MPs’ Second Jobs: Prohibition

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) for bringing this really important issue to the House. As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western.

Listen, it is not my intention to mention gold bullion dealers or Members who are making £22,500 an hour. It is not my intention to mention MPs who do Cameos. It is not my intention to discuss cryptocurrency dealers or mention TV presenters. It is not my intention to mention shady donations, which stain our politics—the real problem is that when our politics are stained, all MPs in this place are tarred with the same brush. Perhaps I should have mentioned all that—I would love to raise some of the shady dealings that happen in this place—but I have not notified the individuals concerned.

What is this about? Is it about money? Is it about transparency? Is it about accountability? Is it about all of that? I am perplexed. I am an MP in the north-east of England. I love the place—born and bred—and I see how people are struggling. How can MPs have second jobs? I forget the figure, but my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) talked about thousands of hours being spent on second jobs—one, two, three, four, five and more second jobs. How can this be the case? I need somebody to tell us, because I am working my socks off for my constituents, and rightly so—that is what I was elected for, and it is what everybody elected to this place should be here to do.

The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) —he is no longer in his seat—talked about MPs’ wages, but £96,500 as an MP? I feel like a millionaire, man! I’m so rich it’s unbelievable! But I am representing my residents. People on the national minimum wage of £12.71 an hour, working a 40-hour week, are on roughly £26,416. That is what stress is. That is why we need to be looking after people. We hear from various MPs here, “We’re under lots of stress.” I will tell you what stress is: when you cannot feed the kids or put clothes on them. That is stress, and that is certainly not what I see here.

Forty-five per cent of people say that they almost never trust any Government, and 68% say that second jobs should only be allowed in exceptional circumstances. I agree with that. I think the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East is fantastic and it has my full support. How can individuals go to the jungle in Australia to do “I’m a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here!”? Many MPs might feel when they are sitting in Parliament on a Thursday, “Get me out of here,” but seriously, how can any MP do that without any sanctions? It is absolutely disgraceful. It is a huge disrespect to the people we represent. They need to understand that we are on their side. They need to understand that not everybody is on this gravy train because, quite frankly, that is simply not the case.

I have not even started on my speech, but I will conclude simply by saying that we need to build trust with the general public. It is lost—it is gone. We cannot blame members of the public for that, given the amounts of money people have mentioned. We need to focus on the immense issues facing our priority—our constituents.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I want the hon. Member’s children to feel safe in this country, and I will do everything to make sure that they are. We will all fight anti-Muslim hatred with everything that we have got. An attack on one is an attack on all of us. That is what I said at the top of PMQs, and I hope he heard it.

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

Q13. The Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation, a miners’ charity established in the 1920s to support the miners in their communities, has carried out some incredible work with some incredible employees, but the current leadership team is increasingly detached from its founding principles. Miners’ welfare, sporting facilities and community facilities have been allowed to rot and to close with little to no support from CISWO. At the same time, CISWO has amassed £30 million in the bank. Does the Prime Minister agree that it is time that the charity faced not only a Charity Commission inquiry, but serious reform of its policies, practices and finances? It should benefit the former mining communities it was founded to serve, instead of constructing a £30 million ivory tower for the future.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. I know that Members across the House have raised issues with the organisation directly. It is imperative that these communities are listened to. I understand that the Charity Commission has opened a compliance case, but I will get that confirmed for him. I am proud that this Government have stood up for mining communities, including ending the injustice of coal pension schemes, increasing the pensions of more than 150,000 former British Coal employees. I thank him for raising this case.

Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

We have got to boil this down very, very simply. This has been described as the biggest tragedy the NHS has ever seen. As a result, lots of people have sadly passed on, and people are still dying on a frequent basis at a time when there are still issues in paying their compensation. People are dying as a result of contaminated blood as we sit here—they are dying on a regular basis.

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General, who I think has done a marvellous job. But I have made the point time and again, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford)—I think I have spoken in 10 debates in the Commons on this—about the issues with this scheme. The Minister has afforded as many meetings as have been required—he is totally dedicated to the scheme—but the reality is that it is failing the people who are still awaiting compensation. That is the reality, despite everybody’s best efforts and despite the fact that IBCA is doing a really good job, as the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) said. I have been to IBCA and had a look at how it operates. Regardless of all the Sirs, the chairman and the chief executive, it is the staff who are so dedicated and compassionate. As it is in my area, I am not too surprised that that is the case.

