Mike Wood MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 17 Dec 2025 · UK-EU Common Understanding Negotiations · Hansard source

  More

  We on the Opposition side of the House recognise the importance of giving young people educational opportunities, but it is vital— [ Interruption. ] Government Members clearly do not recognise the need for schemes to offer genuine value for money. The UK already had the opportunity to remain a member of Erasmus, but it was precisely because the Conservative Government recognised that the scheme did not offer value for money to the taxpayer that we chose not to. That is why the Conservative Government created the Turing scheme instead—a global programme for young people in the UK that did not require us, one-sidedly, to hand a blank cheque to Brussels. The Turing scheme delivered 43,000 placements around the world last year, 23,000 of which were to learners from disadvantaged backgrounds, at a cost of just over £100 million. Can the Minister confirm that his statement in no way undermines the future of the Turing scheme? Is that scheme guaranteed, or are those opportunities being sacrificed for a smaller number of opportunities available under Erasmus+? The Minister has confirmed that the UK will pay £570 million to rejoin Erasmus+. We understand that will be paid from existing budgets, but can he tell us where the money is coming from? Is that £570 million being added to the £6 billion special educational needs and disabilities black hole that the Office for Budget Responsibility identified in the education budget? Does the Minister expect more students to take part in the new scheme than the 10,000 previous participants in Erasmus+, or are we paying £570 million for essentially 10,000 placements a year? The Minister spoke about a fair contribution being a 30% discount. Of course, it is only a matter of weeks since the Government were briefing that a fair contribution would be a 50% discount. They clearly failed in those negotiations. Can the Minister assure us that while he says that he has a discount for the first year, a discount will be available in subsequent years? If those assurances have not yet been received and the EU does not offer a similar deal in future years, is he prepared to walk away? The Opposition have set out clear tests to ensure that the Government do not roll back on Brexit, including no backsliding on free movement. Can the Minister outline what protections will be put in place to ensure that rejoining Erasmus does not simply mean a return to free movement by the back door for young people? That is particularly important given his complete failure, when asked multiple times, to set out what size of cap he thinks would be appropriate for youth mobility. Rejoining Erasmus is the Government’s latest attempt to undo Brexit by stealth. That was clear from the outset of these negotiations, when the Government agreed to surrender UK fishing rights to the EU for 12 years, under the pretence that that would “pave the way for the UK defence industry to participate in the EU’s proposed new…defence fund”. Yet six months later that deal has collapsed after the EU’s extortionate demands for billions of pounds to join the fund, with no guarantee of any return on investment in the form of procurement. Can the Minister explain to our hard-working fishing industry why they will not be getting their fish back, even though that deal has fallen through? The British people made a clear decision to take back control in 2016. Despite the Government’s protestations, their approach shows an increasing disregard for that democratic decision.

• 11 Dec 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T4. The Minister knows the Westgate pub in her constituency well. It has seen its rateable value go up from £10,500 to £20,000, which means a rates rise of £2,400 once the temporary transitional relief expires. We know that Harrods is getting a £1 million business rate cut, so will the pubs and hospitality Minister stand up not only for her pubs, but for pubs across the country that have been hammered by these rises, by challenging the Chancellor to deliver on her claim of permanently lower business rate bills?

• 11 Dec 2025 · US National Security Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  The US strategy makes it even more important that the UK remains a cornerstone of European and global defence. With threats to us and our allies only growing, the Conservative party is clear that it would hit 3% of GDP on defence spending by the end of this Parliament. As it is abundantly clear that we need to step up against the threat posed by Russia, and that we need a Government who are serious about spending 3% of GDP on defence by the end of this Parliament, will the Minister confirm whether it is only the Government's ambition to reach 3%, or whether the Treasury has a funded plan to do so? The US strategy is particularly clear about the nature of the Chinese Communist party regime, whereas our Government seem to be going cap in hand to Beijing, asking it to bail out their failed economic policies. We have seen reports that the Government are likely to approve China’s super-embassy spy hub. Will the Minister confirm whether the US has expressed a concern to the Government about the potential approval of that application? On Ukraine, all of us want the war to end—it is an unjust and illegal war started by Putin—but an end to the conflict, or any potential settlement, has to involve the Ukrainian people, and secure justice and lasting peace for them. A lasting peace is not about ceding territory. Will the Minister therefore update the House on what specifically the UK Government are doing to leverage British influence, in Ukraine’s interests, at this critical time?

