Oral Answers to Questions

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Thursday 24th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)]

12. What recent progress he has made on establishing an infected blood compensation scheme.

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

The infected blood scandal is the worst medical scandal in the history of our NHS, and the infected blood compensation scheme was set up to provide some small measure of justice to victims and their families. We have set aside £11.8 billion for victims, and since the scheme became law on 31 March, the Infected Blood Compensation Authority has the powers it needs to press ahead and make payments to those eligible for compensation. The compensation payments began last December, and 69 people have accepted their offers, totalling more than £71 million.

[Kate Osamor]

My constituent, who is 77 years old, is a victim of the infected blood scandal. He is worried that haemophilia patients infected with hepatitis are being sidelined by the compensation scheme. He tells me that he was told those on the special category mechanism with hepatitis C would be upgraded to the same level as those with cirrhosis, but that position has now been reversed. Will the Minister look into my constituent’s concerns about disparities for haemophiliacs infected with hepatitis?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I will certainly write to my hon. Friend on the issue of the special category mechanism. I reassure her that the Government’s objective is for all victims of the infected blood scandal to be able to achieve the compensation that they deserve.

[Alice Macdonald]

My constituent, Mr Alan Kirkham, has been badly affected by the infected blood scandal. He was infected with hepatitis C from a blood transfusion in 1983. I met Alan recently, and he has been campaigning for justice for years. Will the Minister welcome and pay tribute to the work of campaigners like Alan? Can he provide assurances that we are working at pace to deliver compensation? Will he consider fast-tracking older and more vulnerable people?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I will certainly pay tribute to Alan and to the work of all campaigners over decades. I am restless for progress, and I will support the Infected Blood Compensation Authority to deliver compensation as quickly as possible. On fast-tracking for specific claimants, last week IBCA set out details of how it is prioritising claims from infected people nearing the end of their life.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

What direct discussions has the Minister had with people in Scotland who have been impacted by the infected blood scandal about the slow pace of compensation payments?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

In the course of the work I have done, I have not only spoken to groups in Scotland, but engaged with the Scottish Government’s Health Minister on this matter. On the pace of the payments, IBCA has taken a test-and-learn approach, which allows it to deal with a sample of the cases and then subsequently to scale up. IBCA is operationally independent, but I stand ready to provide all the support I can to speed up the payments.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

My constituent Hazel, from Street, was infected with hepatitis C in the 1970s after receiving blood products following the birth of her child. She suffered years of ill health and related problems, and is still waiting for the infected blood compensation scheme. Her case is truly heart- breaking, so what assurance can the Minister provide to people like Hazel that they will soon be supported?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

First, I express my sympathy and, I am sure, that of the whole House to Hazel in respect of what she has been through. The assurance I give is that this Government will act at pace. That is what we did in putting the first set of regulations in place by 24 August last year and by putting the second set of regulations in place by 31 March this year. I continue to stand ready to help and support IBCA, which is operationally independent, in any way that I can to speed up the payments.

[Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)]

2. What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to reform public services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

Will the Paymaster General give us an update on his negotiations with the European Union? He has not updated the House since the beginning of February, and there has been much speculation in the press. Will he take this opportunity to rule out dropping the right to annual quota negotiations on fishing?

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

We will negotiate in the interests of our fishers and understand and implement our marine protection rights. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will understand, I will not give a running commentary on the negotiations, but we are clear that we will negotiate in the national interest and in line with the manifesto that the Government, with 411 Members of Parliament, were elected on.

[Alex Burghart]

The whole House will have heard the Minister fail to rule that out.

It was good to hear the Prime Minister recently praise the Brexit freedom to regulate as we wish on artificial intelligence; will the Minister assure the House that EU AI rules will not be applied to Northern Ireland?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Again the hon. Gentleman comes with his questions on the reset. We have had an atmosphere of collegiality, and I want to join in by agreeing with the Leader of the Opposition that the previous Conservative Government left the EU without any plan for growth. That is absolutely true. The hon. Gentleman should follow the public debate on this issue. Major retailers including M&S, Sainsbury’s, Morrisons and Lidl all support this Government’s approach in the reset to get a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement. The hon. Gentleman should back that approach; otherwise, people will rightly conclude that he and his party have learned nothing.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

Warm words about a reset in UK-EU relations are no longer enough. The summit that will take place in London on 19 May is an opportunity for real action. Will the Minister take the opportunity that the summit presents to commit to bringing in a UK-EU youth mobility scheme that will boost economic growth and enhance chances for young people in our country and across the EU?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

A youth mobility scheme is not part of our plans. We have always said that we will listen to sensible EU proposals, but we will not go back to freedom of movement. Where I do agree with the hon. Lady is on concrete proposals and concrete progress on 19 May. We are looking to secure a new partnership with the EU that will make our country safer, more secure and more prosperous.

