Mike Wood MP: speeches

Speeches

• 15 Sept 2026 · Sepsis Awareness Month · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered World Sepsis Awareness Month. As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on sepsis, I would like to begin by expressing my gratitude to the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for this debate. To the best of my knowledge, this is the very first debate in the House of Commons Chamber dedicated to sepsis. In the past, this devastating condition has been discussed only in Westminster Hall debates or raised through brief interventions and questions. Having sepsis debated on the Floor of the main Chamber during Sepsis Awareness Month is a major milestone, not only for Parliament but for the clinicians, charities and bereaved families across the country who have campaigned tirelessly to bring this condition out of the shadows. I would also like to thank the co-sponsors of this debate: the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson), who cannot be here this afternoon but who led an important Westminster Hall debate on this subject two years ago, and the hon. Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson), vice-chair of the APPG. Sepsis strikes indiscriminately, ruthlessly and with terrifying speed, without regard for background, class or, indeed, political allegiance. It is vital that we all stand united in our determination to tackle this deadly condition. It is a challenge that completely transcends party politics. On Sunday, communities across the world marked World Sepsis Day. The international theme for this year could not be more apt: “Invest in Sepsis—Save Lives.” The World Health Organisation recognises sepsis as one of the leading causes of death and disability globally, estimating that sepsis-related illnesses account for one in every five deaths worldwide. In the United Kingdom, NHS England has made it clear that sepsis claims more lives each year than lung cancer and represents the second biggest killer in our hospitals after cardiovascular disease. Every single year, an estimated 245,000 people in the UK develop sepsis and, tragically, more than 48,000 lose their lives. That is a higher annual death toll than bowel, breast and prostate cancers combined. Behind every one of those figures is a family left grieving and asking the same agonising question: what if? What if the symptoms had been recognised an hour earlier? What if antibiotics had been administered sooner? What if someone had simply asked, “Could it be sepsis?”? Madam Deputy Speaker, as you know, I do not approach this debate purely as a parliamentarian dispassionately analysing policy responses to one of the leading causes of avoidable death. I stand in this Chamber today because almost a decade ago, by the grace of God and the extraordinary skill and care of NHS staff, my life was saved. In January 2017, I was a relatively fit and active 40-year-old Member of Parliament. I had developed what I assumed was merely a winter infection. Like many people would, I assumed that I could push through it, take some paracetamol and carry on working. I travelled out to Strasbourg to take part in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on the Sunday evening, but within days my condition collapsed. An ordinary throat infection triggered a catastrophic immune response. My body, in attempting to fight the infection, began attacking its own tissues and organs. By Thursday, after seeing a French GP, I flew back to Britain. On Friday, I attended the official launch of the local enterprise zone that I had campaigned hard for in my constituency, but as soon as I arrived there I was so ill that I had to rest in the back room. On Saturday morning, I got out of bed, started putting my suit on over my pyjamas and told my wife Laura that I had to come down to Westminster to vote. Like many in politics, my behaviour can at times appear to some people to be a little idiosyncratic; fortunately, Laura realised that, even for a Member of Parliament, that was not entirely normal behaviour. Laura rushed me to Russells Hall hospital in Dudley, where my blood pressure plummeted into septic shock and my organs began shutting down. My life was hanging by a thread. The medical team had to place me in a medically induced coma. Doctors told my family that my chances of pulling through were no better than one in 10. For 11 days, I lay in intensive care on life support—or, as my family sometimes remind me, I slept through the difficult bits. When I did finally wake up, my muscles had wasted away—I could barely lift my arms, let alone stand or walk—but it could easily have been so much worse. What if Laura had left me to get some rest that Saturday morning while she took our daughter to her dance class? Above all, what if the nurse who examined me at the accident and emergency department had not had the insight to check whether the symptoms, which could easily have been mistaken for other illnesses such as flu or meningitis, might be sepsis? I owe a debt of gratitude to the doctors, intensive care nurses and other staff at Russells Hall hospital that I can never repay, but as long as I have the honour of serving in this House, I will use my voice to fight for sepsis patients and their families. There is a common misconception that sepsis is primarily the result of hospital-acquired infection, but the evidence demonstrates the exact opposite. A major 2024 population study led by Professor van Staa, analysing linked primary care and hospital data in England, showed that the vast majority of sepsis cases are community acquired, developing in homes, workplaces and local communities long before a patient reaches an acute hospital bed. That research also uncovered deep health inequalities in sepsis risk. The risk of developing sepsis is significantly heightened by socioeconomic deprivation, by frailty, by being housebound and by chronic conditions such as cancer, diabetes and learning disabilities. Exposure to antibiotics in the previous two months was also identified as a strong risk factor. While ethnicity was not an independent biological factor, black and Asian individuals suffer from a higher prevalence of predisposing conditions including diabetes, chronic liver disease and severe anaemia, which puts them at a greater risk, so tackling sepsis is not merely a technical, clinical issue but a fundamental challenge of health inequality and community prevention. One of the most critical clinical lessons learned in recent years is the direct link between viral infections and sepsis. For decades, the public and the medical community viewed sepsis almost exclusively as a bacterial complication, but the covid-19 pandemic demonstrated that viral infections can trigger the exact same catastrophic septic response. The overwhelming cytokine storms, microvascular clotting and rapid progression to acute respiratory distress syndrome and multi-organ failure seen in covid intensive care units are classic manifestations of viral sepsis. It is thought by many experts in the field that the vast majority of covid deaths were a direct result of septic reactions. Sepsis is not defined by the pathogen; it is defined by the body’s life-threatening immune reaction to any severe infection, whether bacterial, viral or fungal. That reality extends directly into long-term recovery: millions who had covid-19 are still living with long covid. Sepsis survivors have known that reality for generations under the name of post-sepsis syndrome. In my case, it is little more than some nerve damage and tiredness, even a decade later, but for many the symptoms are more severe. Up to 50% of sepsis survivors suffer prolonged physical, cognitive and psychological impairments from debilitating fatigue and cognitive brain fog to severe muscle weakness and post-traumatic stress disorder. The clinical insights gained from viral sepsis during the pandemic must now be used to build integrated recovery pathways for all sepsis survivors. To curb preventable deaths, a health system must act decisively in several areas; in the interests of time, I will go through just four. First, the system must ensure consistent rapid recognition. Time is the single most decisive factor in sepsis survival. Clinical research shows that administering appropriate antibiotics within the first hour of a patient presenting to an emergency department with sepsis reduces the risk of death by a full one third compared with delayed treatment. Secondly, the system must ensure that where sepsis is suspected, appropriate clinical escalation pathways are in place. Where sepsis is suspected, early warning systems such as the national early warning score 2, or NEWS2, have saved countless lives, and the ongoing roll-out of Martha’s rule across NHS trusts, which has already saved thousands of lives, is vital in ensuring that patients and loved ones can trigger an immediate independent critical review when they sense deterioration. Thirdly, we must take advantage of innovation in rapid diagnostics. We know that administering broad-spectrum antibiotics within the golden hour that I spoke of massively increases survival rates, but clinicians often face the dilemma of judging whether that is compatible with responsible antimicrobial stewardship. Deploying rapid molecular diagnostics, bedside biomarker technologies and wearable continuous physiological monitors can remove that guesswork, and provide targeted care before septic shock takes hold and it can be too late. Fourthly, although Britain has in many ways led the way in developing and enhancing sepsis care and treatment, we must be open to learning from established international models and practices. Sweden utilises standard sepsis alerts to prioritise patients at triage, and implements mandatory post-discharge telephone follow-ups. France, where I was when I was taken ill, has since introduced an integrated national sepsis plan spanning pre-hospital recognition, emergency pathways and structured rehabilitation to help patients return to employment. Australia established a national sepsis clinical care standard built around seven quality statements, ensuring end-to-end consistency from triage through to survivorship. The publication in July of the sepsis modern service framework by NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care is an important step towards doing that and learning the lessons from around the world; I warmly welcome it. The framework is one of the first to be published under the 10-year health plan. Its headline goal, “to reduce deaths, severe complications and long-term harm from sepsis…by at least 25% by 2035” is a target that every member of this House can endorse.

