Public Office (Accountability) Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 3rd November 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I really think that, with the Hillsborough families here in the House with us—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I was trying to pay close attention, but I may have missed it; we do not accuse each other of giving misleading information at the Dispatch Box. One should be mindful of the language that one is uses.

[The Prime Minister]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I also think that we owe the families a better debate than this descending into party political point scoring. I hope we can continue the debate in that way.

This Bill will tackle that injustice so that when tragedy strikes and the state is called to account, in inquiries, inquests and other investigations, public officials—from police officers to the highest offices in the land—will be subject to that duty. That means that an injustice like this can never again hide in some dark corner of the state. Failure to comply—failure, therefore, to act with candour, transparency and frankness—will now carry criminal penalties, including being sent to prison.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I think there may have been meetings. If not, we will get meetings set up. [Interruption.] I am being told that there will be one, but I take on board what the hon. Lady says. I will make sure that there are the appropriate meetings, and will update her on exactly what form they will take and when they will take place.

The rebalancing of legal representation is a fundamental change in the balance of power in our justice system, and I genuinely hope that the whole House will support it.

Taken together, the measures in the Bill can be a landmark piece of legislation. I am determined—as I said in an intervention, having given my word to the Hillsborough families and having worked in partnership with them on this legislation—that the Bill will not be watered down. When it is in statute, it will rank as one of the great Acts of this Labour Government, a moment when the tireless campaigning of working people to right a historic wrong was finally recognised in this place and made our country better. That is all the campaigners have ever wanted. This has never been just about Hillsborough and those families; it has always been about everyone.

Madam Deputy Speaker, if they were to come down to this Dispatch Box—I won’t extend the invitation, because I suspect they readily would—I know, because I have heard them many times before, what they would say. They would say, “You must keep going. This is not done until it is done.” I want to therefore put on record in this House my deep gratitude to everyone who has worked with us on the journey to this point: Hillsborough Law Now; my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool West Derby, for Widnes and Halewood (Derek Twigg) and for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), who were all at the game; so many hon. Members from across Merseyside, past and present, as well, of course, as the Mayors of Liverpool and Manchester, all of whom have never stopped fighting for this Bill; Inquest, which facilitated so much of the engagement so we could be a Government who listened; Bishop James Jones, who chaired that crucial Hillsborough independent panel; the countless other campaigns that this issue touches on, many represented in the Gallery today; and, most of all, Margaret, Steve, Charlotte, Sue, Jenni, Hilda and every single member of the families affected by Hillsborough. I know that what they really want is not thanks or acclaim; they want change and they have waited 36 long years for change.

It is my honour, as Prime Minister, to bring the Hillsborough law before the House and to open today’s debate. It should never have taken this long, but we are here now and we must get it over the line: a legacy of justice, change and national renewal for the 97. That is what we are here to deliver today.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Members can see that the debate is heavily subscribed, so when I get to Back Benchers, speeches will be limited to six minutes. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will update the House on the Government’s progress in establishing an infected blood compensation scheme.

In July the infected blood inquiry published its additional report, which made a number of recommendations on ways that the compensation scheme could be amended to achieve a scheme that works better for all infected and affected people. I updated the House then to confirm that the Government were responding positively and that we would bring forward legislation as soon as we could to address the recommendations that we could implement immediately.

The regulations that I am laying before the House today will achieve a number of those changes and demonstrate this Government’s commitment to responding swiftly and constructively to the inquiry’s recommendations. Specifically, the regulations respond to five of the inquiry’s recommendations by removing the HIV eligibility start date; removing the minimum earnings threshold for a person to claim the exceptional financial loss award; removing the requirement for evidence of the date of diagnosis of hepatitis B or C; making changes to the deeming provisions for the severity of hepatitis C; and expanding eligibility to include estates of all affected people who have died between 21 May 2024 and 31 March 2031, which actually goes further than the inquiry’s recommended date range.

The regulations also put back the transfer of responsibility to make support scheme payments from the infected blood support schemes to the Infected Blood Compensation Authority—IBCA—by one calendar year. That means that IBCA will begin making phased support scheme payments from January to March 2027. IBCA requested that change to allow it to concentrate on accelerating the delivery of compensation and expanding the service to all eligible groups this year, while ensuring—this is essential—that there is no disruption to those receiving support scheme payments. There will of course be a separate opportunity for the House to debate these regulations in fuller detail before they are approved, and I look forward to that debate.

I would also like to inform the House that we have implemented the inquiry’s recommendation to reinstate support scheme payments to partners bereaved after 31 March this year until they have received compensation. Applications for those individuals reopened on 22 October, and I am grateful to colleagues across the devolved Administrations and the support schemes for the collaborative approach to making that happen.