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

T3. Teesside has enormous potential for AI investment. What progress are the Government making on AI growth zones, AI adoption and investment for Teesside?

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)]

T4. As we approach the eighth anniversary of Grenfell, there is still no justice for the bereaved and survivors, but we do now have a Government response to the national inquiry. Grenfell campaigners have been clear with me that they want to see the promised changes implemented, but they are sceptical, given previous failures of the state to learn the lessons from past disasters. Does the Minister agree that as part of, or alongside, the very welcome commitment to a Hillsborough law, there should be a national oversight mechanism to ensure that when inquiries are set up, they lead to meaningful change?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is a powerful advocate on this issue. It is incredibly important that the Government are held to account for the implementation of inquiry recommendations. It is why the Government have already committed to establishing a publicly accessible record of recommendations made by public inquiries since 2024. We will ensure that becomes standard practice in the future. We are also considering wider reform of the inquiries landscape.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

T6. Press reports earlier this week indicated that negotiations with the EU around security and defence were to be linked to the review of the trade and co-operation agreement, in particular in relation to access to fisheries. May I invite the Paymaster General to confirm to the House that those reports are not true and that there will be no linkage between those two important negotiations?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

There is no such link, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that the current arrangements will come to an end in 2026. We will negotiate in the interests of our fishers and are looking at our responsibilities to the marine environment.

[Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

T7. It is right that the Government have ensured that funding is in place to compensate victims of the infected blood scandal, but many of them, particularly those in my constituency, are still concerned that the process is taking too long. Will my right hon. Friend say a little more about what we are doing to speed up getting compensation to those victims?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is a powerful advocate for her constituents. The Infected Blood Compensation Authority is of course operationally independent, but I stand ready to take all the steps I can to ensure that compensation is made as soon as possible. Payments to the infected started at the end of last year; payments to the affected will start by the end of this year.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

It is every British citizen’s right to vote, and voter turnout is one demonstration of public engagement with politics. Will the Minister consider scrapping photo voter ID, so that the 777,000 people who said that was the reason they did not vote at the last general election will be able to exercise their right to vote at the next general election?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Under the Windsor framework, the Government, through the Cabinet Office, regularly supply data to the European Union about the number and type of checks conducted at the Irish sea border, but they refuse to provide that data to Members of this House. When I was a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the oversight of those checks lay with the local Department, I was able to acquire that, but now that it is under the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Members who ask those questions get a refusal of an answer. Why is that?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am perfectly happy to look into the matter that the hon. and learned Gentleman raises. On the UK-EU reset, I very much hope that if the Government are able to secure a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement that they will reduce the number of checks on the Irish sea.

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

The 36th anniversary of the Hillsborough disaster came and went over the recess, when we also saw in the media rumours that the Government are considering watering down their proposed Hillsborough law. Can the Minister explain the Government’s thinking?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I pay tribute to the Hillsborough families and those who have campaigned over so many years. The Government are committed to bringing in a Hillsborough law, but it is also important that we work closely with the families to ensure that we get it right, and that is precisely what we will do.

Windsor Framework Decisions: Northern Ireland Act 1998, Schedule 6B

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Thursday 24th April 2025 Written Statements

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

On 29 April, I will be meeting with the European Commissioner for Trade and Economic Security, Maroš Šefčovič for this Government’s first meeting of the Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee. As part of this important meeting, the UK and the EU will take decisions to support our commitment to the Windsor framework.

We are moving to implement the next phase of the UK internal market system. This phase will deliver simplified processes for freight and parcels arrangements between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and reflects the substantial work undertaken on the delivery of those commitments to date. We will continue to implement the UK internal market system in good faith in line with the commitments set out in “Safeguarding the Union”.

These changes will replace the burdensome requirements in the old protocol for international customs paperwork with internal market movement information—a much shorter, simpler dataset containing ordinary commercial information. They will further simplify processes for businesses and have been taken forward following considerable engagement with sector stakeholders to ensure full readiness for the new arrangements and, subject to the relevant procedures, will take effect from 1 May 2025. I will make a declaration for the UK at the meeting and expect that my EU counterpart will make a corresponding declaration.

The Government are pleased to be bringing these arrangements into effect, which demonstrate our commitment to the UK internal market and breaking down barriers to trade for businesses and traders. The effect of these new, beneficial arrangements for freight and parcels will continue to be monitored by the Independent Monitoring Panel on the Windsor Framework, whose first six-month reporting period will conclude on 30 June 2025. Marking this progress will be part of a productive Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee meeting, reflecting the closer, more co-operative relationship that the UK now has with the EU.

At that meeting, the Government will also agree specifically to three decisions that will add four Acts to the Windsor framework. This Government are committed to tackling barriers to trade for businesses across the UK. Northern Ireland obviously has a special trading relationship with the EU under the Windsor framework and it is therefore only right that the Government review all elements of Northern Ireland’s regulatory arrangements to ensure it can make the most of its unique dual market-access.