• 15 Sept 2026 · Sepsis Awareness Month · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady makes a really important point. We know how these conditions can come round in a cycle. In order to break that cycle, we will need multiple years of vaccination. The modern service framework contains a number of vital commitments, but I particularly welcome: action 4 on improving the audit and feedback of sepsis-related clinical data across trusts; action 5 on updating training for NHS staff, social care workers and unpaid carers; action 9 on optimising care pathways and expanding access to rapid diagnostics and specialist advice; action 11 on standardising digital specifications for early warning systems such as NEWS2; and action 12 on reviewing and addressing capacity gaps in critical and enhanced care. A strategy on paper will not be enough to save a deteriorating patient on a cold winter weekend in an overcrowded emergency department. In the other place, my noble friend and our former colleague Lord Mackinlay of Richborough, who has spoken with enormous courage about his own life-altering encounter with sepsis, has repeatedly tabled written questions seeking clarity on how this framework will be delivered. Regrettably, the answers provided by Ministers in the Lords to date have been rather generic and vague, and lacking in operational detail. We cannot accept boilerplate responses on a condition that kills 48,000 people each year, so I have two direct questions that I hope the Minister will answer in her response to today’s debate. First, what are the specific milestone-driven timelines for the delivery of each of the actions set out in the modern service framework, and when will trusts and integrated care boards be expected to have these standardised pathways fully operational? Secondly, can the Minister assure the House that the Department of Health and Social Care is prepared to commit the dedicated investment required to make this framework work? When we call for investment, we must be clear that funding sepsis care is not an open-ended cost. It is one of the most cost-effective investments that the Department can make. Sepsis currently places an enormous financial burden on the national health service and the wider economy. Too often, cases of missed or delayed diagnosis and treatment result in weeks of high-cost intensive care unit admissions, in emergency readmissions due to incomplete recovery, in complex surgical interventions including amputations requiring lifelong prosthetic and social care support, or in the permanent loss of working-age adults from the workforce. Investing in rapid bedside diagnostics, digital early warning systems, specialist outreach teams and structured post-sepsis rehabilitation can dramatically reduce the lengths of stay in intensive care, lower readmission rates and keep people in work. Early intervention is not only clinically imperative; it is economically sound, and the theme “Invest in sepsis—save lives” is a call for smart preventive healthcare investment.