Today I am launching a public consultation on proposed changes to the infected blood compensation scheme, as recommended by the inquiry. I encourage responses from the infected blood community and from all those with an interest in the infected blood inquiry. I assure hon. Members that every response will be considered carefully.

The consultation sets out questions across seven specific issues: harm caused by interferon treatment; the special category mechanism and its equivalents; severe psychological harm; past financial loss and past care; evidence requirements for exceptional loss; supplementary awards for affected people; and unethical research. The Government have sought initial advice from an infected blood compensation scheme technical expert group to develop proposals on those topics in response to the inquiry’s additional report for this public consultation. The feedback we receive through that consultation will inform the decisions that the Government take. The technical expert group will also take part in targeted engagement with the community.

I previously gave the House an undertaking that transparency would be at the heart of any expert group going forward. That is why the five additional members who have been appointed to the technical expert group were appointed following valuable feedback from infected blood community stakeholders, and it is why I am today publishing the minutes of the group’s meetings that have taken place so far. I look forward to hearing the views of the community within the consultation process and beyond as we work together to ensure that the Government’s response meets expectations. We will publish a response to the consultation on gov.uk within 12 weeks of it closing. As I set out in July, we will also need to bring forward further regulations next year to implement changes following the outcome of the consultation. Listening to and working with the infected blood community is essential to ensure a compensation scheme that works for everyone, and I am hopeful that this consultation will allow us to do just that.

I now turn to the delivery of the compensation scheme as it currently stands. IBCA has made significant progress in the delivery of compensation. As of 21 October, 2,476 people have received an offer of compensation, and over £1.35 billion has been paid. IBCA reached the significant milestone of having paid out over £1 billion in compensation last month, which I am sure the House will agree is welcome and notable progress in the delivery of compensation. I can also tell the House that offers totalling over £1.8 billion have now been made.

As of the end of September, all infected people registered with a support scheme have been contacted to begin their claim, and IBCA has set out its intention to open to unregistered infected people in November. In order to open, IBCA must build a service that allows it to confirm an infection before a claim begins, check the identity of each person claiming, and ensure that all the necessary legal and financial support is in place for anyone who wishes to use it. This approach, which IBCA also took with the first group of people making a claim, means that the numbers will initially be lower. However, I expect that—as with the first group—those numbers will rise exponentially as progress is made.

Earlier this month, IBCA also launched a registration service for people who intend to make a claim to register their details. As of 21 October, it has received 10,573 registrations of intent to make a compensation claim. To be clear, that figure represents all registrations, not unique people or claims. Those registrations will be particularly helpful in identifying the unregistered infected people for the next group, and indeed more as the service grows.

As Members of the House are aware from my previous statements on this matter, IBCA is an independent arm’s length body, and it is vital that we respect that independence while also ensuring that I do what I can to drive progress forward. That is why in July I asked for an independent review of IBCA’s delivery of the scheme. That review, led by Sir Tyrone Urch, began in August and concluded earlier this month. I am today publishing that review and have deposited a copy in the Libraries of both Houses. The report notes that IBCA has made “substantial early progress” towards delivering compensation to victims of infected blood, but it also makes recommendations to aid the scaling-up of operations and the delivery of compensation to complex cohorts. I will, of course, consider all of those recommendations carefully.

Alongside IBCA’s delivery of the compensation scheme, the Government have continued to make progress on interim payments. In July I informed the House that we would make a further interim payment of £210,000 to the estates of infected persons who were registered with an infected blood support scheme or predecessor scheme and have sadly passed away, in addition to the interim payments of £100,000 that opened for applications in October 2024. I am pleased that applications for those payments opened last week, meaning that some estates could now be eligible for up to £310,000 in interim payments.

Since applications for the initial interim payments opened last year, over 600 estates have received payments, totalling over £60 million. That is in addition to the £1.2 billion that the Government have paid in interim compensation more widely. I hope that this additional interim payment brings some temporary relief to the families impacted, and I also hope that IBCA’s intention to begin the first claims on behalf of estates of deceased infected people by the end of this year provides some reassurance.