In accordance with paragraph 18(3) of schedule 6B to the Northern Ireland Act 1998, I am setting out in this statement why I am of the opinion that the conditions are met for these particular measures to be agreed on the basis that none of those Acts would create a new regulatory border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The condition in paragraph 18(2)(b) of that schedule is therefore met.

Ukraine/Moldova tariff liberalisation—Regulations 2024/1392 and 2024/1501

These regulations will not create a new regulatory border. This is because the EU regulations reduce the EU tariff on goods coming from Ukraine and Moldova and because of the low volume of relevant trade flows. We expect that no goods moving to Northern Ireland will incur additional financial cost. These regulations follow on from similar previous measures which were added to the framework in 2023.

Critical Raw Materials—Regulation 2024/1252

This regulation will not create a new regulatory border. This is based on the fact that most affected products in Northern Ireland are likely to be traded on a pan-European basis. As such, manufacturers and traders are unlikely to face additional barriers to placing products on the Northern Ireland market or an incentive to cease doing so.

The objectives of the regulation are broadly in line with those of the Government. This is with regard to both the UK’s upcoming critical minerals strategy aimed at securing stable supplies of critical raw materials, and the forthcoming circular economy strategy. This regulation would not create a new regulatory border as it would not lead to a material diversion of trade or materially impair the free flow of goods.

In order to provide additional confidence that manufacturers and traders will not face new regulatory barriers to placing goods on the Northern Ireland market, the Government commit to taking any necessary steps to protect the UK’s internal market, including considering equivalent measures in Great Britain where necessary.

Non-Agricultural Geographical Indications—Regulation 2023/2411

This regulation will not create a new regulatory border. The regulation concerns geographical indications, which are intellectual property rights to indicate that a product has a specific geographical origin and possesses a certain quality or reputation due to that origin. The UK already enforces strong trade mark and consumer protection laws and GIs are another way of protecting products against infringement.

The Government have considered carefully the views expressed by Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly last March. Since that point, the Government have undertaken extensive assessment of the regulation, including detailed technical exchanges with the European Commission and conversations with stakeholders. They have also considered the relevant equivalent protections in Great Britain. This has been with the clear aim of understanding the impacts which would arise from its application in Northern Ireland and the points made by Assembly Members.

From that work, it is clear to me that the regulation would not materially impair the free flow of goods or divert trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and that it could indeed offer new opportunities. The regulation would only affect a small number of businesses due to the specific nature of the products. Additionally, even where companies are selling such products, only minimal adjustments are likely required, such as updating packaging or marketing materials. Companies that are selling genuine products, as registered and protected, will not need to make any adjustments. Where businesses are using protected names when selling a product that does not meet the GI specification, they might be able to use exemptions (such as continued use of the product name if the product is already covered by a UK trade mark) or apply for transition periods of up to 15 years, as applicable, to change marketing materials. And many of these businesses will already trade with the EU market and make those adjustments regardless.

Businesses in Northern Ireland may also benefit by accessing this alternative way of protecting their products, as GIs may allow them to charge higher prices or improve sales. Agrifood products can already benefit from GIs and businesses have hugely valued the protection of products such as Irish whiskey.

I understand that for those who took part in the original debate in the Assembly, as well as others, concerns may still remain about the potential impact of this regulation. The Government will take any steps necessary for the protection of the UK’s internal market and are also committing to reviewing the GB domestic regime in respect of non-agricultural geographical indications in light of this decision.

Next steps

The Government will shortly lay explanatory memorandums before Parliament pertaining to each of the three decisions that we will make. These will set out in further detail the Government’s view on any impacts that the above mentioned regulations would have on Northern Ireland, as well as additional evidence I considered when reaching my conclusion that none of them would lead to a new regulatory border.

While the Government note that the EU has recently issued proposals to add regulations 2024/1689 (on artificial intelligence) and 2024/2847 (on cyber resilience), we are clear that both regulations are complex and will require further dialogue and consideration as to their interaction with the framework. At this Joint Committee, the Government will ask the EU to hold an exchange of views on these two files within six weeks. Therefore, at present no decision has been made and therefore the regulations will not be added to the Windsor framework at this Joint Committee meeting. I also note that Members of both Houses and the Northern Ireland Assembly have expressed interest in these issues in light of our domestic strategy and that they too will want to consider the issues when the Government have further clarity to share on them.

The Government are steadfastly committed to protecting the UK internal market and to implementing the Windsor framework. Our diligent approach to the Joint Committee, to assessing the potential impacts of these decisions, and to delivering the UK internal market system reflects the sincerity with which the Government treat those commitments. The full package of decisions and declarations for the Joint Committee are intended to achieve both of these objectives. Beyond these matters, the Government will continue to engage closely with stakeholders and the European Commission on a broad range of regulatory issues of mutual interest in line with the outcomes of the Joint Committee.