• 15 Sept 2026 · Sepsis Awareness Month · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. Of course, some infections are almost unavoidable, but where infections such as UTIs can clearly be reduced with the right care and precautions, we must do everything we can to reduce those risks. Every Member in this Chamber has constituents whose lives have been permanently transformed by sepsis. Some Members have been directly impacted or have watched as close family and friends have encountered sepsis. We know the speed with which it strikes, but we also know that with early detection, immediate treatment and high quality critical care, thousands of lives can be saved. We have the clinical evidence and we have the modern service framework. What we now need is clear delivery timelines, rigorous parliamentary accountability and the necessary financial backing to make this ambition a reality. If the Minister can deliver this and provide the resources and tools that the NHS needs to implement it, the modern service framework truly can be a turning point in the fight against this silent killer and the battle to save thousands of lives.

• 15 Sept 2026 · Sepsis Awareness Month · Hansard source

  More

  I thank all hon. Members who contributed to the debate. The hon. Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) spoke movingly about his constituent John. I was particularly pleased to hear how well he is now doing since recovering and about the support his family received from the community—in particular the work that Dartford working men’s club is doing in the community. If we are to really increase awareness so that people understand both the science and the risks of sepsis, it cannot be left to the NHS alone. It really does need to be a full community effort, so it is great to hear that the working men’s club is taking a lead. He also, rightly, spoke about the importance of data. Part of the problem is inconsistency in reporting sepsis cases. That makes it so difficult to have a meaningful figure for the number of cases, deaths and serious disabilities as a result of sepsis. We really need more consistency in the way that is coded, as well as a guide to best practice. I join the Minister in offering my condolences to the hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) on the sad loss of her mother; it must have been an unbearably difficult time. She also spoke about her constituent Kelly, and gave us the very important message that different people experience sepsis very differently, both in terms of outcomes and the lasting impact, as well as the nature of their sepsis. We heard important interventions from the hon. Members for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade), for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) and for Wolverhampton North East (Sureena Brackenridge). The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), referred to the force of nature that is Ron Daniels, who has done so much to push sepsis up the public agenda, and to change the way that the NHS understands and responds to sepsis. We all owe him a huge debt. The shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), spoke about how notoriously difficult sepsis is to diagnose, and about the issues around prenatal strep and the additional work that needs to be done in both understanding and responding to the sepsis that arises. I thank the Minister for the kind words she offered to me, and for the spirit of her response, particularly around the implementation plan and funding. She rightly referred to Martha’s rule, and the importance of ensuring that families, who know their children better than anyone else, are allowed to insist on an independent second opinion if they feel that there has been a deterioration in condition. I will briefly thank the many campaigners who have worked so hard on this issue—often because, sadly, they or a member of their family has been affected. They are too numerous to name, but I will mention the incredible work done by Harry Redknapp, who works tirelessly, and often without an awful lot of publicity and credit, to raise awareness of sepsis following his wife Sandra’s illness—I think he was in the jungle on “I’m a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here!” when she was taken ill. Harry does so much incredible work voluntarily. Researchers and charities do incredible work, including Sepsis Research, and particularly the UK Sepsis Trust—both Ron Daniels and Sarah Hamilton-Fairley have helped to keep the issue rising to the level of importance it deserves. I thank all Members for the valuable contributions they have made today, and I look forward to holding the Minister to account as she delivers on the modern service framework. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered World Sepsis Awareness Month.

• 10 Sept 2026 · No. 10 North · Hansard source

  More

  We have heard again what we have had in response to a number of written questions. The Minister either does not know or will not tell us how much No. 10 North will cost, how many people work there and how many of them actually turn up to work—it is almost as though this has not been properly thought through. Does the Minister understand why, with so little information and so little transparency, so many people feel that this is a gimmick rather than a strategy?

• 10 Sept 2026 · No. 10 North · Hansard source

  More

  We would not have had to table so many written questions if Ministers had actually answered our first question, instead of expecting us to come up with precisely the right form of words to leave them with no way of getting out. Surely it cannot be right that it requires a freedom of information request to discover how much it costs for a replica door at No. 10 North, but the Minister refuses to answer legitimate parliamentary scrutiny. Will the Minister at least—if he does have this information, which the Department surely does—finally commit to publishing the total budget for No. 10 North, the number of staff and special advisers who are going to work there, and attendance statistics?