I am resolute that we get this right, and I hope the progress I have set out today shows that we are taking positive action and, crucially, listening to and making progress alongside the community. After all, those who have been so impacted by this horrendous scandal must be at the core of every decision we make, in Government and across this House—they deserve no less. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s work with the all-party parliamentary group. On the first question, the compensation that has been received clearly is exempt from tax. I understand exactly the point he is making about someone, such as a widow, who inherits or has the compensation on behalf of a deceased partner. That money will be received tax-free, but I appreciate his point about the speed that is needed, because of the age of so many of the victims of this scandal. That is through no fault of their own, but is the fault of the state. The tax exemption is in line with the policy that is pursued consistently across Government. On his second point about the campaigning groups, I am conscious that we are approaching the end of another tax year. I pay tribute to the work that the charities do, and I undertake to him that I will take up that matter with the Department of Health and Social Care.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

The Minister will see my pile of papers, which I hope are criticisms that I never have to raise again. I welcome his statement and the work being done, particularly by Sir Brian Langstaff and others. I also welcome his intention to listen to and work with the infected blood community. This scandal remains the worst treatment disaster in the history of our national health service, and it is a source of shame for successive Governments and for the health service. We have heard from our constituents, who have been let down by medical professionals and the NHS. In many cases, they were victims of deliberate malpractice and cover-up. All those warnings about unsafe blood were ignored and officials failed to inform patients. In many cases, those patients paid, or are still paying, with their lives.

An estimated 30,000 victims suffered, and that suffering was compounded by the further injustice of having to wait decades for compensation. As of my latest data, I understand that six times as many people have died waiting for justice as have benefited from this scheme. I hope the Minister can update me with a slightly more accurate figure. Payments to date have been made at an infuriatingly glacial pace.

I would like to ask the Minister about the timelines for delivering compensation. Can he reaffirm that all eligible victims—all 30,000—will receive compensation by 2029? Will he confirm that the consultation he will undertake will not delay in any way or affect the speed at which the payments are being made? More specifically, I have challenged him before about the 916 victims of the special category mechanism. Are they in a different state from the advice given in August last year? Have things changed completely from the situation in February this year, when the rules changed?

I just want to check something that I am not entirely clear about. With the Infected Blood Compensation Authority, the current approach was that people could not apply for compensation, and you are now saying that they can and that they will not have to wait—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Ms Munt, you say, “you are saying”, but I am not. I hope you are coming to a conclusion.

[Tessa Munt]

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can the Minister confirm that people will not have to wait and that those 10,573 registrations are only part of it, when we recognise that there are 30,000 victims?

China Spying Case

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I inform the House that Mr Speaker has not selected the proposed amendment. I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that this debate has to conclude by 7 pm. It is heavily subscribed, so I urge them to be as brief as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

The Minister has said twice in the last minute that the question was the policy of the last Government. Let me take him to page 4 of the letter from the Director of Public Prosecutions, dated Thursday of last week. In that letter, the DPP said—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Interventions should be short.

[Chris Philp]

The DPP said the opposite of what the Minister has said. He said that the issue was a question of fact, and not—categorically not—the policy of the last Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. We have just 90 minutes, and over 20 colleagues wish to contribute. The last speech was definitely not short. Hopefully, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson can show us how it is done.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

We congratulate the Conservatives on bringing forward this debate. Given recent news headlines about their own weaknesses on this issue, doing so is what Sir Humphrey would describe as a “courageous decision”. As the third party spokesperson, I feel obliged to play the role of a marriage counsellor. It is my duty to urge both sides—the Government and the official Opposition—to concede that they have made mistakes and to bring them together in the hope of finding common ground.

The Government and the official Opposition truly have more common ground on this issue than they would like to admit. The common ground is clear in the DNSA’s evidence statements, and it has become clearer as this sorry saga has dragged on. It became clearer still in yesterday’s Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy that there is barely a cigarette paper between the position of the Conservative party when it was in government and the Labour Government today. The Conservative party will not admit that, because all it wants to do is pretend that the Government are entirely to blame, which is a laudable aim for any Opposition party. The Labour party cannot admit it, because it cannot publicly concede that its position on a matter central to our national security interests is the same as that of the Conservative Government they replaced last summer. It falls to us Liberal Democrats to speak the uncomfortable parts of the truth and tell it like it is, because nobody else is willing or able to do so.

While some of their brave Back Benchers spoke out when the Conservatives were in government, the machinery of the Government were keen to take an approach on China that was far from hawkish. At the heart of this issue is the often unspoken suggestion that we must take a nuanced position on China because our economy is now vulnerable to international threats. The truth is that Conservatives and their allies aligned to the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) cut us adrift from the EU, and they have left Britain more exposed to economic pressure from hostile states than we should be.