I pay tribute to the victims, the families, the friends, the supporters and the campaigners because without their persistence and commitment I am not sure where we would be. I am saddened that the latest iteration of the Government’s infected blood compensation scheme still falls short of what the victims and their families have been expecting. We have to question why might that be—why is this the case?

The Government have had the chairman of the inquiry into this scandal, Sir Brian Langstaff, intervene to provide guidance in November 2024 and they have had months of further consultations, but still the victims and their families feel that they and their representatives have not been listened to properly. They still find that they face unacceptable provisions in the scheme, as has been explained by a number of hon. Members already, regarding matters such as adequate compensation for all classes of relatives of deceased victims, for the suffering stemming from treatments and for the periods of financial losses experienced. There are still huge difficulties with this scheme. They are feeling like they might be let down by this Government. I share their frustrations, as hon. Members can hear from the tone of my contribution today. Again I thank the Paymaster General for the fact that the Labour Government allocated £11 billion to compensate the victims, but the reality is that that compensation needs to get to those who justly deserve it.

In November 2024, I said in this House:

“The infected and contaminated blood scandal is just one of far too many injustices in the UK in recent decades, in which powerful people have treated institutional reputations, career prospects and, in a number of cases, profits as being more important than working-class lives. Hillsborough, Orgreave, the postal service Horizon scandal and Grenfell all share this shameful characteristic: each one sent out a message that ordinary working-class lives do not matter. The Minister can take this opportunity to show that this Labour Government think that the lives of ordinary people matter by ensuring that the victims of contaminated blood products receive just and meaningful compensation without any further unconscionable delay.”—[Official Report, 19 November 2024; Vol. 757, c. 208.]

Many of the points have already been raised, but I am compelled to raise a number of the outstanding issues. The excellent work and the determination of the Paymaster General means that we are in the position that we are in today, with lots of progress made, and I thank him for his engagement with the infected blood community. There are a few points that I would like to raise. I want to talk about the changes many believe are still needed to the compensation scheme, about the pace of compensation and about the impact the compensation scheme is having.

Fundamental injustices clearly remain in the compensation scheme that I hope can still be addressed. Interferon treatment is still not properly recognised under the latest proposals. For example, people treated with interferon are excluded from the additional injury award if they later developed more severe conditions, like cirrhosis. That is supposed to reflect the fact that they are already compensated for a higher level of injury, but the harm caused by interferon treatment is distinct and additional to the harm caused by infection of any severity. It should be acknowledged in its own right. Will the Paymaster General look again at extending the additional injury award to all those who underwent interferon treatment, regardless of other conditions?

On estate claims, we are going to see families ending up with very different amounts of compensation depending on when their loved one died. In practice, that means that those who died earlier can end up worse off, which is ludicrous and perverse. It cannot be right that families receive less just because their loved one died before the scheme was up and running.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

I am going to try to make my intervention without crying. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his impassioned speech. I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee, and this subject came before us a couple of weeks ago when we examined the impact of the infected blood scandal as part of a much wider report on Government compensation schemes. These cases are always marked by a profound injustice, but nowhere is that clearer than in relation to the infected blood scandal. Each week people die before receiving the compensation they are promised, and I know that the hon. Gentleman will agree that that is a moral stain upon our country.

[Ian Lavery]

I am sure that hon. Members from across the House would agree with the hon. Lady’s sentiments.

On the estate claims, what has just been explained cannot be right, as the right hon. Member—sorry, I am promoting the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] Sorry! The right hon. Member for New Forest East set that out. Will the Minister be able to announce a change of approach for the families who have already suffered so much, so that they are not penalised because of the date when their relative died?

Carer’s contributions still are not properly recognised in the way they should be. Many family members provided unpaid care for many years, putting their lives and careers on hold, as has already been mentioned. This is especially stark for children and young people who took on caring responsibilities that went far beyond what would normally be expected, often at real cost to their education, wellbeing and future prospects. The supplementary compensation route should be amended to recognise both the financial and personal losses of carers, as well as recognising the additional impact caring duties have placed on children.

To his credit, the Paymaster General has engaged with the community, parliamentarians and advocates. I know he will listen closely today, and I hope that there may be further changes before the next regulations are introduced. I hope that the latest proposals are not the last word and that we will ultimately have a scheme that is free from the clear inequities that I have already described.

