Public Office (Accountability) Bill

Patricia Ferguson Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 3rd November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim Allister]

It does, and then it goes on to tell us in clause 1(2) how it imposes that duty. There are five ways in which it does so. The first is by

“imposing a duty on public authorities and public officials to act with candour, transparency and frankness in their dealings with inquiries and investigations and imposing criminal liability for breach of that duty”.

That is the only criminal liability that would arise from a breach of the duty of candour. The second way is by imposing an ethical code on public authorities. No criminal offence is committed if someone breaches that ethical code—none whatsoever. The third, fourth and fifth ways, in paragraphs (c), (d) and (e), are by

“imposing criminal liability on public authorities and public officials who mislead the public in ways that are seriously improper”,

by

“imposing criminal liability for seriously improper acts by individuals holding public office and for breaches of duties to prevent death or serious injury”,

and by

“making provision about parity at inquiries”

about legal aid.

The Prime Minister told us that the Bill would apply across the whole United Kingdom, but sadly it does not. Clause 24, the extent clause, makes it plain that the last three paragraphs of clause 1, which I have just read out, do not apply to Northern Ireland or to Scotland. The Bill in its entirety applies only to England and Wales, meaning that clause 11, for example—which is an important clause, because it does create a criminal offence, that of misleading the public—does not apply anywhere other than in England and Wales. Why should that be? Why is this Bill not drafted in such a way that those clauses apply to the whole United Kingdom, after which the Assemblies of Scotland and Northern Ireland can deploy the mechanism of legislative consent?

[Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)]

The hon. and learned Member may or may not be aware that in order for those sections to apply across the UK, the Scottish Government would have to agree to a Sewel motion—a legislative consent motion—that would allow this place to legislate for Scotland. Justice is devolved to the Scottish Parliament—it has been since the Act of Union and before. That is something that is valued, so there would have to be that agreement. It is not something that can be laid at the feet of this Minister.

[Jim Allister]

That is exactly what I said. Why does clause 11 not apply to the whole United Kingdom on the basis of a legislative consent motion? Such a motion could be sought from Stormont and from Edinburgh, and in that means we could have uniformity across the United Kingdom. That is the mechanism for doing it, but the starting point is to make the clause applicable across the United Kingdom, and then to have the legislative consent motion that would enable it to be enforced. That is how Parliament works with the devolved institutions. [Interruption.] Members can shake their heads as much as they like, but I was a Member of a devolved institution and know that that is how it works—that emphatically is how it works.

[Patricia Ferguson]

The hon. and learned Member was a Member in Stormont. I was a Member of the Holyrood Parliament, where I was also the Minister for Parliamentary Business for three and a half years. It was my responsibility to take through legislation in that Parliament and to oversee the Sewel convention, and I can assure him that that is not how it happened.

[Jim Allister]

I disagree. Many, many times in the Stormont Assembly, Bills that were passing through this House, which included measures such as new criminal offences, were subject to a legislative consent motion. That then gave consent to proceed, and that mechanism could equally be used here. My question to the House is this: if this Bill is delivering the duty of candour by the five steps set out in clause 1(2), how can it do that for the whole United Kingdom if three of those steps do not apply throughout the United Kingdom?

Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

Patricia Ferguson Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his work; I know that he has raised this issue on previous occasions. With regard to deceased estates, he will have heard what I said in my statement about the interim payments. Additional interim payments have just opened, which shows the urgency of the situation to the Government and the importance of the money getting to where it is needed. That is why I made sure that those payments were opened in recent weeks.

[Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement today, and for the work that he has done. One issue raised by a constituent is that when she applied for the interim payment, she filled out lots of forms and gave information, as she has been doing for many years, because her husband died some time ago, having contracted infection back in the 1970s. She now has to apply again, and the same information will be asked for. There must be a way of expediting the process to make life slightly simpler for people like her. She, too, is in a situation in which, at the age of 88 and having not received all the payments that she is likely to get, she is worried about inheritance tax—not on her own behalf, but on behalf of her children. I am sorry to belabour the point, but may I add my voice to those around the Chamber? Perhaps those voices will help the Minister to have the ammunition to take to the Treasury to say, “We’re not happy with this.”

