Covid-19 Inquiry Response Costs

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2025 Written Statements

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

The UK covid-19 inquiry is examining the UK’s response to and impact of the pandemic. The Government are fully committed to supporting the work of the covid-19 inquiry and to learning lessons from the covid-19 pandemic to ensure the UK is better prepared for a future pandemic.

The Government recognise the unprecedented and wholly exceptional circumstances of the pandemic. The inquiry is therefore unprecedented in its scope, complexity and profile.

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 those from a selection of the most relevant Departments and are not based on a complete set of departmental figures, and are not precise figures 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 of Health and Social Care, the UK Health Security Agency, the Home Office and His Majesty’s 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. These costs, including costs associated with staff taking time to provide written or oral evidence, are not included in the costs below.

Breakdown of staff and costs

The Government response to the UK covid-19 inquiry is led by inquiry response units across Departments. The associated staff costs for Q2 2025-26 are below.



Q2 number of UK covid-19 inquiry response unit staff—207 full time equivalents.

Q2 cost of UK covid-19 inquiry response unit staff—£4,310,000 (including contingent labour costs).

Financial year 2025-26 (Q1 + Q2), total cost of UK covid-19 inquiry response unit staff—£9,314,000 (including contingent labour costs).

UK-EU Common Understanding Negotiations

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Government’s strategic partnership with the EU.

The Government were elected with a manifesto commitment to reset relations with our European partners; to tear down unnecessary barriers to trade and cut costs and red tape for British producers and retailers; to increase national security through strong borders and greater co-operation with our closest allies; and to support jobs here in the UK and opportunities abroad.

In May this year, the Government agreed a new strategic partnership with the EU, which the Prime Minister announced at the historic UK-EU summit—the first of its kind. It is a landmark deal that is good for bills, good for our borders and good for jobs. We took that decision, exercising our sovereignty, to strike a deal in the national interest. We had to fix a bad deal passed on to us by the previous Government—the first trade deal in history that made it harder to trade. Just as we have done with the US and India, this Labour Government are striking deals to bring down bills for British people and open new opportunities for British businesses.

Since that summit, I have led negotiations with the European Commission to implement the commitments we made. I am therefore pleased to inform the House that, earlier today, the UK and the European Commission concluded negotiations for the UK’s association to Erasmus+ from 2027. This will open up world-class opportunities for students, teachers, youth workers, sports sector professionals and communities of all ages in our education, training, sport and youth sectors—both for the professionals who work in those sectors and, crucially, for our young people.

For students, this means more chances to study, train, work or volunteer abroad, gaining language skills and experience that will make them attractive to employers; for our teachers, youth workers and those who work in the sports sector, it means greater opportunities for professional development; and for our schools, colleges, universities and providers, it means access to networks and partnerships that will drive quality, encourage research links, and enhance the reputation of the UK’s world-leading education system. This morning, I met students at New City College in Hackney to see the range of benefits there are going to be, including playing basketball.

As part of Erasmus+, participants can travel to any European Union member state, as well as to several countries outside the European Union. It will go further than schemes that have come before, offering a broader scope of activity and a specific focus on unlocking opportunities for all. It is an investment in opportunity for young people from all backgrounds, for our workforce, and for our future. It will open doors for tens of thousands more young people across the UK, renewing our ties with Europe and beyond. This Labour Government have always been clear that we want young people to have access to the best opportunities in life, no matter what their background or where in this country they live. That is what we have consistently delivered, and it is what we are delivering through today’s announcement.

We are pleased that the EU has agreed financial terms that represent a fair balance between the UK’s contribution and the benefits the programme offers. The 30% discount in 2027, compared with the default terms in the trade and co-operation agreement, has paved the way for UK participation in the programme.

We also agreed that there will be a review of the UK’s participation in the programme 10 months after our association, so that we can look at the actual data concerning the demand for funding in the UK. Going forward, any continued participation in Erasmus+ under the next multi-annual financial framework will be informed by that data and our experience of association in 2027. We have always said that we will not sign deals unless they are in the national interest, and in this case I am happy to say that the agreement passed that test.

The Government will now work to maximise take-up across all sectors so that the benefits of Erasmus+ association can be fully realised. We will work closely with institutions and our young people to support this, particularly among disadvantaged groups. A UK national agency will be appointed to administer the programme in due course.

In addition, I am pleased to inform the House that the UK and the European Commission have concluded exploratory talks on the UK’s participation in the EU’s internal electricity market. The details of this will be set out in an exchange of letters between me and Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič, to be published next week. Closer co-operation on electricity will bring real benefits to businesses and consumers across Europe. It will drive down energy costs and protect consumers against volatile fossil fuel markets. It will also drive up investment in the North sea and strengthen energy security. The UK and the EU will now proceed swiftly with negotiations on a UK-EU electricity agreement.

But that is not all. I welcome the clarification from the European Commission today that, in practice, there should be no carbon border adjustment mechanism costs levied on UK electricity exports—a welcome development that reflects our extensive use of renewables. Negotiations to link our carbon markets are also under way, which will cut costs, make it cheaper for UK companies to move to greener energy and, once agreed, save £7 billion-worth of UK goods exports from EU CBAM charges.

Negotiations on the food and drink agreement are also under way, which will enable food and agriculture businesses to trade more cheaply and easily by slashing the red tape and costly paperwork introduced by the last Government, which result in businesses facing £200 for export health certificates on every single shipment, or small businesses choosing not to trade with the EU altogether. Our new agreement will put this right, boosting our exports, cutting costs for importers, and bringing down prices on supermarket shelves.

The UK and the EU are committed to implementing the commitments of the May 2025 summit in a timely manner. We are working swiftly to conclude negotiations on the food and drink deal and on linking our carbon markets by the time of the next UK-EU summit in 2026. Across all these areas, the UK is clear that there will be no return to the single market, the customs union or freedom of movement. We will agree deals that are in our national interest. The Government are exercising our sovereignty to deliver for the British people.

We are committed to building this new strategic partnership with the European Union. Indeed, last week I spoke with my counterpart in the Commission, Maroš Šefčovič, and we underlined our shared commitment to implementing the common understanding that the Prime Minister and the Commission President agreed at the UK- EU summit in May. Whether it is through boosting opportunities for young people and educators across the country, cutting energy bills or agreeing a food and drink deal that slashes red tape and cuts costs, I will always negotiate in the interests of this country and our people.

I will continue to lead negotiations with the Commission. I look forward to the next annual UK-EU summit, where the Government will continue to build that new strategic partnership. That is what a grown-up, pragmatic relationship looks like. We work together under shared aims for mutually beneficial solutions to our shared problems. That is the approach the Government are taking and that is the approach that is delivering results. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

We on the Opposition side of the House recognise the importance of giving young people educational opportunities, but it is vital—[Interruption.] Government Members clearly do not recognise the need for schemes to offer genuine value for money. The UK already had the opportunity to remain a member of Erasmus, but it was precisely because the Conservative Government recognised that the scheme did not offer value for money to the taxpayer that we chose not to.

That is why the Conservative Government created the Turing scheme instead—a global programme for young people in the UK that did not require us, one-sidedly, to hand a blank cheque to Brussels. The Turing scheme delivered 43,000 placements around the world last year, 23,000 of which were to learners from disadvantaged backgrounds, at a cost of just over £100 million. Can the Minister confirm that his statement in no way undermines the future of the Turing scheme? Is that scheme guaranteed, or are those opportunities being sacrificed for a smaller number of opportunities available under Erasmus+?

The Minister has confirmed that the UK will pay £570 million to rejoin Erasmus+. We understand that will be paid from existing budgets, but can he tell us where the money is coming from? Is that £570 million being added to the £6 billion special educational needs and disabilities black hole that the Office for Budget Responsibility identified in the education budget? Does the Minister expect more students to take part in the new scheme than the 10,000 previous participants in Erasmus+, or are we paying £570 million for essentially 10,000 placements a year?

The Minister spoke about a fair contribution being a 30% discount. Of course, it is only a matter of weeks since the Government were briefing that a fair contribution would be a 50% discount. They clearly failed in those negotiations. Can the Minister assure us that while he says that he has a discount for the first year, a discount will be available in subsequent years? If those assurances have not yet been received and the EU does not offer a similar deal in future years, is he prepared to walk away?

The Opposition have set out clear tests to ensure that the Government do not roll back on Brexit, including no backsliding on free movement. Can the Minister outline what protections will be put in place to ensure that rejoining Erasmus does not simply mean a return to free movement by the back door for young people? That is particularly important given his complete failure, when asked multiple times, to set out what size of cap he thinks would be appropriate for youth mobility.

Rejoining Erasmus is the Government’s latest attempt to undo Brexit by stealth. That was clear from the outset of these negotiations, when the Government agreed to surrender UK fishing rights to the EU for 12 years, under the pretence that that would

“pave the way for the UK defence industry to participate in the EU’s proposed new…defence fund”.

Yet six months later that deal has collapsed after the EU’s extortionate demands for billions of pounds to join the fund, with no guarantee of any return on investment in the form of procurement. Can the Minister explain to our hard-working fishing industry why they will not be getting their fish back, even though that deal has fallen through?

The British people made a clear decision to take back control in 2016. Despite the Government’s protestations, their approach shows an increasing disregard for that democratic decision.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

If I have got this right, I chose not to sign up to participate in the SAFE—Security Action for Europe—fund because it did not represent value for money, and the Opposition are criticising me for that, but they are also criticising me for signing up to something that is value for money. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman about fish. A big advantage to our fishing sector, which exports 70% of its catch to the EU, is the food and drink agreement that I am going to secure by the time of the next UK-EU summit. That is what will benefit our fishers.

On the hon. Gentleman’s point about the Turing scheme, it is important that I say from the Dispatch Box that any person on the Turing scheme in this academic year will continue to be funded. I have to tell him, however, that his numbers are absolutely all over the place. First, the Erasmus+ scheme has changed significantly since the version that his Government walked away from. Furthermore, do we seriously think that that lot could have secured a 30% discount? Absolutely not.

The one figure that the hon. Gentleman did get right was 43,200, which is the number of people involved in the last year of the Turing scheme. Erasmus is a far bigger scheme. We will expect tens of thousands of young people—100,000-plus—and others to have opportunities from Erasmus. But let me tell the hon. Gentleman this as well: Erasmus is a great deal broader than the Turing scheme in terms of opportunities. The Turing scheme is about colleges, schools and universities. Erasmus+ presents wider opportunities, including youth work, sports and the ability of staff to have professional exchanges. Let me just say, before Conservative Members start talking about the fact that Turing is all around the world, that the grant-making bodies for Erasmus+ in the UK can still allocate 20% of the funding if they want to, if people want to go to other parts of the world as well. What this is doing is vastly increasing the opportunities not just for young people, but for adult learners. If the Conservative position is now to oppose a massive expansion in opportunities for young people, I will welcome that debate at the next election.

[Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)]

Young people have lost so much. The pandemic kept them in their homes when they should have been in the classroom, years of austerity under the Tories saw cuts in the services on which they rely, and a bad Brexit deal stopped the invaluable chance to study abroad in Europe. Rejoining Erasmus opens up real opportunities for young people to study, train and gain experience abroad. Will the Minister say more about how this experience can help young people to grow in confidence and get them work-ready?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is quite right about the wonderful opportunities that this presents, and not just for self-confidence; the young people I spoke to only this morning at a further education college told me that going overseas had helped them to grow as people. However, the House should not just take my word for it: the Association of Colleges says that this is “brilliant news” for further education colleges. Universities UK says that it is

“fantastic news for the UK”.

The Russell Group of universities is “delighted” about this reassociation. But who is opposed to it? The Conservative party.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

We welcome the Minister’s announcement. As a recovering academic—a distinction that I think I share with him—I have witnessed at first hand the impact of our exiting the Erasmus scheme on university student intake. Welcoming students from across the EU into our education institutions and giving our own students opportunities to study abroad have undeniably strengthened our education system, so after years of campaigning, the Liberal Democrats welcome the news that the UK is finally set to rejoin the Erasmus scheme in 2027. However—I am sure the Minister expected there to be a “however”—while this represents an important first step towards building a closer relationship with Europe, I urge him to go further and faster.

