House of Commons · Bill Debate
24 May 2024 · 10 other contributors
Opened by Edward Argar Con Melton and Syston
Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.
Edward Argar raised concerns about hiv compensation scheme bill - lords amendment 35, government amendments (b) and (c), lords amendment 46, etc. in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.
Key points
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said.
Opened the debate
The lead MP opened the debate by moving several amendments to address various aspects of the HIV Compensation Scheme Bill. He discussed Lords amendments including 35 and Government amendments such as (b) and (c). The main focus was on procedural matters related to financial privilege and proposed changes to specific clauses that affect independent domestic violence advisors.
Introduced the debate by outlining several Lords amendments and Government motions, discussing financial privilege engagement. No explicit position on the amendment was stated.
Interjected to raise concerns about payments for parents who lost children due to HIV transmission via contaminated blood products, referencing the lack of a timescale for these payments despite an earlier recommendation from Sir Brian Langstaff. Emphasised the delay in implementing this recommendation.
Supports measures that strengthen victims' rights and acknowledges the collaborative efforts with the Government to ensure robust support for victims. Emphasises Labour's commitment to improving public confidence in the justice system by enhancing the Victims’ Commissioner’s role. Commends colleagues across parties for their work on issues such as IPP sentences, MAPPA arrangements, and infected blood scandal compensation.
[INTERVENTION] Or be a Conservative! Expresses support for the Labour amendment in jest.
[INTERVENTION] Agrees with the need to move quickly on infected blood compensation, suggesting that the Cabinet Office should engage directly with affected communities and ensure representation on the compensation authority board.
Neill supports improvements to the Bill, acknowledging the Minister's approach and welcoming changes such as co-operation with the commissioner, duty of candour, use of public protection powers for prisoner recall, and extension of home curfew. He emphasises the importance of using alternative tools like home detention curfews to balance punishment with rehabilitation. Neill regrets that the Sentencing Bill is not included but hopes future governments will address its issues. He also expresses regret over insufficient progress on IPP prisoners' resentencing exercise proposal.
Welcomes the Lords amendments regarding compensation for those infected by contaminated blood, acknowledging the cross-party efforts in achieving this progress. Emphasises the importance of Sir Brian Langstaff's report and its damning evidence against the NHS and state involvement in the scandal. Recognises the contributions of campaigners such as Nick Sainsbury and Glenn Wilkinson who fought tirelessly for justice.
Noted a time constraint but did not provide specific arguments or position regarding the amendments.
Ms Creasy supports Lords amendment 45, which seeks to protect victims of malicious harassment. She highlights the cross-party effort in the House of Lords and praises lawyers, experts on stalking, and victims' commissioner Claire Waxman for their work. She raises concerns about the clarity of exemptions and requests formal guidance from the Minister.
Ms Winterton announces that due to time constraints, the debate was interrupted after one hour. The Deputy Speaker proceeds with Questions necessary for disposal of business without additional interventions from speakers.