Covid-19 Inquiry Response Costs

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2026 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 has been clear as to her intention to complete her work as quickly and efficiently as possible.

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

Figures provided are based upon a selection of the most relevant Departments and are not based on a complete set of departmental figures, and different Departments organise their response teams in different ways, according to business need. As such, these 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 HM Treasury, many of which are supported by the Government Legal Department. While every effort has been made to ensure a robust methodology, complexities remain in trying to quantify the time and costs dedicated to the inquiry alone.

It should be noted that alongside full time resource within Departments, inquiry response teams draw on expertise from across their organisations. These costs, including those associated with staff taking time to provide written or oral evidence, are not included in the costs below.

Breakdown of staff and costs 2025-26

The Government response to the UK covid-19 inquiry is led by inquiry response units across Departments. These associated staff costs for Q4 2025-26 are below and include retrospective adjustments for Q1-3.

Q4 number of UK covid-19 inquiry response unit staff— 111 full-time equivalents.

Q4 cost of UK covid-19 inquiry response unit staff—£2,345,000 (including contingent labour costs).

Financial year 2025-26 (Q1 + Q2 + Q3 + Q4), total cost of UK covid-19 inquiry response unit staff—£15,145,000 (including contingent labour costs, and retrospective adjustments for Q1-3).

Table: breakdown of staff and costs 2025-26

Payment Scheme

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That the draft Infected Blood Compensation Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2026, which were laid before this House on 18 June, be approved.

Before I begin the debate, I do want to pause and reflect on the reason that we are once again here today. Thousands of people had unimaginable suffering and hardship inflicted upon them through the use of infected blood. There are thousands of individual stories—in recent years, I have had the solemn privilege to listen to many of them—of how lives were upturned, changed and, in some cases, tragically lost. I know many Members across the House will, as they always do in these debates, very movingly share their constituents’ stories, and it is important that we keep those at the forefront of our minds. It is also essential that we base our work on these stories, and that the compensation scheme reflects the lived experience of those to whom it seeks to bring justice.

I would like to briefly update the House on the delivery of compensation. Since it opened in 2024, the compensation service—the Infected Blood Compensation Authority—has contacted all infected people registered with the support scheme to start their claim. By December last year, it had opened its service to all cohorts, including to affected people. It has made offers of over £2.7 billion and paid out over £2.1 billion, in addition to the £1.4 billion that has already been paid in interim compensation.

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

I thank the Paymaster General for his speech and the way he is framing the debate by talking about the victims of this scandal, which is really important. Can he confirm the number of interim payments of £100,000 that have already been paid out?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I will be delighted to write to my hon. Friend with the absolute up-to-date figure, but he is absolutely right to draw attention to the importance of progress. I know that Members across the House will, as they always do, welcome that progress. I also acknowledge, quite rightly, the House holding me, and indeed IBCA, to account on the speed of compensation. We always want to see swifter delivery of compensation.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

The Minister is right to point out that although we—I think across the House—welcome his work and diligence, and that of the previous Government, on the scheme and recognise the work that needs to be done, there is absolutely no doubt there are still too few who have received compensation. As of 2 June, my understanding is that just over 3,000 out of a potential 30,000 victims had received compensation. Can he update us on what he is doing to ensure that more people get the money they need as soon as possible?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I thank the hon. Lady; I worked closely with her on this issue when I was first in this role back in 2024 and she was in her previous role. What happens is that IBCA starts small. It uses a test-and-learn approach. With the infected, that worked very well because it reached a point where, if we imagine a graph that is time and numbers of payments, there was an exponential bit where the graph went up very, very rapidly. That is where we now need to get to with the affected cohort. Indeed, IBCA is taking that same approach; it is starting small. That allows the authority to learn what additions to the claims service are needed, and to open the service to more people, as it is built around specific needs. I completely accept that that does mean that the numbers are initially lower, but I certainly expect that with the affected cohort, as with the infected cohort, we will get that moment when the numbers rise exponentially as progress is made.