Beyond this fixed-term experience of Erasmus+, will the Government commit to a proper youth mobility scheme for the benefit of the next generation, and can he update the House on what progress has been made in such negotiations? How confident is he that our food, drink and sanitary and phytosanitary scheme will be agreed by 2026, and how long thereafter will it take to fully implement the scheme? Agrifood and horticultural businesses cannot afford any further delays.

Finally, on the subject of unnecessary barriers to trade—which is where the Minister began his statement—will his Department commit itself at the very least to conducting a transparent assessment of the potential economic growth benefits of a UK-EU customs deal of the kind that the House voted for last week?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

We are aiming to conclude negotiations on the youth experience scheme by the next summit—which I see in the context of the 13 youth mobility schemes that already exist, many of them signed by the previous Government, although the Conservatives seem to have a collective amnesia about it nowadays—together with the linking of our emissions trading systems and the food and drink agreement. The hon. Gentleman asked me a direct question about the implementation of that agreement. I want to see it implemented by the first half of 2027, which will mean bringing a piece of legislation to Parliament in 2026 and then getting it through Parliament. I hope that, whatever our views may be, we will have support in doing that as quickly as possible in 2027.

Let me, for a moment, speak more broadly about Erasmus+—and, indeed, this applies to the youth experience scheme as well. I want both schemes to be open to people from all backgrounds across the United Kingdom. People often refer to Erasmus+ as a university exchange programme, and of course that is a vital part of it, but it is not just a university exchange programme; it is accessible across the country. I have been looking at, for example, the Welsh Government’s Taith programme, which has done an extremely good job with regard to accessibility. Where there is there are lessons to be learned from that, we will absolutely learn them.

Where I disagree with the hon. Gentleman is, of course, on the issue of the customs union, because the Government has only in recent days signed an additional free trade agreement with South Korea, and we also have the economic deal with the United States and the free trade deal with India. All those would have to be torn up if we went down the path that he has suggested.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

I warmly welcome the announcement that the UK will rejoin Erasmus+. I had the opportunity to live and work in Europe as a young person aged 18, and it was an experience that has continued to benefit me throughout my life. I particularly welcome the extension of the scheme beyond study, and the Government’s desire to extend that opportunity to young people from all backgrounds. It is one of the very many detriments of Brexit that young people were denied the opportunity to live and work and study through the Erasmus scheme.

Having announced this welcome development, can the Minister confirm that he will now be turning his attention to some of the other detriments that continue to be experienced, particularly by small and medium-sized businesses in my constituency, as a consequence of the inability to trade in Europe because of barriers resulting from Brexit? Can he confirm that work is ongoing in that regard, and that all options that are in the national interest will remain on the table?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is quite right. Tens of thousands more people, many of them young people, will benefit from the accession to Erasmus+, although I seriously think, on the basis of what the shadow Minister said, that the Conservatives will go into the next election opposing those additional opportunities for people. As for my hon. Friend’s second point about reducing trade barriers, since Brexit 16,000 businesses have stopped trading with the EU altogether, and as for the food and drink agreement, she can be assured that work is ongoing to seek to complete those negotiations by the time of the next summit.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

In his white shirt and red tie, the Minister is doing a very good impression of Santa making an early visit. The announcements that he has made this afternoon are—I think—to be warmly welcomed, and he is to be personally congratulated on the good faith and patience that he has shown in his conversations with Maroš Šefčovič and others. That is clearly paying dividends.

Does the Minister agree that those of us on the Opposition Benches who last week voted against the idiotic proposal from the Liberal Democrats for a customs union have been proved right and then wrong, because the evolution of the relationship within the guardrails of the existing arrangement are the way to go, preserving those new free trade deals and seeing them extended while encouraging businesses to trade with Europe?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Absolutely. As always, the hon. Gentleman has made a sensible, well-informed contribution, and I am grateful for his kind words and his personal congratulation, which is deeply appreciated. He is entirely right: there is a set of guardrails that constitute this Government’s democratic mandate not to rejoin the single market or the customs union, or to go back to freedom of movement. We are exercising that independent trade policy, as has been seen in recent days in respect of the deal with South Korea. Within that framework, today’s announcement shows that the negotiations are progressing and delivering tangible results for the British people.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his announcement on Erasmus+, which is hugely welcome news for students and for my youngest constituents in Stratford and Bow. Before I came to this place I worked with the Mayor of London in calling for an Erasmus scheme, and the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly, of which I am a member, has called for it constantly, alongside our European partners. We want students to have the same chances of opportunity that we had, so that they do not suffer the consequences of a Brexit that they had no say in. Can the Minister outline the next steps in the UK’s participation?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I thank my hon. Friend for the work that she does in the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly, and I am grateful for the work that is done by that group more broadly. Clearly, there now needs to be the appointment of a national agency. I am sure the House will appreciate that it is a commercially sensitive matter, but I certainly hope to be doing that very soon in order to make sure that we have all that we need in place to support those who would like to participate from 2027. There will be great opportunities available, and I look forward to doing all I can as a Minister to support people into them.

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

The Minister’s statement did not seem to say what the contribution to the EU will be, but media reports suggest £570 million. By opening our borders, we will have youth workers and others coming to the UK at a time of rising unemployment. Could he confirm the amount that will be paid? Will it be more than what will be raised through the family farm tax, which the Budget said will only raise up to £500 million a year, even at the end of this Parliament?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

We would expect the price to be £810 million. With the discount, it is £570 million. However, the right hon. Gentleman completely misunderstands the situation, because a substantial amount of that money will come back in the form of grants to our own people who are applying to be on the scheme. On his point about value for money, I have made sure that the argument about having a fair balance is embedded. That is the basis on which we will continue, but after 10 months there will be a review that looks at the balance between contribution and participation. If he wants to do something useful to address that balance, he could encourage his own constituents to participate.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister for his statement. I am a proud Erasmus graduate and the first in my family to go to university. As I was a carer for my late mother, I did not study abroad. I stayed at home and commuted to university, so Erasmus was the first time I was able to experience that. Many years on, I still have connections and friendships that were formed through the scheme, and it is good to know that young people in my constituency will be able to benefit from it. It is so, so vital. Can the Minister outline the timeframe a bit more, so that we can make sure that this is rolled out not just to young people in university but to apprentices, young workers and those studying, to make sure that they get life skills and experiences that are so rich and that will stay with them for life?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend speaks powerfully about the transformative experience that she had. My aim today is to have, in years to come, others who can speak similarly of the transformative experience that they have had. With regard to moving forward, it will first be about the appointment of a national agency. It will then be about doing really important work next year to get the application process up and running, and about making sure that people have the necessary information and are supported to be able to take advantage of the wonderful opportunities that will be coming in 2027.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

Hallelujah! It feels like some common sense is finally re-entering this debate, and I warmly welcome the Minister’s statement. So do my constituents in Oxford West and Abingdon who wrote to me at the time. Many were literally in tears because they were worried that they would not be able to participate—in fact, they could not do so. But I do hear what others are saying. They are trying to pooh-pooh how much this agreement is worth. It is not just about the money, but there is money to be recouped here and there will have been an impact assessment. How much is this worth to the UK economy now and going forward?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

First, I cannot better the first word of the hon. Lady’s contribution. As we move forward, we will make the kinds of assessments that she talks about, and she is absolutely right to say that the agreement will make a significant contribution to our workforce and, indeed, to our economy. Despite the chuntering from Conservative Members, this is not only about money; it is also about the fact that young people’s lives, and indeed adult learners’ lives, are going to be enriched in so many ways. This is something we should celebrate across the House.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate the Minister on doing what many of us have felt has been needed in the relationship between the European Union and the UK: what therapists call “active listening”. He is actually listening to our neighbours, finding out what they are interested in and where we can do a deal, and recognising that those in a relationship who keep making random demands—whether they are about a customs union, rejoining the EU or fish—fail to recognise the importance of communication to negotiation. I note that the original wreckers of this relationship have not turned up today to explain to Britain’s young people, who have borne the consequences of their bad behaviour, why they felt that it was necessary.

The Minister will know that many more people in our constituencies are now looking at the work he is doing to repair the UK-EU relationship, and seeking some Christmas cheer. For all the businesses still facing piles of paperwork and mountains of red tape, can he play Santa a little bit more and tell us what 2026 might bring in resetting the relationship and getting Britain back on track with its neighbours?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I pay a warm tribute to my hon. Friend for the campaigning work that she does on this issue. At the next UK-EU summit in 2026, we will seek to complete the negotiations on a food and drink agreement, which would mean less red tape and less cost for businesses; on the linkage of our emissions trading system, so that we do not have our businesses levied with carbon taxes; and on the youth experience scheme, so that we have even more opportunities for our young people. That will be a positive 2026.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

May I thank the Minister for the work he did in another capacity on behalf of the victims, and the relatives of the victims, of the infected blood scandal? He did a very good job, and he reached out to us in a much-appreciated, non-partisan way.

This statement is entitled “UK-EU Common Understanding Negotiations”. Is it his understanding, as the Minister for EU relations, that the people with whom he is having dealings are still bent on the creation of a federal United States of Europe? [Interruption.] Do I detect some chuntering on the Government Benches to suggest that some people in this House might want to be a part of that?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I think the second part of the right hon. Gentleman’s question is best directed to the European Commission. In relation to the first part of his question, he knows that I have always worked cross-party on infected blood, and it is important that I continue to do so.

On working with our European friends and neighbours—whether it is the work that the Prime Minister is doing in leading the coalition of the willing, or the painstaking work that we have been doing in recent days on Russian assets—the close relationship and strategic partnership between the UK and the EU is crucial for our nation’s security.

[Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)]

I really welcome the return of Erasmus and the opportunity for young people in Hastings and Rye to study and train in Europe again. As a coastal town, we also want to see the return of our closest link with our European neighbours through bringing back international trains to Ashford International, which this Labour Government support. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I hear many south-east colleagues echoing that call. Could the Minister, in his discussions with European colleagues, encourage discussions with Eurostar and urge Sir Richard Branson’s Virgin Trains, which will soon be running trains on the line, to stop at Ashford International?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I think my hon. Friend has managed to create some cross-party consensus, which is pleasing to see. She makes a very powerful case. Whether it is the particular issue of Ashford International or many other transport-related issues, my door is always open for discussions. I would very much welcome her making formal representations to me as well.

[Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)]

I am afraid to say that it is almost 30 years since I made the transformative journey from Dundee to Antwerp for my Erasmus experience. I thank the Minister, because there is some progress in this area. May I ask him a couple of practical questions? First, obviously there is a different higher education system in Scotland, and Scottish universities are very involved in this. How will the financial mechanisms work? Has he worked that out with the Scottish Government and other devolved Administrations? Secondly, I want to see all young people have the opportunities that he and I enjoyed. When will we see a return to freedom of movement for our young people entirely?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I will disappoint the hon. Gentleman on his last point, because we will not be going back to freedom of movement. However, on his first question, I was talking to the Scottish Government only first thing this morning, and the same issue was raised. Obviously, this does not affect the home fees position, which, by the way, is distinct in England, Scotland and indeed Wales. In the university context that he is talking about, someone would have their home fees position, but, for example, they could take a gap year to take advantage of the Erasmus+ opportunity. I am pleased to hear that Erasmus+ was transformative for him in Antwerp, and I hope we will soon have many more people who can say the same.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

I commend my right hon. Friend for his diligent and detailed work on this. It really is proper grown-up politics, as he said. The return of Erasmus will be widely welcomed in Cambridge, where it has helped many young people in the past and will help an even wider group in the future. Could I just press him on the SPS agreement? I think he confirmed that we will see the back of the wretched export health certificates in 2027. If so, it is a fantastic change. Is that correct?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Yes, indeed. There are fees on businesses today—£200 per consignment on export health certificates, £1,400 if a business is selected for sampling, £61 for identity checks—all of which can be swept away when the SPS agreement is implemented. As I said to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton), the objective is to implement that in the first half of 2027.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

The intentions behind the Erasmus scheme are unobjectionable, but £570 million is an awful lot of money, so I am very pleased that there will be a review after 10 months. Will that review include an assessment of the scheme against what happened in the past, which was essentially to provide a benefit for predominantly middle-class humanities university students, and will he ensure that the opportunity costs to further education, which is tasked with upskilling our young people from a different demographic, are adequately taken into account?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

First, to give the right hon. Member some reassurance on further education—by the way, I agree with the point that this has to be open to people from all backgrounds, and I think the Erasmus+ scheme of today is very different from how it was even 10 years ago—the chief executive of the Association of Colleges, which represents our FE sector, has today called this “brilliant news” for staff and students of all ages in further education colleges. I hope that gives him the reassurance that this is not simply about universities, hugely important though our university sector is.