We find ourselves in a position where the Government cannot bring themselves to describe as a national security threat a nation whose spies hacked the data of 40 million British voters held by the Electoral Commission. The Government cannot bring themselves to describe as a national security threat a nation that has agreed a “no limits” partnership with Putin, despite Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. Just 10 days ago, Beijing was publicly bullying the Government into granting permission for the new Chinese embassy at Tower Bridge, warning of “consequences” if the Government did not approve the plans. Is our weak international trading position, caused by the disastrous Brexit given to us by Conservative and Reform Members, influencing the Government’s decision making on the new embassy? It would seem foolish to argue otherwise.

I would draw a comparison between that and the Government’s position on Russia, which has been listed on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. Given the “no limits” relationship between Beijing and Moscow, it is odd that Russia is listed while China is not. If the Government really wanted to strengthen the case for prosecution, perhaps placing China on the enhanced tier would have aided the prosecution, even absent the word “enemy”. The fact that the word “enemy” appeared on the original draft witness statement but was later removed again raises concerns about what was happening during the tenure of the previous Conservative Government. The public deserve clear answers not just from those on the Government Front Bench, but from those on the official Opposition’s Front Bench. Did the DNSA meet Ministers between the initial draft and the final version of the witness statement?

This House owes a debt of gratitude to the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) and the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), both of whom have shown a great deal of bravery in the very best traditions of British public service. The DNSA’s witness statement referenced “backchannels” used to dissuade those two Members from criticising Confucius institutes in the UK. The Security Minister assured me that he was happy to speak with the Members in question last week about this very point. Has that meeting now taken place, and will the Minister let us know from the Dispatch Box what this Government’s understanding of the word “backchannel” is in that context? Does the word “backchannel” refer to the previous Government’s Whips, officials or others? The public deserve to know which element of the British state was attempting to prevent brave MPs from asking questions. If the Minister cannot let us know, perhaps someone on the Conservative Front Bench or anywhere else on the official Opposition Benches could clarify that for the House.

Finally, I turn to the involvement of the CPS in the collapse of this trial. The Government are adamant that the failure to designate China as an “enemy” is central to the failure to prosecute. I have already addressed the question of how that word was removed from the initial witness statement during the tenure of the previous Government, but I want to draw the House’s attention to the Roussev case, which was referenced earlier, that was being prosecuted at the same time. In that instance, the judge stated that

“any state which presently poses an active threat to the UK’s national security can properly be described as ‘an enemy’ in ordinary language.”

The outcome of that case was the conviction of six Bulgarian nationals last July for operating as part of a Russian espionage network. The CPS has serious questions to answer about why the China case fell apart when the term “enemy” was not an issue for the Roussev case as recently as last July.

Transparency and independence in national security decisions are an essential part of maintaining public trust. This case has thrown that trust into serious jeopardy at a time when the embassy planning application is already undermining the nation’s confidence in the Government’s approach to relations with China. Neither the Government nor the official Opposition have provided clarity. The public could be forgiven for thinking that both sides are ducking responsibility. The Liberal Democrats believe that we need a statutory public inquiry to get to the bottom of what went wrong and how influence over China policy caused the collapse of this case.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call John Slinger, who I believe has a very considerate three-minute speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Geoffrey Cox]

Duck.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Follow that, Paul Waugh. I am told that you have four minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I come to Sir Iain Duncan Smith, after which Back-Bench Members will have a speaking limit of four minutes.

Alleged Spying Case: Home Office Involvement

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Monday 20th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I have given the House the response—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Could we calm down? Marvellous. I call Robin Swann.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

Chinese officials recently briefed Stormont’s Finance Minister on the status of a local company in his constituency owned by the Chinese state. Information on that briefing, released under the Freedom of Information Act by the Department of Finance, withheld details, citing freedom of information laws that protect confidential information obtained from a foreign state. In the current climate and in the interests of openness and transparency, does the Minister agree that it would be best to release all the details of that meeting, rather than hide behind FOI laws?

[Graham Stuart]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

The points of order will come after the urgent questions and the statement. Can it wait?

[Graham Stuart]

indicated assent.

Security Update: Official Secrets Act Case

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister’s clarity on tackling the threats that China poses, including the transnational repression of Hongkongers in the UK. That will be a real reassurance to the many British nationals overseas who live in Milton Keynes. I would like him to go into further detail, particularly in the context of the Intelligence and Security Committee’s report on Russia’s interference in Brexit and the Nathan Gill case that has just completed, with eight counts of bribery coming from Russia. At the time of taking those bribes, he was a close colleague of some MPs on the other side of the House. How will the new elections Bill stop interference through political funding, which we are seeing gaining more and more ground here in the UK, creating a real threat to our democracy?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I ask the Minister to be brief and on point regarding what this statement is actually about.

