Payment Scheme

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

On behalf of constituents that I am proud to represent, I want to ask the Paymaster General questions of justice. I want to ask whether the infected blood compensation scheme is delivering the justice that Sir Brian Langstaff’s inquiry promised everyone who has suffered one of the greatest scandals in our nation’s history. First, however, I want to thank the Minister for our discussions about this topic, most recently just a couple of hours ago. I have raised it on the Floor of the House before, and I will keep raising it on behalf of my constituents.

Tonight, I want to represent one family in particular, but although I am raising the experience of one family from my constituency, that experience is identical to that of many other families up and down the country. Jane Yvonne Fitzgerald was infected with contaminated blood following the administration of a single unit of blood during a non-emergency procedure. She did not consent to the risks to which she was exposed, and according to the inquiry, many patients like her should never have had such transfusions in the first place. She endured decades of illness, repeated hospital admissions, invasive procedures, severe psychological trauma and profound threats to her sense of dignity. Her experiences of care fell short of expectations. On one occasion, she suffered litres of fluid being drained from her abdomen in what was effectively a hospital broom cupboard. On another occasion, she was sent home despite being in excruciating pain because no bed was made available. On that same day, her abdomen ruptured. When she sought support, she was told there was nothing physically wrong with her. The only psychological support she was offered was alongside alcohol and drug dependency groups, when she had no addiction. The state failed to protect her and failed to care for her mental and physical health.

Since she died 10 years ago, Yvonne’s family feel that justice has evaded them. Under the current compensation scheme, because she died before surviving long enough to make a claim under today’s framework, her compensation is deemed by her family to be around £300,000 less than for someone in otherwise similar circumstances who remains alive today. In her family’s view, the scheme creates a perverse outcome whereby dying from infected blood can result in less compensation than surviving with it. The younger someone was when they died, and the earlier they died, the greater the financial penalty imposed upon their family. In some cases, I am told that the disparity between deceased victims and survivors can approach £1 million. Will the Minister explain to my constituents why that is?

The technical expert group recognised that severe psychological harm and exceptional suffering could be evidenced through historical records and expert opinion, yet many deceased victims cannot access enhanced awards because they died before modern assessment mechanisms existed. The inquiry recognised that affected family members suffered direct and profound harms and recommended a supplementary compensation route, yet that recommendation has still not been implemented. On behalf of my constituents, I ask the Paymaster General why the recommendation of the Infected Blood Psychological Service that affected individuals should receive individual assessments not yet been adopted.

The current approach also produces unfair outcomes. My constituent Ruairí Fitzgerald moved back into his parents’ home to help save it when his father was considered too old to obtain a mortgage. He gave up his own first-time buyer status and put his own future on hold to care for Yvonne, his mother. He cooked, cleaned and accompanied her to countless appointments, witnessing at first hand the effects of her poor health. His mother died before she could see him marry, she never met his two children—her two grandsons—and he is living life in that knowledge. Under the current scheme, he is entitled to substantially less compensation than estranged relatives who played little or no role in her life or care. He wonders why the scheme compensates people according to broad family categories rather than recognising the harm individuals have experienced.

There are further concerns. Widows’ support payments made under the previous schemes are now deducted from compensation awards for many claimants, while those who settled earlier are unaffected. Compensation is not routinely uprated for inflation, meaning delay steadily erodes its real value. The issue raised in my constituency is how compensation delayed should not become compensation diminished.

As we have heard from all hon. Members who have contributed, this debate is about trying to remedy what went wrong and trying to ensure that there is justice. Justice cannot depend upon whether someone survived long enough to satisfy an administrative process. Justice cannot depend upon the year someone died. Jane Fitzgerald endured years of suffering caused by failures of the state, before losing her life, and her family believe that the current scheme treats her life as though it were worth less because she died before the compensation framework caught up with the truth.

In closing, I put the following questions to the Minister. Will the Government review the disparity between awards for deceased victims and survivors? Will they establish a route for recognising severe harms suffered by deceased victims through historical evidence? Will they implement the inquiry’s recommendation for a supplementary route for affected family members, including individual assessments where appropriate? Will they end the deduction of widows’ support payments and ensure that compensation keeps pace with inflation so that delay does not diminish justice? For Jane Yvonne Fitzgerald, for her whole family, and for every family whose loved one was taken from them, this debate and the proceedings in this House offer us an opportunity to ensure that a promise is honoured—a promise that justice is given to all.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

Catherine on Tuckton Road, Claire on Naseby Road and Elise on Irving Road all agree that Britain should draw closer to the European Union. They are joined by Duncan on Hengistbury Road, Martin on Foxholes Road and Sarah on Water Lane. Can the European relations Minister please tell my constituents what this Labour Government are doing to bring Britain into the heart of the European Union again?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend knows the value of UK-EU ties from the language schools in his constituency. I am proud to have delivered the new security and defence partnership and the re-accession to Erasmus+. We are working on a summit that will be good for jobs, bear down on bills and secure our borders.

