The delivery of compensation is a matter for the Infected Blood Compensation Authority (IBCA). IBCA publishes regular statistics on its website, detailing those who have registered their intent to claim with the service and the progress in delivering compensation.

Regarding the matter of whether claims have been rejected or compensation offers lowered due to a lack of medical evidence, IBCA does not publish breakdowns either of the specific awards which individuals have been offered, or of the individual circumstances of claims.

The delivery of compensation is a matter for the Infected Blood Compensation Authority (IBCA). IBCA publishes regular statistics on its website, detailing those who have registered their intent to claim with the service and the progress in delivering compensation.

Regarding the matter of whether claims have been rejected or compensation offers lowered due to a lack of medical evidence, IBCA does not publish breakdowns either of the specific awards which individuals have been offered, or of the individual circumstances of claims.

The delivery of compensation is a matter for the Infected Blood Compensation Authority (IBCA). IBCA publishes regular statistics on its website, detailing those who have registered their intent to claim with the service and the progress in delivering compensation.

Regarding the matter of whether claims have been rejected or compensation offers lowered due to a lack of medical evidence, IBCA does not publish breakdowns either of the specific awards which individuals have been offered, or of the individual circumstances of claims.

The Infected Blood Compensation Authority (IBCA) publishes regular statistics on its website, detailing those who have registered their intent to claim with the service and the progress in delivering compensation. As of 25 August 2026, 6,321 people have been asked to start their claim. Of these, 1,099 are people acting on behalf of a deceased infected person.

The Financial Services and Markets Bill simplifies how payment systems are regulated by abolishing the Payment Systems Regulator (PSR) and transferring its responsibilities to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). In doing so, it gives the FCA objectives and powers generally equivalent to those currently held by the PSR, including the ability to make rules or give directions for the purpose of regulating payment system fees and charges. This ensures there is continuity in regulation and that the FCA can carry out its new responsibilities effectively.

The FCA’s power to regulate payment system fees and charges would be subject to challenge on judicial review principles. A challenge to equivalent powers held by the PSR is determined by judicial review principles, and the Bill maintains the same test when those functions transfer to the FCA. This is also consistent with the existing approach taken elsewhere in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.

The Government recognises that regulators’ powers should be subject to appropriate safeguards. Powers to regulate payment system fees and charges must advance payment systems objectives. The Bill ensures before exercising those powers, the FCA must comply with procedural requirements, such as undertaking a consultation, which help to ensure decisions are transparent, evidence-based and proportionate.

The Government is committed to maintaining the UK’s position as a leading global financial centre, supported by a competitive, innovative and well-regulated payments ecosystem that delivers good outcomes for consumers, businesses and the wider economy.

The Financial Services and Markets Bill simplifies how payment systems are regulated by abolishing the Payment Systems Regulator and transferring its functions to the Financial Conduct Authority. The Bill gives the FCA objectives and powers that are equivalent to those currently held by the PSR, ensuring there is continuity in regulation and that the FCA can carry out its new responsibilities effectively.

The price control provision is not an expansion of regulatory powers. It clarifies and replicates powers already exercisable by the PSR, so the FCA has the same tools where intervention is justified to protect service-users and support effective competition.

At the same time, the Government recognises that regulators must act proportionately and that their powers should be subject to appropriate safeguards. The Bill therefore strengthens the framework by requiring the FCA to consult before exercising this power, a safeguard that is not always required under the current regime. This will help ensure decisions are transparent, evidence-based and proportionate.

The Government is committed to maintaining the UK’s position as a leading global financial centre, supported by a competitive, innovative and well-regulated payments ecosystem that delivers good outcomes for consumers, businesses and the wider economy.

The Financial Services and Markets Bill simplifies how payment systems are regulated by abolishing the Payment Systems Regulator and transferring its functions to the Financial Conduct Authority. The Bill gives the FCA objectives and powers that are equivalent to those currently held by the PSR, ensuring there is continuity in regulation and that the FCA can carry out its new responsibilities effectively.

The price control provision is not an expansion of regulatory powers. It clarifies and replicates powers already exercisable by the PSR, so the FCA has the same tools where intervention is justified to protect service-users and support effective competition.

At the same time, the Government recognises that regulators must act proportionately and that their powers should be subject to appropriate safeguards. The Bill therefore strengthens the framework by requiring the FCA to consult before exercising this power, a safeguard that is not always required under the current regime. This will help ensure decisions are transparent, evidence-based and proportionate.

The Government recognises the importance of improving safety for people walking and cycling. On 12 June the Government published the third Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy (CWIS3) which outlines the Government's vision for walking, wheeling and cycling to be safe, easy and accessible choices for everyone. Over £4.5 billion is projected to be invested in active travel up to 2030 from a wide range of funding streams including £1.1 billion of funding for Active Travel England.

The Government has also set ambitious national road safety targets to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured on Great Britain’s roads by 65% by 2035, and to reduce the number of children killed or seriously injured by 70% by 2035, both against a 2022 to 2024 baseline. These targets sit alongside the active travel safety performance indicator to monitor the rate of cyclists and pedestrians killed or seriously injured on England’s roads, measured as the number of fatalities and serious injuries per billion miles walked and cycled. The Department will actively monitor this indicator, which should help to assess whether active travel is becoming safer as more people walk and cycle.