I can confirm that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is writing to the Speaker of the Assembly to update him on these next steps, alongside the specific forward-facing commitments that the Government are making in respect of domestic policy to avoid trade barriers in future. These commitments are sincere and further demonstrate our commitment to ensuring the smooth flow of trade across the United Kingdom in its territorial entirety. I will place a copy of the Secretary of State’s letter to the Assembly Speaker in the Library of the House for future reference.

[HCWS601]

Infected Blood Compensation Scheme: User-friendly Explainer

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2025 Written Statements

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

In August 2024 we established the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme. Since then, we have enshrined the scheme in law and published the Government’s compensation scheme summary. I have been intent on producing a simple and user friendly explainer document. This was driven in part by feedback from the infected blood community and parliamentarians that a shorter, more digestible document which sets out the key relevant information was necessary.

I am pleased to announce that today this has been published on www.gov.uk to coincide with the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Regulations 2025 coming into force. This document has been developed with key representatives from the infected blood community.

[HCWS565]

Infected Blood Compensation Authority Contingency Fund Advance: Correction

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2025 Written Statements

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

Further to my statement of 17 December, I hereby give notice that the Cabinet Office has received a Contingencies Fund advance to make compensation payments to victims of the infected blood scandal.

The Cabinet Office’s capital annually managed expenditure (AME) budget in its main estimate 2024-25 did not provide funding for compensation payments already approved by Parliament through the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024. This advance was used to quickly compensate victims of the infected blood scandal. This has been received through the supplementary estimate. This advance enabled compensation to be made ahead of Parliament formally approving the ambit and the associated expenditure.

Parliamentary approval for additional capital of £272,000,000 for this new expenditure was sought in a supplementary estimate for the Cabinet Office. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £272,000,000 was met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.

[HCWS557]

Draft Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Regulations 2025

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2025 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Regulations 2025.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. Let me first address the reason we are here today. The infected blood scandal was a profound failure of the state. It is hard to conceive the scale of the damage done and the incredible suffering of all those impacted. It is important that those people remain at the forefront of our minds. It is for them that we must do everything in our power to rectify this injustice, restore trust in the state and demonstrate that we will not allow such failures to happen again.

This scandal was allowed to go unaddressed for generations, and the onus is on us to rebuild relationships and support those impacted as they progress through the next chapter of their journey. That is why in the autumn Budget, we set aside £11.8 billion to compensate people who are infected and affected by the infected blood scandal. It is, rightly, one of the largest compensation schemes in our country’s history. 

The compensation scheme was first established in August last year by regulations approved by the House. The scheme is a tariff-based compensation scheme that provides compensation under both a core and a supplementary route. Under the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Regulations 2024, the Infected Blood Compensation Authority, or IBCA, has already made progress in paying infected people. As of 14 March, 255 people have been invited to start their compensation claim and 40 people have accepted their offers, totalling over £44 million. We recognise the scale of what needs to be done, and the Cabinet Office continues to work closely with IBCA to ensure that it works as quickly as possible to deliver compensation to people for whom it is long overdue.

The draft regulations will consolidate the 2024 regulations and establish the compensation scheme in full, including for people who are affected: those loved ones of people who are infected, defined in the draft regulations as partners, parents, children, siblings and, in some instances, carers. The draft regulations will allow IBCA to begin making payments to people who are affected by the end of this year.

The draft regulations will also establish the supplementary route, for exceptional cases in which compensation under the core route was not considered sufficient. The supplementary awards for infected people include an additional autonomy award, where someone was subjected to unethical research; a severe health condition award for financial loss and care, where someone suffered from a specific rare health condition that is likely to result in greater care needs or impact an infected person’s ability to work; and an exceptional loss award for financial loss and care, where someone can evidence additional financial loss, most likely as a result of being a higher earner or having higher care costs due to their infection.

There is also a supplementary financial loss award for affected people. This will provide compensation where an affected person was financially dependent on an infected person at the time of their death and that dependency has not already been recognised through the core route. The supplementary route has a higher evidential requirement; people who are claiming will need to demonstrate that their circumstances necessitate a higher compensation award. Importantly, the draft regulations will also allow for people to return to the scheme should their condition worsen as a result of their infection, and for people to claim multiple awards in the devastating circumstances that they are both infected and affected, or affected multiple times over.

I should acknowledge that the draft regulations also amend a small mathematical error that was present in the 2024 regulations. I apologise for this, and reassure the Committee that anyone affected by the issue will receive all the compensation they are due, and resolving the issue should not cause any delays in the roll-out of compensation. The error is a result of the mathematical formula used to calculate some people’s financial loss and care award in the 2024 regulations. To be clear, that means that some people who have been made an offer were offered slightly less than was intended. It will impact only a relatively small number of around 50 people who have received their offer of compensation from IBCA, and the discrepancy represents less than 1% of the claim amount. However, it is important that I draw this to the attention of Members.