As well as ensuring that the victims of the scandal receive compensation as swiftly as possible, we must deliver compensation packages that reflect their experiences. The infected blood inquiry’s additional report, published in July 2025, made clear the importance of ensuring that the community of infected and affected people were at the centre of every discussion regarding the infected blood scandal. It has always been this Government’s priority to deliver a compensation scheme that truly recognises the hardships faced by those impacted, and to do so while acknowledging the extraordinary resolve of this community in continuing to tell the stories of their experiences and their fight for justice. The regulations before the House today are a direct product of what we heard in the consultation.

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

There are still concerns among the community about the regulations before us today. The Minister knows that the regulations were laid on the day of the Backbench Business debate on 18 June. That meant there was no opportunity for Ministers to take on board the points that hon. Members were making on behalf of their constituents, who still would like to see the compensation scheme tweaked. Through his ongoing dialogue with the community, does he accept that there must be an opportunity for that tweaking to take place in response to some of those concerns?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

On my hon. Friend’s first point, what we have before us is based on extensive consultation with the community. On the laying of the regulations, I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will see that the timing of this debate is designed so that we can speed up payments as quickly as possible going forward. That is why, as I am sure the House will appreciate, I have done all I can to get the debate scheduled before the summer recess.

[Chris Vince]

On that point, will the Minister give way?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I will, and then I will come back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford).

[Chris Vince]

I thank the Minister for giving way again; he is being very generous with his time. It strikes me that the victims of these sorts of scandals—sadly, this is not the first we have discussed; I think of the Horizon Post Office scandal—are put in this position through no fault of their own and do not necessarily have degrees in how to access compensation schemes. What support—for example, through some sort of caseworker—is he giving to people who are looking to claim?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that point. I have always been clear about the individualised caseworkers and the personalised approach of IBCA, and about the importance of legal and financial support, so that people can make informed decisions as to what they want to do with regards to the compensation.

I return to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst. Following on from what Sir Brian Langstaff said, I have sought to introduce a proper mechanism for feedback from the community, so that whatever the issue is within the regulations, it can be elevated to the appropriate place: to me, or whoever is the Minister, to IBCA, to IBCA’s board, to the chair or the chief executive—whoever has the power to deal with the issue. As my hon. Friend and I have discussed before, the mechanism and ability to look at the scheme is important.

The other point I would add, which my hon. Friend and I have previously discussed, is that many of the issues raised are to do not with the structure of the regulations, but with their implementation. It is important that, where there are issues of implementation—indeed, hon. and right hon. Members raise them with me—we make adjustments where necessary. I think he would acknowledge that there is a diversity of views in the community on certain issues, but we have sought to ensure that the compensation scheme reflects the views of the majority.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

The Minister is being generous in giving way. I have met people in Wokingham who are affected by the scandal. It does not just affect the person infected; it affects their family as well. My constituent is adamant that the effect on their spouse must be recognised. Does the Minister agree that the Government should give clarity on whether the spouses of those infected should receive their own separate compensation?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Yes. That is why the scheme is designed for both infected and affected people—and not just spouses; it includes children and siblings, and I am proud that it also includes carers. We think about the awful injustice for those who were infected, but we also remember the effect on their families and those around them. The hon. Member makes a powerful point.

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

On that point, I acknowledge the huge amount of effort, attention and concentration that the Minister has put into the scheme. I am therefore slightly surprised that the Haemophilia Society, which is a great champion for the community, says that in its opinion, care provided by family members is not being fairly compensated. It says that the scheme does not currently enable carers to make an adequate claim for the full impact of the care they provided, and that it does not sufficiently reflect the financial and personal sacrifices made by those who have delivered that care over decades, with particular reference to children and their educational sacrifices. I know there are no easy answers to this, but has the Minister had an interaction with the Haemophilia Society, which is well placed to represent the affected community?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

As the right hon. Gentleman can imagine, I have interacted with the Haemophilia Society and many other charities over the past two years. It is important to mention that the scheme does include carers; I am perfectly willing to look at what the Haemophilia Society is saying about the precise package for carers, but the fundamental point is that carers should be recognised, and they are within the scheme.