We have learnt from the previous Cycling and Walking Investment Strategies of the importance of providing long term funding certainty for local authorities and third sector delivery partners to deliver our ambitious targets by 2035.

The UK's position remains as set out in the answer provided in the House of Commons on 4 March in response to Question HC114367, which for ease is reproduced below:

Along with several other countries, we have raised concerns about a series of comments made by the Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Ministers have raised these concerns directly with the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, and the UK has asked that the comments of the Special Rapporteur be urgently investigated against the Code of Conduct for her post, and for action to be taken to restore the confidence of the international community in the independence and objectivity of this important role.

My noble friend makes a really important point. Many people across this Chamber will know that the responsibility of government requires difficult decisions to be made. As my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti has rightly raised, there are sometimes difficult decisions and difficult dilemmas to be resolved. Alongside that—my noble friend asked about defence—we have a responsibility to ensure that with the AI capability and the data management capability, we can take forward our strategic defence review and can give our Armed Forces and those who work with them the best possible tools to ensure that we deliver the objectives of His Majesty’s Government. That is what we seek to do, while recognising the moral responsibilities we also have.

I completely agree with the noble Lord’s assessment about the importance of tackling youth unemployment. Indeed, we have set a bold new target of two-thirds of young people participating in higher-level learning, whether academic, technical or through an apprenticeship, by age 25. Indeed, as the House heard from my noble friend Lady Smith of Malvern earlier, we have a youth guarantee, and we have Alan Milburn leading an investigation into the cause of NEET, and he is working at pace. There will be an interim report in the spring and a report with recommendations in the summer. We are taking this very seriously and we will act on it.

This is a number one priority. In my work in the Department for Work and Pensions, the Secretary of State has been completely clear about the focus that we need to place on youth unemployment, on our youth guarantee and on appropriately spending the £1.5 billion that we received from the Budget in order to make sure that we reduce that million young people who are starting their working lives neither earning nor learning, with all the impact for them and the economy; and that we turn around the 40% decrease that we have seen in young people’s apprenticeship starts in order to provide opportunities for young people to be not only in work but in skilled work that will last them throughout their lives.

The consultation on the third Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy is seeking the views of stakeholders on a national vision, statutory objectives and underlying performance indicators. The shape of the final strategy, intended to be published next year including measures of success and targets, will be informed by the responses to the consultation.

At the 2025 Spending Review, the Government announced £616 million of capital funding for active travel over the years 2026/27 to 2029/30. Long term funding settlements for local authorities will be agreed as part of wider Integrated Settlements for Mayoral Strategic Authorities and consolidated local transport settlements for other authorities.

The Government also announced £15.6 billion in total by 2031-32 for the Transport for City Regions (TCR) settlements, supporting them to invest in their local transport priorities, including promoting modal shift from cars to public transport, walking and cycling.

The Government plans to offer long term funding settlements over the 2025 Spending Review period for other national active travel programmes run by wider organisations, such as Bikeability and the National Cycle Network, following the conclusion of DfT business planning.

I refer the Noble Lord to the answer provided in the House of Commons on 18 November to Question 88033, which - for ease of reference - is reproduced below:

The Foreign Secretary met with the Palestinian Foreign Minister on 1 November. As part of their conversation they discussed educational reforms. The UK continues to monitor and advance the implementation of the Memorandum of Understanding on strategic cooperation through an annual strategic dialogue. In the meantime, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, through the British Consulate in Jerusalem, engage regularly with the Palestinian Authority on many areas, including education reform.

Yes, it absolutely would, and that is what the Government are seeking. My noble friend will have noted some of the announcements on apprenticeships in the Budget. The skilled workers route is by far the largest route for these high skills; it is more than 250,000 people. We need to upskill the resident community, but we have raised the skills levels required for the skilled worker route and the salary levels. The occupational lists have been restricted, and we have created a temporary shortage list. I believe we are addressing exactly some of the points that my noble friend made.

I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising this important issue. Palestine Action has conducted an escalating campaign involving alleged criminal damage to Britain’s national security infrastructure, intimidation and violence. This Government unreservedly condemn any crimes of this kind. That said, as the noble Lord will understand, it would be wrong for me to comment on individual cases that are awaiting trial. In relation to when trials take place, in the same way that no Government can tell the Crown Prosecution Service which cases to prosecute, this Government do not tell courts which cases to prioritise when listing trials. These are decisions for independent judges to make, free from political pressure.

My Lords, as of June 2025, the average time from charge to the main hearing in the Crown Court, whether that is a guilty plea or a contested trial, for all Crown Court cases is 241 days. That is 14 fewer days than in the corresponding quarter last year, a drop of 5%, so there is some improvement, but overall the Crown Court backlog that the Government inherited continues to rise, which means that victims are waiting too long for justice. The Government commissioned Sir Brian Leveson to propose reforms. We are carefully considering his report and will respond in due course.

I refer the Noble Lord to the statement made on the Middle East by the Prime Minister on 14 October, in which he addressed at length the issues arising from the UK's decision to recognise the State of Palestine. Any further updates will be announced in the normal way in due course.