• 4 Dec 2025 · Digital ID Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  In October, the Prime Minister called a Downing Street press conference rather than come to this House so that he could tell the nation that digital ID will not be mandatory; it is just that people will not be able to get a job without one. What else will they not be able to do without this apparently voluntary digital ID? If people will not be allowed to get a job without digital ID, can the Minister confirm that they will also be unable to receive any benefits without it?

• 4 Dec 2025 · Digital ID Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister’s answer makes it clear that this announcement was not a policy—it was a late party conference stunt. The Government obviously have not thought it through; it is clear that the Prime Minister lacks the backbone to push back against officials who have taken this awful idea off the shelf once again. The truth is that this is a £1.8 billion solution in search of a problem. The Minister talks about illegal migration, but there is already a legal responsibility to carry out these checks, and the Home Office offers a reliable service. Can he tell us how many people who have passed the Home Office right-to-work check are later found to not have the right to work?

• 3 Dec 2025 · Draft Infected Blood Compensation Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak in support of these regulations, as we set out when the Paymaster General made his statement at the end of October. There are, of course, many things on which we disagree, but this is not one of them. The Opposition will not be confecting differences purely for political benefit when the reality is that there are no real differences of substance between the Government’s position and that of the Opposition, or indeed the previous Government, in this regard. We welcome the progress made by the Infected Blood Compensation Authority in processing the payments. Victims were told that compensation must be in place without delay, and that is starting to become a reality for those who were infected. Does the Minister have any updates on the likely timetable for compensation for affected people and the estates of those who sadly died before they were able to receive compensation? Has there been any change in that? In terms of the changes these regulations make, as I said at the end of October, we support the five recommendations that the Government are accepting and legislating on today. We welcome the Minister’s clarification that lifting the HIV start date means it will not matter at which point a victim was infected by HIV, if it was the result of treatment with infected blood or blood products that took place before 1 November 1985. I am fairly sure I know the answer to this, but can the Minister confirm that this is also the case for people who may have discovered or been informed at a much later date that they were infected, but for whom it is likely that the infection relates to blood products before the relevant date? Similarly, can the Minister confirm that no one who should be eligible will fall through the cracks because of earlier failures in record keeping? This is particularly relevant for those infected as children, whose medical records at that point might have been incomplete. We need to make sure that they do not miss out on the compensation that they need and deserve. The Minister will be aware of the representations of those who were deliberately infected with haemophilia as a result of studies and their anger over the levels of compensation for deliberate infection. Will the Minister, alongside Sir Brian, review whether the component for deliberate infection is appropriate? Finally, as we have said a number of times over the last year or so, many victims and their families still feel that they are in the dark, as was identified in the latest report from Sir Brian Langstaff. Will the Minister commit to a clear communication plan and work with IBCA to make sure that there are regular updates—that accessible guidance is provided, in plain English, so that those who ought to be eligible for compensation and their families can access the compensation that they need? There is little point in me detaining the Committee further; we will support these regulations.

• 1 Dec 2025 · Office for Budget Responsibility Forecasts · Hansard source

  More

  As the Chief Secretary to the Treasury will know, the “Ministerial Code” requires Ministers to be “as open as possible with Parliament and the public”. Exactly when did the Chief Secretary learn that the Chancellor did not face the shortfall that the Treasury was briefing to the press?

• 27 Nov 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  The Leader of the House will know from his own teaching experience that challenges faced by schools do not respect administrative boundaries. Dudley and Staffordshire schools in my constituency get hundreds of pounds less per pupil than the same pupils would attract if they went to neighbouring schools in Wolverhampton or Sandwell. Might we have a debate in Government time on the national school funding formula, so that we can ensure that all children get fair funding, wherever their school is?

