. My sparring partners are here: my good friend, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), whom I frequently spar with on these matters, and the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), who I will give way to in a moment once I have made some progress. He often intervenes on me, and he is always here making the case—but, in this significant week, where is the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage)? In a supreme irony, he is in the European Union.

The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness also spoke about youth mobility. For me, what makes the difference are the experiences that I hear about from people whose lives have been transformed by having a year or two overseas. I want hon. Members to listen to the story of a young man and what he went on to do, because he spoke about two exciting and challenging years he had spent in France. He had really engaged while there. He said this:

“Living in Paris and working in Paris, taught me a lot”.

That young man became the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness. Given the amount of time that both he and the hon. Member for Clacton spend abroad, I am astonished that they want to deny the same opportunity to everybody else.

I know that the shadow Minister is at heart a sensible, pragmatic man. The Conservatives and Reform have made a decisive choice in the last week. We have secured a deal that will lower household bills—hon. Members need not take my word for it; they can take the word of most major supermarkets and retailers. I do not hear their voices in support of the position of the Conservatives or Reform. Energy bills are coming down—here hon. Members can take the word of Octopus Energy, which is saying just that, and the support of the major energy firms for the Government’s position.

The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings is right about the Five Eyes relationship. Nobody could deny the additional tools and information that we will get from this deal to tackle the boats in the channel and to deal with serious and organised crime. That is the deal this Government have secured—good for jobs, borders and bills. Both those parties will go into the next general election promising to reverse it, and they will have to tell each and every one of their constituents why they want to erect trade barriers, put prices up and make our borders less secure.

[Mike Wood]

I very much admire the Minister’s confidence. The Government have already guaranteed that energy prices will be £300 lower by 2029. Given his confidence that this deal will further lower energy bills, how much lower can we expect household electricity and gas bills to be in 2029 than the £300 reduction they have already promised?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I look forward to that debate in 2028 or 2029 with the hon. Gentleman, and indeed with the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness.

Let me come to the other speeches. My right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), who also benefited from a year abroad, quite rightly spoke about the importance of the automotive sector.

The hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) talked about scrutiny, an issue also raised by the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex. On that, the SPS agreement will require primary legislation; I am sure I will have a continuing debate with Opposition Members during its passage.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) spoke about the wide business support for the Government’s position. When the Conservative party used to win general elections, it used to claim to be the party of business; it most definitely is not any more.

Now let me come to the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex. I should start by saying that I am getting slightly concerned about him, because not once in his speech did he talk about increasing Conservative votes. He talked about increasing Reform votes. He referred to the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (James McMurdock) as his hon. Friend rather than the hon. Member. Are we to see this as a new political direction for the hon. Gentleman? I do not know—but his speech certainly leaned in that direction.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about a democratic mandate. The democratic mandate for what has been agreed with the EU comes from the Labour manifesto. It respects the result of the 2016 referendum: no return to the single market, no return to the customs union and no return to freedom of movement. That is the basis on which this Government have negotiated. People said, “You need to have a Norway deal. You need to have a Swiss deal. You can’t negotiate a bespoke deal for the United Kingdom.” But that is precisely what this Government have delivered within 10 months.

UK-EU Summit

Mike Wood Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I do agree. I think they are lost in the past—actually I think they are lost all together now, on a decline into oblivion. As I say, a once great party that used to support trade deals is now against every single trade deal. It is a pretty extraordinary turnaround.

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

Paragraph 27 of the common understanding published yesterday requires the “immediate application” of European Union rules relating to food, sanitary and phytosanitary safety. Can the Prime Minister set out what measures would be open to the EU should this Parliament choose not to adopt those new European Union laws?

[The Prime Minister]

We are not making an argument for lowering our standards, and we are proud to have high standards at the moment. We want to maintain those high standards, but there will of course be provision, should the occasion arise, for dealing with any conflicts that may emerge.

Infected Blood Inquiry: Government Response

Mike Wood Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his statement and for advance sight of it. The infected blood scandal is one of the clearest failures of the state and public services in recent years, causing enormous harm over many years to countless victims and their families. Next week marks the first anniversary of the publication of the inquiry’s report, and I add my thanks and those of my hon. and right hon. Friends to Sir Brian Langstaff and his team for their work and comprehensive report.

On 21 May last year, my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) stood at the Government Dispatch Box and made clear his determination to act on the inquiry’s report. I pay tribute to his work and thank him for the advice and support that he has given to me and the shadow Cabinet Office team on this issue since the election.

I am pleased that the Paymaster General picked up from where his predecessor left off. As I have said previously, both sides of the House speak as one on this issue, but sadly there is nothing that we or the Government can do that will undo the terrible damage caused by this scandal. No amount of money will bring back those who have been lost, and no amount of lessons learned can make up for the suffering of those who contracted serious illnesses because of contaminated blood, but Ww would be not only failing in our duty, but failing all those who have died and all those who continue to live with life-changing conditions if we did not take up this battle on their behalf.