[Dan Jarvis]

The safety and security of Hongkongers in the UK is of the utmost importance, and any attempt by any foreign power to intimidate, harass or harm individuals or communities in the UK will not be tolerated. On my hon. Friend’s second point, and not wanting to get in trouble with Madam Deputy Speaker, I just say that using a position of public office to effectively further Russia’s malign interests while benefiting financially will not stand. It is a betrayal of our democratic values and of our electorate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Is it to do with this statement?

[Neil O’Brien]

Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker. Like you, I am one of the parliamentarians sanctioned by China. Like many Members of this House, I am left wondering whether it was not just our offices that were spied on, but our families, our homes and our children, and in the absence of a trial, I have no way of finding out what happened.

The Minister has been asked multiple times whether he will publish the minutes of the meetings in which this case was discussed. We know from the DPP that, over months and months, the CPS asked again and again for evidence that was not forthcoming. However, without the minutes of those meetings, we are not able to find out what was asked for, why it was refused or who made that decision. What means are available to this House to get hold of the minutes of those meetings, which the Government do not want to publish? What parliamentary means do we have to get hold of the minutes of meetings in which this issue was discussed and these decisions were made, so that we can find out the truth?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving some notice of that point of order. He is absolutely correct that he and I are two of the four sitting MPs who are sanctioned by China. I have been advised to say that he should seek advice from the Table Office as a first step to see how these documents can be published. The Minister has said repeatedly in responses to Members from across the House that some material may or could be made public at some point. I am not sure what that material will be, or what format it would be in, but I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will seek advice from the Table Office, to make sure that the information is made available, if it can be. Unless the Minister wishes to respond to that point of order, I will let the matter fall.

UK-EU Summit

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected amendment (a) in the name of the Prime Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Coleman]

I have to say, when you ask about Lord Dubs—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. The hon. Member said “you”, but I did not ask the question.

[Ben Coleman]

Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member touches a soft spot when he mentions Lord Dubs, who is a great friend and a doughty campaigner in my constituency. Lord Dubs will have his views, but I was talking about the Prime Minister setting out an absolute commitment to increase the skills of young people right across the country, and that is in no way undermined by the prospect of a controlled visa-based youth experience scheme.

In such unstable times, it is right that we should seek a closer relationship with the European Union that will strengthen defence and security alongside our commitment to NATO. I am hopeful that the Government will pull off an agreement that, as hon. Friends of mine have said already, will bring new jobs in the defence industries of this country. We are facing the starkest, most serious defence challenge that we have faced for decades, and we have to meet it together with the European Union. Having spoken to many ambassadors here, I know that they welcome Britain playing its full role in defending our shared continent.

That is what we are doing as a Government. That is why it is so disappointing, with all the prospects and excitement ahead of us, to hear the Conservatives and Reform still putting ideology first, ahead of growth and security. They are failing to say what they would do instead and just want to continue with the status quo.

The hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) talked about the chaos that was brought to Kent, where trucks backed up for miles near Dover because the infrastructure for customs checks was never ready, and fresh produce rotted in the queue. That was under the Conservative Government. They jeopardised car manufacturing in Birmingham and the west midlands, which is a region that relies on just-in-time EU supply chains. It was hit with rules of origin checks, rising costs, and delayed parts—thanks to the Conservatives. They sold out Cornwall’s poorest communities by moving out of European structural funds that has millions in them, replacing them with a shared prosperity fund worth far less. That was the Conservative Government’s failed Brexit.

They weakened Port Talbot and the south Wales steel industry, made exports harder and reduced competitiveness in what was already a challenging global market. They undermined Scottish farmers and distillers by erecting barriers to their largest export market. This is all part of the record that the Conservatives are delighted to defend. I would not be delighted to defend such a record, but they are—so much so that they have brought forward this ridiculous motion today.

I am delighted by the amendment that the Government have tabled. The contrast between our pragmatic, cool-headed approach and these ideologues could not be starker. It is refreshing.

Church of Scotland (Lord High Commissioner) Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 4th March 2025 Commons Chamber

Holding of office of Lord High Commissioner by Roman Catholic

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I remind Members that in Committee they should not address the Chair as “Madam Deputy Speaker”. I ask them please to use our names; alternatively, “Madam Chair” or “Madam Chairman” is acceptable.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chairman]

With this it will be convenient to consider clause 2.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr Douglas Alexander)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani.