• 27 Nov 2025 · Domestic Abuse: Children · Hansard source

  More

  It is a privilege to speak on behalf of the Opposition in this debate on such an important issue, and I join others in congratulating the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) on securing it. This is an area in which Parliament must work with clarity, evidence and determination. The stakes are high. Almost all of us will work with constituents who have children affected by domestic abuse, and sadly many of us will have family or friends who have been affected. One in five children in the UK experiences domestic abuse, and almost four in five children living in homes with domestic abuse are directly harmed by the perpetrator, on top of the harm of witnessing the abuse. According to the National Centre for Domestic Violence, more than 105,000 children live in homes assessed as high risk. Those figures should focus minds across all parties. As the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West said, the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 was introduced by the previous Government. I had the pleasure of serving on the Bill Committee for that genuinely groundbreaking legislation, which transformed the legal framework for tackling domestic abuse. The Act established a new statutory definition of domestic abuse in England and Wales, which recognises that abusive behaviour is not limited to physical violence but also includes emotional, controlling, coercive and economic abuse. As has been said, under section 3, children under 18 are explicitly recognised as victims if they see, hear, or experience the effects of, abuse against a related adult—for example, by witnessing abuse between their parents. Although abuse by or against children under 16 is treated under child protection law rather than domestic abuse laws, 16 to 18-year-olds may fall under both frameworks. The statutory definition was designed to ensure that domestic abuse is understood across all statutory agencies, as well as by the public, as unacceptable. It also provides operational clarity for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service in identifying and flagging domestic abuse cases, supported by Home Office statutory guidance. The Conservative Government commissioned the independent review of children’s social care, the report of which was published in May 2022 and highlighted gaps in support for children affected by domestic abuse. I am pleased that, building on that, this Government have rolled out the Families First partnership programme, which integrates family help and multi-agency child protection teams. The teams include social workers, family support workers and domestic abuse specialists, promoting early intervention and tailored support. The family courts are of course critical in safeguarding children where domestic abuse is involved, and the Conservative Government took several steps to address long-standing concerns. The 2020 report “Assessing Risk of Harm to Children and Parents in Private Law Children Cases” identified systemic failures, including a pro-contact culture, siloed working, adversarial processes and insufficient recognition of abuse. Of course we all want parents to be able to see their children, but we do not want children to be used as weapons in relationship breakdowns. The welfare of children has to come first; that must be the priority. In response to that report, barring orders were introduced under section 91A of the Children Act 1989 to prevent abusive parents from repeatedly returning to court. Pathfinder courts, piloted from March 2022, promote a much more investigative, child-focused approach, improving multi-agency collaboration, prioritising children’s voices and reducing conflict. I understand that the presumption of parental involvement is under review and is set to be repealed to ensure that child safety takes precedence. We obviously understand the reasons for that decision. The tragic case of Sara Sharif, which hon. Members have referred to, demonstrates the consequence of the disconnect between law and practice. Despite children being recognised as victims in their own right, the review shows how gaps in co-ordination, oversight and early intervention can still leave a child without the protection that they need. The recent child safeguarding practice review into that murder exposed a series of systemic failings. The findings underline issues that were not isolated to one local authority, but reinforce the need for wider action. A child cruelty register was first proposed by the Opposition during the Commons Committee stage of the Sentencing Bill. I thank the shadow Solicitor General, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant), for championing this issue so consistently and effectively. Although the amendment did not pass in the Commons, the concerns that it highlighted remain pressing, so the proposal must be examined again during the Bill’s Committee stage in the other place. The case of Tony Hudgell is a clear example of why such a mechanism continues to require serious consideration. Tony was just 41 days old when he was so severely abused by his birth parents that both his legs were later required to be amputated. His abusers received sentences of 10 years, of which they will serve eight. Once their licence period ends, there will be no ongoing monitoring or reporting requirements, despite the seriousness of their offence. We need a register to require individuals convicted of specified child cruelty offences, as well as those within the domestic abuse framework, to provide information to the police. That would allow that information to be retained and used to manage ongoing risk after the end of the formal sentence. It would operate in a similar way to the sex offenders register, and would ensure that offenders cannot evade oversight by changing identity, relocating or avoiding engagement with services. Evidence from police and practitioners shows that those who commit serious abuse often move across local authority boundaries or deliberately avoid contact with health and social care. A targeted, proportionate register could help to close a clear loophole in the system, and could increase our ability to protect and safeguard children’s welfare. We support reforms that are practical, evidence-based and focused squarely on preventing harm. The priority must be to ensure that children are visible to the systems designed to protect them and that professionals have the tools, information and statutory backing they need to intervene early and effectively. We therefore support improved information-sharing duties with clear accountability. We support enhanced multi-agency working, including consistent national standards, and we argue for the introduction of a child cruelty register. The Government recently announced that police and crime commissioner roles in England and Wales will be scrapped. That raises important questions about how continuity of support for victims, including children affected by domestic abuse, will be delivered during and after the transition. We would be grateful if the Government could confirm what measures they will put in place to ensure that the abolition of PCCs does not disrupt or weaken the support available to child victims of domestic abuse, and that existing services can continue to work seamlessly throughout the period of change. We must ensure that no child can disappear from view, and that known risks are managed effectively across agencies. Protecting children from domestic abuse requires consistent professional curiosity, coherent information sharing and reliable oversight mechanisms. The cases of Sara Sharif and Tony Hudgell illustrate different aspects of system failure—failure that Parliament has a duty to address. I look forward to working across the House to strengthen the measures that will be brought before us and ensure that our child protection system meets the standards that the public expect and that our children deserve.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Right to Trial by Jury · Hansard source