• 2 Sept 2026 · EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler, and to respond on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition. I congratulate the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) on securing this debate, but I am sure it will come as no surprise to him or other hon. Members that we see the legacy of the 2016 referendum, and indeed the path forward for our country, through a very different lens. Listening to the hon. Gentleman, one might almost assume that the United Kingdom was a sunlit, frictionless economic Shangri-La until a single ballot paper cast us into eternal ruin. He told us, echoed by other hon. Members, that leaving the European Union uniquely crippled our economy and that our only salvation lies in surrendering sovereignty through the Government’s grandly titled EU reset, or perhaps going further. That entire narrative collapses under the weight of hard economic reality. First, let us examine the great myth of the EU single market as an automatic engine of export growth. Ministers speak of the single market as if it were a place where magic happens, but if there was magic, the UK was firmly in the audience wondering when the rabbit would emerge from the hat. As former Trade and Industry Secretary Lord Lilley demonstrated in his Policy Exchange paper earlier this year, during our entire 28-year membership of the single market, from 1992, UK goods exports to our EU partners grew by less than 1% per year, but over that exact same period our goods exports to the 111 countries with which we traded on standard World Trade Organisation terms grew by 87%. In fact, according to the European Commission’s own single market scoreboard, the UK was the member state that benefited least from the goods single market. Rejoining that regulatory straitjacket in pursuit of export growth is the pure triumph of hope over experience. Secondly, we must address the sheer statistical alchemy deployed by advocates of rejoining. Several speakers have brandished a non-peer-reviewed National Bureau of Economic Research working paper that claims that Brexit cost the UK up to 8% of GDP, but let us look at how the model has constructed that parallel universe. It created a statistical doppelganger proxy that was dominated by the United States and Estonia, which between them provide almost three quarters of the entire weighting for the alternative proxies—apparently—for where the UK could have been without Brexit. It assumed that, had we remained in the EU, the UK would have miraculously mirrored the American economic performance. To attribute that divergence to Brexit requires an extraordinary leap of imagination. It requires one to pretend that there was no US artificial intelligence boom, no massive American fiscal stimulus—which was possible because the dollar is the world’s reserve currency—no transatlantic shale gas price advantage, no differing pandemic shock, and no North sea oil rundown. In fact, Germany fell 8% behind the same arbitrary index under that model, so unless German departure from the EU has passed us by unnoticed, blaming that divergence on Brexit is simply economic nonsense. When we examine the actual data, rather than econometric fairy tales, the evidence is clear. Between 2016 and 2025, the UK economy grew by 12.2%, and by 5.3% since we formally left, outpacing the European G7 average. Since Brexit, British economic growth has averaged 1.1% per annum, compared with just 0.1% for Germany. As hon. Members have mentioned, the Office for Budget Responsibility previously assumed an implausible 15% collapse in total UK global trade openness, but as its own November 2025 briefing conceded, UK trade intensity has remained stable at around 65% of GDP and has continued to track peer economies such as France. The single market was overwhelmingly designed for goods, but more than 80% of the UK economy is based on services. Our services exports continue to boom globally. Even the dire predictions of a mass exodus from the City of London proved dramatically overblown. Institutions such as JP Morgan, which had threatened to move thousands of jobs abroad, have instead been transferring staff back from Paris to London. Although business investment was undeniably delayed during the post-2016 political paralysis, dragged out by those trying to overturn the referendum, fixed investment to GDP rebounded, reaching 19.6% by the end of last year.

• 2 Sept 2026 · EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK · Hansard source

  More

  If we chart it over the last two decades, particularly against German performance, on almost any economic chart we look at, it would be almost impossible to pick out the point at which the UK left the European Union. It is impossible to say from looking at those charts that our economy has grown more slowly than Germany’s, because it has not; it has grown more quickly. Our trade has not been disrupted more than Germany’s— [ Interruption. ] It really has not; they track almost identically across that chart. Thirdly, where Britain is succeeding, we are doing so precisely because of our post-Brexit freedoms. The UK digital and tech flat white economy now represents about 15% of GDP—larger than the entire domestic goods sector. As the Growth Commission highlighted, our tech sector is flourishing and leading Europe in artificial intelligence, precisely because it is unburdened by Brussels’ heavy-handed Digital Markets Act, Digital Services Act and restrictive AI Act. Instead of backing British enterprise, the Government are proposing to pursue unilateral dynamic alignment, shackling the 92% of British firms that do not trade with the EU to Brussels’s rulebook, surrendering our precision breeding advantages and hiking domestic carbon costs by linking our emissions trading scheme, which threaten to add up to £100 per tonne to fertiliser prices at a time when they are already crippling British farmers, while paying administrative fees to Brussels for the privilege. That is an astonishingly one-sided bargain, a masterclass in the art of the bad deal. The lesson of the past 10 years is that national prosperity is built by businesses working across the UK, not subcontracted to the EU. The economic catastrophe prophesied in 2016 simply did not occur.