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

I was interested in the Minister’s answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford). He said that, notwithstanding the regulations and all the work to set out the rules and scope of the compensation scheme, there is an opportunity for people who are affected or infected to go all the way to the chief executive or chair of IBCA—to all the bodies involved or even the Minister, if necessary. Could the Minister set out in detail the parameters of that? That could ride roughshod over a carefully developed scheme, even if not everything is perfect. How far could it go? There might be a risk that many people feel that they have not been fairly treated and then take it all the way up to the Minister, which would put this or a future Minister in an invidious position.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend makes a fair point. When it came to this particular recommendation from Sir Brian Langstaff, I was concerned about two things. First, I wanted to ensure that there was a proper structure for the infected blood community to be able to put forward their views. I did not want that to become a glorified post box—I did not want it to just be a grand correspondence scheme, where letters came in and replies were sent back. What I wanted was a proper mechanism for sifting, so that complaints can go to the right place based on the particular nature of each one, so that the appropriate person can look at each complaint and see whether it can be dealt with.

To the broader point that my hon. Friend is alluding to, we also had to have stability in the policy in order to be able now to continue to drive forward compensation. My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst, who does a fantastic job chairing the all-party parliamentary group, is quite rightly raising concerns with me. I want a proper mechanism for dealing with those concerns. That is why I have pushed so hard to make sure that we had this debate before the summer, because we must also ensure that we are doing what we can collectively to push forward the speed of payments as quickly as possible.

I should say that I have always been very grateful to the opposition parties, who have always facilitated that when I have brought regulations before the House. This is, I think, the fourth time I have done so.

[Ashley Dalton (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I will give way to my hon. Friend, but then I had better get on to the regulations.

[Ashley Dalton]

My right hon. Friend is being very generous; I thank him for giving way. It was my sombre privilege to work with him on this matter when I was a Minister in the Department of Health. He is talking about driving forward the scheme; can he outline what work he has done with our devolved Governments in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales to drive forward the final compensation scheme?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

It was a privilege to work with my hon. Friend in Government. She was excellent to work with on this matter, and I am very grateful for all her contributions. Of course, I have been dealing with a number of Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendations in the Cabinet Office, but, as my hon. Friend knows, the Department of Health also had responsibility for a number of them, and I know that she drove those forward very well.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to talk about working with the devolved Administrations. Again, I have been lucky over the past two years to have worked very constructively with the devolved Administrations on this matter. This is a pre-devolution scandal, but we are taking measures to seek justice now, in the post-devolution age. To reflect that, it has been really important to work with Governments across the United Kingdom—all of whom have been constructive in the time that I have been working on this.

I will turn now to the regulations. Regulation 3 introduces a new level of award as recommended by the inquiry, so that the people who suffered from the side effects of interferon treatment will receive an additional injury award, as well as further financial loss and care compensation, to reflect the impact on their lives. Following the consultation, the regulations also ensure that people who received more than one round of interferon will be properly compensated for each of those rounds of treatment.

Regulation 4 removes the 25% deduction applied to past care compensation for people who choose to receive support scheme payments for life. Following the consultation, the regulations ensure that people will receive past financial loss compensation based on whichever of the two ways of calculating the award is most financially beneficial to them. I chose to do that to recognise that selecting only one way of calculating the award would mean that some people’s expected awards would reduce in size, which was not the intention. By running both calculations and giving each person whichever is the highest amount in their personal circumstances, we will ensure that everyone gets fair compensation through this award.

Regulation 5 makes provision for a 50% uplift to the core autonomy award for those infected under the age of 18, calculated based on the highest severity of infection they experienced during childhood.

Regulation 6 amends the eligibility criteria for the unethical research award, so that everyone treated for a bleeding disorder before 1986 will receive an unethical research award. The regulations also introduce a new unethical research award for children, which means that people who were treated for a bleeding disorder in childhood will receive an uplifted award.

The regulations also increase the amount of compensation that all eligible people receive for this award. It is one of the most shocking aspects of this scandal; I do not think that any amount of money could ever truly make up for that heinous experimentation, particularly where it took place on children. We have listened to the feedback received through the consultation, and, as a result, people who attended Treloar’s will receive £60,000 rather than the £25,000 proposed in the consultation. Other children will receive £45,000. Those treated in adulthood will receive £30,000, tripling the amount that they currently receive.