Once the problem was identified, we worked quickly to identify a solution to ensure no one was negatively impacted. IBCA has reached out to claimants today to inform them of the error. In addition to IBCA ensuring that everyone receives the correct amount of compensation, the people who were impacted by this will also receive a small ex gratia payment. I want to reassure Members that steps were taken quickly and the draft regulations have been reviewed thoroughly to ensure that the error has been properly addressed. I also highlight that a small amendment was made to today’s draft statutory instrument after it was laid to correct a very minor typographical mistake. Just to reassure Members, I note that the sub-paragraphs were (a) (b) (b) instead of (a) (b) (c), and there was an unnecessary comma. I reassure everyone that those errors have been corrected.

I recently visited the IBCA team, led by Sir Robert Francis, and I know how determined they are for compensation to be paid out to victims as soon as possible. Nothing can ever undo the decades of injustice, pain and suffering, but the draft regulations are another step towards providing full and fair compensation to the people impacted by the infected blood scandal, who have already waited too long for justice. We, as a Government, and more widely as a party and as parliamentarians, should not rest until we see this delivered. We will work closely with IBCA to ensure that it prioritises providing payments quickly, efficiently and in a way that puts the people it is delivering for at the heart of its work. I look forward to hearing Members’ contributions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am grateful for both those contributions. I repeat on record my tribute to my predecessor as Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for Salisbury. When I was in opposition, I always sought to work on a constructive, cross-party basis. I say to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire, that I am pleased to see that continuing today. That does not mean that the Opposition do not ask appropriate and searching questions—of course they do—but that cross-party support is really important for the signal we send to the infected blood victims and for the delivery of this scheme, as we stand behind IBCA.

On the questions posed by the former Paymaster General, he will know that, during the general election campaign, when he and I were on various doorsteps around the country, Sir Robert Francis carefully conducted a consultation exercise with the victims. The first thing I found on my desk when I went into Whitehall was a report with 74 recommendations about changes to the scheme. Had the previous Government been re-elected, the document would have been waiting for the right hon. Gentleman. I accepted 69 of the 74 recommendations, including on the continuation of the regular payments and the payment of a lump sum. A significant set of changes were made to the scheme.

I am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman has visited IBCA and seen the work that is going on. I encourage the shadow Minister and other Members of Parliament with an interest in this matter to visit it to see that work. In the other place, Baroness Anderson undertook to place the “Infected Blood Compensation— Getting it Right” document that the right hon. Gentleman referenced in the House Library so that everybody can see it. I support her undertaking.

The right hon. Gentleman is entirely correct that IBCA is an operationally independent arm’s length body. That is what it is set up to be. That is how it will conduct its day-to-day business. As the Minister, I stand ready to help and assist in any way I can to speed up the payments. I am restless for the speed of delivery to increase, but I respect that operational independence going forward, as it is important that I do.

To the point made by the right hon. Gentleman around myths and misinformation, which I am afraid are just a fact of life in the age of social media, it is important for hon. and right hon. Members to go to IBCA’s website and see the newsletters and updates that it publishes on payments. We must also ensure that that is on the Government website, and I take the view that publishing things and putting them in the public domain is by far the better way to go. I will come to the issue the shadow Minister raised about tariffs in a minute, but the explanations for the decisions the Government have made are there in the documents on the website. I say to hon. and right hon. Members that they should go to them so that they can best assist constituents who raise questions.

The point about speed is important. IBCA is adopting a “test and learn” approach. In other words, it has a set of cases that are representative of the general body of cases for which it is paying out. That means that there should be—the right hon. Member for Salisbury referred to it as a hockey stick, which is essentially what it is—an exponential growth in payments. I am as restless as anybody in this room to get to that vertical part of the hockey stick as soon as possible.

To the shadow Minister’s point about money, we will make available the money that is required. We have already made that £11.8 billion available. He also asked a really good question about the level of evidence, and we recognise two things in that respect. First, so much of this happened a very long time ago now—particularly the importation of infected blood, which obviously ceased a long time ago. Secondly, we know from Sir Brian Langstaff’s report that there was deliberate document destruction. Those two things have to be taken into account in terms of evidence.

What I found at IBCA was that there will be that caseworker—that person—for each of these cases. What I also saw was the culture that Sir Brian Langstaff is insisting staff adopt, which is an enabling culture—a helpful culture. Many factors in particular cases are important, including whether someone was a carer or where people lived at the relevant point. People will have that sympathetic, enabling approach of asking what types of evidence might be helpful and where it could be obtained from.

Let me deal with the points about the framework document and about hepatitis C and hepatitis B versus HIV. First, the framework document sets out the timelines agreed between IBCA and the Cabinet Office. The bulk of infected people are to be paid by the end of 2027, and the bulk of affected people are to be paid by the end of 2029, but let me just make it clear that those are not targets: it is as soon as possible and not later than those dates.