The other top priority now must be for compensation to be delivered faster. We need to focus on delivery and accountability. Too many people are still waiting, and the system is not moving fast enough. Many people are wondering how long it will take for their cases to be considered if this pace remains the same. The scheme made some initial progress, but it now feels as if it has slighted stalled.

Most of the progress IBCA has made is among the most straightforward category of claims—living infected people who are already on a support scheme. We also need to see faster progress across all remaining categories of claims, including infected people who were never previously compensated, affected people and estate claims. A lot of those cases should be relatively straightforward, for example with many estate claims where probate is already in place and interim payments have been made. There is strong argument for prioritising those so families can get closure sooner. There is also a growing concern that IBCA’s test-and-learn approach is not working and is not delivering speed or fairness. Would it not be in most people’s best interests to deal with these straightforward cases rapidly so that thousands of people get closure and can move on with their lives?

The haemophilia centres do fantastic work, but ongoing operational problems in the regulations are causing avoidable delays and placing additional burdens on them. Clinicians and haemophilia centres are under real pressure as a result. Many are being asked for historical records that no longer exist, and the administrative burden of finding evidence and responding to IBCA is falling on already-stretched NHS teams. There are cases where centre staff, whose primary focus should be on the treatment and care of people with bleeding disorders, are working every weekend to keep on top of compensation administration.

It is important to note that haemophilia care is already facing challenges. The most recent peer review found major gaps, with 93% of haemophilia centres staffed below the target standard. Compensation claim admin should be properly resourced and funded through IBCA, rather than relying on haemophilia clinicians to pick up the slack. I hope that will be accepted by the Paymaster General.

Finally, will the Paymaster General clarify a point about regulation 12, regarding the switching of payments? Sean Cavens, a great campaigner who has suffered greatly as a result of this tragedy, thought it was possible to switch his payments. He is asking that if an individual is on yearly support payments, which were previously guaranteed for life, they can switch it to take a lump sum payment.

To clarify, Sean believed there would be an appropriate lump sum payment. However, he is 45 years of age. If he commuted his support payments to a lump sum payment, it would represent only four years of support payments. When was that changed? Surely it cannot be right that if somebody wants to transfer their support payments, basically forget about the situation and move on, they are not allowed more than four years of support payments as a lump sum.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Thursday 23rd April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for the sterling work he has done on this scandal. As mentioned by those on the Opposition Benches, there are still real issues that need to be worked on. The infected blood community have huge concerns about the stringent evidence required for severe psychological harm compensation. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that IBCA is permissive, flexible and compassionate when setting the special category mechanism criteria for psychological harm and, at the same time, when assessing the claims?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I thank my hon. Friend and pay tribute to him for the work he has done campaigning for victims. On IBCA and the culture, and on how it treats evidence, as I said, there needs to be a sympathetic and compassionate approach to evidence. In that regard, when I have visited IBCA I have been very impressed with the general ethos that people have been trained in. Specifically on severe psychological harm, I have made very significant changes to the special category mechanism. On the precise issue of the evidence, I will write to my hon. Friend, as I promised to do to the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds).

Digital ID: Public Consultation

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I hope to move on at 1.30 pm, because many Members wish to speak in the next debate, so if we could speed up questions and answers, that would be excellent. Ian Lavery will give a good example of a speedy question.

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

The general public need to be on board with this or it will be a complete and utter failure. When it comes to the most deprived and those who lack the technological abilities to access these systems, what is my right hon. Friend going to do to make sure he can bring people onside, so that this scheme can be a success?

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend is exactly right to call out the challenge of digital inclusion. We see in the private sector lots of services becoming digital but very little help for the public if they cannot use them. The great opportunity of this programme, as I said in my statement, is that if we can create opportunities in people’s local communities—whether in post offices, libraries, GP surgeries or jobcentres—so that there is someone nearby who can help them if they want help to use these digital systems, that would be a huge advancement on digital inclusion. I hope this programme will help deliver those outcomes.

Labour Together and APCO Worldwide: Cabinet Office Review

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

As I have said, in relation to anything that the Government are responsible for, we of course uphold the principles that the hon. Member speaks passionately about, and which we in the Government agree with wholeheartedly. If there are changes that need to be made in Government, we stand ready to do so. As I say, the Government are unable to take steps to investigate private organisations directly, unless there is a legal basis to do so. Therefore, it is for the independent organisation to conduct its own investigations.