• 2 Sept 2026 · EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK · Hansard source

  More

  I will give way briefly, as I am drawing to a close.

• 2 Sept 2026 · EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK · Hansard source

  More

  It is one thing to look back over the past 10 years, but I hope the hon. Gentleman will excuse me if I plead that I was taking GCSEs in 1992 rather than paying attention to what John Major was doing. The next Conservative Government should certainly look at how to take better advantage of the freedoms available outside the European Union, because there are many opportunities. His Majesty’s Opposition will continue to champion our regulatory freedom, to back British innovation and resist any attempt to drag this country back into the EU’s regulatory orbit.

• 8 Jul 2026 · Community Cohesion · Hansard source

  More

  The attempted murder of Stephen Ogilvie in Belfast last month shocked people throughout the country. The man accused of this horrific attack is thought to have crossed into Northern Ireland illegally from the south. People from all communities are asking what more can be done to prevent people from coming into the UK illegally across that land border. Following the terrible events in Belfast last month, will the Government commit to significantly enhanced operations on the border, similar to those already run by the Republic?

• 7 Jul 2026 · Early Release of Prisoners · Hansard source

  More

  claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36). Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put. Question agreed to. Main Question accordingly put.

• 6 Jul 2026 · Civil Service Pensions · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. Nobody in this House should be in any doubt about the anxiety and hardship being felt by retired public servants and the grieving families left stranded by this operational collapse. We are talking about more than 6,700 outstanding pension quotations and more than 4,100 unresolved bereavement cases. These are not mere statistics; they represent vulnerable individuals who have been left facing severe financial distress. Let us be completely clear about where responsibility for this ongoing execution failure lies. The Minister can look backwards to November 2023 all he likes, but the critical transition phase, the data quality integration and the system go-live occurred on this Government’s watch and, more specifically, on his watch. The timeline of unheeded warnings is damning. Throughout 2025, both the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee explicitly flagged that Capita was missing critical transition milestones and IT delivery targets, yet despite these clear red flags, the Cabinet Office chose to override the warnings, accepted flawed assurances and pressed ahead with the December go-live. The contract management failure belongs entirely to those on the Government Front Bench. Alarmingly, despite the establishment of the Minister’s flagship pensions recovery taskforce, the situation is deteriorating in key areas. The Minister has just admitted that the backlog of MP complaints has grown significantly under his watch, going from 1,500 to more than 1,900 outstanding constituent cases since the end of April—barely nine weeks ago—and it is getting worse. Worse still, instead of focusing purely on immediate operational rectification, the Minister is using this crisis as an ideological springboard to flip to default insourcing. I am agnostic on whether the scheme is provided in-house or externally, but there is little in the Government’s record to suggest that they are capable of running this scheme any less incompetently than the current operators. Retired civil servants do not need a lecture on procurement ideology; they need their pensions sorted today. The Minister must answer four specific questions. First, given that the Public Accounts Committee explicitly warned of the Capita IT system’s unreadiness last October, what independent technical verification did the Cabinet Office conduct before Ministers allowed the December go-live to proceed? Secondly, the Minister noted that the 140-strong Government surge team are costing significant resource. Although he intends to recover the costs from the £9.9 million withheld from Capita, will he guarantee that any remaining funds will be legally diverted into an immediate compensation scheme for those affected and for grieving families who have suffered real financial detriment? Thirdly, the Minister expressed deep frustration at Capita’s wider public sector footprint. The Procurement Act 2023 is fully active, and it established a centralised debarment list specifically to stop failing legacy suppliers winning further public work. Will the Minister commit at the Dispatch Box to formally referring Capita to the Debarment Review Service for investigation, or will he allow it to continue bidding for other contracts while he waits until 2027 to implement his insourcing reviews? If the threshold is not met in this case, where will the Minister consider it appropriate to use the powers that he has? Finally, given the Minister’s conclusion that Capita has always been an unsuitable operator of the scheme, can he tell the House why the current Government chose to award Capita the new Department for Work and Pensions contract—not in 2023, but this February? Public servants who have dedicated their working lives to this country deserve financial security and dignity. They have been let down by corporate failure, as the Minister says, but they are also being let down by this Government’s failure to manage the contract when it matters the most. It is time for the Minister to stop blaming the past, stop pitching future ideological tests, and finally fix the operational reality on the ground.