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

With regard to my hon. Friend’s first point, on the interim payments, there is an expedited process if the details are unchanged from the first interim application. If my hon. Friend writes to me with the particular details of her constituent, I am happy to look at that. On her second point, I think the strength of feeling in the House is very clear.

Middle East

Patricia Ferguson Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member on the spirit and intent behind his question. Hamas is a terrorist organisation that has inflicted violence and destruction on far too many individuals, and they can play absolutely no part in the future. Our recognition of Palestine was expressly on that basis. We will continue to work with other countries to ensure that that is the situation, because it is vital that that is part of a peaceful and lasting settlement in the region.

[Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)]

I very much welcome the Prime Minister’s statement today, and I thank him, his ministerial team and their advisers for all the work that has been done over many months to get us to this point, where there is some hope for peace in Gaza and also for peace for Israel. In this process, as we go forward and try to build peace, can he ensure that the voices of women, who are so often excluded from such processes, are heard, and that women are at the table when decisions are being made?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and we must ensure that women are part of the future build, and we will do so.

G7 and NATO Summits

Patricia Ferguson Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have that discussion with our US allies, both at leader level and between our teams, on an ongoing and constant basis. Israel has the right to be safe and secure, and it is neither safe nor secure at the moment. We have to be absolutely clear about that and about the right of Israel to defend itself. That means discussions about the IRGC and Iran, which has been a constant source of threat, terror and conflict in the region. Yes, we discussed not just the attack on Saturday, but the further measures that can be taken to ensure that Iran never has the capability to develop nuclear weapons.

[Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and his leadership—something that I am sure is welcomed by our allies around the world, if not by the Opposition.

My right hon. and learned Friend mentions that there is now a window of opportunity for peace in the middle east. I am sure that we would all want that to come to fruition. However, given the continuation of deadly attacks on Palestinian people seeking food, can the Prime Minister advise, following his discussions, whether there is any prospect of Israel allowing the United Nations and other humanitarian organisations to resume food distribution in an ordered and fair way?

[The Prime Minister]

They should do that, and we are urging that they do. The current arrangements are intolerable and are never going to work; we need to be really clear about that. We will continue to urge that, with our allies and talking to leaders across the region, as my hon. Friend would expect. But now is also the time to push on for the broader ceasefire, to alleviate the situation more generally and allow a path to open for the long-term conflict resolution that is needed.

Church of Scotland (Lord High Commissioner) Bill

Patricia Ferguson Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 4th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)]

The fact that in 2025 we can say that no Roman Catholic has ever held the post of Lord High Commissioner seems slightly absurd. There are, of course, other positions in this nation that a Catholic has never occupied and, as matters stand, can never occupy. It is good that we can break down one of those barriers today and reflect the extremely friendly relationship between the Catholic Church in Scotland and the Church of Scotland—and indeed, through the interfaith council, the Church’s relationship with other faiths, too. The change is also a mark of the high regard in which people of good will hold Lady Elish Angiolini, and of the many qualities that make her a fitting representative of His Majesty.

As we have heard, by convention, the sovereign is not normally present at the General Assembly, as he or she is technically an ordinary member of the Church, not its supreme governor, as he or she is in England. Traditionally, the Lord High Commissioner represents the sovereign, and is an observer appointed under the royal prerogative, so, as we know, there is no need for parliamentary approval of the appointment, or for legislation. As the Lord High Commissioner is a representative to the General Assembly, rather than part of the assembly, it is not necessary for them to be a member of the Church of Scotland, or indeed of any other church. However, the legislation that we are considering is necessary because the holder of the office cannot currently be a Roman Catholic.

The Scottish Claim of Right Act 1689 set out restrictions on Catholics being appointed to public office. Paragraph 19 states:

“That by the law of this Kingdome no papist can be King or Queen of this realme nor bear any office whatsomever therin”.

Those are harsh words, if I may say so. The Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 was the culmination of a long process, working towards giving Catholics relief from the many restrictions imposed on them in Great Britain and Ireland prior to the Union of 1801. However, although that Act retained some restrictions on Catholics, most of which have since been repealed, some significant ones remain. That is what we wish to amend today.