Regulation 7 ensures that everyone who was eligible for the special category mechanism or an equivalent payment through the infected blood support schemes—IBSS, as they are known—receives additional financial loss and care compensation. Following the consultation, the regulations ensure that everyone in this position has the award backdated to 2017, when the SCM award was first introduced, regardless of when they were assessed. Living people who were not assessed as eligible for SCM can also now apply for it through IBCA, including those who were previously unsuccessful in their application to the infected blood support schemes.

Regulations 8 and 9 make changes to the exceptional loss award under the supplementary route. These regulations introduce a compensation uplift of £60,000 for people who had entered or had an offer to enter a career that generally would have paid 10% more than the gross national median average earnings, as determined in 2024, at any point prior to retirement age, but were unable to progress in that career due to their infection. That award is on top of their core route financial loss award.

We also heard in the consultation that some people are concerned that they will not be able to access the exceptional loss award if they do not have historical payslips. The Government will work with IBCA to ensure that all relevant evidence can be used to help someone to show that they are eligible for the exceptional loss award, so that that is not a barrier. I have said repeatedly from the Dispatch Box that I want the scheme to be as sympathetic and unburdensome to applicants as possible.

On the occasions that I have visited IBCA, I have been very impressed by the culture being imbued there of taking a can-do approach when people are ringing and trying to find appropriate historical documents. That is particularly important for two reasons. First, the events often happened long ago. Secondly, we know from Sir Brian Langstaff’s report that there is evidence of deliberate document destruction. For both those reasons, there needs to be a sympathetic approach.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

There have been occasions, in various roles I have had in this place, when we have looked at documents. The Government have a document destruction plan. At the Department for Work and Pensions, for example, a year after death one’s records will be destroyed; that has been an issue when there have been problems with pensions.

Although the Minister is focused today on the regulations, what he has said is very interesting in the context of document retention and other schemes that require proof in order to pay out. With immigration, for instance, someone might need to prove that they had been in the country, and they might need to access doctors or school records. I wonder whether he, or others in the Cabinet Office, are thinking about how lessons can be learned from IBCA’s approach in this case that could be applied to other areas of Government and other compensation schemes, so that we do not lose the learnings from this for the next time—because, inevitably, sadly, things will go wrong with Government.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and there are certainly lessons to be learned. That point applies in this case and, sadly, to a number of the other historical scandals that the House has dealt with over recent years.

[Clive Jones]

It is very clear that the Minister agrees that the infected blood scandal is a tragic disaster and a failure of public service. The Government must ensure that it never happens again and must strengthen any accountability measures that they can. Does he agree with me and many of the survivors that there must be a duty of candour on all public officials that is robustly enforced?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Yes, I do. The Hillsborough law is something that I have given a great deal of personal time to over the last couple of years; it has been before this House, and I do not think that it is far away at all from becoming law. I hope that over the next few months we will start to see the rolling-out of the duty of candour. It is a landmark law and putting it on the statute book will make a huge difference. It will be a hugely significant moment. It is also important that we drive forward the cultural change that it requires.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

The cultural point is really important because all the NHS scandals have this point of cultural failure, with cover-ups and defensiveness and people being badly let down. The Health Bill is going through Parliament at the moment, and one of our concerns is that the abolition of Healthwatch and the Health Services Safety Investigations Body will not help to progress that cultural change. Will the Minister urge his counterparts in the Department of Health and Social Care to reconsider those abolitions?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The point I am making around duty of candour, which I think overrides all these other points, is really what Sir Brian Langstaff was referring to. He called it institutional defensiveness, saying that the problem when awful things happened was that people put either personal or institutional reputations above the public interest. It is that cultural change that we need to drive forward.

I will return to the regulations as I am conscious of the time. Regulation 10 introduces a 50% uplift to the core injury award for some affected people. That includes eligible bereaved partners, and children and siblings who themselves became affected under 18 years of age. Eligible bereaved parents will also be able to receive this award in the tragic circumstances where their child passed away while under the age of 18. I know that some Members have raised concerns about the eligibility for this award in previous debates, and I want to assure colleagues that, as with the rest of these regulations, the decisions we made on this award directly reflect what we heard through the consultation about the specific impacts of the scandal on children.