I hope that I will not detain the Committee for long in dealing with the two clauses. The purpose of clause 1 is to make provision to allow a person of the Roman Catholic faith to hold the office of Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. The Lord Chancellor (Tenure of Office and Discharge of Ecclesiastical Functions) Act 1974 removed restrictions on individuals taking up the office of Lord Chancellor, and, similarly, the Bill removes the restriction on the Lord High Commissioner from the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829. Clause 2 sets out the extent, commencement and short title of the Bill: it extends to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It will come into force on Royal Assent, which will ensure that the upcoming appointment of Lady Angiolini as the Lord High Commissioner goes ahead in the run-up to the General Assembly in May.

It is clear that the Bill commands a broad consensus, and I am grateful to colleagues for their approach to it. I look forward to the rest of the debate today, and to seeing the Bill on the statute book soon.

[The Chairman]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

I, too, will not detain the Committee for long, having already expressed the full support of His Majesty’s official Opposition for the Bill, and it will come as no surprise that we are not proposing any amendments in Committee. I do, however, have two questions for the Minister. When does he expect the Bill to go to the House of Lords, and can he assure the Committee and, indeed, the Church of Scotland that everything possible will be done to secure its swift passage to Royal Assent so that it is passed in time for the upcoming General Assembly of the Church of Scotland?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Pat McFadden)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Given the mood in the House, I do not intend to detain people for long. By now we know the purpose of the Bill: to allow Catholics to be appointed to the role of Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. That is the Bill in a nutshell. Today’s debates have demonstrated that there is wide support for the Bill across the House.

I thank the Church of Scotland, the Catholic Church and the Scottish Government for their engagement and collaboration in the development of the legislation. I also thank all those who spoke in our debates, including the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Alison Taylor), the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson), the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara), my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Cabinet Office. I am grateful to all of them.

As we have said, at the signing of the St Margaret’s declaration at Dunfermline abbey in 2022, both the Catholic Church and the Church of Scotland declared that what they hold in common is far greater than what divides them, and that they would commit to continue working towards greater unity. I hope that this Bill, in its small way, will continue in that spirit.

The hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber referred to 1923 and asked if I was there. I was not there, but in the same year W. B. Yeats wrote that “peace comes dropping slow”. Maybe equality sometimes comes dropping slow too, but today we have taken a small and important step, and I commend the Bill to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

Church of Scotland (Lord High Commissioner) Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 4th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

Like so many in my constituency and across Scotland, I have a lifelong association with the Church of Scotland. For so many of us in Scotland, the stories of our families are intertwined with local Church of Scotland parishes, not just through attendance at church on a Sunday, but through our marking of important life events. That link is evidenced in so many ordinary aspects of community life—at local badminton club meetings in the church hall, and at summer fêtes, jumble sales and coffee mornings.

The Church belongs to all our communities. It assists the elderly and frail in the community, supports young mothers, runs youth clubs, and makes commitments to international aid. My great aunt was an organist in the church in Bishopton, and in Paisley in my constituency. My two children were baptised in the Church of Scotland in Paisley, and my husband and I were married in Drumclog memorial kirk in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride and Strathaven (Joani Reid).

My sense of belonging to the Church of Scotland is no barrier to my appreciation of other faiths and other Christian communities. Indeed, the Church of Scotland has demonstrated a sincere commitment to ecumenical dialogue. The Catholic Church has been a willing and active participant in that effort. For more than 40 years, that has led to a shared commitment to people from all faiths and none working together, notably in food banks and many other community support services.

I know that my life is enriched by friendship with people of other faiths; the Church of Scotland has been similarly enriched. Today, for historical reasons that may seem odd to those following the debate, there is a legislative restriction on a person of the Roman Catholic faith being appointed Lord High Commissioner by the sovereign to act as an observer on the sovereign’s behalf. Such restrictions do not apply to people of others faiths, or indeed to those of no faith.

A change in the legislation is long overdue. I am pleased to support the Government in removing this unnecessary and unwelcome impediment to a Roman Catholic serving as the representative of His Majesty the King at the upcoming General Assembly of the Church of Scotland.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Defence and Security

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support. We already work closely with Norway on defence and security, and we want to enhance and strengthen that, which the bilateral relationship will do. Of course we need to work with the United States, and I will be leaving for the US tomorrow. I have already had a number of conversations with President Trump, and our teams are speaking continually about these very important matters.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the ever-patient Charlotte Cane to ask the final question.

[Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

I welcome much of what was in the Prime Minister’s statement, particularly what he said about our continued support for the brave people of Ukraine, but I was shocked by what he has described as a difficult and painful decision to cut overseas aid. I suggest that it was nowhere near as difficult and painful as it will be for the very poorest families who find that our aid is no longer there for them. It is also hugely short-sighted, because helping communities to be stable and secure reduces the risk of war and unrest. Will the Prime Minister please assure us that he will look for less damaging ways of funding this much-needed increase in defence expenditure?