Debate on the Address

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Wednesday 13th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

I would like to begin my congratulating my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah), on her humorous and passionate opening speech. It is a true privilege to sit alongside her and, together with Madam Deputy Speaker, to represent our shared home of Bradford. I would also like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince), though he is not currently in his seat, for demonstrating his commitment to meeting his personal goals—and no, I am not talking about getting a PB in the marathon, but about hitting 400 contributions in Parliament.

Just 10 days ago, I stood in the other place for the Prorogation of Parliament and proudly heard an account given of the many things that this Labour Government achieved in their first parliamentary Session. Renters are no longer worried, thanks to secure tenure under the Renters’ Rights Act 2025. Children have been lifted out of poverty and families have been supported through the Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Act 2026, which removed the cruel two-child benefit cap. We now have stronger safeguards through the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026. Workers are no longer on exploitative zero-hours contracts thanks to the Employment Rights Act 2025.

I returned to my constituency buoyed up, ready to take the positive message to the doors alongside hard-working Labour councillors defending their seats and a new group of enthusiastic candidates, some standing for the first time. All of them were prepared to stand up for their communities and be a strong voice in City Hall. They all wanted to be part of a Labour-led council that after a decade of overseeing drastic budget cuts handed down by a Tory Government could finally turn a corner.

Our Labour Government in Westminster who believe in local government are devolving more power to local authorities and communities through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026, and we have a new fair funding formula that links deprivation to funding, giving places such as Bradford the first significant budget increase for over a decade. There have been commitments to invest in Northern Powerhouse Rail to better connect our city, and I am pleased to see legislation on that in the King’s Speech. I could go on.

There was hope, and there was possibility, but all that was dashed as the results came in. I was devastated to see so many brilliant Labour councillors lose their seats, to see Reform take the most seats on Bradford council, and to see people winning seats who frankly should not even have been allowed to stand as candidates due to racist comments that I will not repeat in this place.

Reform UK was spreading despair. It argued that Britain is broken and cannot be fixed, and it undermined the very foundations of our democracy. Let me be clear: the majority of people in Bradford rejected Reform’s divisive politics, despite it winning the most seats. I fear that Reform is bringing its divisive politics to our beautiful, multifaith and diverse city, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West described so beautifully.

As we begin this second parliamentary Session, we need a bold agenda that delivers tangible and visible improvements in the lives of people in every community across the country. I therefore welcome today’s King’s Speech, but I urge the Government and Ministers, as they bring forward these Bills, to ensure that they go as far and as fast as they can to deliver the change we promised to the people of this country.

I would like to focus on three of the Bills that address opportunities that we particularly need to grasp. I welcome the commonhold and leasehold reform Bill, which will abolish the outdated and, frankly, feudal system by which leaseholders can be held to ransom by unscrupulous freeholders. I have constituents in Bingley and Wrose who have faced massive increases in service charges, failures to carry out maintenance to accepted standards and unexpected bills for large upgrades. I have estates in Gilstead and Cottingley where homeowners have been left on unadopted estates paying out extortionate fees for ground maintenance.

I look forward to hearing more about how the Government propose to strengthen the regulation of managing agents to ensure that this new system works fairly and has the confidence of leaseholders and commonholders alike. I hope that Ministers will ensure that there continue to be ways in which older people looking to right-size can benefit from living in specialist retirement communities when switching from leasehold to commonhold.

While that legislation, together with the Renters’ Rights Act, will provide security for renters and homeowners, for those with no home, those in temporary accommodation and those waiting for a social home, the Government must take more radical steps to accelerate the building of a new generation of social homes so that everyone can have a secure, safe home. I look forward to hearing more about the social housing renewal Bill.

I welcome the Government’s intention to bring forward legislation that will strengthen accountability for the NHS, abolish NHS England and ensure that we continue to allocate funding to the frontline to bring down waiting lists and improve patient care. However, I urge the Government not to wait until the next parliamentary Session to lay the foundations for a national care service. We urgently need national commissioning standards to ensure greater consistency for older and disabled people and a workforce strategy that addresses the need for better training and career progression for care workers. Baroness Casey has made an initial set of recommendations, but I hope the Government will act with urgency and take this opportunity to put in place legislative provisions that will enable us to move further and faster towards our ambition of a national care service as we also rebuild our national health service.

Finally, I welcome the clean water Bill, which will take forward the major reform of the water sector that is needed. However, I am concerned that if we simply take forward the proposals for a new regulator without fundamentally addressing the financial failings of the water companies, we will only perpetuate a broken model. I have urged Ministers to use existing powers to immediately take Thames Water under special administration and use this as an opportunity to explore alternative public ownership models. I also hope to see the Government create a legislative path for bringing other water companies into public ownership in future.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

Bournemouth is a footballing town, and we are so excited for the Cherries, who are in pole position to qualify for European football for the first time in our history. That being so, does my hon. Friend also welcome the measure in the King’s Speech to curb ticket touts, especially ahead of Euro 2028?