As the Law Society of Scotland has suggested, it is unfortunate that the Bill cannot also be amended to remove the reference to the Lord High Chancellor from the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829, so that the 1829 Act can be brought into conformity with the Lord Chancellor (Tenure of Office and Discharge of Ecclesiastical Functions) Act 1974.

There is clearly a long history surrounding the appointment, with the first Lord High Commissioner having been appointed in 1580. In the intervening five centuries, significant people have held the post, including a number of former colleagues of mine, and of the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), and including Lord James Douglas Hamilton, Lord Wallace, Lord Steel and George Reid. Colleagues might have spotted that they have something in common: they were all men. It was not until 1970 that the late Peggy Herbison, a former MP, was appointed the first female Lord High Commissioner. We then had to wait another 24 years, until the appointment of Lady Fraser, for the second. Since then, the Princess Royal has held the post twice, and it would be good to think that, following Lady Elish’s appointment, we might see woman appointed more regularly.

The appointment is expected to be made, we are told, on the basis of the merit and contribution to society of the appointee, and Lady Elish certainly qualifies on both counts. I should declare an interest: I have known Lady Elish since we were both teenagers and members of our respective schools’ debating societies. She was very much better than I was, and even then, it was clear that she was destined for a very significant future. I also served in Government with her when she was appointed by First Minister Jack McConnell as the first female Solicitor General. Elish went on to become the first female Lord Advocate. She held both positions with distinction and was highly regarded during her time in office. Since then, she has served in a number of legal posts, and is currently the principal of St Hugh’s College, Oxford, and Pro-Vice-Chancellor of the University of Oxford. She is also the first woman to hold the position of Lord Clerk of Scotland, another first for a woman. Significantly, she chaired the public inquiry into the abduction, rape and murder of Sarah Everard. We can safely say that Lady Elish is an outstanding candidate for the post of Lord High Commissioner.

As I mentioned in opening, it is regrettable that in 2025 we still have such laws on the statute book, but ironically the relationship between the two Churches is in very good heart. The signing of the St Margaret’s declaration in 2022 by the Moderator and Archbishop Cushley, the representative of the Catholic bishops conference, seeks to build on the common heritage of the two denominations in the Christian tradition. It recognises that divisions are still present, but seeks to mend those divisions and to focus on what the Churches have in common. With the passing of the Bill today and the appointment of Lady Elish to the post of Lord High Commissioner, we take another welcome step on the journey to ecumenicalism.

Oral Answers to Questions

Patricia Ferguson Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman raises a very important issue. The most important issue on the ceasefire is obviously that it is sustained and that we see it through the phases, and that means that the remaining hostages come out and the aid that is desperately needed gets into Gaza at speed and at the volumes that are needed.

I have, from the last few weeks, two images fixed in my mind. The first is the image of Emily Damari reunited with her mother, which I found extremely moving. The second is the image of thousands of Palestinians literally walking through the rubble to try to find their homes and their communities in Gaza. They must be allowed home. They must be allowed to rebuild, and we should be with them in that rebuild on the way to a two-state solution.

[Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)]

Q11. The announcement of a third runway at Heathrow is obviously a massive boost to growth in the economy. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is important that the economic boost is spread around the UK, and will he therefore agree to ask the relevant Minister to meet me and other Glasgow MPs with the chamber of commerce to discuss the possibility of a new supply chain hub being created in the city, where the materials for Heathrow’s expansion could be reassembled?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right that the new runway at Heathrow can boost economic growth across the whole country. It would boost the economy by billions and create over 100,000 jobs across the UK, with 60% of the economic benefits outside London and the south-east. It is good for Scottish passengers and Scottish businesses—and particularly for Scottish salmon, which is the No. 1 export passing through Heathrow and has been worth £970 million over the past five years. I will happily ensure that she gets a meeting with the relevant Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions

Patricia Ferguson Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee.

[Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)]

May I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for helping to secure £14 million of levelling up funds for the area of Drumchapel in my constituency of Glasgow West? Does he agree that given the record settlement that the Scottish Government have received from the UK Government, it is about time that they went ahead and sorted out the problems of under-provision and overcrowding in Drumchapel health centre?