Regulations 11 and 12 are unrelated to the public consultation, and relate to the transfer of responsibility for making support scheme payments from the infected blood support scheme to IBCA. To maintain consistency with the support schemes, the value of someone’s support scheme payments will be uprated every year in April at the rate of the consumer prices index of the previous September. These regulations therefore account for the next CPI uplift taking place in April 2027, after IBCA takes responsibility for making those support scheme payments from the existing infected blood support schemes.

[Ashley Dalton]

I thank the Minister for his kind words earlier. Could he clarify whether co-infected people will be able to make a compensation claim for each round of interferon that they had, or whether those are being lumped together?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

It is per round of interferon treatment. I am pleased to provide that clarification to my hon. Friend, and I repeat my thanks to her for her work.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

Just to be absolutely tidy, could I make a plea on behalf of those families where the member is deceased but the estate still has a claim? There is sometimes, possibly wrongly, an impression that these people are put to the back of the queue. Could I have an assurance that that would not be the case?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Certainly every single situation is a priority. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that IBCA is operationally independent. It has come up with a priority set of cohorts, which is publicly available, but the estates of the deceased are absolutely a priority. He can certainly have that assurance.

The regulations are a result of listening, as we have been doing through the public consultation, to those impacted by this terrible scandal. We want the scheme to reflect the hardships and suffering faced by those who had their lives upturned through no fault of their own, and we are always keen to balance this with ensuring that the scheme can be delivered as quickly as possible. I am pleased with the progress we have made on the compensation scheme, but this debate is not about the Government’s work today. Rather, as has always been the case in these debates, it is about the House coming together to put the voice of the community first.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Once again, this has been an excellent debate. It has been excellent in tone and excellent in terms of hon. and right hon. Members speaking about their constituents. I will try to deal with some of the issues, but there will be others, particularly issues of detail, that I will address if Members write to me.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) on his work as the able deputy for my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) on the all-party parliamentary group. The 1986 date is simply because the last medical study identified as unethical by Sir Brian Langstaff’s inquiry was from 1984. The date goes forward a bit to try to ensure that we capture everything; that is the significance of the date. He and I have had the discussion about interferon during the debate some weeks ago. I agree with him and the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom), on the duty of candour. It is hugely important that we drive that forward.

If my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) could, will he send me that list of questions about his late constituent, Jane Fitzgerald? I just make one observation: there is a difference for those who have died versus those who are living, but I point out that money gets paid to dependants in the first circumstance, which should be taken into account. I will come back to him in detail if he sends me those questions.

I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst for his work. I agree with him on the sympathetic approach to evidence, on the importance of the ongoing dialogue and certainly on the importance of speed. I could not agree more with the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), about clear communication; it is something that I speak about frequently, and I will continue to do so. On the review mechanism, people can ask IBCA for a review. Beyond that, they have the option of a first-tier tribunal and, beyond that, the courts. The initial stage is a review by IBCA. Although IBCA is operationally independent, I entirely agree with his point about me being available to offer appropriate support where necessary. The bulk of infected people should be paid by the end of 2027 and the bulk of affected people by the end of 2029. However, those are backstops, not targets. As I have often said to the House, the aim is to speed up those claims and get to that point of exponential growth in payments of the affected claims.

The point about care was raised by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) and the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire. The care award is not paid directly to the person who provided care simply because if we did that, we would be asking IBCA to determine who provided the care and to go to affected people for evidence that they provided care. We could even end up with IBCA having to mediate disputes between multiple people talking about care. Going down that particular route could have led to further delays, and that is why we have taken the approach that we have.

It is absolutely right that these regulations reflect the majority of what we heard in the consultation and that we do make changes. The regulations complete the Government’s response to the additional report, but as Members across the House have said, the hard work to deliver the compensation must now accelerate. It is our duty to remember the tragedy inflicted on thousands of people and to bring real change not just to this compensation scheme, but beyond that, and not least to the duty of candour, which is another of Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendations. I hope that colleagues across the House will join me this evening in supporting these regulations. I commend them to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Infected Blood Compensation Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2026, which were laid before this House on 18 June, be approved.