[The Prime Minister]

It is a difficult decision—there is no getting away from that—but we cannot have a situation in which Members of this House stand up and support 2.5%, heading to 3%, and then cannot agree, or will not take the difficult decisions that are necessary in order to get there. I am not pretending that this is an easy decision, and I am certainly not pretending that it is a decision I wanted to make as Prime Minister. It is a decision that I am driven to make for the security and safety of our country and our continent.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I am grateful to the Prime Minister. We got in all the Members who were bobbing throughout.

Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015 (Extension) Bill [Lords]

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 14th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. As he would imagine, I certainly have had discussions with the Church of England, and not just prior to the introduction of this Bill, but prior to the wider reform of the Lords in which the Government are engaged. Those conversations are hugely important, as is diversity. This legislation will extend the diversity—having women bishops in the House of Lords—that we have seen since the 2015 Act reached the statute book.

The Government’s view is that five years is an appropriate length of time to extend these provisions to consolidate the positive effect that there has been so far. I hope that this very narrowly focused and simple Bill, which will extend an Act that has achieved such positive change over the past nine years, will gain support from all parts of the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Marsha De Cordova]

I thank my hon. Friend. It is truly an honour and a privilege to serve in that position.

I want to acknowledge the trailblazing Bishop of Dover, Rose Hudson-Wilkin, the first black woman to become a Church of England bishop. She was the chaplain to her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, and for nine years she was the chaplain to the Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow—the first woman to carry out that role. Her presence as a leader in the Church is a call to young women from diverse backgrounds not to shy away from the work that they want to do. But the Bishop of Dover is not yet one of many. There is more work to do. That is why the Bill will help. It is a narrow Bill, extending the existing provisions for five years, which should get us closer to the Lords Spiritual better representing the make-up of our country. That is why I support the Bill, and I hope that Members across the House will do the same.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)]

My speech will be very brief. I welcome the progress made by the House earlier this week in voting to pass the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill in Committee and on Third Reading. I also welcome the Government’s recognition of the importance of consecrating more female bishops and reflecting that composition in the other Chamber.

On a more local point, Stockport is famous for many things, one of which is the fact that the Church of England’s first woman bishop was the Right Reverend Libby Lane, who served as the Bishop of Stockport between 2015 and 2019. She was mentioned by the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova). Stockport is known for many groundbreaking things, and that is just one of them. The Right Reverend Libby Lane now serves as the Bishop of Derby, and I want to place on the record my gratitude to her for all her work in Stockport and the various other places she has served. She was introduced to the House of Lords as a Lord Spiritual in July 2019, and she continues to do excellent and important work in the other place.

I usually do not speak in debates of this nature, but I recently met the Bishop of Manchester, the Right Reverend David Walker, at All Saints’ parish church in my constituency. We discussed many issues, including the contribution of the Church, not just in Stockport but across Greater Manchester and the north-west. He made me aware of the importance of this legislation and of the impact it will have, and I want to place in Hansard my thanks to him for highlighting that to me.

I thank everyone not just in the Church of England, but in all churches across my Stockport constituency and Greater Manchester, for all they do to provide not just spiritual guidance but all sorts of other things, such as food banks and support with a number of other issues.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

We now come to a maiden speech. I call Anna Gelderd.

[Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)]

Meur ras—thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I begin by wishing His Majesty the King a very happy birthday—a sentiment that I am sure is shared on both sides of the House?

Standing here in this House, I am more aware than ever of the incredible privilege that it is to be here on behalf of South East Cornwall, a place that I love and am proud to call my home. I do not stand here alone; rather, I stand with those who came before me, inspired me or supported me. I am especially proud to be the first Labour MP to represent the area, a wonderful community filled with history, resilience and a deep local pride.

It is a love for the area and a steely determination to fight for its best interests that unites my predecessors and me. I pay tribute to Sheryll Murray for her work to champion public and rescue services and the local fishing industry, and to Colin Breed, who served before her.

I intend to represent our community by extending a hand to bridge political divides, and by serving with the determination and humility that I have seen illuminating the paths of all those I most admire in public service.

Today’s debate offers me the opportunity to mention in particular some of those women who taught me that I, too, could stand, including our late friend Jo Cox, and the formidable Harriet Harman, both of whom I have had the honour of working with.

South East Cornwall is a stunningly beautiful rural constituency, defined by the natural boundaries of the River Fowey in the west and the River Tamar in the East, ancient moorland to the north, and beautiful Cornish coastlines to the south, including the unique Rame peninsula, perfect for sea swimming, surfing and sailing. It is a place alive with history, from Restormel castle in Lostwithiel, to the historic harbour at Polperro, whose winding lanes whisper of a history of pirates and smugglers.