[Anna Dixon]

I do join my hon. Friend in welcoming that measure. I recently saw Bradford City play at Valley Parade. The team has an important championship play-off match, and I hope that there will not be ticket touts selling extortionate tickets for that much sought-after match.

There is still time to make the fundamental and radical changes that we desperately need. We need to show the public that we are not going to let privatised water companies profit from polluting our rivers and seas. Above all, our most urgent priority must be to renew our democracy. I welcomed the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) about how we clearly need to protect our democracy against threats. From my point of view, the local election results show clearly that two-party politics is dead. The vote has fragmented, and people have stopped tactical voting. Therefore, I urge the Government as part of the Representation of the People Bill to set up a democracy taskforce that will look at electoral reform for both local and Westminster elections.

In conclusion, I sat today in the Royal Gallery amid much pomp and ceremony and plenty of bling. I can honestly say that it seemed a world away from the realities of my Shipley constituents: the single mom who is working two jobs and struggling to make ends meet at the end of the month; the pensioner who, despite a modest private pension, is having to cut back; and the young person living with their parents, unable to get employment, training or a place of their own. The Labour Government have begun the work of rebuilding Britain after the failures of the past. We must now push on and be bolder and more ambitious in delivering for people across every community of this country and delivering a fairer society for all.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

This debate is taking place in an almost surreal atmosphere. We have a psychodrama going on about whether the Prime Minister will be challenged for the leadership of the Labour party, whether he will still be Prime Minister by the time we come to vote on the motion, and whether the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is going to challenge and take over. The Government have been in office for less than two years and seem not to be reflecting on the results of last Thursday’s elections. It is obvious that the Government lost a huge amount of support because of their perceived failure to deliver on the promises made in the 2024 manifesto, and their vote split asunder to independents and Greens or to Reform.

At the same time, there is a horrific growth in our society of far-right racism and intolerance—a horror show in our society—with the growth of Islamophobia, of antisemitism and of all forms of racism. There was an attack on a prayer room in Blackburn on Monday evening; precious little was said about it on any of the media. Shame on them for not reporting it. They rightly report on antisemitic attacks on synagogues; the same should apply to any community that is under attack if we are to succeed in bringing our communities together and to show that we need to stand up against racism in absolutely any form in which it rears its ugly head.

This weekend, there will be an appearance in London by Tommy Robinson, attended by a lot of people, some of whom presumably adhere to his worldview, and others who will be there out of a mixture of frustration and lots of other things. It is a very dangerous situation and a very dangerous time. Every Member of this House will have been out on the streets last week for the local elections, and they will have picked up the language and understood what is going on. We have to be absolutely united against racism and racist violence in absolutely any form. I, for one, will be on the anti-racist and Palestine march on Saturday to show my support for the anti-racist campaigns in our society.

Behind all this lies an horrific level of inequality and the unrequited ambition of ordinary citizens in our society. We have become a society of food banks and billionaires, with a tax system that encourages the growth of billionaires and restricts the opportunity of so many of the poorest in our society. Unless we address the issues of social injustice and inequality that are so prevalent in our society, the situation is going to get worse. It is a feeding ground for the cheap, nonsense, headline-grabbing stuff that the Reform party comes out with all over the country. People from Reform lack a solution to any problem other than blaming the nearest minority they can find and pretending that the great threat to this country is asylum seekers and refugees, when actually they are desperate human beings trying to survive in a very complicated world. By their very actions, people from Reform drive humanity out of the discussion and the political debate. It is up to us to put it back there.

Reform plays on many issues, the first of which is housing, which is in absolute crisis. Local authorities are unable to get the funds necessary to build the council housing they all want to build, because of a failed funding model that does not allow them to develop 100% of sites. For example, in London the mayor has said that major sites will now have only a 20% social housing requirement. In other words, 80% of the development will not be available for people on the housing waiting list, or the needs register, as it is usually referred to. That drives many people who cannot get council housing and cannot afford to buy into the private rented sector.

I supported the Renters’ Rights Bill that was passed in the previous Session. I could see nothing wrong with it and much good in it, particularly the ending of section 21 evictions. It is a pity that the Government did not end section 21 evictions in July 2024, which they could have done—that would have saved a lot of tenancies at the time—but I am pleased that happened. Nevertheless, that legislation did not deal with the fundamental issue, which is the level of rent in our communities. It would cost at least £2,000 a month to rent a one-bedroom flat in my constituency. Roughly speaking, that is £500 a week. It is three, four or five times the level of rent for a council tenancy.

If a person has access to DWP benefits, some of their rent is paid through housing benefit, but if the rent is above the local housing allowance—and it nearly always is—families on universal credit have to subsidise their rent out of their benefit because they simply cannot afford it, and they have to stay somewhere. If they become homeless, they get moved far away, and we have children making horrendous journeys because they do not want to lose contact with their beloved primary school. That is the normal story all over inner-city areas in Britain today. We can do something much better about that.