  More

  Or read the papers.

• 26 Nov 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  I do not think such declarations are in my current entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, but Members may wish to look at my historical declarations. I disclose that I have received some hospitality below the threshold from UKHospitality, the British Beer and Pub Association, the Campaign for Real Ale and the British Institute of Innkeeping. My hon. Friend is clearly right, although I think his figures are slightly out of date, because it is not 90,000 jobs that have been lost in hospitality; the latest figures from UKHospitality suggest that 111,000 jobs in hospitality have been lost since the Budget. As the Safeguarding Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), indicated earlier, these jobs ought to be an opportunity for social mobility. Instead, the Chancellor’s choices have been destroying those opportunities. The Budget, the measures that have been announced today and the taxes she has been piling on businesses and working people across the country will continue to destroy other opportunities, making our communities weaker, our economy poorer, and our families less well off.

• 26 Nov 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  This Budget underlines the cost of a Labour Government who are making bad choices that are hurting working people. Once again, the Government talk about growth, but it is clear that the biggest growth that will come from the Budget is in people’s tax bills. This is a Budget that takes £12 billion from people who work or who have spent most of their adult lives working hard and doing the right thing, and gives it to people on benefits. It doubles down on the mistakes that the Chancellor made in last year’s Budget that have killed jobs, damaged our high streets and made our country poorer. The proof is there for all to see in the OBR forecasts, which were helpfully published early. Unlike last year, when the Chancellor told the House that the OBR was going to back up her claims of a £22 billion black hole, but when we read the document it said nothing of the sort, today we could see the gaping chasm between the Chancellor’s claims and the reality contained in the report as she was delivering the Budget. The OBR is clear that it is downgrading growth forecasts not since Brexit or anything that happened under the last Government, but since March. These are downgrades under this Labour Chancellor, caused by this Labour Chancellor. The Chancellor boasted that this year’s projections increase expected growth to 1.5%, which is still less than was being predicted at the time of last year’s Budget when she told us that 2025 would see 2% growth, but she was silent about the growth forecasts being slashed for every subsequent year of the forecasting period. The OBR says that inflation will stay higher for longer. At a time when the cost of living is falling and inflation is at low levels in other countries, we are the outlier. That is the result of the Chancellor’s choices. It is clear that, despite the claims of the hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger) a few moments ago, debt will rise as a proportion of GDP, not fall. That is a direct result of the Chancellor’s extra borrowing. It is also clear that the OBR expects the cost of that borrowing to be higher—to cost the public purse more money each year. While long-term borrowing rates have fallen for most major economies since July last year, the rate that we must pay on UK Government bonds has risen.

• 26 Nov 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  I will make a little progress; I can see the time. The difference between 3% per year and 0.25% per year in growth in disposable income adds up to £2,700 less per family in disposable income because of the Chancellor’s choices. We needed a Budget for jobs, but instead this was a Budget about saving the Prime Minister’s job by giving his mutinous Back Benchers the welfare rises that he forced them to vote against just last year. If the Government really wanted to support jobs, they would have undone some of the damage that the Chancellor did last year, particularly on hospitality. A number of Members have raised the issue of hospitality and business rate reform. Before the election, the Chancellor was clear that business rates would be reformed, which meant that pubs, restaurants and cafés would have lower bills. Instead, the owners of cafés, pub landlords and restaurant owners saw their business rate bills more than double in April. We have heard today from the Chancellor that—because of the effects of revaluation and the fact that she has decided to go with a reduction of only 10p on the multiplier, instead of the 20p signalled when the Government introduced the legislation last year—when the new regime comes in, we will again see the bills for those pubs and cafés increasing, even though business rate bills have only just doubled. This is a bad deal for hospitality. It will have a devastating impact on our high streets, and it is made only worse by the decision of the Chancellor to increase alcohol duties. That will hit pubs again, and make it more difficult for our pubs, our bars and our responsibly licensed venues to compete with supermarkets piling them high and selling them cheap.