Secondly, on the right hon. Member’s point about the review, it will absolutely be data-led. We have had this debate before about participation versus contribution, and I have always said there has to be a fair balance—that is why I have negotiated the discount in the way I have—but the review will allow us to move forward on the basis of solid data about the numbers of participants. I am always in favour of data-led decision making.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

First, as Chair of the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly, I welcome the statement. I also commend my right hon. Friend for the stellar job he is doing in showing that this Labour Government are making very good progress on rebuilding our relationships with the EU. Rejoining Erasmus+ is a big win for young people in Battersea and across the country, creating opportunities to study, train, develop new skills, achieve success and, more importantly, thrive. Can he outline a bit more about how young people will be able to access the Erasmus+ scheme?

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Briefly outline, Minister.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the work she does co-chairing the PPA. In 2026, it is critical that we have both the national agency and the simplest possible process for people to access a very wide range of benefits. I hope that was short enough, Madam Deputy Speaker.

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

It is great to see the Paymaster General at the Dispatch Box, as always, but it would be even better if we could see him at the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, which is taking a close interest in the food and drink agreement. May I remind him that Boris Johnson got it badly wrong with the trade and co-operation agreement, because he allowed the political imperative of getting a deal to trump the detail of that deal, and that was because he did not listen to the fishermen, farmers and other food producers? Will he keep them close as he negotiates, and will he come to talk to the Select Committee? We really will not bite him, I promise.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I will hold the right hon. Member to that promise. On working with those sectors, he is absolutely right. As we move forward, first, to complete the negotiations for a detailed legal text on the SPS agreement, but also as we move into the implementation phase, everyone understands that we are reducing barriers, cutting red tape and making trade easier. However, we absolutely have to work with our fishers, farmers and all those in the agrifood sector to make that as smooth as possible.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

The UK’s return to involvement in Erasmus is hugely welcome not only for my constituents who are at university, but for those learning in schools and FE colleges and working in the sports and youth sectors. Could my right hon. Friend please outline what steps the Government will be taking particularly in relation to those based in sectors not previously involved, so that they can expect to and can plan for their involvement in Erasmus from 2027?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend raises a really important point. For example, the first place I wanted to visit this morning was a further education college—the New City college in Hackney—because I am really keen that the FE sector gets the full benefit. She is absolutely right that proactively reaching out to the youth sector, adult learners or staff in professional training will be really important, because people can understand those opportunities if they want to take advantage of them.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

Could the Minister just spell out for the House’s benefit how much taxpayers’ money he has signed up to spending next year and in every year of this Parliament? On where Members of Parliament can read about value for money, which line item of the Budget has this money come out of?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

For one year, the figure is £570 million, which is a 30% discount—better than the Conservative party ever achieved—and 10 months in, we will have a full review of both participation and contribution. I say gently to the hon. Lady that, if she is going to go into the next election saying that young people in her constituency who benefit from Erasmus+ should no longer do so, I would welcome that debate.

[Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)]

As a Member of the UK-EU PPA, I absolutely welcome the statement, particularly that we will be rejoining the Erasmus+ scheme to the benefit of young people in Exeter. We should never have left, and this is the next step in rebuilding relations with our closest neighbours after such a catastrophic period under the previous Government. Does the Minister agree that it is only through co-operation with our closest European neighbours and partners, not isolation, that we will get the cultural, social and economic growth this country really needs?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are mutual benefits and mutual objectives—I am afraid to say that, in modern-day Europe, the UK and the EU also face mutual threats—and closer co-operation to deliver results is absolutely crucial.

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

This deal will not give back the futures that were stolen from so many young people by Boris Johnson’s Government, but it does offer such futures to people going forward. It is good work. That said, small, medium-sized and large businesses in Tewkesbury and the economy at large need the Government to stop fumbling around the edges. It is time for the Minister to speak to the Government and get us a customs union with the European Union, is it not?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

It is time to deliver concrete results, and that is exactly what I am doing.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

I saw a good joke earlier—a one-liner—that says, “Lib Dem campaigning works!” I do not think so: it is this Labour Government who have delivered the change today.

University of Nottingham staff in my constituency face considerable pressure due to ongoing restructuring. What would the Minister say to those staff, who are under intense pressure, about what this offers at an organisational level for our universities?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend raises a really important point. I think this is clearly good news and a good deal for our university sector, which is why both Universities UK and the Russell Group have come out in its support in such glowing terms today.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, for not being full of Christmas cheer. Although people are welcoming this announcement, businesses in Northern Ireland are being disadvantaged—rising costs, significant trade barriers because of the Windsor framework, delivery not being available a regular problem for online shoppers in Northern Ireland, and the immediate cliff edge for veterinary medicines and import control system 2, as well as type approval for cars. When will this Government stand up for Northern Ireland’s place within the Union and sort out the trade barriers of this internal market?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I spoke to both the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland only this morning to discuss the arrangements around Erasmus+ and the other announcements I have made on electricity. I can assure the hon. Lady, as I am also responsible for the Windsor framework, that it is a top priority for me. It is a top priority as well for the Prime Minister, who has a personal interest in Northern Ireland having been the human rights adviser to the Policing Board. With regard to barriers to trade that the hon. Lady was referring to on the Irish sea, it is precisely pushing forward and getting the SPS deal implemented quickly that will allow us to lower those barriers, which is what I am determined to do.

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

I also welcome progress on Erasmus, but may I ask about progress on another commitment from the May summit: advance co-operation on foreign information, manipulation and interference, and working together to fight violent extremism including in its online dimension? The UK and the EU do indeed face threats, including threats to our digital sovereignty from the same powerful people, so we need urgently to work together.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, whether in terms of information or, indeed, hybrid warfare. In opposition, I visited Estonia, and other parts of eastern Europe, and I see what is happening on this every day. She is absolutely right about the importance of partnership between the UK and the EU; it is in our national interest.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

The news about the reinstatement of the Erasmus scheme is brilliant for our young people. I have heard from language schools in Torbay, particularly International House Torquay, who have taken advantage of the group travel scheme for German students to be able to use just their ID cards to study languages in England. What opportunities does the right hon. Gentleman see of rolling out a similar scheme for Swiss, Italian and Spanish students?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I can update the hon. Gentleman and will write to him on the three specific countries he has mentioned, but I also say that the announcement I have made today on Erasmus+ clearly opens up even more opportunities for schools, which I am sure will be widely welcomed.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call “Christmas jumper” Phil Brickell.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

As a former Erasmus student, I congratulate the Paymaster General on the steely resolve, the pragmatism and the significant progress he has been able to achieve. Only a few weeks ago, two fellow Erasmus students from the UK who I studied with in Germany were in this place. I was with them for the first time in 13 years, and they have messaged me today to congratulate the Government. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is most important to deliver on the concrete commitments agreed with our EU partners at the May summit, as opposed to heeding Lib Dem Members’ siren calls about a supposedly bespoke customs union?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I thank him for his kind words and indeed his two friends and former Erasmus colleagues. I will also, if I may, Madam Deputy Speaker, congratulate him on the Christmas jumper.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I welcome the Erasmus+ agreement as closer ties with Europe are good news for the futures of thousands upon thousands of young people. Since 2022, the Taith programme in Wales has offered life-changing opportunities for people to study abroad after Brexit slammed so many doors shut. Given its implications for Taith, how will Wales’s priorities be reflected in the administration of Erasmus+?

[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.

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

Mandatory method of production labelling on animal-derived products could improve animal welfare and increase UK farm profits by over £46 million annually, but we must make sure that the UK-EU SPS agreement is aligned on standards and quality so that British farmers in Glastonbury and Somerton and across the country are not undercut by lower welfare imports. Can the Minister outline what progress has been made on negotiating a comprehensive SPS agreement?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

SPS negotiations are under way and we want to complete them by the time of the next summit. If the hon. Lady writes to me on the specific issue she raised, I will address it in detail.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. A tip for other questioners: the question does not require a preamble.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I may have been putting it a bit high when I said that I was playing basketball, but I did contribute in my own way.

On my hon. Friend’s second point, obviously the Erasmus+ programme has changed so that a wider range of activities is available, from youth work and adult education to sports, but there is also additional support in Erasmus for those from disadvantaged backgrounds. My hon. Friend is right about monitoring it, but my priority for the next few months will be driving that participation in the first place.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for what is a clear Lib Dem win. I repeat the question from my Front-Bench colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton), on the need for a transparent assessment of the potential economic growth benefits of a customs deal. In three years, we will all be seeking a new mandate, and if we can really understand the potential economic benefits at that point, our residents and citizens will be able to make an informed decision. Can I please encourage the Minister to give a second thought to that study?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I have a bit of bad news for the hon. Gentleman: it is a Labour win, I am afraid. On his second point, if he wants to discuss the customs union, a good starting point might be the workers at Jaguar Land Rover.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. As he will be aware, my constituency of Harlow has a lower than average number of young people going to university, which is something that I would like to see addressed. However, can he talk me through the benefits of the Erasmus+ scheme for young people in Harlow who do not go on to university education?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When I spoke this morning, I had in my mind someone who wants to do some basketball coaching, or perhaps an engineer on an apprenticeship who has chosen not to go to university but who might well, none the less, want to go on a placement abroad. Those are just some examples of the wide range of benefits that I hope his constituents in Harlow will be able to benefit from.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

I warmly welcome the Erasmus agreement that the Minister has announced, which is a Christmas present for young people. Turning to the SPS agreement that he is negotiating, I hope that those negotiations will be just as successful because that is undoubtedly in the best interests of this country. Can he confirm for me and some very invested constituents of mine that bivalve molluscs, or mussels, will be included in the SPS agreement that he is currently negotiating?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

First of all, the SPS agreement is a great priority. I am fully aware of the issue with bivalve molluscs, or indeed—from memory—shellfish from class B waters. I am willing to speak directly to the hon. Lady about bivalve molluscs—perhaps she will write to me about that—but I can tell her that the SPS agreement will mean that for products we currently cannot export to the EU, such as British bangers, we will be able to do so again.

[Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend expect the new agency with responsibility for Erasmus+ to work with the excellent Erasmus Student Network UK to promote these brilliant new opportunities for our young people, including in higher and further education institutions in Scotland?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I would certainly expect to see that collaborative approach.

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

My constituents will be delighted that the Government are returning the UK to Erasmus+. One of my constituents wrote to me this morning:

“It is a win for those of us who think that international learning should be open to all, not just the children of the rich who can afford international fees.”

But, she said:

“It is too late for me. I was 11 when Brexit happened and I am now 21, and in my last year of university.”

Will the Government undo the wrongs done to such kids by the last Conservative Government, and go further and faster by committing to a youth mobility scheme?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The Government are already committed to a youth experience scheme by the time of the next UK-EU summit. Whether it is through Erasmus+ today or the youth experience scheme, this Government are delivering concrete benefits and opportunities for young people.

[Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)]

Whatever one’s view of Brexit, leaving the Erasmus scheme was unambiguously an act of self-harm, denying the opportunity for thousands of young people across the country to study and learn abroad. I congratulate the Minister on re-securing those benefits, but they cannot just be the preserve of a narrow few. How can we ensure that a far wider group of young people in my constituency are able to benefit from the new scheme?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about spreading these opportunities to people of all backgrounds. I will drive forward work as the Minister, but I say to colleagues from across the House that speaking in favour of this scheme to our constituents is something that we collectively, as Members of Parliament, can do.

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

I welcome today’s announcement, which will be of huge benefit to students from my constituency. Does the Minister agree that all young people from all backgrounds deserve to be able to work and study in Europe, and that the Conservative party should apologise for snatching opportunities away from an entire generation?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I entirely agree with the hon. Member on the spreading of opportunities. Frankly, I am absolutely baffled by the position of those on the Opposition Front Bench.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

As the son of a Deutschlehrer, may I say danke, because Christmas has come early for the young people and teachers in my constituency? Does the Minister agree that greater co-operation and friendship across Europe and beyond is the best way forward for our world and for our country, and that perhaps that is why those with EU derangement syndrome are so opposed to his policy?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Our co-operative, grown-up approach is delivering results and benefits for people here in the United Kingdom. I am proud of that approach, and it is what delivers.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

This scheme will help countless young people from Wokingham to gain invaluable life experiences and it is to be welcomed. The Minister says that the Conservative Brexit deal was a bad deal. Will he therefore look to correct it and begin negotiations on a bespoke UK-EU customs union, which would cut the endless red tape and free up many Wokingham businesses to do business with their European customers? A bespoke deal could raise £25 billion—far better than increasing national insurance contributions.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The hon. Gentleman is very welcome to continue debating. While he is doing that, I will correct the iniquities in the previous deal every working day.

[Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)]

It was Christmas eve five years ago when Boris Johnson signed his fateful deal, which took away opportunities for young people and kicked us out of Erasmus. I thank the Minister for exorcising that ghost of Christmas past. Does he agree that the message we have heard in the Chamber today is that the Conservative party wants to keep opportunities locked away from young people, that Reform cares so little it has not even shown up, and that those who want to extend opportunities for our young people need to back a Labour Government?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

One hundred per cent. It is this Labour Government who are delivering for our young people.

[Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Minister as heartily as everyone else has on bringing the UK back into Erasmus and ensuring that people from all backgrounds, including university students, can once again enjoy the opportunities that the Tory Brexit took away. Part of my Chelsea and Fulham constituency ranks among the 12th most deprived areas in the United Kingdom. I am looking forward, I should tell the Minister, to helping the young people there to seize the new opportunities. May I encourage the Minister to also be ambitious in concluding a youth experience scheme, which would further restore the opportunities that our young people deserve?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Absolutely. Indeed, by the time of the next UK-EU summit, we hope to have concluded negotiations on the linking of our emissions trading systems, on the food and drink agreement, and on the youth experience scheme.

Draft Infected Blood Compensation Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 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 (Amendment) Regulations 2025.

It is a pleasure to serve under you for the first time in your new elevated capacity as Chair, Dr Murrison.

Since the publication of the infected blood inquiry’s detailed report in May 2024, the Government have worked to establish a compensation scheme and to set up the Infected Blood Compensation Authority, known as IBCA, to deliver it. I can tell the Committee that since the compensation scheme opened last year, IBCA has contacted all infected people registered with a support scheme to start their claim and made offers of more than £2 billion. It has now opened the service to the first claims from living infected people who have never been compensated. I am pleased with this progress, which is a significant step in the right direction towards delivering justice to those impacted, with IBCA now moving towards opening the service for those affected and for the estates of deceased infected people.

Colleagues may be aware that I, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and the shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), among others, spoke at the World AIDS Day event hosted by the Terrence Higgins Trust in Speaker’s House on Monday. It was important that the Government marked that important day. I am proud to say that IBCA has made offers to over 90% of those infected with HIV who are registered with a support scheme, and it hopes to have made offers to the remaining eligible living HIV claimants by the end of this year.

In July, the infected blood inquiry published its additional report, which made 15 recommendations to the Government on the design of the scheme. I immediately accepted seven of those recommendations, and the regulations we are considering today will implement the five that require legislation to achieve. The remaining eight recommendations are subject to an ongoing public consultation, as per Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendation, and the Government expect to bring in further legislation next year to implement the changes we will need following that consultation.

Listening to the voices of the community is essential. That is why, in the Budget last week, the Chancellor announced changes that will ensure that infected blood compensation payments are relieved from inheritance tax in cases where the original infected or affected person eligible for compensation has died before the compensation is paid. I am pleased that we have been able to make that change; it is something that was raised with me by Members across the House when I last made a statement, and it is really important that justice is not only delivered, but reflected in the way the compensation is treated.

Turning to the regulations at hand, I will set out the changes we are proposing to the scheme in direct response to the inquiry’s recommendations. Regulation 3 responds to the inquiry’s recommendation 3(a) by removing the 1982 start date for eligible HIV infections, meaning that anyone who was infected with HIV via infected blood or infected blood products before 1 November 1985 will be eligible for the scheme.

Regulation 4 makes changes in line with the inquiry’s recommendation 8(b) on affected estates. Its additional report sets out that the time being taken to deliver compensation is disadvantageous to affected people who are older or are in ill health. The inquiry recommended that where an affected person has sadly passed away during a specified date range, their compensation should become part of their estate. The Government have not only accepted this recommendation but gone beyond it, extending the recommended date range by two additional years, to be between 21 May 2024 and 31 March 2031.

Regulation 6 actions the inquiry’s recommendation 4(e), which recommends that the Government remove the need for applicants with hepatitis C or B to evidence their date of diagnosis. The date of diagnosis does not have a bearing on the calculation of an individual’s compensation. Therefore, making this change removes an unnecessary burden and will allow swifter processing of claims by IBCA.

Regulation 7 implements the inquiry’s recommend-ation 4(d), which relates to how the scheme deems the level of severity of someone’s hepatitis infection. Where somebody shows a level 4 diagnosis of hepatitis, but no level 3 diagnosis, we are amending the scheme so that they are deemed to have spent six years at level 3 prior to the level 4 diagnosis. That will uplift the overall compensation package; it is also a recognition that the burden of evidence shall not fall on the claimant, which is of crucial importance, particularly in light of Sir Brian Langstaff’s original finding about lost medical records.

We have heard from the community and the inquiry that the use of effective treatment dates under the scheme does not reflect the lived experience of many victims as not all infected people were able to resume work after treatment for various reasons, including continued illness or stigma, and that some people received effective treatment much later than it was introduced. In line with the inquiry’s recommendation 4(c), regulation 9 rectifies that by removing the earnings floor on the exceptional loss award for financial loss supplementary route. There is therefore a route available for infected people to present evidence on their actual earning loss.

The Government also recognise that concerns have been raised about bereaved partners’ access to support scheme payments following the tragic loss of their spouse. In response to that and to the inquiry’s recommendation 9(a), the Government reopened bereaved partner applications to the infected blood support scheme on 22 October. I should place on record my thanks to colleagues in the devolved Administrations for working with us to ensure that we could achieve this quickly.

One of the key themes of the inquiry’s additional report was the need for IBCA to increase the speed at which it delivers compensation. In order to achieve that, regulation 10 delays by one calendar year the transfer of responsibility to make support scheme payments from IBSS to IBCA. That has been done to allow IBCA to focus its resources on continuing to build an effective compensation scheme. Again, I am very grateful to the devolved Administrations for their collaborative work on making that happen.

Outside the inquiry’s report, regulation 14 makes a number of technical changes to ensure that the compensation scheme functions correctly and that its administration is improved. They are minor corrections that do not impact overall policy.

This compensation scheme is for people who have had their lives changed by unimaginable pain and suffering. These regulations are a direct response to those people’s calls for change that meets their expectations of this Government and carry forward a sense of justice. As Members of the House of Commons, we all share the sentiment that the victims of this scandal should be at the heart of this work. I believe that the regulations are a significant step in ensuring that the compensation scheme delivers for those impacted and I commend them to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I thank both the shadow Minister and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for their tone and their constructive approach. They quite rightly hold me to account on the compensation scheme, but, just as it was when I was shadow to the Paymaster General, it is important that we maintain cross-party consensus on this issue; I know it is very important to the victims that this does not descend into being some sort of political football. It never has done so, to be fair, and that is extremely helpful.

On the shadow Minister’s specific questions, I expect the first payment to be made to an affected person by the end of the calendar year, which is what I have consistently said over the past 18 months. On the issue of the start date, when giving evidence before Sir Brian back in May, I promised to go back and look at it again. The Government of the day was from 1979 a Conservative one, though that does not really matter; there was an argument as to the date after which liability should fall, but I decided that such a debate was not becoming, and that we should just remove the start date altogether, which is precisely what I have done.

I also entirely agree with the shadow Minister’s point about record keeping. It is not just that these events happened a long time ago, which they did; Sir Brian found evidence of deliberate document destruction. In those circumstances, while Members will realise that IBCA is operationally independent, I have always insisted that there should be a sympathetic and facilitating approach to evidence when dealing with claimants. Rather than simply saying that particular evidence is not available, it should be constructively looking for alternative ways to find that evidence. When I visited IBCA to see the training and work of its caseworkers, both the chair and the chief executive of the organisation very much shared that approach.

The heinous medical experimentation that happened, including at times on children, is also part of the consultation, and we are currently in the 12-week consultation period. Finally, I entirely agree with the shadow Minister that there must be regular communication from both the Government, through the consultation, and IBCA. There must also be plain English in official documents—that is one my passions and I repeatedly asking for it.

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson raised the special category mechanism, the changes to which are in the public consultation at the moment. After the 12-week consultation period, the Government will have 12 weeks to respond. My plan is then to introduce what will be the full set of regulations, so another Committee will be reconvening as soon as possible to make the necessary changes to the scheme on the basis of that consultation.

[Tessa Munt]

Is it possible to have some vague timeframe? The Minister is saying that there is a 12-week consultation, which I absolutely understand, but so many of these people are desperately ill. Can he give me any idea of when that might come into action?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

It has already started; we are in the first 12-week period. After that, the Government then have another 12 weeks to respond, at which point I will bring forward a set of regulations. I have already committed to Sir Brian Langstaff, and on the Floor of the House, to changing the special category mechanism. I am fully aware of the issue the hon. Lady has highlighted, and we will certainly move as quickly as we can to introduce the regulations. There is the 12-week consultation period that we are in, there will be 12 weeks for the Government to respond, and then there will be the time that it takes to draft and introduce regulations, but I want to do that as quickly as possible.

Finally, while we are here debating Sir Brian Langstaff’s important recommendations on compensation, he also made a range of other recommendations on trying to prevent something as awful as this from happening again. While this work is hugely important, the work on implementing the other recommendations continues.

Question put and agreed to.

UK-EU Relations

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2025 Written Statements

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

At the first ever UK-EU summit on 19 May, the Government agreed a new strategic partnership with the EU—a partnership to boost the prosperity, safety and security of both our peoples, and to help strengthen Europe-wide defences.

We have made good progress since May, with negotiations ongoing to implement these commitments, including on energy co-operation, youth experience, education, judicial co-operation and law enforcement. In the past fortnight, we also launched negotiations on a food and drink deal and the linking of our carbon markets. Whether it is slashing red tape for business, helping to bring down bills, or deepening co-operation on challenges posed by illegal migration, including action to tackle people smuggling and deepen information sharing, these deals are good for bills, good for our borders and good for jobs.