[Ian Murray]

My hon. Friend has been a doughty champion for Drumchapel and was key, at the heart of this Labour Government, to getting that funding across the line. The health service in Scotland is in crisis, which is only made clearer by the First Minister taking personal control of it. One in six of our fellow Scots are on NHS waiting lists. The record settlement of £4.9 billion to end austerity in Scotland needs to be spent on the frontline in places such as Drumchapel health centre.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Patricia Ferguson Excerpts

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

[Sir John Hayes]

I will try to be helpful to the hon. Gentleman because he is a new Member. We all learn something every day here, and when a Member has been here for 27 years, unless we are entirely stupid we learn a great deal, so I have picked up one or two things. The critical frailty in his argument is the difference between authority and influence. Of course it is true that the King grants Royal Assent to the Bills that we pass and so they become Acts, but the very business of him granting Royal Assent reinforces his authority, and the fact that he has a personal audience with the Prime Minister on a weekly basis, which is more than the hon. Gentleman ever will and more than I do, suggests that his influence over our affairs is considerably greater than that of most of the people elected here. It is quite wrong to suggest that the monarch does not exercise political influence and thereby political authority.

I also spoke about continuity. The importance in our constitutional settlement of the continuation of the role of the House of Lords is that it provides a degree of continuity. Members have talked about what is time-honoured and cast that aside as though it does not matter. What is time-honoured counts because it has been honed by generations of people, not merely decided upon by one group of people at one point in time.

I heard another speech which criticised birthright. If I stood here and said it was the birthright of every Briton that habeas corpus prevails, or if I said it was the birthright of every subject of this kingdom that they can speak and think and act freely, everyone would feel that it was entirely right and proper for me to make those pronouncements, yet birthright has been criticised in this Chamber as if it was nothing.

[Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)]

The point is that the birthrights the right hon. Gentleman describes are available to all of us, whereas the birthrights we are talking about are restricted to very few people, some of whom have inherited them from a point that is literally in the history books and is so far back, and the contribution is so archaic now, that it really means nothing. We have to be realistic about this, and that is why we are looking at the hereditary peers first.

[Sir John Hayes]

Some of the things which we inherit by birth are indeed universal—universal in the sense that all Britons enjoy them. They are not of course universal in the sense that those across the world enjoy them; they would love to enjoy many of the freedoms that we had earned over time due to those who came before us. As the hon. Lady said, these things go right back. The evolution of our constitutional settlement is rooted in history and shaped over time—it evolves.

And it is right that the House of Lords evolves too, so I am not against Lords reforms per se. There is a case, for example, for saying that attendance matters in the House of Lords. We do not have an amendment to this effect, but it would be perfectly reasonable to agree that those appointed to the House of Lords as life peers who never attend or attend very rarely give up their right to do so. That would seem to me to be a perfectly reasonable and measured reform of the House of Lords, and it would cut the numbers dramatically, because although we are frequently told the House of Lords has many hundreds of Members, those who regularly vote in Divisions tend to be drawn from the same group on both sides of that Chamber.

There are sensible reforms that could be made to the House of Lords, but this reform delivers neither in terms of legitimacy, for it makes the House of Lords no more democratic, nor in terms of efficacy, because it makes the House of Lords no more effective. One is tempted therefore to assume that it is prejudice dressed with spite that lies behind this proposal, and I find that hard to believe given the high opinion that I have of the two Ministers sitting on the Front Bench.

--- Later in debate ---

Neither do I believe in an elected second Chamber, as I have made clear. I take the straightforward view that the system at the moment, for the most part, works pretty well. We could make reforms—it would seem perfectly reasonable to look at how peers are appointed and we could look at the number of peers in the upper House, as I mentioned—but I do not really buy those reforms. As far as mandates are concerned, the Government certainly have a mandate to bring that package forward, but the official Opposition have a role in both countering that and ultimately opposing it. That is the nature of our parliamentary system. My goodness, if we voted for everything that the Labour Government brought forward from their manifesto, there would be no point in having an official Opposition of any kind.