I am sad that the King’s Speech does not address the issues in the clear way that it should. People are crying out for some degree of security, and housing security is fundamental. Is it right that when we all walk into Parliament every day we could count so many homeless people on the streets of London? Who could count the number of people begging to try to get a bit of money to get into a night shelter? They then spend the rest of the day trying to get together another £17 to spend another night in a shelter. What a terrible existence those people have—and that is pretty normal across every major city. We all travel a lot, and we know that every major station is surrounded by people begging for money. What is wrong with us that we cannot recognise that something can and should be done about that? I wish that was the case.

There is much else in respect of insecurity in society that has to be addressed. A large number of people are in insecure employment, despite welcome changes in employment legislation, and because wages are so low and prices and rent are so high, so many people are doing two jobs. How does a parent doing two jobs spend time with their children? How do they help them with their homework? How do they take them to a club? How do they do any of the things that we all love to do with our families? That parent simply cannot, because they are tied down to two jobs, and in some cases even more.

We have to recognise that we are bringing up a whole generation of children in this society who spend less time with each other and less time with their parents or carers, because of the economic stress and the cost of living. Can the Government not intervene and say, “We’re prepared to control food prices if they start going up at a ridiculous rate”? The Labour Government of the 1970s controlled food prices in order to control inflation, and I remember it being quite a successful policy. It was very controversial when it was mooted by Roy Hattersley, of all people—he was not on my wing of the Labour party by any manner of means—but he felt the need to do it.

[Tom Hayes]

The right hon. Gentleman is talking about bringing younger people together. My constituent Caroline is watching this debate from Meon Road in Littledown and Iford in my constituency, where, as it happens, last Thursday a Labour councillor won for the first time ever: Councillor Patrick Connolly. Caroline wants to bring younger people together and she welcomes the Government signing the UK back up to Erasmus+. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is a good thing for British young people to mix with their European counterparts and welcome this move closer to Europe?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I absolutely welcome the Erasmus scheme—indeed, I wanted to retain the scheme during the endless debates on the withdrawal agreement, because I can absolutely see the value of it. I also see the value of overseas students coming to this country; we should be encouraging them, but they are put off by the very high student fees. Something has to be done about that.

Many colleagues have brought up issues with the services within our society. The water industry has come up many times. I am a London MP and therefore fall within the purview of Thames Water, whose record is appalling and atrocious at every conceivable level. The water industry as a whole has had more than £70 billion taken out of it in profits and dividends since privatisation. We have had statements by every Secretary of State that I can remember for the past 35 years, saying that they will look at the regulation model to make sure there is proper control of what the water companies do. Yet every year the sewage pouring into our rivers and streams gets worse. The chalk streams are destroyed; the fish on our coastline are polluted and killed. It just gets worse and worse.

It is surely pretty obvious that the private ownership model, where the motive is profit, not service, has absolutely failed. We should take the whole water industry back into public ownership. It was public ownership that cleaned it up, it was public ownership that constructed the reservoirs and all the infrastructure, and it is public ownership that will deliver clean water in the future. However, it also needs to be democratic. We should not just have the appointment of a national water company or regional water companies, where the Secretary of State decides who the directors are. We should include the workforce, the local trade unions, the local business community, the local authority—we should make it a matter of community pride to be part of the water industry and the water company.

Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

I repeat for the House that, in line with the Humble Address, all documents that the Government have were published. The hon. Lady’s reference to 56 documents is a reference to 56 documents that the Opposition like to think exist, as opposed to those that have been published by the Government. On severance payments, the documents were published in a bundle last week, and they speak for themselves.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

For five years before my election, I led services for adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse. It is a cause that means a lot to me, and I know it is a cause that means a lot to the Prime Minister too.

We on the Labour Benches are furious with Peter Mandelson; he hoodwinked left, right and centre, requiring the Prime Minister to ring him up in the embassy in the middle of the night to fire him. The Prime Minister has said that if he had known then what is now known, he would not have appointed him.

There is a criminal investigation under way that we cannot cut across, and there are critical pieces of information that have not yet been disclosed, including the follow-up questions and Peter Mandelson’s answers to them. Will the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister outline when we might hear about the next steps and the release of those questions and answers? I think we should be reserving judgment until we see the totality of the evidence; as politicians, we are here to be led by the evidence.