A key outcome from the summit was the adoption of a new security and defence partnership with the EU, filling a critical gap left in the trade and co-operation agreement between the UK and EU, and enabling us to strengthen our co-operation on a wide range of areas critical to European security. We are working quickly with the EU to implement the partnership and have stepped up our co-operation on key issues such as support to Ukraine, tackling hybrid threats and supporting stability in the western Balkans.

The SDP also unlocked the possibility for enhanced UK participation in the Security Action for Europe instrument. Earlier this autumn, the UK and the EU commenced formal negotiations on a bilateral agreement to facilitate UK participation. The UK entered these negotiations in good faith, recognising our mutual strategic interest and commitment to work with the EU on defence. However, we have not been able to conclude these negotiations with an agreement.

This Government have always been clear that we will only sign agreements that are in the national interest. In this case, we were unable to reach an agreement that passed that test.

While it is disappointing that we have not been able to positively conclude discussions on UK participation in the first round of SAFE, the UK’s defence industry continues to have access to SAFE under standard third country terms. UK companies will be able to participate and benefit from SAFE contracts to provide up to 35% of their content.

International partnerships, including with our European allies, will remain key to delivering our defence industrial strategy. The UK and EU member states are already working closely to strengthen the European defence industrial base. Since this Government took office, we have struck defence agreements across Europe, including the landmark Trinity House agreement with Germany, and the historic Northwood declaration to deepen nuclear co-operation and co-ordination with France, and we will continue this close co-operation.

The UK is already at the heart of European co-operation in the face of rising threats—through one of the largest defence budgets in Europe; unmatched alliances, including through NATO; a world-leading defence industrial base; and iron-clad military and training support to Ukraine.

And we continue to step up on European security, from leading the coalition of the willing for Ukraine to strengthening our relationships with allies.

We will continue to pursue export deals that benefit Britain, and to provide these systems and weaponry and the innovation that helps make Europe safe. In the last year alone we have struck a £10 billion deal with Norway and secured an £8 billion Typhoon agreement with Türkiye.

Yesterday I spoke with EU Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič, where I underlined that the UK remains fully committed to continuing our close co-operation with the EU and our European partners, including to strengthen European security and maintain our unwavering support for Ukraine.

We will continue working together in good faith to implement the wider package agreed at the UK-EU summit.

[HCWS1114]

UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Written Statements

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

The hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) has been appointed as a full representative of the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly in place of the hon. Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes).

The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) has been appointed as a full representative of the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly in place of the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary).

[HCWS1036]

Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his statement and for advance sight of it—although just under an hour is not a lot of time to digest 75 pages of documentation, so I will do my best. I join the Minister in acknowledging the work done by Sir Brian Langstaff and his inquiries, as well as the serious improvement in the pace of payments that IBCA has made in recent months. We thank Sir Robert Francis, David Foley, and all their team at IBCA. On behalf of the Opposition, I welcome the measures that the Minister has announced that implement some of Sir Brian’s recommendations from the additional report, particularly those dealing with HIV eligibility start dates, the deeming of severity bands, evidence of the date of diagnosis, affected estates, and bereaved partner support scheme payments.

Turning to the recommendations relating to hepatitis, we of course welcome confirmation that the Government will remove the earnings floor on the supplementary route exceptional loss award. However, I did not hear any specific reference in the Minister’s statement to measures to address recommendation 4(c) of the original report, which deals with effective treatment. Perhaps the Minister could set out how the Government intend to give effect to that recommendation. Similarly, could he set out what measures the Government are taking—beyond the appointment of the new members of the technical expert group that he has announced—in response to recommendation 2(e), which deals with the transparency of scheme design? That is particularly important in light of the inquiry’s worrying finding that victims did not feel that they were being listened to.

I now turn to the recommendations that the Government did not feel able to accept immediately. I welcome the fact that the Minister is consulting on a way forward on those issues; clearly, as I have said, there is a need for transparency and proper consultation. The consultation period will last until the end of January next year. We recognise that there is little that the Minister can do about that clearly defined period, but given the need to address these measures without undue delay, will he ensure that once that consultation period closes, the Government respond swiftly to the consultation paper and introduce any necessary further regulations with maximum speed, so that this House can consider any further measures that are necessary?

More broadly, how are the Government applying the lessons learned from the implementation of payment schemes for people infected to better inform the operation of payments to people affected and to their estates, as he referred to in his statement? What action is the Minister taking with the independent IBCA to ensure that the pace of payments, which has seen welcome progress, continues to accelerate and is not jeopardised by changes to rules and processes?

As I said, Sir Brian’s inquiries have done incredible and invaluable work to give a voice to those who have battled so courageously against decades of injustice, and to ensure that victims and their families have some remedy, although clearly no amount of money can ever reverse the terrible harm done by this scandal over many years. The recommendations in the additional report that Sir Brian published shortly before the summer are an invaluable contribution. Looking forward, there will need to be a degree of policy certainty as we move from a period of review to one of rectification and delivery. That is one reason that the cross-party work, both before and since the election, has been so important to give confidence and certainty. Looking ahead, does the Minister have any indication as to when we might expect the inquiry to draw to a close, and what might the mechanism be for doing so?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for the tone of his remarks. I note what he said about the time he received the statement and other documents, and he knows me well enough by now to know that I have great respect for this House and will always facilitate shadow Ministers having material with plenty of time. I will certainly take that issue away and look at why that happened.

I join the shadow Minister in paying tribute to the work of the inquiry and to Sir Robert Francis and David Foley, IBCA’s chief executive. This House rightly has held me to account for the number of payments. IBCA was running a test-and-learn approach, and I always said to the House that there would be a smaller number that was a representative sample of cases, which would then allow IBCA to scale up exponentially. We are now in that exponential phase—that steep curve. I look every single week at the number of payments, and it is starting to increase significantly. I know that Members across the House will welcome that.

The shadow Minister made a point about treatment for hepatitis. One of the things we are looking at in the consultation is the impact of interferon, which had such a detrimental impact on so many people.

The shadow Minister is right to raise the transparency mechanism. While I do not need a piece of legislation for that, I am looking at that mechanism and want to get it into place as soon as possible.

The shadow Minister asked about the 12-week consultation. The Government will respond to that within 12 weeks, and I will then want to bring forward a fourth set of regulations with the greatest possible speed.

The shadow Minister’s final point was about learning lessons, and that is precisely why I asked Sir Tyrone Urch to carry out his work. First, it was about learning the lessons from what has happened so far and how we can best take things forward. Secondly, it is about the practical steps I can take to assist IBCA with scaling up and making payments to affected people, which will clearly be a far larger number of people for IBCA to deal with.

To finish on a consensual point, the cross-party support on this issue has been important. The continuity between the work I have done and the work of my predecessor as Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) has been hugely important in the delivery of this scheme.

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

I welcome the statement from my right hon. Friend. This issue has its origins back in the 1940s, and it has been going on for an extraordinarily long time. The state has not been responding to or providing information to the people it should have been there to serve. We find ourselves in a situation where people have lived almost all their lives waiting for compensation, and now this issue is arising that they may pass away, having just received compensation, and their estate will then be subject to inheritance tax. The state is giving with one hand and taking back with the other. I realise that my right hon. Friend is not in the Treasury, but we need to take that issue forward.

There is also this outstanding issue of support to the campaigning groups that support the applications of people who are infected and affected. Part of one of Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendations was that they need extra support from the Department of Health and Social Care. On both these issues, what can my right hon. Friend do to assist the people making these applications and to get them the response to Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendations that they deserve?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I thank the hon. Lady for the tone of her comments. On her final point, that number is just the number of registrations, not the totality of the number of victims. On the point that she raises, I entirely share her concern. As I said when I gave evidence to the inquiry in May, the test that I always have at the forefront of my mind when making changes is about not causing additional undue delay to the payment of compensation.

The hon. Lady asked me about 2029; that is a backstop, not a target date. I said that to the inquiry in May as well. The target is to get the payments out as quickly as possible. As I said in response to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), the test-and-learn approach was always taken because we felt—and IBCA felt—that that would ultimately be the way to get the money out to the largest number of people as quickly as possible. I think we are now in an exponential phase where the number of payments is going up quickly.

The hon. Lady is entirely right to draw attention to the number of people who have died before actually securing justice. That is again a reason why I have been pushing for payments to be made as quickly as possible.

Finally, the special category mechanism is one of the seven issues mentioned in the consultation. I know this has been asked before, but I would urge her and her constituents to respond to that.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for the content, clarification and tone of his statement. It is clearly an awful situation. I would like to speak up for my constituents in Easington and to seek some clarification regarding those people who contracted hepatitis C. Will the Minister confirm that all in the infected blood community, including those suffering with hepatitis C, will have access to the consultation, as recommended by Sir Brian Langstaff? I understand that the consultation closes in January, and he mentioned that there would be a 12-week period in which the Government would consider that.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The straight answer is yes. My hon. Friend is a powerful advocate for the victims in his constituency of Easington. Whether for hepatitis C victims or the other victims of this scandal, I want the consultation to be as accessible as possible, and I very much hope that he will encourage his constituents to respond to it.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

The Minister is clearly totally committed to this subject, and I thank him for the way in which he reaches out to the MPs he knows have an interest in it. Will he join me in commending IBCA for the quality of its communications? Both the website and the MPs’ toolkit recently sent out could not be more free of jargon, which sets an excellent example.

Going back to the point raised by the chair of the APPG, the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford), as I understand it, if a compensation grant is made to the family of someone who has already died, those relatives will receive it tax-free, but if the grant is made to the individual shortly before their death, the very same family members might have to pay inheritance tax on it. That is clearly an anomaly, so will the Minister speak to the Treasury about it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman, who has campaigned on this issue for many years. On his first point, I agree; whether the documents and communications are from the Government or the IBCA, I am constantly pressing for plain English. To be fair to those tasked with producing those documents, some of the content is complicated, but trying to communicate in accessible ways is hugely important.

On the right hon. Gentleman’s second point regarding the tax exemption, he is correct, I think, in his interpretation that there is a single tax exemption. The compensation is received free of tax in the first instance, but there is no subsequent tax exemption. That is in line with general Government policy on tax exemptions across the board.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister for his statement. On lessons learned, I hope he has looked at the National Audit Office’s work on different compensation schemes so that we can learn from that. I also hope that he supports the national campaign to encourage people who received a blood transfusion to get tested for hepatitis C, as two people a month are contacting the helpline to say that they were infected during the relevant period.

To press the Minister further on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) and the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), under this scheme people get compensation because they are dying due to infected blood; it is not random, coincidental or due to something else. If they happen to receive the compensation just before they die, their family will pay inheritance tax on it. The victims want to ensure that their families are properly supported, because they are no longer able to do that, so will the Minister renew his efforts to talk to the Treasury about this issue? This is a small, defined group of people, which does not need to set a more general precedent, but for this particular scheme—where the state failed people so much—the issue is an important one to resolve.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend does on this. I entirely agree with her about learning lessons from the different compensation schemes across several Governments in recent decades. On her second point, regarding tax exemptions, I have set out the Government’s position, but I hear very strongly what Members are saying.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his meticulous and thorough analysis of all the different strands of this challenging problem, and for the work he has done to deal with the complexity of different groups’ concerns over delivery of the compensation. I also thank Sir Brian Langstaff for what he has done.

However, after six years, £140 million has been spent on this inquiry—and we do not yet have the accounts for the current year. In Sir Tyrone Urch’s review, which the Minister mentioned, the first recommendation is regarding policy stability. Can the Minister say something about how we will achieve that policy stability? Respectfully, is it not time to thank Sir Brian and Sir Robert for their work and then focus on the delivery of IBCA, rather than have more iterations of recommendations, which do not achieve much for the individuals who need this accelerated?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the painstaking, significant work he did when he was Paymaster General. The reference to Sir Tyrone Urch and his report is apposite, because I asked Sir Tyrone to look at the workings of IBCA—to look, practically, at what barriers are still there to delivering compensation quickly. Of course, Sir Tyrone’s first recommendation was around policy stability. As I said when I was before the inquiry in May, we would not want to be making changes to the scheme that were detrimental to the ability to deliver the compensation quickly. That is something that I think is really important going forward.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate and thank the Minister for his work on this; I know how much of his time it is taking. Further to the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) and for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), and the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), there is a perversity in the people who were failed by the state potentially being asked to repay 40% of their compensation to the same state that failed them.