Civil Service Pensions

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I want to provide the House with an important update on the administration of the civil service pension scheme. Capita was awarded this contract in November 2023. It had two years of transition to prepare, and its senior leadership gave me explicit personal assurances ahead of the handover that they were fully capable of managing the workload and that they were ready for a successful transition. Indeed, the chief executive promised that technological improvements would create a flagship use case for the largest AI-enabled pension scheme in the country. It is clear that non-delivery of technology has been a fundamental part of Capita’s inability to deliver. The reality is that it was completely unprepared and its system was overwhelmed, which resulted in a backlog that skyrocketed to a staggering 120,000 unresolved cases.

In response, I intervened immediately and established the Cabinet Office pensions recovery taskforce. Capita committed to two critical recovery targets: an end of April milestone to clear the inherited arrears, and an end of June milestone by which point it promised a complete return to standard contractually required levels. Capita missed its own April milestone. The end of June deadline has arrived, and I regret to inform the House that Capita has failed to meet that milestone, too. Seven months on from taking over operations, too many pension scheme members still face unacceptable delays after years of dedicated public service.

Since my last statement on this matter, thousands of quotations have been issued and pensions put into payment. Capita had committed to clearing the quotes backlog by today, but I am afraid that the reality remains very different. As of the end of June, there are still more than 6,700 quotations outstanding for past retirement dates, and more than 4,100 bereavement cases on which Capita could take action. These are the most harrowing stories, affecting devastated scheme members and grieving families. My officials have forcefully escalated those systemic back-office failures directly to Capita’s senior leadership, demanding an immediate investigation and resolution.

I have to be frank with the House: what progress has been achieved is due to the significant additional capability provided by the Cabinet Office pensions recovery taskforce, and a team of more than 140 officials whom I have “surged” into the process. Let me also say that public money will not fund Capita’s failings. We will recover every single penny of these surge costs directly from Capita, and I will not remove a single member of the team until the service is permanently fixed and fully restored.

Across core areas of pension payments, quotations and complaints, the operational reality remains deeply concerning, and although the speed of quote issuance has accelerated over the past month, it still leaves more than 6,700 outstanding quotes to be processed, as of the end of June, for past retirement dates.

Let me turn to the subject of parliamentary correspondence. The volume of MP complaints remains too high—there are more than 1,900 outstanding constituent cases. I understand that Capita resolved nearly 700 last week, but another 500 or so complaints were raised, so this remains all too current an issue. When I last reported to the House, the figure stood at 1,500. The growth of the backlog is completely unacceptable. Capita has clearly failed to manage the correspondence effectively, to the extent that I have had to ask the pensions recovery taskforce to step in. Indeed, the situation has been so faltering that the Parliamentary Secretary at the Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Test (Satvir Kaur), has written to Mr Speaker about it.

Because of Capita’s persistent failures, alongside a wider, completely unacceptable failure in its overall MP engagement, demonstrated—as was reported to me by Members from across the House—by a poorly co-ordinated MP drop-in session at the end of May, I had to intervene again. I ordered the pensions recovery taskforce to take direct operational control and establish virtual surgeries for MPs and caseworkers running every weekday. I hope that has provided at least a direct route for parliamentary offices to try to secure updates. Since I launched that initiative in May, we have delivered more than 250 virtual surgeries, supporting more than 150 Members from across the House.

Let me now turn to the steps that I am taking to protect scheme members. I have no doubt that all Members will agree with me that the service that Capita has provided has been dreadful. We need to take further robust measures. First, I will continue to apply the most stringent commercial levers. We are executing robust, continuous action with immediate financial consequences. We have already hit Capita’s bottom line by withholding £9.9 million in payments, because the Government will only ever pay for what is successfully delivered.

I find this failure remarkable in the light of the personal assurances given to me by the chief executive ahead of the transfer. Those assurances have not been met. Core outputs are deficient, and Capita is failing even to make basic functionality work. I know that many Members are calling for the immediate termination of the contract and the insourcing of the service, but if I were to terminate the contract straightaway, that would clearly cause severe disruption to the payroll. I have to manage this so that the payroll is operated effectively; what I cannot do is create an immediate, catastrophic operational vacuum. I cannot replace a complex pension operation overnight. However, I have instructed my officials to bring together a broad range of stakeholders and experts to consider, in line with the Government’s strategy, how scheme members can best be served by a long-term, durable delivery of the scheme. Let no one think that I or the Government are accepting the status quo.