[Darren Jones]

As I have said from the Dispatch Box, there are documents that the Government would have wished to have been able to publish as part of the response to the Humble Address, but the Metropolitan police asked us not to do so. It is right that we have honoured that request, given the ongoing criminal investigation. As soon as the Metropolitan police have informed us that they have discharged their duties, we will publish those documents for the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Ward]

My hon. Friend raises a serious point, which builds on the last question, which the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, who is also the Security Minister, answered, and the question about digital ID. If it is okay with my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) , I will write to her about the steps that the Department is taking and how we are working across Government on this important matter.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

16. What recent discussions he has with the European Commission on linking UK and EU emission trading systems.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)]

As part of our new partnership with the EU, we are currently negotiating an agreement to link emission trading schemes. This will lower costs for businesses and consumers, and, alongside the food and drink deal mentioned previously, add £9 billion a year to our economy. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office speaks regularly with Commissioner Šefčovič on this, and we will keep the House updated on progress.

[Tom Hayes]

The EU’s carbon budget amendment mechanism came into being on 1 January. It affects the IFA2 interconnector between Britain and France, which I visited recently. CBAM is a trade block for UK electricity exports to the EU, imposing costs on exporters of £2.2 billion, and it robs the Treasury of up to £8 billion at a time when we need that money to invest in our public services and to have a stronger buffer against external shocks. Does the Minister agree that we should not be shooting ourselves in the foot and throwing away money, as the Conservatives would do, and that we should instead be boosting trade, boosting energy security, boosting our national security and seeking an exemption from CBAM?

--- Later in debate ---

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

Both contracts that the hon. Gentleman refers to were negotiated by the previous Government; he might want to reflect on that. In both those contracts, we are reserving our contractual rights. The Cabinet Office has already withheld payments from Capita for not meeting particular milestones, so the hon. Gentleman can rest assured that we will use every lever in these contracts to enforce them.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

T5.  Will the Minister join me in congratulating Ryan Cornish and Elliott Prentice, who are the Members of Youth Parliament for Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole, and their deputies, Ruth Simpkins and Lilee Bedwell, on a fantastic year? They have not just participated in our democracy; they have strengthened it locally. I know that the Government would support that.

[Darren Jones]

I join my hon. Friend in congratulating his constituents. The Youth Parliament plays an important role in our democracy, and in engaging young people in it. With Mr Speaker’s consent, it has the benefit of coming to this Chamber to experience what it is like. The good news is that we have already had Members of Youth Parliament become Members of Parliament as a consequence of their experience; it did not warn them off. We look forward to welcoming more of them in future generations.

Russian Influence on UK Politics and Democracy

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I have notified another Member of the House, whom I intend to name in my speech.

I thank the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for introducing the debate so comprehensively and effectively on behalf of the Petitions Committee and the more than 115,000 petitioners. I share their concern about the influence of Russia over British politics. We urgently need to defend UK democracy from a sustained pattern of attempted foreign interference.

In June last year, the Government’s strategic defence review called Russia

“an immediate and pressing threat”.

It absolutely is. We see that in the conviction of Nathan Gill, Reform’s former leader in Wales. He was sentenced to jail for 10 and a half years for accepting Russian bribes for influence in politics. We also see it highlighted by the light of disinfectant that has been provided by the partial release of the Epstein files. They show a sinister web of crypto and far-right politics in Putin’s orbit, and the way in which that extends into UK politics. It is clear that Reform UK is peddling the same agenda in the UK and is seeking to form the next Government. This is a clear and present danger to UK politics. We cannot overstate the threat to our values, democracy and way of life.

The Gill conviction came more than five years after the 2020 Russia report from the Intelligence and Security Committee, which called Russian influence in the UK “the new normal”. The US had the in-depth Mueller inquiry into interference in their 2016 elections straight after. It is an unforgivable gap in the British state’s response to the Russian threat that a similar inquiry still has not been undertaken into the Brexit referendum. The Tories stopped that happening here. Why have the Labour Government not made it happen?

Mueller found that Russia had sophisticated techniques in setting up legitimate-looking English language accounts, which distributed thousands of pro-Brexit messages in 2016, raising serious questions about Russian internet troll farms. The ISC found credible evidence of interference in UK elections. Former Prime Minister Boris Johnson used to dance on the head of a pin over successful and unsuccessful Russian interference, but this needs to be investigated properly and urgently before we have another general election in the UK. The Rycroft review is welcome and important, but we also need a proper, in-depth, Mueller-style probe into what happened in 2016 and since. Time is short, the clock is ticking and our democracy is under constant threat.

I turn to the Epstein files. The girls and women affected by the heinous crimes committed by Epstein and his cronies are at the forefront of all our minds. Justice for them must be paramount in any action that the UK Government take. The Epstein files make it clear that Gill was not one bad apple, but part of something much bigger and darker: a web of pro-crypto, far-right, Russia-linked anti-democratic forces. It is an oblique and shady movement, in which the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) appears to be embroiled deeply. A message from Steve Bannon, former head of the Trump campaign and former White House chief of staff, was explicit in telling Epstein:

“I am now adviser to Front; salvini/the league; afd; Swiss peoples; orban; land; farage”.

He crowed:

“next may is European Parliament election—we can go from 92 seats to 200—shut down any crypto legislation or anything else we want”.

He was explicit about his project and about the part of the hon. Member for Clacton within that project. We need to recognise this threat.