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

I am curious—I am not sure who Labour Together are, what it is, or what its purpose is. I have no idea whatsoever; however, if we believe—and I do not—everything that we read in the newspapers, there have been very serious allegations. It has been suggested that more than 100 Labour MPs have received between hundreds of pounds and hundreds of thousands of pounds in donations. Those are the allegations in the press. With that in mind, can we clear this up? Instead of an investigation into one single individual, can there be an investigation into the entire operations of Labour Together? Nobody knows who they are, and we need to find out.

[Darren Jones]

As my hon. Friend knows, Labour Together is a private organisation. It is a question for its board what it does in relation to its conduct. As I have said already to the House, any donations that have been received by individual Members, whether from Labour Together or other organisations, have, as far as I am aware, all been declared in line with the rules, and there have been no accusations to the contrary.

Civil Service Pension Scheme: Administration

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) on securing this important debate. I declare my interest as a trade union member, and refer to the fact that I received support from the trade unions at the last election.

It is really important that we recognise who we are talking about: ordinary people, ordinary folk. Many of the people who we are discussing have worked in the civil service for many Government Departments and, shamefully, have been claiming benefits for years because their wages are that low. That is the vast majority of the people we are talking about. They brought us through the pandemic—let us not forget that. There are a lot of them in my constituency of Blyth and Ashington; I have a number of examples, which I am not sure I will be able to get through.

The root problem here, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) mentioned, is privatisation. The initial privatisation by the Tories was in 2012. It was initially DWP/Capita. Then it was MyCSP, which was a disaster. How on earth is Capita getting a secret contract agreed in 2023 to take place in 2025? It is an absolute outrage. Look at the situation now. They promised transition would be fine, but MyCSP had 16,000 unopened emails when Capita took the scheme back over. There are 1.7 million scheme members and a backlog of 90,000; there are 8,500 retired members not in receipt of any pension—and what about those in ill health and the bereaved? There is hardship, and there are issues with the interest-free loans that were promised.

[Dan Carden]

My hon. Friend is making a very good speech. Is it not important that this Labour Government show how they are different, and deal differently with those failed privatisations?

[Ian Lavery]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. I will refer to three of my constituents. Mr Brown, from Bedlington, who retired in December and cannot get any response whatsoever to his inquiries. Mr Newell, who worked in the civil service for 40 years and has a number of questions regarding Capita, which I will send to my right hon. Friend the Minister. He spent 21 hours in total on the telephone waiting for a response, and he had additional problems. Mr Davies from Choppington raised a problem with the portal, where people cannot access details.

Those are three real issues. We need to pause the voluntary exit scheme and focus on those people who are not in receipt of their pensions at this moment in time. There needs to be more resourcing, with more staff employed to get rid of the backlog. Again, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington said, we need to consider whether Capita is carrying out the job it is supposed to. It is time to have a look at Capita and see whether it is doing the job correctly. If it is not, penalties must apply.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Josh Simons]

It has not been. Digitising right-to-work checks is a vital part of how we will toughen up our illegal labour market enforcement regime. It will mean that this Government are cracking down on illegal working, reducing the pull factors and delivering on one of our key commitments, which is to crack down on illegal migration.

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

5. What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to improve transparency in Government decision making.

[The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)]

The Prime Minister has given the independent ethics adviser the independence to initiate his own investigations, which is just one of the measures the Government have taken to improve transparency and standards. The high standards the Prime Minister expects of all of us who have the privilege of serving in high office are set out in the ministerial code.

[Ian Lavery]

With public trust in politics at an all-time low, I am grateful that the Government are implementing the Hillsborough law, and clearly the duty of candour should be extended to all public servants. Speaking truth to power is central to our democracy and to global democracy. Does the Minister agree that when the so-called leader of the free world stands up in public and lies with impunity about our great country and our allies at every opportunity he gets, there is no law or legislation that will ever restore public trust?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

On the first point, I met the families of the victims of the Manchester Arena bombings and the Hillsborough families only last week. It is critical that we get the balance right between allowing our intelligence services the secrecy that is essential to their work and having proper oversight. That is exactly the work the Government will engage in. On the wider point, the Prime Minister made it absolutely clear yesterday that he would not yield on the question of Greenland’s sovereignty. While I was proud to see our Prime Minister take that position, what a shame it was that the Leader of the Opposition could not rise to the moment, too.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Commons Chamber

The Prime Minister was asked—

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 3 December.