• 6 Jul 2026 · Payment Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  I could not agree more. It is particularly important that infected and affected victims and their families, who for many, many years were not listened to, heard or believed, and who faced officials who denied what all the evidence later proved to be the case, now feel that they are being treated with respect and sensitivity. Thirdly, will the Minister clarify further, as I asked earlier, how the Government will communicate the broader changes to victims and their families in plain English, rather than simply relying on the legal and technical language in the draft regulations? Finally, what appeal or review mechanisms will be available if individuals believe that their reward has been calculated incorrectly or does not reflect their full circumstances? The Opposition strongly support the regulations, which build on work that has proceeded through this House with support from across the Chamber, and continue work that began before the last election. We recognise that they contain changes that many victims and families will welcome. I am sure that the Minister will agree that our responsibility as Parliament, and his as a Minister, does not end with the passing of statutory instruments. It ends only when victims and their families have received the recognition, justice and compensation that they have waited decades to secure. This scandal was defined by delay, denial and institutional failure, and the compensation scheme must not be defined by the same failings. The regulations are a strong and positive step towards ensuring that that is not the case, but the Government must now deliver them with urgency, transparency and humanity. That is the very least that victims and their families deserve after all this time.

• 6 Jul 2026 · Payment Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  I would like to start by thanking the Paymaster General for bringing forward these important regulations and also to say thank you to the former Minister for Public Health, the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), for her valuable work when she was in office. This debate takes place in the shadow of one of the gravest injustices in modern British history. The infected blood scandal caused unimaginable harm, with lives lost, families devastated, careers destroyed, potential never realised, children robbed of parents and many victims forced to fight for decades just for recognition and to be heard. Compensation is not a gift from the state; it is a duty owed to those who were failed by the state. That duty must be delivered with urgency, compassion and fairness. The regulations make a number of amendments to the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Regulations 2025. Many of the changes appear to address concerns raised by victims, families and campaigners about the structure and adequacy of the scheme and, obviously, those contained in the additional report. His Majesty’s Opposition welcome the Government bringing forward these amendments to address the lessons learned from the early stages of the compensation scheme, to fill in some of the gaps and to implement the recommendations of Sir Brian Langstaff’s additional report. However, the existence of this instrument also underlines the importance of getting the scheme right. Victims and their families have already waited far too long. They must not be required to navigate repeated technical changes, uncertainty or delays before receiving the compensation and recognition they deserve. The regulations also amend the method for calculating past and future amounts for certain awards, including financial loss awards. I would be grateful if the Minister sets out clearly how the Government will ensure that those changes are properly communicated to victims and to families so that people understand how their entitlement will be calculated and whether they may be better off as a result. The changes are sensible but, by necessity, regulations can appear rather daunting. My degree was in economics and law, and I am reasonably comfortable with legal texts and with algebra, but at first glance we can wonder what language some of it is written in, so it is obviously important that they are communicated in a way that can be properly understood. His Majesty’s Opposition also welcome the changes to the autonomy award for those infected as children. The fact that some people were infected at such a young age, with consequences that shaped their entire childhood and adult life, must be properly reflected in the scheme. This is not simply a question of medical impact; it is about lost childhoods, lost opportunities and the lifelong trauma experienced by those who infected when they were at their most vulnerable. There are also changes in relation to unethical research practices, which we have discussed many times in the Chamber. We greatly welcome the increase in the relevant award amounts and the extension in provision to those who received treatment for bleeding disorders before 1986. Given the seriousness of the issue, will the Minister confirm how the Government will identify those who fall into that category and what evidence he expects they will have to provide so that the process does not become another source of distress for victims and their families? We also note the creation of a new “severe health condition” category for qualifying chronic hepatitis-associated conditions based on support scheme categories. Again, we would welcome clarity from the Minister on how he expects that to work in practice and in particular how the Government will ensure consistency across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The amendments to affected injury awards are also significant. Families were not bystanders to this scandal; partners, parents, children and siblings lived with the consequences every day. Many provided care, endured bereavement, suffered stigma and experienced profound emotional and financial harm. The scheme must continue to recognise that the damage caused by this scandal extended far beyond those directly infected. Therefore, while these technical changes matter greatly, the central question remains delivery. Victims and families need to know when they will receive compensation, including as a result of the new regulations. They need to know how quickly claims will be processed, what support will be available to them to navigate the scheme, and how the Government will ensure that truly no one is left behind. I therefore ask the Minister to address the following points. First, what is his intended timetable for payments under the regulations, and how many people do the Government expect to receive compensation in the coming months? Secondly, how confident is he that that the Infected Blood Compensation Authority has the staffing, expertise and resources it needs to process claims under the regulations quickly and sensitively?