We see far-right parties across Europe all using the same playbook: attack migrants, distract, create fear, benefit from crypto and grab power. It is dangerous, disgusting and part of a plan. The files reveal Epstein messaging Palantir chief Peter Thiel to say of the chaos caused by the referendum that Brexit is “just the beginning”. That is why the Mueller-style probe is so important. Palantir itself is now enmeshed in hundreds of millions of pounds of public contracts in the UK, including in the NHS and the Ministry of Defence, facilitated in part by Peter Mandelson and Global Counsel. This is absolutely unacceptable.

It is vital that we stand up for democracy. It is vital that we stand up against the dangerous idea, “Oh, they’re all the same,” the idea that the word “politician “is inherently bad, and the unfair idea that all MPs are on the make. Some clearly are, but I absolutely believe that the majority are not. That sort of narrative exactly serves the anti-democratic Bannon-Putin-Farage agenda. But to stand against that, we must act.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

War may not be declared as before and warfare may not be defined by the weapons of old—we may not, for instance, have Russian bombers over the skies of London—but does the hon. Member agree that this country is being forced to fight back against Russian disinformation, spying and sabotage every day? If she does, does she not see Russian financial interference in our democracy as a weapon of war? And if it is, is our country therefore in a form of warfare with Russia?

[Dr Chowns]

I absolutely agree that Russian money is used in all sorts of manners to undermine our democracy. Rather than splitting hairs over the meaning of war, I will say that it is clear that we are in a fight for the life of our democracy, and that is why I am so passionate about the need for us to work collectively, cross-party, to face the challenge and resist the use of misinformation and disinformation, and the misuse of money, to poison our politics.

Let me turn to the actions that we need to take. We have a crucial opportunity coming up, because we are expecting the publication of the elections Bill. This House will have an opportunity to make law that could strengthen our powers to counter the forces of dirty money, misinformation and disinformation that undermine trust in our politics. Will the Government use the forthcoming Bill as an opportunity to introduce the measures that are urgently needed to prevent Russian influence?

Will the Minister ensure that we ban all crypto donations to political individuals and parties? Will he urgently introduce a cap on political donations? It is, frankly, mind-blowing that we still do not have one. Will he introduce annual spending limits, to stop massive spending around the edges of election times?

Will the Minister stop MPs having any second jobs? We have the grotesque spectacle of Reform MPs, for example, raking in hundreds of thousands fronting things like GB News, clearly peddling the kinds of messages and propaganda that serve the interests of the crypto/far-right/Kremlin axis. Will he act on the recommendations of Gordon Brown by establishing a new anti-corruption commission with power to seize assets and introducing confirmation hearings for top jobs? Why have we had to wait so long for this?

Will the Minister ensure that there is meaningful enforcement when the rules are broken? Frankly, £20,000 fines are a joke. We need much stronger financial and criminal penalties. We have structural weaknesses in election law, which the hon. Member for South Norfolk referred to, including the vulnerability of the Electoral Commission to political attack. Will the Minister re-establish the complete independence of the Electoral Commission and ensure that it has stronger powers?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for the elegant way in which he presented his speech, and I thank Members from across the Chamber for their thoughtful and excellent contributions.

Confidence in our democracies and our elected officials stands somewhat at a juncture. The ever-increasing deficit in confidence in politics and our politicians runs as far back as the financial crisis, and accelerated after some of the events that colleagues have mentioned. We know that democracy depends on participation, engagement and trust. When that is undermined and attacked, democracy itself is weakened.

The people of Ukraine know the brutality of the Russian regime and Russian warfare, but so do the people of this country, what with the Salisbury poisonings and Alexander Litvinenko being assassinated on British soil. As the Intelligence and Security Committee has made clear, Russian interference does not just involve tanks and poisonous chemicals. It also operates seditiously through money, misinformation, cyber-activity and influence. We know that Russia has developed a long-term strategy to interfere in western democracies, including our own. While the goal is not necessarily to support one political party over the rest, it is most definitely to create division, sow distrust and cause harm to our economy, society and national security.

Of course, I say that the goal is not necessarily to support one political party over another. However, as others have expanded on, when it comes to Nathan Gill, the former Welsh leader of Reform UK, one might be mistaken for thinking that that is actually the case. The number of Welsh constituents who have signed the petition, including in my constituency of Cardiff West—which, when I last checked, was fourth highest on the league table—shows that the disgust felt by the people of Wales at Nathan Gill’s treachery has struck a chord.

Let us quickly remind ourselves of Nathan Gill’s crimes. He committed eight counts of bribery, taking bribes from pro-Russian actors, and is now serving 10 and a half years in prison for his treachery. Specifically, while serving as an MEP for the people of Wales, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk said, he accepted at least £40,000 in payments. He made speeches in the European Parliament that were scripted by the Kremlin, doing its bidding. Shockingly, he was also trying to recruit his mates—his friends, his colleagues—in the European Parliament to do the same, to keep the roubles flowing.