• 26 Nov 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. I would go slightly further and say that it is not about paying off the debt; it is purely about servicing additional borrowing. That has real consequences for working families. Perhaps the most concerning part of the OBR’s report is in paragraph 1.9, which says: “Growth in real household disposable income per person is projected to fall from 3 per cent” last year. It is falling not to 2%, or even to 1%, but to one quarter of one per cent on average for the next five years.

• 26 Nov 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  The number of jobs lost in hospitality since last year’s Budget, just over a year ago, exceeds 110,000 as a result of the Chancellor’s choices.

• 26 Nov 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  I think the hon. Lady is extremely brave to come to that point so early, given the levels that bonds are still trading at. The OBR report is clear that the extra cost of borrowing, which is not replicated in other major economies, amounts to an extra £3 billion a year by 2030—more than the OBR expected just in March. In short, we are paying what I understand the markets call a “moron premium” because of the Chancellor’s choices.

• 24 Nov 2025 · Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister agree that the information that came to light over the weekend seems to suggest that a very worrying bias has entered the decision-making process, and that this has cast a stain on Birmingham’s reputation as a welcoming city as well as raising serious questions about the senior leadership of West Midlands police ?

• 19 Nov 2025 · Businesses with Supply Chains in Great Britain · Hansard source

  More

  Article 16 of the Northern Ireland protocol says that where we experience diversion of trade, we may take unilateral action. The Secretary of State will be well aware that three reports in the past month have noticed significant trade diversion affecting trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Will he be clear with the House about just how much trade diversion he is willing to stomach before he uses the powers he has under article 16?

• 19 Nov 2025 · Draft Procurement Act 2023 (Specified International Agreements and Saving Provision) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for presenting the regulations. His Majesty’s official Opposition support them. Having, as the Minister said, concluded one agreement and very much supporting the second one, which really continues the international trade policy and trend of the previous Government, we certainly will not be dividing the Committee, but perhaps he can just set out the answers to a few questions about some details in the regulations. If we look at the particular regulation that underpins a lot of the regulation set out here, it generally appears quite technical, particularly in relation to definitions and cross-references. Will the Minister therefore confirm that these measures do not constitute a material policy shift and that the Government have assessed that the changes do not create any unintended consequences for contracting authorities or potential bidders? On potential bidders, how do the Government intend any changes within the regulations to be communicated to suppliers and potential suppliers based in the UK? When will any updated guidance following from the regulations be published? We are particularly concerned about any impact—not that we expect there to be any dramatic impact—on small and medium-sized enterprises or small employers. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that SMEs and microbusinesses in particular can navigate without an increased administrative burden any transition in the procurement systems covered by the regulations? Have stakeholders been consulted on whether further clarity is required, particularly for SMEs, charities and the voluntary sector suppliers that may be affected? The regulations are technical, but of course they are important for the integrity of the procurement system, so clarity and consistency remain essential both for contracting authorities and for the many businesses—especially smaller suppliers—that rely on predictable and understandable rules. Therefore, I look forward to the Minister’s responses and to ensuring that these amendments support a smooth and proportionate transition to the new procurement regime as it relates to Kazakhstan and Iraq. There is little further for me to say. We will be supporting the regulations.

• 19 Nov 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q13. Everyone who cares about media independence and freedom will be relieved that RedBird has recognised that it cannot run The Telegraph , but there are serious concerns that it will burden the paper with unsustainable debt if the title is sold for less than half a billion pounds. Will the Prime Minister step in to prevent this from happening and enable a sale, at a lower price if necessary, without this toxic debt burden?

• 17 Nov 2025 · Legal Immigration: Statutory Annual Cap · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister not recognise that an important step towards significantly reducing net migration would be to make it clear to all those working in his Department or handling migration that there is a number that everyone is working towards? If that is the case, surely Members of this House should be able to vote on that binding cap, as happens successfully in countries such as Australia.