[John Glen]

I can say this now: it is quite frustrating when, as a Minister, you are given those dates and you know that the significant likelihood and probability is that it will be faster than that, but you are not permitted to say so, because you cannot give false hope. I know the Paymaster General is seeking to move those to the left at every opportunity, but his wonderful officials will be constraining him and giving him some concerns around doing so.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The right hon. Gentleman has particular insight into the workings of the Cabinet Office. Like everyone in the room, he and I are restless for progress. We want these payments out of the door as soon as possible.

The shadow Minister raised the issue of HIV, on the one hand, and hepatitis B and C, on the other. In terms of our tariff rates for hepatitis C, the impact of a hepatitis infection can obviously range from very mild to very severe, through to liver failure and death, as a direct result of the infection. The expert group—appointed by the right hon. Member for Salisbury—provided the Government with clinical advice on the distinctions between those impacts. That meant that we could set severity bands for hepatitis based on clear clinical markers. Therefore, where someone’s experience of hepatitis—whether historical or now—has been more severe, they will get more compensation.

The expert group also recommended a single severity band for those infected with HIV. Sadly, most people infected with HIV due to infected blood have already died, and in most cases the death was as a result of that HIV infection. Those who survived will continue to be severely impacted by their infection. The view of the expert group, which the Government accepted, is that it is disproportionately complex to break down the HIV category into different severity bands. That is why there is a distinction in the bands.

The shadow Minister rightly asked about affected estates. As he indicated, the Government are following Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendation about how widely we draw the circle. Where an affected estate will have a claim is where there is a claim on a debt. What that means is that an offer was accepted while the affected person was alive. If there has been the offer and the acceptance, then the affected estate has a claim on the debt. We think that that is a reasonable place to draw the line, and it is in line with Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendation.

I am grateful for both contributions to the debate. There is huge importance to getting this right. It is about achieving fair and comprehensive compensation that is simple enough to deliver quickly without diminishing the individual harm that people have faced. That is the purpose of a tariff-based scheme: it is to get that balance right between swiftness of delivery and not diminishing individual harm. As the shadow Minister will know, if we look at an infected person, there is the injury award, the social impact award, the autonomy award, the financial loss award and the care award, and indeed the core route and the supplementary route. It is a scheme that is trying to strike that balance.

No one is suggesting that this is a straightforward task, but if we look at the recommendations of the infected blood inquiry, at the work of Sir Robert Francis, the advice of the infected blood inquiry response expert group that was led so well by Sir Jonathan Montgomery— appointed by the right hon. Member for Salisbury—they have all made a significant contribution to where we are today. No amount of compensation will make up for the pain and suffering that the victims have faced, and the Government recognise that. Now, however, we need to focus on supporting the Infected Blood Compensation Authority, so I hope we get support for the draft regulations in a few moments; they will enable IBCA to provide that compensation swiftly and compassionately.

I welcome and thank all Members who are interested in this topic. I appreciate the cross-party work on seeking justice, but I also say to all Members present—just as the right hon. Member for Salisbury did—that the door is open for them to raise individual cases and issues with me. Members should please raise them with the Cabinet Office, and I will do my best to ensure that they get a swift response. I hope all colleagues will join me in supporting the draft regulations, and I commend them to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Regulations 2025.

Infected Blood Inquiry: 13 March Announcement

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Friday 14th March 2025 Written Statements

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

Yesterday, the infected blood inquiry set out its intention to publish an additional report. The inquiry also published a number of witness statements, including ones provided by the Cabinet Office, the Infected Blood Compensation Authority and a number of people directly impacted by the infected blood scandal and their representatives.

The victims of the infected blood scandal have suffered unspeakably and their needs continue to remain at the forefront of our work. The Government will give careful consideration to the statements published by the inquiry. I am committed to continuing to build trust with people who are impacted by this scandal, and to engaging further with representatives of the infected blood community on the Government response. We will continue to co-operate with the inquiry over the coming months.

The Government are determined to deliver justice for people who are infected and affected as a result of the infected blood scandal. That is why, in the autumn Budget, we set aside £11.8 billion to compensate victims of the infected blood scandal. This is one of the biggest compensation schemes in our country’s history, and that is entirely right given the scale of this injustice. In line with our commitment, in December last year the Infected Blood Compensation Authority began delivering this compensation. As of Friday 21 February, 204 people have been invited to start their claim, and IBCA is on track to meet its commitment for 250 people to start their claim by the end of March.

Before the end of March, both Houses will have the opportunity to debate the draft regulations for people who are affected including partners, parents, children, siblings and, in some instances, carers. Once in force, the draft Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Regulations 2025 will provide IBCA with the powers it needs to begin making payments to eligible affected people. We have committed that payments to affected people will start by the end of 2025.