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

Our Budget took important measures to tackle the cost of living. That is why we have frozen rail fares and prescription charges, and cut energy bills for every family by £150. Today, we are going further. For too long, parents have been pushed into spending more on infant formula than needed, told they are paying for better quality and left hundreds of pounds out of pocket. I can announce today that we are changing that. We will take action to give parents and carers the confidence to access infant formula at more affordable prices, with clearer guidance for retailers and help for new parents to use loyalty points and vouchers. Together, that will save them up to £500 before their child’s first birthday. That builds on our action to lift half a million children out of poverty and our action on breakfast clubs, and our child poverty strategy will be published later this week.

This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

[Ian Lavery]

The north-east is still picking up the pieces of the destruction and decimation of 14 years of Tory government. Men in the north-east of England still expect to live 10 years less than people in other parts of the country. Women in the north-east of England are making, on average, over £11,000 less in wages than people in other parts of the country. In my patch of Blyth and Ashington, 33% of kids are living in poverty, the unemployment rates are above the national average, and wages are below the national average. The people in the north-east are a proud breed, and we deserve much more than this, mind. Can the Prime Minister assure me and the people in my constituency and in the north-east whether there is much to look forward to on the horizon, and will he meet me to discuss how we can shape it? [Interruption.]

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend talks about poverty in his constituency, and the Opposition heckle him. They should be ashamed. It is our moral mission to tackle poverty. We have abolished the two-child cap. That will be over 3,000 children, I think, in his constituency lifted out of poverty. I am very proud to be able to do that. We have boosted the national minimum wage by £1,500, and we are adding the £150 that we are taking off everyone’s energy bills. We are driving economic growth right across the country, devolving power and investing across all of the country.

Public Office (Accountability) Bill

Ian Lavery Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 3rd November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

I thank the Government so much for bringing this much-needed, vital Bill to the House. It shows what a Labour Government can actually do, and how a Labour Government can effect change. It was really positive to hear the Prime Minister say this afternoon that there would be an absolute guarantee that the Bill would not in any way, shape or form be diluted.

That is really important to everybody.

It is not a day for celebration; it is a day far too long in coming. It is not just about history; it is about justice, it is about class, it is about the truth. The tragedies we have all lived through—the Hillsborough disaster, Orgreave, Windrush, Grenfell, the Post Office Horizon scandal, the contaminated blood scandal, plus many, many more—are not isolated events. They are symptoms of a deeper sickness: a system that protects power over people, reputation over responsibility, and privilege over truth. In each case, working-class lives were treated as expendable. Innocent people were pitted against institutions that closed ranks, denied wrongdoing and delayed justice, sometimes for decades. At Hillsborough, 97 Liverpool fans lost their lives, not by accident but because of institutional indifference. They were branded hooligans, not victims, by officers who held deep-seated prejudice against working class communities.

It is about legacy, truth and accountability. It is not just about the Bill today. It has been said today in this Chamber that this was like people turning a blind eye to what happened. It is not turning a blind eye, for heaven’s sake! It is about huge, detailed, organised and orchestrated deliberate cover-ups using billions of taxpayer pounds against ordinary working people.

It has been mentioned today that the chief constable got a knighthood. He has not received any form of discipline whatever. Ninety-seven people killed and not one person has been taken through the courts and prosecuted, but he was given a knighthood. What an absolute disgrace. It shows a huge disregard and indifference to working people. They were allowed to trample on the graves of the victims in the belief that they could do whatever they wanted, because they were the ones with the power and the influence.

That cannot be allowed to continue. We have to remember that justice means justice. Who indeed made these decisions? What police officer shut the blinds, put the coffee on the table and said, “Right, look, we’ve had 97 people sadly passed on, but we’re going to make out like it really wasn’t our fault”? Who then signed it off, because, by the way, I think every one of these injustices gans a lot further than just police officers and people in the public sector at the very top? It has got to have had ministerial sign-off, I am afraid, because it would not have happened.

I support the Bill in its entirety. No more delays. Justice for all. This is a long overdue Bill, which I fully support.