• 17 Nov 2025 · Legal Immigration: Statutory Annual Cap · Hansard source

  More

  12. What assessment her Department has made of the potential merits of introducing a statutory annual cap on levels of legal immigration.

• 3 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Bill is the result of decades of campaigning and struggle by families fighting for answers. The thoughts and hearts of all of us in this House, regardless of party affiliation, are with the 97 victims of the Hillsborough disaster and their families. The tireless work of those families is ultimately responsible for uncovering the truth about Hillsborough and delivering an element of justice for the victims, whose memory was tarnished by the unwillingness of some individuals in authority to tell the truth. The Bill is also testament to the valuable work done by Bishop James Jones and his independent panel, for which we are truly thankful. The Bill is in no small part down to the effective campaigning of the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne); he has fought for those who joined him in going to Hillsborough on that terrible day in April 1989, but who lost their life, due to the terrible decisions made by the stadium operators and South Yorkshire police. Hillsborough stands as one of the most obvious and harrowing examples of the British state’s failure to remain accountable, truthful and candid. Unfortunately, it is not the only such example in recent years. We have had the Post Office Horizon scandal, the infected blood scandal, the families of pub bombing victims in Birmingham and Guildford denied justice following police misconduct, and the failure of the British state to properly acknowledge and tackle the rape and grooming gangs that have terrorised communities across the country. Each and every one of these failures undermines the British public’s faith in their Government, and each was a scandal made worse by institutions’ attempts to hide from responsibility, and to put their reputations and interests ahead of transparency and justice in the clearest possible examples of abuse of power. Calls for greater candour and accountability are legitimate and welcome; those of us in this place must always remember that our sole duty is to serve the interests of the British people and to do right by them. I thank all those hon. and right hon. Members who have contributed to this Second Reading. I welcome the Prime Minister’s confirmation that the Government will table an amendment to extend the duty of candour to cover local inquiries, which was a clear gap in the Bill as introduced. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) spoke about the often heard cry of “never again”. We must make sure that when this Bill enters the statute books, it turns that cry into a reality. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) expressed legitimate concerns about the effectiveness and administration of some public inquiries, and I know those concerns are shared by some Ministers in the Government. The hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) spoke about the need for a change in culture that goes beyond legislation, so that taking responsibility, rather than covering up failings, becomes the norm, and not just a legal requirement. The hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) reminded us of the outrageous experimentation on disabled pupils at Treloar school and the lengths that authorities went to hide responsibility. Hopefully some of the Bill’s measures will be of some help to those pupils. The hon. Members for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge), for Glasgow East (John Grady) and for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale) spoke movingly about how failings in the NHS were made worse by a lack of openness, and about families simply not feeling heard. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) reminded us of the long battle fought by nuclear test veterans. As noble as this Bill’s intentions may be, we must be ever vigilant for the unintended consequences of well-intended laws. As this Bill proceeds through the House, we will scrutinise it closely to minimise the harms that may arise. In particular, we must make sure that the Bill does not inadvertently create a situation in which Government and public services can no longer function effectively, not because they are falling foul of the Bill, but because they fear that they may fall foul of it if its provisions are applied in ways that the Government did not intend. We must clarify how this Bill will interface with legal and disciplinary frameworks, including the civil service code. We must clarify how new standards of ethical conduct will interface with those and other frameworks, and we must have a clear definition of what it means to mislead the public. Under the Bill, that charge of misleading the public carries a criminal sanction. We obviously recognise some of the safeguards that have been included, but they are not as tightly defined as they might be. If politicians are to be able to represent the public effectively, we must be absolutely certain that this definition is watertight, because otherwise the Bill may give rise to a situation whereby legitimate decisions made by Ministers are subject to politically motivated lawfare. We rightly expect our parliamentarians, officials and Ministers to speak honestly, truthfully and with integrity, whether in the Chamber or outside, but clause 11(3)(a), by defining dishonesty in terms of “falsehood, concealment, obfuscation or otherwise”, risks leaving Prime Ministers, other Ministers and even constituency MPs at constant risk of vexatious complaints. We may differ about the adequacy, and even the accuracy, of some of the responses that the Prime Minister gives us at Prime Minister’s questions, but those disagreements must be a matter for the ballot box rather than the courtroom. We must also have a clear definition of the public interest, which is the idea on which so much of the Bill rests. In our political system, the public interest is not for bureaucrats or judges to decide. The public express their will through the democratic process, and elect Members of Parliament to implement that will on their behalf. Can the Government be sure that the definition of the public interest in the Bill will not conflict with efforts made by future Governments to implement those democratic wishes? It would be profoundly dangerous for any single Government to attempt to define the public interest in a way that would bind future Governments without giving sufficient weight to the role that the public themselves play in determining and articulating that interest. At their best, public inquiries offer opportunities to genuinely learn rather than to seek retribution; to establish what happened and how, so that action can be taken to stop such events being repeated, more harm being done to more people, more lives being lost unnecessarily, and more futures being stolen away, so that the oft-repeated words “never again”, of which the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough spoke so well, can actually have some meaning. However, that can only happen with honesty, openness and a degree of trust—in short, with candour from all those involved. If this Bill can help to achieve that, it is well worth supporting. That is why, although we will work to tighten some parts at later stages to ensure that it operates properly, we will support it tonight.