The Government also recognise that delivering justice is much more than financial compensation. I am continuing to work with the Department of Health and Social Care, taking forward the inquiry’s recommendations to ensure that everything is done to prevent further such tragedies in the future.

My personal commitment to this work, and the people impacted by it, remains steadfast. The Government are acting on the findings of the inquiry. We will continue to work with the Infected Blood Compensation Authority to ensure compensation is delivered as swiftly and compassionately as possible to everyone who so greatly deserves it.

[HCWS525]

UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly Membership

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Friday 14th March 2025 Written Statements

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

Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate has been appointed as a full representative of the Parliamentary Partnership Assembly in the place of Lord Lamont of Lerwick.

[HCWS524]

Infected Blood Compensation Authority Framework Document

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2025 Written Statements

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

Today, the “Infected Blood Compensation Authority Framework Document” will be published on gov.uk and ibca.org.

The framework document is a core document for an arm’s length body. It provides clarity between the role of the Cabinet Office as sponsor Department, and the Infected Blood Compensation Authority as an operationally independent organisation. The agreement in the framework document follows standard guidance for sponsor Departments and arm’s length bodies, as set out in managing public money guidance from HM Treasury. The framework document has been agreed between Cabinet Office, the board of the Infected Blood Compensation Authority and HM Treasury.

Publishing this document, which sets out how the relationship between the Cabinet Office and the Infected Blood Compensation Authority will operate, is an important demonstration of the commitment of the Government and the authority to transparency for victims of the infected blood scandal.

[HCWS509]

Oral Answers to Questions

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

5. What recent progress he has made on establishing an infected blood compensation scheme.

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

Last month, I laid regulations, which, subject to parliamentary approval, will give the Infected Blood Compensation Authority the powers that it needs to pay compensation to all eligible people by all routes. My aim is for the regulations to be enforced by 31 March to enable IBCA to begin payments to all eligible groups this year.

[Andrew Cooper]

Last year, I was contacted by a constituent who tragically lost her husband to infected blood and I am continuing to support her. There is an understandable lack of trust between victims and the authorities after such a long wait for justice, and my constituent is concerned about the urgency in compensating affected families. When he spoke in the House last month, the Minister committed to producing an easy-read version of the regulations. Can he say when that is likely to be published and will he commit to full transparency on the progress of settling claims?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I will publish a simplified version of the document explaining the infected blood compensation scheme by the end of the month. Transparency is vital. IBCA, although an independent body, is committed to being open with the community and publishes monthly figures showing progress on compensation claims.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

I welcome the Minister�s progress in this area. I visited IBCA on 30 January and was impressed by the professionalism of the team. Since then the Minister has made himself accessible so that I can give him feedback. One issue that has come up is the need for recipients of payments to sign non-disclosure agreements or terms. I am anxious that misunderstandings do not arise as a consequence of that. Can the Minister use his good offices to implore IBCA to explain why that happens? If IBCA cannot do that, perhaps he can explain to the House why such agreements might be necessary.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his work as Paymaster General. Indeed, I was pleased to facilitate his recent visit to IBCA and am grateful to him for the constructive approach that he continues to take. On the specific issue that he raises around the contracts that IBCA has entered into, I can say that I entirely agree with him about the need for transparency, and that is something that I am re-emphasising to IBCA.

[Andrew Ranger (Wrexham) (Lab)]

6. What steps he is taking to strengthen co-operation with the devolved Administrations.�

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

8. What steps he is taking to improve relations with the European Union.

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

A closer, more co-operative relationship with the EU is in the UK�s national interests as it will grow the economy, boost living standards, protect our borders and keep the UK safe. I am taking forward discussions with my EU counterpart Commissioner Maro� �ef?ovi?. The UK-EU leaders summit on 19 May will be an important opportunity to drive forward this agenda.

[Peter Prinsley]

Palmerston said that this country has no eternal allies and no perpetual enemies, only interests which are eternal and perpetual. Does the Minister agree that it is in our eternal interests for there to be security in Europe and a sovereign Ukraine? Will he congratulate the Prime Minister on his statesmanship and leadership at this dangerous moment?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I certainly join my hon. Friend in congratulating the Prime Minister on the careful and considered leadership he is showing at a time when we face a once-in-a-generation moment for the collective security of our country and our continent. We remain absolutely committed to securing a lasting peace in Ukraine. On 2 March, the Prime Minister hosted international leaders in London to discuss support for Ukraine. As he said,

�we will never choose between either side of the Atlantic�the past week has shown that that idea is totally unserious.��[Official Report, 3 March 2025; Vol. 763, c. 25.]

We are stepping up on defence and security, and we know that Europe is stepping up, too.