To do this, we must directly address the profound distress, anger and fear that is being expressed by victims and their families at the pace of the roll-out of the full compensation scheme. Victims in recent hearings have referred to the wait as “torture” and “disgraceful”—to mention just a few cases. Of course, the gravity of those concerns has been underscored by the decision to re-open the infected blood inquiry for a further report on compensation. Although we support that decision, we need to make sure that it does not delay the proper compensation for those who have already lost so much.

With every week and month that passes, we know that more infected and affected individuals will, sadly, die before receiving their full and final compensation. This underscores the human cost of every single day of delay. Therefore, although I recognise that the compensation authority was set up precisely to be independent of Government in operational matters, I ask the Minister whether he is content with the current pace of delivery and, if not, what he and the Government are doing to help David Foley and his team to speed up pay-outs to dying victims.

Let me turn to other recommendations made by the inquiry. May I ask the Paymaster General what progress has been made on recommendation 6 on monitoring liver damage for people who are infected with hepatitis C? On recommendation 8, which is on finding the undiagnosed, what action has been taken to ensure that patients who had transfusions before 1996 are offered a blood test for hepatitis C? Can the Paymaster General update the House on how many such tests have so far been carried out, and what assessment he has made of the additional infected and affected patients who may now be eligible for compensation?

The journey to rebuild trust with the victims and their families will be long and requires not only words of apology and commitment but, crucially, demonstrable action that proves that the Government and, indeed, this House, are listening and responding. The acknowledgement that the current compensation scheme has not yet won the full trust and confidence of the community is a start, and I hope the Government will continue to take these concerns seriously to put in place the robust changes that are necessary. We will support them in that work.

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

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Wood Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend raises a really important point. We enjoy a free press and independent journalism in this country. Across the world, journalists risk their lives, and lose their lives, doing what they do best: independently pursuing the truth. On many occasions I have been at award ceremonies, usually on a yearly basis, where the names of those journalists who have lost either their lives or their freedom is read out, and it is always a humbling reminder of the really important work that they do.

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

As you know, Mr Speaker, Parliament has banned the charging of electric vehicles in its underground car park because of safety concerns. Yet local authorities around the country often feel powerless to stop the construction of battery energy storage systems near people’s homes and near our rivers and canals, despite three fires already this year. Will the Prime Minister look again at his Planning and Infrastructure Bill to make it easier, rather than harder, for local communities to have a meaningful say?

[The Prime Minister]

I am really proud that on planning and infrastructure we are taking the action that has not been taken for years to drive our economy, and I remind the hon. Gentleman that that was signalled by the Office for Budget Responsibility as the single biggest driver of growth over the coming years.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Wood Excerpts

Thursday 24th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

Key to much of that plan is the Government’s target to make the UK the fastest growing economy in the G7. But with the International Monetary Fund joining the Office for Budget Responsibility and the OECD in massively slashing projections for UK growth and the IMF not expecting the UK to be the fastest growing economy in the G7 in any year between now and 2030, how confident is the Minister that the Government will meet that target?

[Ellie Reeves]

The prediction is that we are set to be the largest growing European economy in the G7. Since coming into government in July, we have prioritised growth: for example, Universal Studios building Europe’s biggest theme park in Bedfordshire, and unblocking planning decisions on projects like the lower Thames crossing. We are getting on with delivering the growth that the country needs after 14 years of decline under the Conservatives.

Draft Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Regulations 2025

Mike Wood Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2025 General Committees

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for presenting the draft regulations. I am particularly pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury agreed to bring his enormous expertise on this matter to the Committee. When he was Paymaster General, he worked tirelessly to make sure that victims and their families could at last receive some degree of justice. Above all, I thank those campaigners and victims who have spent years pushing for justice for this terrible tragedy, which continued for over a decade. It has taken decades more for it to begin to be put right.

This is an issue on which all parties have spoken as one, recognising the horrific harm caused to so many by this scandal. It has been a unity built around agreement with the incredible work done by Sir Brian Langstaff in his inquiry. There has been agreement across both sides of the House that we must implement the recommendations of that inquiry to begin to make right these serious wrongs. To be clear, we will not divide the Committee on the draft regulations because we do not want to do anything that jeopardises the payment of compensation that is already overdue to those who were affected or infected by contaminated blood.

The biggest concern that Members share has been the very slow pace of assessing and paying compensation claims. We welcome the progress highlighted by the Minister, but as of 14 March only 63 offers of compensation had been made and only 40 accepted. That equates to about five victims paid per week since the Paymaster General’s statement last month. At that rate, it would take more than 15 years for all those infected to receive their compensation, and the draft regulations could extend compensation to perhaps 30,000 persons directly or indirectly affected by contaminated blood. It would take nearly 120 years to pay all those compensation payments at the current rate.