• 30 Oct 2025 · Infected Blood Compensation Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his statement and for advance sight of it—although just under an hour is not a lot of time to digest 75 pages of documentation, so I will do my best. I join the Minister in acknowledging the work done by Sir Brian Langstaff and his inquiries, as well as the serious improvement in the pace of payments that IBCA has made in recent months. We thank Sir Robert Francis, David Foley, and all their team at IBCA. On behalf of the Opposition, I welcome the measures that the Minister has announced that implement some of Sir Brian’s recommendations from the additional report, particularly those dealing with HIV eligibility start dates, the deeming of severity bands, evidence of the date of diagnosis, affected estates, and bereaved partner support scheme payments. Turning to the recommendations relating to hepatitis, we of course welcome confirmation that the Government will remove the earnings floor on the supplementary route exceptional loss award. However, I did not hear any specific reference in the Minister’s statement to measures to address recommendation 4(c) of the original report, which deals with effective treatment. Perhaps the Minister could set out how the Government intend to give effect to that recommendation. Similarly, could he set out what measures the Government are taking—beyond the appointment of the new members of the technical expert group that he has announced—in response to recommendation 2(e), which deals with the transparency of scheme design? That is particularly important in light of the inquiry’s worrying finding that victims did not feel that they were being listened to. I now turn to the recommendations that the Government did not feel able to accept immediately. I welcome the fact that the Minister is consulting on a way forward on those issues; clearly, as I have said, there is a need for transparency and proper consultation. The consultation period will last until the end of January next year. We recognise that there is little that the Minister can do about that clearly defined period, but given the need to address these measures without undue delay, will he ensure that once that consultation period closes, the Government respond swiftly to the consultation paper and introduce any necessary further regulations with maximum speed, so that this House can consider any further measures that are necessary? More broadly, how are the Government applying the lessons learned from the implementation of payment schemes for people infected to better inform the operation of payments to people affected and to their estates, as he referred to in his statement? What action is the Minister taking with the independent IBCA to ensure that the pace of payments, which has seen welcome progress, continues to accelerate and is not jeopardised by changes to rules and processes? As I said, Sir Brian’s inquiries have done incredible and invaluable work to give a voice to those who have battled so courageously against decades of injustice, and to ensure that victims and their families have some remedy, although clearly no amount of money can ever reverse the terrible harm done by this scandal over many years. The recommendations in the additional report that Sir Brian published shortly before the summer are an invaluable contribution. Looking forward, there will need to be a degree of policy certainty as we move from a period of review to one of rectification and delivery. That is one reason that the cross-party work, both before and since the election, has been so important to give confidence and certainty. Looking ahead, does the Minister have any indication as to when we might expect the inquiry to draw to a close, and what might the mechanism be for doing so?

• 29 Oct 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr Speaker. The triple lock was a great achievement of the previous Government, and we will be keeping it. From April, pensioners with private pensions as low as £2 a month will be paying income tax for the first time. At last year’s Budget, the Chancellor was clear that extending the freeze on personal allowances would breach Labour’s manifesto commitment. Will the Prime Minister prove the media speculation wrong, keep his promise and guarantee that there will be no extension to the freeze on personal allowances?