• 1 Jul 2026 · MPs’ Second Jobs: Prohibition · Hansard source

  More

  Fundamentally, I think it comes down to the employment relationship. Obviously, as Members of Parliament, we are elected to represent constituents. It is then a question of judgment as to what activities conflict with that and prevent us doing that role as well as we need to. I think most people would agree that some of the cases highlighted today cross that line, but the question is whether a blanket ban is the most effective and proportionate way of dealing with what is clearly a genuine problem. The independent Committee on Standards launched a comprehensive inquiry on the issue in January 2025 to look at the exact benefits, risks and regulatory effectiveness of outside employment. That inquiry is still under way, so it would seem the height of legislative impatience if we were to go down the road of threatening blanket bans while that independent review is still gathering evidence on how a more balanced approach could operate. Trying to put together a rigid set of formal rules that allows the activities we happen to approve of while preventing those that we find unpalatable is a recipe for hypocrisy and administrative chaos. It risks leaving Parliament poorer rather than our constituents better served. Ultimately, the best people to judge whether an MP’s outside work prevents them from being an effective Member of Parliament are the voters in that MP’s constituency—if they have the full and proper information available. Let us ensure absolute transparency. Let us publish every hour and every pound in the register for the world to see. Then let us trust the British public to look at that record, weigh it against the service they receive and render their unappealable verdict at the ballot box.

• 1 Jul 2026 · MPs’ Second Jobs: Prohibition · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) on securing this debate. This is a vital discussion that goes to the very heart of how our democracy functions, how our legislature connects with the public and how we maintain institutional integrity. Although we disagree with the prescription of a blanket ban, I certainly respect the sincerity with which the argument has been put forward. We all share the fundamental goal of protecting and restoring public trust in this House. There is no question that public support for MPs having second jobs has reduced drastically over recent years. The public rightly expect us to be working for them, rather than prioritising our own interests, and we must make sure that that is what we are doing. If we are considering a ban on second jobs, however, we ought to be clear as to why. Some have argued in this debate that the issue is the time spent on outside jobs, and that the time ought to be directed entirely to MPs’ parliamentary constituency work. I do not have an outside job, but before the general election I served as a Government Whip. It was a paid position, and it almost certainly took up more of the time that I was in Westminster each week than any outside job would. While those in Government posts—or for that matter House roles, such as Chairs of Select Committees—do necessary work for the proper functioning of Government and Parliament, I would struggle to argue that my constituents benefited directly from me having that additional job. The same would be even more true for many ministerial positions, but most Ministers of all parties are able to fulfil those demanding roles without their responsibilities as constituency MPs suffering. If we accept that a Minister can balance the immense, exhausting weight of working in a Government Department with their duty to the electorate, it is logically inconsistent to argue that a Back Bencher cannot do the same with a few hours a week of external professional practice. If the primary problem is not the time diverted from representing constituents, perhaps it is the money. But if we go down that route, there is a danger of us getting drawn into an argument over good jobs versus bad jobs. Few people would complain about the shadow Minister for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), continuing to work as a consultant paediatrician; I informed her in advance that I would mention her. It is necessary for my hon. Friend to continue to work so that she can maintain her professional qualification, and it adds immense real-world value to her shadow ministerial role. She also properly declares her interests during relevant debates. Similarly, Members across the House have often been rightly congratulated on their ongoing work as surgeons, GPs and nurses, but these medical jobs are no less time consuming and, in some cases, may be better remunerated than some of the other interests that are more often the focus.

• 1 Jul 2026 · MPs’ Second Jobs: Prohibition · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for making the point that I was about to move on to. Some of the jobs that I have mentioned are better remunerated, so it is incredibly difficult to know where a formal line should be drawn in explicit rules. If medical jobs are acceptable, why not the legal work that some Members have legally and properly been paid to do as Back-Bench MPs? If paid newspaper columns are allowed, which the Government’s current plans notably exempt, it becomes much harder to explain to the public why work advising a manufacturing business on global supply chains is completely unacceptable. The point that the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) rightly made was that we must differentiate between work and influence. The real threat to public confidence has never been an MP spending a few hours a week doing genuine practical work in business, law or the media. The threat is and always has been paid advocacy and lobbying, which is why the rules were fundamentally overhauled. We have an absolute ban on paid advocacy and an explicit prohibition on MPs acting as paid parliamentary strategists, consultants or advisers. In July 2024, the new Opposition gladly supported the removal of exemptions regarding public policy advice.

• 30 Jun 2026 · Knife Crime: Custodial Sentences · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for that answer, but the latest figures show that the average custodial sentence for an adult knife or offensive weapon offence is just over eight months. Under the Sentencing Act 2026, there has been a presumption since March that any sentence below 12 months should be suspended, so what action is the Minister taking to ensure that that presumption does not effectively decriminalise many knife offences?

• 30 Jun 2026 · Knife Crime: Custodial Sentences · Hansard source

  More

  12. What assessment he has made of trends in the number of people receiving immediate custodial sentences for knife crime offences.