The Minister has clearly set out that that is in line with policy; is he willing to stand at that Dispatch Box and state, categorically, that that is fair? If he cannot say that it is fair, will he at least undertake to again raise this issue with the Treasury, so that those people who were failed by the state are not then penalised by the state?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend and a number of Members have made that case powerfully. I will say to the House that they can be assured that I look at all aspects of this scheme and test whether they are fair, and I think we can see, across parties, the strength of feeling on this today.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

I congratulate the Minister on making real progress on this matter, after many years of delays. I recently met Jean Hill and her daughters. She has been campaigning on this issue for 30 years. Sadly, her husband died in 2004 at the age of 48; his brother died at 25; and a nephew died in more recent years. What assurance can the Minister give me—and Jean—that payments to deceased estates will be expedited as a matter of urgency, and what additional resources will be put in place to achieve that?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his work; I know that he has raised this issue on previous occasions. With regard to deceased estates, he will have heard what I said in my statement about the interim payments. Additional interim payments have just opened, which shows the urgency of the situation to the Government and the importance of the money getting to where it is needed. That is why I made sure that those payments were opened in recent weeks.

[Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement today, and for the work that he has done. One issue raised by a constituent is that when she applied for the interim payment, she filled out lots of forms and gave information, as she has been doing for many years, because her husband died some time ago, having contracted infection back in the 1970s. She now has to apply again, and the same information will be asked for. There must be a way of expediting the process to make life slightly simpler for people like her. She, too, is in a situation in which, at the age of 88 and having not received all the payments that she is likely to get, she is worried about inheritance tax—not on her own behalf, but on behalf of her children. I am sorry to belabour the point, but may I add my voice to those around the Chamber? Perhaps those voices will help the Minister to have the ammunition to take to the Treasury to say, “We’re not happy with this.”

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

With regard to my hon. Friend’s first point, on the interim payments, there is an expedited process if the details are unchanged from the first interim application. If my hon. Friend writes to me with the particular details of her constituent, I am happy to look at that. On her second point, I think the strength of feeling in the House is very clear.

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

On previous occasions, I have paid tribute to the Minister for his sincerity and hard work in this matter, and I add to that the collegiate and consensual way that he approaches all of this, particularly in his work with the devolved Administrations, including the Scottish Government. I previously asked for the work of voluntary organisations—third-sector organisations—to be placed on a statutory footing. The Minister will understand that despite the system being fairly straightforward and simple, as has been acknowledged, claimants still need support, particularly those who are unwell. Can the Minister advise whether that work has now been placed on a statutory footing?

[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.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his commitment to finding solutions, and for his incredibly compassionate demeanour in handling these issues. I think we all thank him for that. The streamlined scheme for compensation opened just three weeks ago; can the Minister confirm that it is indeed now easier for people to access the money that they deserve? I hope that the scheme is not adding more worry and stress to those who live their life under a burden not of their making. Are the Government truly sharing the load with them, and what more can the Minister do to make the process smoother?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

As ever, the hon. Gentleman makes a very useful point, building on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) a moment or two ago. I am very keen to ensure that the consultation is as accessible as possible, and some of Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendations—for example, about how we calculate past and future loss—are quite technical. I always say to both the Department and IBCA that it is really important that we do everything we can to make the system simpler, but we also need ready explainers. The hon. Gentleman can be assured that I will continue to push for them.

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

I thank my right hon. Friend for his continued compassion and commitment to the cause, and for the communications that we have had about affected constituents in my constituency. As he will recall, their concerns are about bureaucracy and delays. Given what he said in his statement, can he assure me that this Government remain committed to ensuring that all affected and infected individuals will see their compensation as quickly as possible? What assurances can he give me and my constituents about when they will be invited to start their claims?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend; as ever, he makes a powerful case on behalf of his constituents. At the moment, offers have been made that are worth over £1.8 billion, but I remain restless about the speed of progress; I want it to continue to increase. I am very conscious that IBCA will be moving from dealing with those who have been infected to the much larger number of people who have been affected. I appointed Sir Tyrone Urch to look at the lessons that we can learn, and at how IBCA can best scale up to deal with a much larger number of claims. Indeed, over 10,000 claims have been registered. I stand ready to assist and support IBCA as we move forward into a new phase.

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement and for his very clear personal commitment on this issue. He will be aware that building and maintaining trust between the affected families and the Government is essential. I am sure he will agree that the Hillsborough law, which comes before the House next week, is one example of how we can continue to repay that trust and demonstrate that we are determined to see recommendations, such as the duty of candour, put in statute. My constituents who are affected by the scandal still continually ask me for reassurance on transparency, so will he consider publishing regular data on claims received, assessed and paid, so that the public can clearly see the progress that is being made—exponential or otherwise?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is entirely correct about transparency. IBCA continues to publish statistics, which are very important. I have today published the technical expert group’s minutes, which are very important, too. My hon. Friend puts his finger on another really important aspect of the response to Sir Brian Langstaff’s report from last year: the duty of candour, which will be hugely important in driving cultural change across public service. I am proud that we will have the Second Reading of the relevant Bill on Monday.

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister’s statement, and the opening of further interim payments last week. The families of infected people in Falkirk have in the past told me that systems could be better streamlined to improve the pace of delivery. I know the pace of delivery will continue to be imperative for families, so what assurances can the Minister provide that the actions set out in his statement, and actions taken following the consultation, will continue to reflect the feedback of infected people and affected families?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is entirely correct. We will have a consultation and introduce a transparency mechanism, but we will also look very seriously at the recommendations that Tyrone Urch has made. We need to ensure that the speed of payments continues to increase, but also, as my hon. Friend says, that feedback from victims is at the heart of the process.

[Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)]

In one of the first contributions I had the privilege of making in the House, I raised the case of the Blake family. Their son Stuart was infected aged six, and he died at the age of 27, back in 2006. I have been in regular contact with the family, and it was my privilege to show them around this place just a few weeks ago. I am sure the Minister and the House will understand that this has consumed their family for four decades, and they are still seeking reassurance about the urgency with which the Government are bringing forward payments, and about whether they will be made as quickly as possible. I am really encouraged by the statement. The family are eligible for the second interim payment, but I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed his personal commitment to bringing such cases to resolution as soon as possible.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend has previously spoken to me movingly about the experience of the Blake family, and it is exactly families with such experiences who are at the forefront of all our minds across the House as we drive this forward. I can of course give him a personal commitment that I will continue to do all I can to quicken even further the pace of the compensation payments.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for the update, especially on behalf of my constituent Robert, who lost his brother aged 31, and who has been in regular contact with me on this issue. The Government previously announced that they were allocating funding to charities; that was a recommendation of the inquiry. Will the Minister confirm the steps that he has been taking with the Department of Health and Social Care to make sure that money gets to those charities, so they are funded to process applications as quickly as possible?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend raises a really important issue, because charities have played an absolutely vital role in supporting and advocating for the victims of this scandal. Money was already allocated in this financial year. I know that there are concerns going forward. He can be assured that I will work closely with Health and Social Care Ministers on that.

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

I am very grateful to the Minister for his update. I am pleased to report that one of my constituents, the one whom I have been most in contact with the Minister about, has finally been fully compensated, which is a huge relief to him and his family. I spoke with him this morning, and he is watching now. Although he welcomes the improved service from IBCA, and I find it reassuring that the intention is to begin paying the first claims on behalf of estates of deceased infected people by the end of this year, my constituent asks if there is anything we can do to prioritise those close to the end of their life, so that they can get the justice they deserve in life, bearing in mind the valid inheritance tax concerns raised by Members from across the House.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am pleased to hear that my hon. Friend’s constituent has had his compensation payment. My hon. Friend speaks very powerfully on his constituent’s behalf. On his point about those nearing the end of their life, IBCA has published how it prioritises claims. He and his constituent should be assured that it is exactly those who are at an advanced age, and who are dealing with this matter at this moment in their life for no other reason than the state’s failure to deal with it over past decades, who are at the forefront of my mind as I try to drive progress even faster.

China Spying Case

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I will do my best, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart). First, I want to reinforce, not just as a Minister, but as a parliamentarian, the Government’s deep regret about the collapse of the criminal case concerning the two individuals charged under the Official Secrets Act 1911. Everyone in the Government was hoping that the trial would go ahead and planning on the basis that it would.

As a reminder, following the arrests of Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry in March 2023 as part of a counter-espionage operation, counter-terrorism police requested that the deputy National Security Adviser act as a witness in the case. [Interruption.] Let me go through this, because it is important to the challenges made by the hon. Gentleman. The DNSA made it clear that he would provide evidence on the basis of the Government’s position at the time of the offences, and that is crucial to the judgment that has been made in this case. The first statement was drafted—

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I will make some progress, and then I will give way to the shadow Home Secretary.

The first statement was drafted between August and December 2023. During that time, Counter Terrorism Policing was updated on progress, including the information that the deputy National Security Adviser would not be able to call China an enemy, as that was not the position of the Government at the time of the offences.

[Chris Philp]

On that point, will the Minister give way?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Okay, I will let the shadow Home Secretary intervene on that point.

[Chris Philp]

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

[Chris Philp]

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

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear! The right hon. Gentleman has just quoted page 4 of the DPP’s letter. Let me quote page 5 to him:

“The information that we required related to the period between 31 December 2021 and 3 February 2023. The position of the current Government was not relevant to the case.”

I suggest that the shadow Home Secretary look at the next page.

[Chris Philp]

It is misleading.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

No, it is not misleading. Will the right hon. Gentleman give me a moment? It was the position at the relevant time. What is even worse, however, is that the word “enemy” was not the position at the time. It came out of the statement, and that happened under the previous Government, I am afraid.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I took interventions from the shadow Home Secretary, and I must now make some progress.

Before finalising his statement in December 2023, the deputy National Security Adviser sighted the then National Security Adviser and the then Cabinet Office permanent secretary. On 18 December—this was all under the previous Government—the permanent secretary came back with three comments for the DNSA to consider. The DNSA then finalised the statement, and his private office sent a final version of the draft to the then Prime Minister through the No. 10 private office and No. 10 special advisers. Once the statements were submitted they were not shared, and in April 2024, formal charges were laid. That was the position under the previous Government.

Two supplementary witness statements from the DNSA were submitted in February and August 2025, following requests from Counter Terrorism Policing for further detail on the nature and extent of the threat to the UK from China. For the second statement, CTP specifically asked the DNSA to comment on whether China as a state, during the period from 31 December 2021 to 3 February 2023, posed an active threat; and whether that remained the case. For the third statement, CTP requested that the DNSA provide further points of detail regarding the UK Government’s assessment of the nature and extent of the threat, with examples. The DNSA faithfully and with full integrity—I noted that the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster implied that somehow he was not compliant with part 35 of the civil procedure rules—set out the various threats posed by the Chinese state in line with the UK Government’s position at the material time, in order to try to support a successful prosecution. We then come, obviously, to the meeting on 1 September to which the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster referred, and with which I shall deal in a moment.

I was fascinated by the opening speech of the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in which he talked of the “clarity” of the last Government’s position.

“The government’s approach to China is guided by three pillars: strengthening our national security protections, aligning and cooperating with our partners, and engaging where it is consistent with our interest.”

Who said that? The shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster did in 2023, and here he is now trying to talk about the clarity of the position in 2023.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Not for a moment.