At first, some of Reform UK’s leaders claimed they did not know who this person was. Then the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who I have notified, said he was just a “bad apple”. Although their attempts to whitewash Gill from their history have clearly failed—and must fail—it is clear that the only way a political party such as Reform UK can be straight with the British public about the extent of Russia’s links is for it to do two things. No. 1 is that it must launch a full, independent investigation into all its links to Russia, and No. 2 is that it must commit to fully co-operating with Philip Rycroft’s review and to accepting every recommendation Rycroft makes. Of course, Reform is not here to answer that point, and to date it has failed to do so. That is not surprising, but it is shocking.

[Dawn Butler in the Chair] 

Today, Politico published an article by the excellent Esther Webber entitled “Nigel Farage tries to fix his Russia problem”—and, boy, does he know he has one. A More in Common poll last year showed that despite the fact that every voter group overwhelmingly backs Ukraine over Russia, just 26% of Brits think the hon. Member for Clacton does, and 21% think he sympathises more with Russia. That is astonishing—and incredibly dangerous for our democracy. My constituents in Cardiff West and the Welsh public will not be fooled by any attempt at a makeover, given the overwhelming stench. The only way Reform can seriously fix the stench of Russian interference and conspiracies that surrounds it is to do what I have outlined.

For those reasons, and the other excellent reasons that colleagues have expanded on today, the elections Bill is a critical moment in our attempt to curb the extent of Russian and other interference in our elections.

[Tom Hayes]

My hon. Friend is making an eloquent point about how Reform’s Nathan Gill, who has been jailed for 10 years, was pushing out Putin propaganda in return for funding, and Reform has the most worrying of relationships with Russia. Is it also the case that Reform will ultimately do whatever its paymasters want? For instance, 50% of its income last year came from fossil fuel firms or climate change deniers—no wonder it is not in favour of net zero. Similarly, it is a fan of crypto chiefs and is embracing crypto donations, and as a consequence its policy would be to support cryptocurrency. Reform says it is on the side of ordinary people, but its Members voted against the Renters Rights’ Act 2025 and the Employment Rights Act 2025—historic Acts that shift power back to people. Is it not the case that Reform is just siding with vested interests?

[Mr Barros-Curtis]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I fully agree. Of course, his point is about the donations that we know about, but when it comes to cryptocurrency, we do not know who the paymasters behind those payments are.

Some of what the Government have announced in relation to the elections Bill—and the strategy beforehand —on toughening up the rules on political finance is welcome. However, for the reasons that have been mentioned, we must go further, and I urge the Government to ensure that this opportunity to safeguard our democracy is not missed. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk mentioned, the Kremlin has exploited loopholes in political financing rules for at least 15 years. That must be stopped.

The Electoral Commission’s independence, enforcement powers and resources must be strengthened as a matter of urgency. We should ban all crypto donations to political parties and individuals. There is no legitimate rationale for donating via such means unless the donor ultimately wishes to disguise their true identity. The ban should be brought into effect urgently and capture donations made by any means, whether by principal donors or through intermediaries.

Improved co-operation between our Electoral Commission, intelligence services, law enforcement and electoral authorities must be a priority. I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that the new national police service, part of the recently announced reforms to policing, might be a suitable vehicle through which to consider establishing dedicated police capability for electoral crime.

We must urgently deal with disinformation and online operations, treating them as the core national security threat they are. The Electoral Commission, Ofcom and the police all need more resources and are underpowered for dealing with the threat of personalised algorithmic feeds and AI-enabled manipulation that feeds misinformation about our elections.

This is not specifically about Russia, but when Iran was attacked by Israel and America in targeted strikes last year, it was reported that 20,000 bots advocating for Scottish independence were taken out in Scotland as a result. If that is what Iran could do, imagine what North Korea, Russia and China are doing. That is why we have to take these threats seriously. As the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli (Ben Lake) mentioned, the important May elections will be a real test of what we need to do to respond to such foreign narrative-shaping operations.

I ask the Minister to urgently consider these measures and take this issue back to the various Departments to ensure we get a robust elections Bill that is ready for 2026 and for everything that is coming, given the way that technology is quickly changing. As part of this strategy, I ask him to join me in recommitting ourselves to the NATO alliance as a bulwark against Russian aggression—something that unserious politicians, such as the leader of the Green party, seem to doubt, thereby doing the Russians’ work for them. Alliances, resources and an elections Bill that seeks to support our democracy, not undermine it, are the critical tools we need to curb Russian interference.

Civil Service Pension Scheme: Administration

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Lorraine Beavers]

I agree. Peter reached state pension age and gave plenty of notice, but heard nothing. After waiting three hours on the phone, he was told that nothing had been done. He retired in good faith, but the system let him down.