• 25 Jun 2026 · UK-EU Relations · Hansard source

  More

  I think everybody will have heard that the Minister has again refused to give any indication as to what he thinks would be an acceptable bill. The Government used the cover of the Prime Minister’s resignation on Monday to sneak out a written ministerial statement to say that the Turing scheme was being cancelled —a good day to bury bad news. Turing reached 43,000 UK students and provided opportunities in 153 countries for £105 million. Six of the 10 most popular destinations were outside Europe. Erasmus+ will send about half as many UK students abroad as it will bring in, and for more than five times the cost. Given all that, and the Minister’s unwillingness to indicate what the long-term budget will be, how can he possibly be confident that this programme provides five times the value of the scheme that it apparently replaces?

• 25 Jun 2026 · UK-EU Relations · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister has submitted in answers to written questions that there will be no substantive vote in this House on UK association to Erasmus+, even though the Government plan to tie us into a multi-year programme without saying what it will cost after the first year. The Defence Secretary resigned because the Chancellor will not provide the funding we need for our defence, but apparently money is no object when it comes to this programme. Will the Minister finally tell us the Government’s own central estimate for the programme, or must the public rely on press reports of an £8 billion bill?

• 22 Jun 2026 · UK Politics: Pro-Israel Influence · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way?

• 22 Jun 2026 · UK Politics: Pro-Israel Influence · Hansard source

  More

  Of course. One of the reasons why those donations have been highlighted and publicised as thoroughly as they have is that they are recorded and published. I myself have not taken any donations to which that applies, but there is nothing inherently wrong with them. The Leader of the Opposition has repeatedly warned that we are witnessing a deeply concerning normalisation of rhetoric towards British Jews that would once have been unthinkable. Far too often, individuals use their political views on Israel as a convenient cover to display blatant antisemitism. We cannot allow a moral and political vacuum to be filled by a hatred of Jews. We must be vigilant that parliamentary procedures, including the e-petition system, are not inadvertently weaponised to legitimise those harmful tropes. Our political system is built on open, transparent advocacy. Members of this House regularly engage with a wide variety of groups to understand complex international issues, and we recognise and value the long-standing, transparent activities of groups such as Conservative Friends of Israel and Labour Friends of Israel, which work openly to foster strong bilateral ties, trade and security co-operation between the United Kingdom and a democratic ally. At the same time, our parliamentary democracy benefits from a diverse range of perspectives. Organisations such as the Conservative Middle East Council and other advocacy groups play an invaluable role in ensuring that Members of Parliament receive a comprehensive understanding of the region. They work diligently to ensure that parliamentarians receive detailed information and insights from a range of viewpoints, including pro-Palestinian and pro-Arab perspectives. That is how healthy, transparent democracy should operate: through open debate, visible briefings and competing arguments presented clearly in the light of day. There is no secrecy here, no hidden hand and certainly no malign infiltration. While this petition asks us to chase shadows and investigate legitimate domestic advocacy, it distracts from the very real, pressing and deeply dangerous threats of foreign interference that our security services warn us about every single day. The greatest threat to British politics and democracy comes not from democratic allies or British community groups, but from hostile foreign state actors, most notably China and Russia. That is why they were at the heart of the Rycroft review. Our intelligence agencies have been explicit. In October 2025, MI5 issued urgent guidance to Parliament warning that Russian hackers had actively stolen data from Members of Parliament, leaked sensitive UK-US trade documents ahead of the 2019 general election, and even impersonated foreign embassies to contact Ministers directly. We have seen the tangible consequences of that subversion in our legal system, such as the sentencing in November 2025 of Nathan Gill, the former leader of Reform UK Wales, to more than 10 years in prison after he was found guilty of accepting bribes from a pro-Russian Ukrainian politician to peddle Kremlin narratives. Equally alarming is the sustained, calculated campaign of espionage and democratic infiltration orchestrated by Beijing. MI5 security alerts have warned of covert attempts to recruit individuals with access to sensitive information within the Palace of Westminster. We have seen a string of high-profile cases, including espionage involving the UK Border Force and Hong Kong trade officials, and deeply concerning allegations involving political advisers and researchers. China is actively seeking to pass information on parliamentarians and undermine our sovereign affairs. It continues to spy on our colleagues and to target Hong Kong activists, many of whom remain British citizens and who have sought refuge on our shores, and actively works to weaken our democratic resilience. The Opposition believe that we must go much further to protect the integrity of British politics and our wider democratic framework, which is why the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), has called for China to be formally placed on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. That would require strict monitoring of any political activity taking place in the UK at the instruction of the Chinese state. The Government must publicly accept that China is already acting in a matter opposed and hostile to the core interests of the United Kingdom.

• 22 Jun 2026 · UK Politics: Pro-Israel Influence · Hansard source

  More

  I have given way a number of times; I need to make a little progress. The petition invites vague suspicion of covert, improper activity by unnamed organisations and we must call it out for what it is. The use of terms such as “the Israel lobby” to describe British Jewish communal bodies combines unfounded claims of disproportionate backroom influence with the ancient insidious trope that Jewish citizens are inherently disloyal or untrustworthy.