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)]

Last week, I was in Ukraine, where, following Trump�s betrayal, the need for European solidarity to defend our democracy has never been more evident. The unintended consequences of Brexit for our economy and our security are certainly very real. It is increasingly obvious that the UK cannot afford the luxury of splendid isolation. In the spirit of nothing being off the table, will the Minister�s Department start a discussion in government about the UK moving to customs union and single market membership? The closer and the quicker we align with our European partners, the safer we will all be.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I always thought the SNP�s policy was one of splendid isolation, but that is certainly not the UK Government�s policy. Indeed, we are working very closely with our European partners. That is precisely the leadership that the Prime Minister has been showing in the past week.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

First, we have a strong and proud tradition over centuries of free trade here in the United Kingdom, and we will continue to make the case for that. With regard to our specific trading relationship with the United States, the hon. Gentleman will have seen that, after conversations between the Prime Minister and the President in the Oval Office last Thursday, we wish to deepen our trading relationship with the United States. Specifically on Northern Ireland, I completely understand his point, and we will continue to monitor the impact of any such policy on Northern Ireland.

[Alex Burghart]

I am grateful to the Paymaster General for his response, but it sounds as though he has not yet had any conversations with his EU counterparts on the issue. I appreciate that he has a meeting on 19 May, but I am sure he will understand that tariffs may come much sooner than that. That being the case, will he undertake, first, to talk to his European counterparts and secondly, to come and give a statement to this House as soon as he has done so, so that we can understand that the Government are preparing for such an eventuality? Can he also make it clear to our friends in Europe that should trade and manufacturing be disrupted in Northern Ireland, we will not hesitate to use our powers under article 16 of the Windsor framework to protect businesses there?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

To reassure the hon. Gentleman, the Windsor framework taskforce is based in the Cabinet Office and I regularly discuss issues on Northern Ireland with my European counterparts. I can assure him that I will speak to Maro� �ef?ovi? on a number of occasions prior to 19 May. I hope the hon. Gentleman will take that reassurance. He should also be reassured that we will, of course, always act in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

Two weeks ago, I was glad to read reports in The Times that the Government intend to introduce a youth mobility scheme between the UK and the EU. That would be good for our economy, while providing young British people with the opportunity to work and study abroad. That is what the British public want, with new polling showing that more than two thirds of the UK population are in favour of such a scheme, but last week the Home Secretary ruled it out. Will the Minister do the right thing, remove the unnecessary barriers facing young people in the UK and commit to negotiations on an EU-UK youth mobility scheme?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The position of the Government is unchanged; we have no plans for a youth mobility scheme. We will, of course, always listen to sensible proposals from the EU, but they have to be within our red lines of no return to freedom of movement, no return to the single market and no return to the customs union.

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

10. What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to implement the Government�s plan for change.

UK Covid-19 Inquiry: Quarter 3 Response Costs 2024-25

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2025 Written Statements

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

The covid-19 pandemic impacted each and every person in the UK. The work of the UK covid-19 inquiry is crucial in examining the UK’s response to and impact of the covid-19 pandemic. There are evidently lessons to be learned from the pandemic and the Government are committed to closely considering the covid-19 inquiry’s findings and recommendations, which will play a key role in informing the Government’s planning and preparations for the future.

The Government recognise the unprecedented and wholly exceptional circumstances of the pandemic, and the importance of examining as rigorously as possible the actions the state took in response, in order to learn lessons for the future. The inquiry is therefore unprecedented in its scope, complexity and profile, looking at recent events that have profoundly impacted everyone’s lives.

The independent UK covid-19 inquiry publishes its own running costs quarterly. The chair is under a statutory obligation to avoid unnecessary costs in the inquiry’s work—and she has been clear as to her intention to complete her work as quickly and efficiently as possible.

I would like to update the House on the costs to the UK Government associated with responding to the UK covid-19 inquiry.

Figures provided are based upon a selection of the most relevant Departments, are not based on a complete set of departmental figures, and are not precise for accounting purposes. Ensuring a comprehensive and timely response to the inquiry requires significant input from a number of key Government Departments, including, but not limited to, the Cabinet Office, the Department for Health and Social Care, the UK Health Security Agency, the Home Office and HM Treasury, many of which are supported by the Government Legal Department. While every effort has been made to ensure a robust methodology, complexities remain in trying to quantify the time and costs dedicated to the inquiry alone.

It should be noted that alongside full-time resource within Departments, inquiry response teams draw on expertise from across their organisations. The staff costs associated with appearing as witnesses, preparing witnesses and associated policy development work on the UK covid-19 inquiry are not included in the costs below.

Breakdown of staff and costs

The Government’s response to the UK covid-19 inquiry is led by inquiry response units across Departments.

Q3 number of UK covid-19 inquiry response unit staff: 287 full time equivalents.

Q3 cost of UK covid-19 inquiry response unit staff: £5,674,000 (including contingent labour costs).

Financial year 2024-25 (Q1-3), total cost of UK covid-19 inquiry response unit staff: £16,026,000 (including contingent labour costs).