On 1 September, the National Security Adviser convened a routine meeting to discuss the UK’s relationship with China in the context of this case and several other upcoming moments. That is entirely what we would expect the National Security Adviser to do. We have learned that entirely separately, and entirely independent of Government, the CPS was deliberating on not offering evidence in this case. On 3 September, the DPP told the Cabinet Secretary and the DNSA of his intention, subject to confirmation, not to put forward evidence, and unfortunately that decision was confirmed on 9 September. I must say to the Opposition that that is a matter of regret. It is quite rightly an independent decision, but it is a matter of regret. On 15 September 2025, the CPS officially confirmed the decision to discontinue the case against Cash and Berry.

I actually welcome scrutiny of that decision. That is why I welcome the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy’s inquiry into espionage cases and the Official Secrets Act and the Intelligence and Security Committee’s investigations into how classified intelligence was used. Since we last discussed the matter in this House, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, the Attorney General, the Cabinet Secretary, the National Security Adviser and the deputy National Security Adviser have all submitted evidence to the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy.

Yesterday, the Joint Committee heard evidence from the Director of Public Prosecutions and the First Treasury Counsel, and from the Cabinet Secretary and the deputy National Security Adviser at a later session. Tomorrow, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister and the Attorney General will give more evidence. A question has been raised about the National Security Adviser; he will also be giving evidence soon, and certainly before the end of the year.

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

The Minister expresses deep regret that this case has not gone to trial. I want to believe him on that, but the case did not go to trial. With the power of hindsight, if he was to go back and do this all again, what would the Minister have done differently to ensure that this case did go to trial?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I will tell the hon. Gentleman exactly what would have made a massive difference: if we could have updated the Official Secrets Act far sooner than 2023. That would have made a material difference. This case was being prosecuted under a 1911 Act. The National Security Act was passed in 2023. If only the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had been in the Cabinet Office to be close to what was going on; perhaps the legislation could have been changed at an earlier stage and we would not be in this position.

Let me be clear with the House: the allegations of political interference in this case are absolutely baseless. The CPS decision to discontinue the case was independent of Government. Indeed, the Opposition should ask what the Director of Public Prosecutions himself said about that; he reiterated it again yesterday when he gave evidence, sitting alongside Tom Little KC.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Can the Minister explain to the House, once and for all, how it is possible for a Government to believe that China is responsible for posing a wide range of threats, but is not a threat itself? He would clear matters up, and allay suspicions that the Government are holding back for economic reasons, if he would simply say that China is a threat to our national security. Will he say that?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

China poses a multiplicity of threats; it poses a threat in terms of espionage, in terms of cyber, and in terms of economic security. However, with the greatest respect to the right hon. Gentleman, the issue is whether it was considered a threat at the material time, and I cannot go back and change that.

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

I am listening carefully to what the Minister is saying, but can we be informed how MPs today are to be further protected from foreign intelligence services?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is 100% correct, and that is a huge priority for the Government; it is a very serious issue. As I said when I opened this debate, it is not just about the position of the Government; I say as a parliamentarian that we in this place have to be protected from foreign interference.

The shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster asked about the meeting on 1 September. We heard about that yesterday from the Cabinet Secretary and the deputy National Security Adviser, who both attended that meeting: it was a discussion about the bilateral relationship between the UK and China in the context of the case. The Cabinet Secretary made it clear yesterday that the meeting was entirely appropriate; no discussion of evidence took place, and everyone involved was participating on the assumption that the case was going to go ahead.

It was only on 3 September—as was confirmed by him in his evidence to the JCNSS yesterday—that the Director of Public Prosecutions informed the Cabinet Secretary and the DNSA of his intention, subject to confirmation, that the CPS would not be putting forward evidence at trial. The Attorney General was informed on the same day.

It is important that I finish this point, because I have been challenged on the chronology and I am only too delighted to enlighten the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The DPP confirmed to the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy that the position was agreed after a period of internal decision making within the CPS in the run-up to the meeting on 3 September. At that meeting, the DPP made it clear that the facts must not be briefed out further, with the exception of informing the NSA and the permanent secretary at the FCDO. The Cabinet Secretary and the DNSA therefore did not inform anyone else until shortly before the case became public. On 9 September, the CPS confirmed the decision to offer no evidence to the DNSA. That is the chronology.

Let me now directly address what the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said, because I am conscious of the time. There is already an established mechanism for Parliament to address this issue. The Government are fully co-operating with the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy inquiry and the ISC, and will provide evidence and appear before the Committee in the usual way.

[James Wild]

Will the Minister give way?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

In one moment.

In the motion, the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is seeking a wide range of documents. He was a Cabinet Office Minister himself, and he knows the sensitivity of those documents. He knows the legal professional privilege—

[Alex Burghart]

Will the Minister give way?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I will give the hon. Gentleman one more chance before I conclude. I say to him that highly classified material is subject to legal professional privilege and includes advice to the Prime Minister, which successive Governments have not released to the public. Why? Because it is in our interests to protect such material. The hon. Gentleman knows that in his heart of hearts.

[Alex Burghart]

I have always admired the shine on the Minister’s brass neck, and never so much as at this moment. I remember the Brexit debates, when he and many of the other gentlemen and ladies on the Labour Benches overrode legal privilege and asked for classified documents week after week. Members of this House may have been spied on, and the Government have a duty to be transparent. They cannot hide behind anything, given that they have previously asked for similar documents. Make them available!

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am looking at the hon. Gentleman and remembering the debates we had. Let me tell him the difference between what I was doing then and what is happening now. First, I was applying at the time, via a Humble Address mechanism, for a single document. By the way, his rather shambolic motion, which seems to be a fishing expedition, is totally imprecise. Secondly, that was not security material at this level, which is in our national interest.

[Alex Burghart]

You didn’t know that!

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Yes, I did.

Let me emphasise that I support parliamentary scrutiny. I support and welcome the ongoing process with the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy. I support the Government’s continuing to engage with the ISC. What we will not do, though, is accede to the hon. Gentleman’s demand. He knows in his heart of hearts that it would be totally inappropriate for the long list of material he has stuck in the motion to be put in the public domain. Asking for open publication is completely different from the appropriate parliamentary scrutiny which, quite rightly, will go on.

Let me conclude by saying this. The Government and I are gravely disappointed that the trial did not proceed. In response to the point that was put to me by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), the DNSA’s evidence articulated clearly the range of threats that China posed to the UK’s national security and, indeed, our economic security at the material time. In the light of the threats that have been identified—I agree with the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—this is a very grave matter. The Government are resolute in our determination to work across all parties and in partnership with the parliamentary security authorities, as was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley), to ensure that espionage and interference by China or any other country is not successful in the UK.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Infected Blood Victims: Interim Compensation Payments

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Thursday 23rd October 2025 Written Statements

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

On 9 July 2025, the infected blood inquiry published its additional report on compensation. The inquiry made a number of recommendations to the Cabinet Office and to the Infected Blood Compensation Authority to ensure that fair compensation is provided to every person that is eligible without delay.

As of 21 October, IBCA has contacted over 3,614 people to start their compensation claim; 3,371 have started the claim process; 2,476 people have received an offer, totalling over £1.8 billion; and so far 2,033 people have had their compensation paid, with more than £1.35 billion paid in compensation by IBCA. IBCA has now contacted all registered infected people to begin a claim, and the Government expect IBCA to open the service for those who are infected and unregistered, deceased infected and affected this year.

I am pleased that progress is being made, but I acknowledge the calls from the community highlighting the need for faster payment. That is why, on 21 July 2025, I informed the House that the Government would make a further interim payment of £210,000 to the estates of infected persons who were registered with an infected blood support scheme or predecessor scheme on or before 17 April 2024 and who have sadly passed away.

This is in addition to the interim payment of £100,000, which opened for applications in October 2024, meaning an estate could be eligible for up to £310,000 in interim payments. Since applications opened, over 600 estates have received payment, totalling over £60 million.

Today, I can announce that the process under which estates can apply for a further interim compensation payment has now opened. I hope this payment goes some way in recognising the hurt of those who have been impacted by losing their loved ones due to infected blood and blood products.

These payments will be delivered through the existing infected blood support schemes. They will be made to the estates of deceased infected persons As with all compensation payments related to infected blood, it will be exempt from income tax, capital gains tax and inheritance tax, and disregarded from means-tested benefit assessments.

Only the personal representative of the estate is able to make the application. Applicants will need a grant of probate, letters of administration, or—specific to Scotland —a grant of confirmation to evidence entitlement to claim interim compensation on behalf of the estate. To assist the legal process of obtaining this evidence as quickly as possible for those that do not already have it, applicants can claim back their exact legal costs up to £1,500. The application form is available to download online at gov.uk, together with full guidance on how to apply.

For those estates that have already received £100,000, an expedited application form is available. This requires much less information from the applicant than provided previously. Estate representatives can access this directly by contacting the UK infected blood support schemes.

I hope this additional interim payment brings some relief to the families impacted by a scandal that is a shameful mark on our national history. Please rest assured that delivering compensation for every eligible person remains an utmost priority for this Government.

[HCWS984]

Oral Answers to Questions

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Thursday 23rd October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

13. What steps he is taking to increase employment opportunities through public procurement.

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

I will answer on behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven (Chris Ward), who, with your permission, Mr Speaker, is at an event with the Prime Minister in his constituency today. This Government’s new social value model includes fair working skills criteria, so that authorities can reward suppliers providing good-quality jobs, supporting people into work and providing their employees with additional development opportunities. We are consulting on further reforms to public procurement and will update the House in due course.

[Andy McDonald]

With the Government’s welcome commitment to improving terms, conditions and career progression in adult social care, as demonstrated through the planned fair pay agreement and the care workforce pathway, will the Minister confirm that the Government’s response to the public procurement consultation will deliver a public interest test that accelerates insourcing and requires providers to recognise trades unions, as well as more sustainable careers and long-term employment opportunities?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

As always, my hon. Friend makes a powerful case. The Government want public bodies to examine carefully how best to deliver public services. That is why we are consulting on proposals to introduce a public interest test, allowing for the evaluation of services being more effectively delivered in-house before they are contracted out, covering value for money, service quality and wider social and economic benefit. We will consider the range of responses, including those from trades unions.

[Euan Stainbank]

I declare an interest as the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for British buses. Alexander Dennis and Wrightbus create 13 jobs for every four directly hired in bus manufacturing, and for decades Alexander Dennis has been an invaluable piece of the Scottish economy. After the business almost left Scotland following the Scottish National party’s disastrous Chinese bus-buying strategy, to its credit it spent nearly £4 million fixing the near fatal error. Will the Minister set out what the Cabinet Office is doing through public procurement so that my constituents’ taxpayer money is maximising Falkirk, Scottish and British-based businesses?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Unlike the SNP Government, evidently, this Labour Government believe that where things are made and who makes them matters. That is why we are consulting on further procurement reforms to boost domestic supply chains and create more opportunities for businesses of all sizes, whether that be in Falkirk or across the United Kingdom.

[Kenneth Stevenson (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)]

10. What steps he is taking to improve the delivery of Government priorities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

14. What recent progress he has made on the infected blood compensation scheme.

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

Some 2,476 people have now received offers totalling over £1.8 billion. Alongside the work I am doing to prepare further secondary legislation and a public consultation, I am pleased to announce that applications are opening today for further interim payments of £210,000 to the estates of infected people who have sadly passed away. In addition, the Infected Blood Compensation Authority has now asked every living infected person registered with a support scheme to come forward and start their claim, and has also opened a service for people to register their intent to claim.

[Liz Jarvis]

Many survivors of the infected blood scandal and bereaved families are still waiting far too long for compensation. They include my constituents, the family of Kevin Newman, who was infected with HIV and hepatitis C while a pupil at Treloar’s college and tragically died in 2018. The family received their first payment last December, but have been waiting for another ever since, and now have to fill in yet another form with a time limit. Will the Minister ensure that these payments are speeded up?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Absolutely, and that has been my objective throughout. IBCA took a test and learn approach, and this House quite rightly held me to account at the start of that process when the numbers were lower. Those numbers are rising exponentially at the moment—that is why there are offers totalling over £1.8 billion—but the hon. Lady should be reassured that I am 100% not complacent, and will continue to drive progress.

[Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

15. What progress his Department has made on the relocation of civil service jobs to Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

16. How many working days have been impacted by strikes in the civil service since July 2024.

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

I declare that I am a member of the Unite union and refer to my relevant entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests on support in general election campaigns. The Office for National Statistics estimates that 36,000 working days were lost because of labour disputes in the public administration and defence sector, which includes the majority of the civil service, between July 2024 and August 2025. That is down from the 95,000 days lost between May 2023 and June 2024.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am grateful for that answer, albeit partial, from the Minister, because he is quite right: he relies on the Office for National Statistics for the compilation of these figures. Now, even its staff have a strike mandate. They are refusing to attend work even for two days a week. What are the Government doing to enforce attendance levels at work? When does he think the ONS will find time to report on it?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Attendance levels are certainly important, but the hon. Gentleman has got some chutzpah, because under the previous Prime Minister—I note he is no longer in his place, although he was earlier in the questions—the UK lost more days due to strike action than France did, and the hon. Gentleman is here trying to lecture us about it. We will work in partnership with trade unions to avoid unnecessary disruption and not end up in the situation that the last Government did.

[Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)]

T4. I was pleased that the Minister give an update earlier on the work of the Infected Blood Compensation Authority, but the process is still taking too long. May I press the Minister to undertake work specifically to expedite the timescales in which compensation is expected to be paid?

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

My hon. Friend is a powerful advocate for infected blood victims, and he can rest assured that I will continue to drive progress as quickly as I possibly can. That is how we have got to the stage where over £1.8 billion-worth of offers have been made, and I will continue to drive that progress quickly.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

T10.   I have recently been contacted by International House Torquay, a language school, which has welcomed the opportunity for German foreign students to use ID cards to travel as a group. Can the Minister advise what further opportunities there will be for other European countries such as Switzerland, Italy and Spain to take advantage of a similar scheme?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

We are going even further than that, because the Government are looking to negotiate a youth experience scheme with the European Union. It will of course be capped, but it will give significant opportunities not just for young Brits to travel, work and study abroad, but to welcome young Europeans here.

[Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)]

T7. At my meet and greet session last week, my constituent Mick also raised that point about the importance of our young people having more opportunities to work and study abroad, including in Europe. I was so pleased by the Government’s announcement of a youth mobility scheme with the EU, but could I ask the Minister for an update on those plans and how they will benefit my constituents in Aylesbury?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I thank my hon. Friend for again raising this issue. Any scheme would give young Brits, including her young constituents in Aylesbury, the opportunity to travel and experience other countries’ cultures, as well as to work and study abroad. Of course, the exact parameters will be subject to discussion, and negotiations are under way, but we certainly hope to stand up these opportunities for young Brits as soon as possible.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

I welcome the Paymaster General’s remarks on the acceleration of the delivery of payments in relation to infected blood. It is very welcome for one of my constituents who has had it. I also welcome his response to the additional report by Sir Brian Langstaff in July. Given that, can he update the House on the lifetime of the public inquiry and any conversations he has had about ending the inquiry, which seems to be going on rather a long time given that the legislation was passed in May last year?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, and I again pay tribute to him for his hugely important work in this area when he was the Paymaster General. On the public inquiry and the recent report, I hope to update the House in due course—subject, of course, to your permission, Mr Speaker—about action on the recommendations. On the public inquiry remaining open, that is of course a matter for the chair, Sir Brian Langstaff.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

T8. I have heard from small businesses locally, including a butcher’s and a lighting supplier, about how Brexit has imposed extra barriers on small businesses such as theirs. Will the Minister outline how the UK-EU common understanding will improve conditions for small businesses, particularly those that import from and export to the EU?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is a powerful advocate for her constituents, and the common understanding will of course benefit the businesses she mentions. Our deals on emissions, energy trading, food and agricultural trade will all reduce costs for businesses. Astonishingly, the Conservatives and the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) want to reverse that and reimpose those costs on businesses.

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

Given that the Cabinet Office advises the Government on establishing public inquiries, will the Minister meet the families of the senior military and intelligence personnel who were killed when an RAF Chinook helicopter crashed on the Mull of Kintyre in 1994? The families have gathered compelling evidence suggesting that the Ministry of Defence was aware that the Mk 2 Chinook in which they were travelling was not airworthy. They are petitioning the Government to establish an independent, judge-led public inquiry. Will the Minister meet the families or at least advise a relevant Cabinet colleague so to do?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who raises a very serious case. If he were able to write to me directly about it, I will certainly look at what would be the most suitable ministerial meeting.

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

T9.  I recently met Estonian MPs to hear about their experience of using digital ID over the last two decades, and particularly about how people’s ability to see who has accessed their data is the cornerstone of the data privacy controls at the heart of their system. They talked about the efficiency gains across the public and private sector, such as when someone changes their name after marriage or buys a property. How does the Minister see modernisation of the state improving the delivery of public services in the UK?

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has just come to the Dispatch Box and said that we have done a new trade deal with the European Union, which I think is news to both the Prime Minister and Brussels. The only thing this Government have done so far in terms of EU relations is to sell out our fishing industry for the next 12 years. With that in mind, will the Minister actually stand up for British interests in future negotiations with Brussels?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I stand up for British interests in every negotiation with Brussels. I will tell the hon. Gentleman what is not standing up for British interests. We negotiated, within 10 months of coming into government, the new common understanding that will be good for jobs, bear down on bills and give us the tools to secure our borders. The leader of the Conservative party opposed it before even reading it.

[Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)]

I have been thinking about the cost of software licensing in the public sector, because North West Anglia NHS foundation trust is trying to move to an electronic patient record and one of the biggest ongoing costs of that is third-party payments for software. Other trusts are in the same position, as are many schools paying for pupil management software. Will the procurement Minister commit to looking into whether we can instead deliver some of that in-house and save significant sums?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Cases of the kind my hon. Friend is talking about are the reason we have been consulting on a public interest test. On the specific case he raises, if he writes to me I will ensure that the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven (Chris Ward) provides him with a response.

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

My constituent Phil is in the special category mechanism for the 916 people who were inexplicably excluded from the infected blood compensation scheme in February, even though the Government’s expert group said in August last year that they should be compensated. On 5 June, the Paymaster General said he would consider the compensation arrangements. I may have missed it—forgive me if I have—but I also asked for a list of conditions that might be included within that. Does he have an update for me, please?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am certainly looking at the issue of the special category mechanism, as I undertook to do. If the hon. Lady writes to me I can look at the specific list, but I am also hoping, with Mr Speaker’s permission, to update the House on this and other infected blood issues very shortly.

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

Residents in a housing development in my constituency are facing a number of issues after yet another developer has gone bust. Parts of the shared communal land have reverted back to the ownership of the Duchy of Cornwall, rather than to the residents themselves, who have to purchase the land back and cover the duchy’s legal costs. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, quite rightly, has Cabinet oversight, but who does the Duchy of Cornwall answer to and what recourse do my constituents now have in this case?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

On the infected blood compensation scheme in Northern Ireland, as of 21 February, 149 people had started the process, with 38 offers made totalling some £48 million. What assessment has been made of the time taken from when an application is made to when a payment actually arrives through the door?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The Infected Blood Compensation Authority is operationally independent, but I am accountable to this House. It is important that I have regular conversations and provide challenge on the kind of timescales the hon. Gentleman is talking about. The infected blood scandal predates modern-day devolution and he can rest assured that all four corners of the United Kingdom are at the forefront of my mind in respect of the speed of delivery.

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

The Minister was earlier asked about the ever-growing size of the civil service and the Cabinet Office under this Government and whether we would see those numbers coming down, not going up, next year. Instead of answering the question about the future, they talked about the past. Let me ask the question again, but from a different angle: when are this Government going to take ownership of the fact that they are in government now, and these are their problems that they need to resolve?

Public Service: Ethics and Integrity

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Written Statements

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

On 21 July 2025 the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster laid out the Government’s plans to put ethics and integrity at the heart of the Government’s approach to public service. Today, we are delivering on those plans.

Ethics and Integrity Commission

The Ethics and Integrity Commission has been launched today. The Prime Minister has written to the EIC’s independent chair, Doug Chalmers CB DSO OBE, to issue the commission’s terms of reference. A copy of the terms of reference have also been deposited in the Library of the House.

The commission will play a leading role in supporting public bodies as they implement the planned forthcoming obligation in the Public Office (Accountability) Bill for all public bodies to have a code of ethical conduct. The Prime Minister has commissioned the EIC to report on how public bodies can develop, distribute and enforce codes so that they effect meaningful cultural change, ensuring public officials act with honesty, integrity and candour at all times. On the publication of its report, and on the Hillsborough law receiving Royal Assent, the EIC will act as a centre of excellence on public sector codes of conduct, providing guidance and best practice to help all public bodies put ethics and integrity at the heart of public service delivery.

As previously announced, the commission will have a responsibility to engage and inform the wider public on the values, rules and oversight mechanisms that govern standards in public life, and to convene the leaders of ethics and standards bodies in central Government and Parliament to identify and address areas of common concern. The commission will also report annually to the Prime Minister on the overall health of our standards system. The commission will not have the ability to launch investigations or field complaints.

The Government are launching today a recruitment campaign for three new independent members to join the commission, to ensure a strong independent majority. The commission otherwise takes on the existing members and governance structure of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. The commission also inherits CSPL’s mandate to be the custodians of the seven principles of public life, and to report to Government on how arrangements to uphold standards in public life can be strengthened in specific areas.

An updated ministerial code and terms of reference for the Independent Adviser

The Prime Minister has today reissued the ministerial code to implement reforms in relation to ministerial severance payments and changes to the operation of the business appointment rules.

The ministerial code makes it clear that Ministers will be expected to forgo their severance if they leave office having served less than six months, or if they leave office following a serious breach of the ministerial code. Similarly, the new code states that if a former Minister is reappointed to a ministerial office within three months of leaving, they will be expected to waive their salary for the period that overlaps with their severance payment.

The updated code and terms of reference for the independent adviser on ministerial standards also reflect changes to the operation of the business appointment rules for former Ministers. From today, advice under the rules will be provided by the independent adviser, and the Prime Minister may ask former Ministers to repay their severance payment if they are found to have seriously breached the business appointment rules.

One further change to the ministerial code is that the Cabinet Office will advise the Prime Minister before any decision to establish a public inquiry is taken, and before the terms of reference are agreed. This is to ensure decisions are well judged and proportionate, and that inquiries focus on finding the right answers and help effect change.

The closure of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments

The Advisory Committee on Business Appointments has now closed. From today, its function to provide independent advice on the application of the business appointment rules in respect of the most senior civil servants and special advisers is transferred to the Civil Service Commission. Similarly, ACOBA’s function to provide independent advice in respect of former Ministers is from today transferred to the Prime Minister’s independent adviser on ministerial standards, Sir Laurie Magnus, who already provides independent advice to the Prime Minister on adherence to the ministerial code, and to individual Ministers on the appropriate management of their private interests while in office.

This structural change is accompanied by wider reforms to strengthen and streamline the system and enhance compliance. As set out above, in the event of a serious breach of the business appointment rules, Ministers will now be expected to repay any severance payment they have received. To improve the consistency of the application of the rules in Departments, the Civil Service Commission, which already audits Departments for compliance with the civil service recruitment principles, will undertake regular audits of departmental decisions on business appointment applications for grades below the level currently administered by ACOBA. This enhanced sanction and oversight will be underpinned by a more efficient and responsive system, focused on ensuring applicants understand their obligations under the rules. New guidance on the system has been published on www.gov.uk today to reflect these changes.

[HCWS939]