Such cases are not rare. PCS has heard from people who cannot pay their rent or mortgages, who have missed bill payments, who have been charged fees by banks, who are borrowing money or relying on family, and who are suffering serious stress. Some widows or widowers wait months for their late partner’s pension. This is a human crisis. PCS has said that up to 8,500 people may have retired without receiving their pension. For many, this pension is their only income and, when it does not arrive, the impact is immediate and severe. This is a failure on a huge scale.

I also want to mention retired prison officers such as my constituent John, whose cases have been raised by the POA. They have worked in tough and dangerous jobs, and many now face delayed pensions and missing lump sums. The POA is right to call for urgent action, clear timescales and fair compensation.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

Public servants in Bournemouth East who gave decades of their lives are struggling after providing service to all of us. Probation officers, youth justice workers, prison staff and court clerks are struggling while Capita makes mistake after mistake. Does my hon. Friend agree that being good at winning public service contracts is not the same as being good at delivering them, and that we need accountability where people’s lives have been harmed?

[Lorraine Beavers]

I agree.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Our democratic mandate from the general election is clear: we will not rejoin the single market or the customs union, or go back to freedom of movement. However, what we do, and what I do every single week, is negotiate that closer UK-EU relationship, which is in our national interest. The hon. Lady and her colleagues should support that.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

This week the Prime Minister hit the phones again to protect our interests; meanwhile, the Leader of the Opposition risked undermining those efforts, acting almost like a Trump Trojan horse in this Chamber. Diplomacy is paying off: tariff threats are receding and Greenland solutions may be emerging. Does the Minister agree that we must always put country before party and work with the US and our European allies, and that our efforts should command cross-party support?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Leader of the Opposition should have risen to the occasion yesterday in a profound moment for the nation. She chose not to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Jones]

As part of the Growth and Living Standards Cabinet Committee, the Cabinet Office co-ordinates Ministers across Government to ensure that we are working as hard as possible to get inflation and costs down and make a real difference to the living standards of the public across the country.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

Boots has stores in Castlepoint, Southbourne Grove and Boscombe high street in my constituency. I met Boots in Parliament to hear about what it is doing to tackle shoplifting. In London, it is working with the Metropolitan police, who plug into Boots’s own reporting system to avoid the need for duplicate reporting. I am calling for the same to come to Bournemouth, but plugging all businesses into all police forces will take a lot of work. Will the Government consider having a national police app that is opt-in, like the national health service app, so people do not have to go through the faff of reporting their demographic information and so they can get on with reporting crime faster? That would be a lot of help to Karl, the store manager at Aldi in Boscombe.

[Darren Jones]

That is a very good idea—I have had similar issues in my own constituency. I will make sure that that idea is passed on to the Home Secretary. Police reforms will be coming to the House shortly.

UK-EU Common Understanding Negotiations

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

A Welsh MP negotiated the new agreement, so I hope that is a good start. The right hon. Lady is none the less absolutely right to praise the Welsh Labour Government’s work on the Taith programme; it is great to see her praising the work of the Welsh Labour Government. In November, I spoke to civic society groups and those involved in that Taith outreach and discovered their exemplary work involving students and young people from disadvantaged backgrounds, and I am looking at that work in terms of access to Erasmus+.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister’s focus on jobs, bills and borders as part of a pragmatic and balanced reset of our relationship with the European Union. I have already heard from constituents like Robert in Boscombe, who welcomes the fact that the UK will be rejoining Erasmus. When a Government invest in our children, our country starts to care about our future again. Will the Minister update the House on progress towards a youth mobility scheme, and on what role he sees English language schools playing in our future economy as we bring European students to Bournemouth?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

It is always good to hear from my hon. Friend, and indeed from Robert. As I indicated, we will look to have agreed the youth experience scheme by the time of the next UK-EU summit and my hon. Friend can be assured that it will be a priority for the Government.

Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, I have worked with the devolved Administrations throughout. We have to take into account that this is a pre-devolution scandal, so it is UK-wide, and a number of Sir Brian’s recommendations from his initial report are UK-wide. They are now within devolved competence, so this is hugely important. I have always been conscious of that, and I work with the devolved Administrations in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

With regard to the hon. Gentleman’s second point, on the issue of voluntary bodies, a couple of different issues are mixed up on that question. If he writes to me precisely about putting work on a statutory footing, I will give him an answer. More generally, the work of voluntary bodies and charities in supporting victims has been absolutely invaluable, and I am very conscious of the financial pressures they are facing.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

So many lives have been scarred or ended by this betrayal of trust, cover-ups, denials and delays, and my constituents have waited for up to decades for justice. Many are concerned that they will not see it in their lifetime. Can the Minister outline how he will ensure that my constituents and the infected blood community find the consultation accessible, and can he say when the third set of regulations that have been published will become law?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

On my hon. Friend’s second question, and subject to the will of the House, I would really like the third set of regulations to become law by the end of the year. His advocacy for his constituents has never been anything short of impressive, and I am more than happy to look at any specific case that he brings to me.