Our economy is a story of resilience, woven from the threads of small businesses, including in the market gardens of the Tamar valley, tourism, farming and an inshore fishing fleet that deserves more recognition and support. The market town of Liskeard, at the geographical heart of the area, provides important places for people to meet and form new enterprises, such as Wildanet. Most importantly, it is the perfect place to find a Barnecutts pasty—and, unlike other Members of this House, I do know how to eat a pasty properly.

We look both to the west across Cornwall, and to the east beyond the Tamar, for many crucial jobs. The dockyard in Devonport is particularly important to the towns of Saltash and Torpoint, where many local residents are employed. Torpoint is also home to HMS Raleigh, which provides exceptional naval training and serves as a deep source of local pride.

South East Cornwall has a proud cultural heritage, celebrated in long-standing community traditions such as the Gorsedh—held in Callington for the first time in 40 years—the Black Prince parade and the Saltash May fair. That heritage is expressed through the arts at Sterts theatre and arts centre, Calstock Arts, and Maker Heights.

Communities there are tight-knit, but they are often kept apart geographically by both distance and the lack of transport connections. But don’t get me started on transport problems in Cornwall, Madam Deputy Speaker —you can expect to hear from me again on that topic.

There are incredible people across the constituency who go the extra mile, with a community spirit found at Saltash Pride, in those working at food banks or in care homes, and at the Core, where I held my first surgery. It is a place rich in so many ways, but there are real challenges: above average rates of child poverty, fragile seasonal employment and house prices that are out of reach for many.

In my previous work, I have seen some of the big problems we face at home and abroad: the trap of extreme poverty that is so difficult to escape, the threat of instability and conflict, and the challenges posed by climate change. I have also seen the resolve and determination of people to overcome those same challenges, and I have been struck by how the hardest of situations sometimes bring out the very best of us. That spirit can be found in organisations such as the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, which I was so proud to work for, or at local events such as Liskeard Unlocked, which celebrated the town’s shared values of freedom, safety and solidarity with its twinned Ukrainian town of Kopychyntsi.

I know that caring for my mother throughout her prolonged and painful death from cancer—something that too many families face—has led me to this place. Without that experience, I would simply not be here. She told me to find solace in purpose, and I have. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] My family gave me a bedrock of certainty that anyone, anywhere, can make a positive difference. My grandad, injured in an industrial accident, would have me sit next to him on his green leather sofa after school to watch Prime Minister’s questions. I have no doubt that he would be shocked but proud that I stand now by these green leather Benches, which felt so very far away from our lives and experiences. Clearly, children’s earliest experiences are so formative, and early education is so pivotal—just look at the trouble that early experience has got me into now. I do not want where you are born to limit where you are going, or what you can do to be determined by who you know. Breaking down the barriers to opportunity is not a campaign slogan for me; it is a guiding principle, and what I intend to deliver for my community.

The beauty of our landscapes in our special corner of Cornwall is not just a backdrop to our lives; it is the backbone of our economy and integral to our identity and wellbeing. I am committed to supporting our farmers and our fishing industry—the lifeblood of our community. They provide our food security, and they have a critically important relationship with the landscape. I am committed to improving our transport links, which currently hamper growth and divide communities, and to securing better access to healthcare services and provision for special educational needs and disabilities in the constituency. I am also committed to preserving the rugged, distinct natural environment that so defines our region and brings huge economic value to our vital tourist industry.

Cornwall helped to power Britain’s first industrial revolution, and it now stands ready to lead the new green industrial revolution, harnessing new technologies and the aspirations of our young people to create a sustainable future. South East Cornwall is both a gateway to Cornwall and a bridge to the rest of the UK, as embodied by the Tamar bridge. I intend also to be a bridge for our community, and to work tirelessly to connect Cornwall with the resources, opportunities and support that it deserves, so I stand here, ultimately, with gratitude for the incredible people of South East Cornwall. I see generosity and determination that inspire me daily. That is why I am here, and it is why I am honoured to be working to connect our past and our present, and to help build our future together.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

The hon. Member for South East Cornwall gave a very authentic, powerful speech. She should be proud, as her mother and grandfather would be. We now come to the Front Benchers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall and Bloxwich) (Lab)]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. As many colleagues are interested in this debate, may I encourage interventions to be relevant to the debate that is taking place?

[Ms Oppong-Asare]

I give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall and Bloxwich (Valerie Vaz).