We recognise that part of the purpose of these regulations is to give additional powers to IBCA to pay compensation, but the current pace is clearly unacceptable, and is causing significant distress and despair to many who have already suffered more than anybody should. That raises questions about whether IBCA has the capacity needed to properly compensate those affected and those infected by contaminated blood. It looks increasingly unlikely that the £11.8 billion set aside for compensation will prove to be sufficient. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will ensure that further amounts are made available, as and when they are needed?

We have other concerns about the bureaucratic and evidential requirements in the regulations. There is a risk that those requirements prevent eligible people from applying. For example, not only partners, parents, children or siblings of infected persons but other carers of such persons can apply as “affected persons” for the care award to compensate for past and future care needs. However, they must be able to show that they provided an average of at least 16.5 hours of care per week to an infected person over a period of at least six months without reward or remuneration, show the nature of the care, and show the length of time such care was needed. How does the Minister expect that kind of detail to be evidenced? If care was provided to a friend or family member without remuneration, as the regulations require, how likely is it that there would be written records or agreements? What evidence does the Minister expect to be available when the care might have been provided many years ago, particularly if the infected person has sadly since passed away?

We strongly support the IBCA framework document published two weeks ago and agree that there are sound reasons why it is appropriate, and arguably necessary, to initially second civil servants to allow IBCA to begin its important work without delay. However, as the Minister will be aware, some campaign groups have expressed concern about IBCA’s level of independence. Although the tight tariff-based approach set out in the draft regulations clearly has benefits in fairness and consistency—and we strongly agree that this approach is appropriate in the vast majority of cases—is there a risk that such a framework could fail to provide fairness in some unusual cases that do not easily fit within the categories and levels set out? Will the Minister look at how IBCA could be given discretion to take into account atypical personal or health impacts, such as infertility? IBCA could, for example, be allowed to consider individual cases for injury, autonomy and social impact awards, as well as for financial loss and care awards.

The Minister will know that particular concerns have been raised about how those who developed hepatitis and haemophilia are treated under the draft regulations. Will he set out why haemophilia and hepatitis C cases were not included under the special cases mechanism in the supplementary route? How many infected people does he expect to be worse off as a result? Can he explain which experts decided which medical conditions would be recognised through the supplementary route and who among them had clinical experience of hepatitis and haemophilia?

Some of the requirements to qualify for further compensation, beyond core payments, look particularly onerous. While it is, of course, essential to be careful when dealing with such large amounts of taxpayers’ money, I know that the Minister would not want the scheme to preclude people who have genuinely suffered different forms of harm and loss. Can the Minister give the Committee a clear idea of what kind of proof might be sufficient to demonstrate, for example, psychological damage caused by contaminated blood, which might then enable someone to access additional compensation?

Turning to the estates of affected people, while recognising there might be circumstances in which the restriction could be harsh, we agree with Sir Brian’s recommendation, which is reflected in the draft regulations, that affected persons should be compensated in their own right but to go further and allow a claim by their estate would draw the circle too widely. However, can the Minister clarify what the position would be were an affected person to die after submitting an application for compensation, or possibly between receiving an offer of compensation and accepting it? Might their estate be able to benefit from a claim that had already been made, for which the affected person had been eligible before they passed away?

The partners of infected people registered on support schemes to date stand to lose their right to receive 75% of their partner’s payments if they are bereaved, after the end of this month when the schemes officially end. Can the Minister explain why that decision has been made, and what assessment he has made of the extent to which other provisions within the draft regulations will make up for those amounts being lost by the bereaved partners of infected people who die after the end of this month?

As I said at the beginning, we will not divide the Committee because we do not want to do anything that risks delaying payments to people who have already had to wait for far too long. The draft regulations will be a huge relief and an enormous help to many affected people. However, we all want an effective, equitable and comprehensive scheme. I urge the Minister, who I know cares deeply about this issue, to work with his officials and look at how some of the gaps and apparent unintended consequences might be resolved, so that all those infected or affected by contaminated blood can receive the compensation that they need and deserve.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Wood Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

Despite the complacent response from the Minister, fewer than 250 days in, we have already had a Transport Secretary resign over her criminal record, an anti-corruption Minister resign over corruption, questions raised over the checks on the new Investment Minister, and at least three Cabinet Ministers accused of peddling dodgy CVs. The Prime Minister either cannot or will not say whether the necessary questions were not asked on appointment, whether relevant information was not disclosed on appointment, or whether he knew perfectly well about it but only took action when they were caught? Will the independent adviser conduct an urgent review of ministerial vetting?

[Georgia Gould]

The Prime Minister is determined to uphold high standards of conduct in public office, unlike the previous Government. That is why decisive action has been taken. This is a Government in the service of working people, and we will not hesitate to take action against any Minister who fails to meet those high standards.