[Patricia Ferguson]

rose—

[Sir John Hayes]

I will give way one more time to the hon. Lady and give her a second bite of the cherry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patricia Ferguson]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for taking the intervention. I struggle to understand what the Conservative party’s line is on the Bill. It would appear that he disagrees with a number of his colleagues. At the end of the day, how will Conservative Members vote?

[Sir John Hayes]

That is a matter for those on the Front Bench. I see members of the Conservative Whips Office in their place and I see my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) sitting behind the Dispatch Box. These days, I am merely a highly regarded, distinguished and senior Back Bencher. [Laughter.] The days when I had any say in how the Conservative Opposition—or in previous times the Conservative Government—chose to vote in Divisions are gone, but they are not gone forever; this is only a sojourn on the Back Benches. I want to make that perfectly clear.

Let me return to my principal theme, which is that of authority. The authority of this House is partly born of its relationship with the other House. Were the other House to become elected, its authority would by definition grow and our authority by comparison diminish, so I am strongly opposed to an elected second Chamber. While I accept the principled argument of the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire and others, it is not for me. There is also the matter of the authority of our constitution. Our constitutional settlement, which we have rehearsed briefly in the debate, is dependent on that relationship, but also—I think it is fair to say—on reforms of this kind being measured.

It might surprise Members to hear that last night, I was looking at a short book written by Hilaire Belloc and Chesterton. That book, which is available from the Library of the House, rehearsed the arguments that prevailed at the time of the debate on the Parliament Act—it was then the Parliament Bill—in the House of Commons. It might surprise right hon. and hon. Members to learn, as I learned last night, that when Asquith introduced those changes—when the House of Lords rejected Lloyd George’s Budget and it became necessary to curb the powers of that House—rather than rushing to legislate, he set up a conference between both sides of the House to determine a compromise. Belloc, as Members will remember, was elected as a Liberal MP. He parodied that process and said that what came out of it was no better than what went into it. None the less, it was an attempt, at least, to reach a settlement in a dignified way on how we might reform the second Chamber. [Interruption.] It did take two elections. It took the 1906 election, as the Paymaster General will know, when the Liberals triumphed. I wonder whether he wants to intervene on me to sharpen up the history.

Anniversary of 7 October Attacks: Middle East

Patricia Ferguson Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Member read out some powerful words, which will have been heard across the House. Yes, de-escalation is absolutely needed at the moment as the region stands on the brink.

[Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)]

Mr Speaker, may I associate myself with your words and those of the Prime Minister in opening his statement? In any time of conflict, our focus must be on two things: de-escalation and peace; and the plight of the civilian population, whether they be those hostages kidnapped on 7 October, those in Lebanon now sheltering in the street or those in Gaza who seek to find health facilities to treat their loved ones and themselves when they suffer from attacks by Israel. What more can we do to support the health service in Lebanon, which is now on its knees and really needs our support if it is to help the people of Lebanon?

[The Prime Minister]

We do need to help and assist with the health services in Lebanon—along with the other humanitarian support and the support for training and other matters that we are putting in, it is so important that we do that. We are in constant contact with the Lebanese authorities in relation to that.

Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

Patricia Ferguson Excerpts

Monday 2nd September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the constructive tone of that contribution and her recognition of the importance of meeting that deadline. She is entirely right to raise the issue of trust and I am very conscious of that in all the work I carry out in this area. She is also entirely correct to raise the issue of timetabling because it is hugely important to the victims and there are three things I would say. On the estates of deceased infected people, there will be the opening next month, in October, of interim payments of £100,000. The final payments to infected people that go down the core route of this scheme will start by the end of this year. And payments to affected people will start next year. The timetabling of appropriate regulations is done with that timetable in mind, to ensure we get those payments to people as quickly as possible.

[Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, but will he outline the categories of loss that victims can claim against the scheme, and how will this inform the size of the compensation award that they can claim?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The report sets out the five different areas of loss: those from injury and the social impact, then the autonomy award for the real effect on people’s freedom and family life, and also the loss from the care people have received, and financial loss as well. Those are the major heads of loss under the scheme and it is important to reflect the very different ways in which people were affected. It is also important to accept, as Sir Brian Langstaff set out, that a tariff-based scheme is crucial as well. That is to try to make this process as simple as the Government possibly can and to ensure people receive the justice they deserve.