This episode highlights the severe limitations of outsourcing the civil service pension scheme. I say openly to the House that if I could insource this operation today, I would do so. None the less, it is Government policy to insource, in line with our manifesto commitment to deliver

“the biggest wave of insourcing of public services in a generation”,

and this pension scheme could be a prime candidate for insourcing in the future.

That future is being actively shaped by the Government’s announcement on 17 June of a new public interest test that will end outsourcing by default. From April 2027, all contracts over £1 million in value must be assessed for in-house viability before renewal, and Departments exceeding £100 million in annual spend must develop five-year insourcing strategies. This framework builds the exact long-term capability that we need, shifting our focus from short-term pricing to service quality and operational resilience. To ensure full accountability, we are executing our contractual right to deploy independent auditors immediately to conduct a technical review of systems, data integrity and compliance with statutory duties. We are also beginning the process to appoint a remedial adviser, at Capita’s expense, to force rectification directly on the ground.

I am not ruling out further interventions, but we need to build the unvarnished evidence base that will serve as a strict prerequisite for further formal escalation, including potential litigation or step-in remedies, should performance fail to improve. In October, the House will receive a further update on the findings of the independent audit, the performance of the remedial adviser and the longer-term structural options being considered, including meeting our manifesto commitment by bringing the scheme in-house.

Let me finish by saying this. Public servants who dedicated their working lives to this country deserve absolute financial security and unwavering dignity in retirement, not corporate failure, empty promises and severe administrative failure. I hope the House will see the uncompromising line in the sand that I am drawing today. I will continue to apply commercial pressure and ensure full accountability, and we will find a way forward that delivers for the people who deliver for this country. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. Nobody in this House should be in any doubt about the anxiety and hardship being felt by retired public servants and the grieving families left stranded by this operational collapse. We are talking about more than 6,700 outstanding pension quotations and more than 4,100 unresolved bereavement cases. These are not mere statistics; they represent vulnerable individuals who have been left facing severe financial distress.

Let us be completely clear about where responsibility for this ongoing execution failure lies. The Minister can look backwards to November 2023 all he likes, but the critical transition phase, the data quality integration and the system go-live occurred on this Government’s watch and, more specifically, on his watch. The timeline of unheeded warnings is damning. Throughout 2025, both the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee explicitly flagged that Capita was missing critical transition milestones and IT delivery targets, yet despite these clear red flags, the Cabinet Office chose to override the warnings, accepted flawed assurances and pressed ahead with the December go-live. The contract management failure belongs entirely to those on the Government Front Bench.

Alarmingly, despite the establishment of the Minister’s flagship pensions recovery taskforce, the situation is deteriorating in key areas. The Minister has just admitted that the backlog of MP complaints has grown significantly under his watch, going from 1,500 to more than 1,900 outstanding constituent cases since the end of April—barely nine weeks ago—and it is getting worse. Worse still, instead of focusing purely on immediate operational rectification, the Minister is using this crisis as an ideological springboard to flip to default insourcing. I am agnostic on whether the scheme is provided in-house or externally, but there is little in the Government’s record to suggest that they are capable of running this scheme any less incompetently than the current operators. Retired civil servants do not need a lecture on procurement ideology; they need their pensions sorted today.

The Minister must answer four specific questions. First, given that the Public Accounts Committee explicitly warned of the Capita IT system’s unreadiness last October, what independent technical verification did the Cabinet Office conduct before Ministers allowed the December go-live to proceed?

Secondly, the Minister noted that the 140-strong Government surge team are costing significant resource. Although he intends to recover the costs from the £9.9 million withheld from Capita, will he guarantee that any remaining funds will be legally diverted into an immediate compensation scheme for those affected and for grieving families who have suffered real financial detriment?

Thirdly, the Minister expressed deep frustration at Capita’s wider public sector footprint. The Procurement Act 2023 is fully active, and it established a centralised debarment list specifically to stop failing legacy suppliers winning further public work. Will the Minister commit at the Dispatch Box to formally referring Capita to the Debarment Review Service for investigation, or will he allow it to continue bidding for other contracts while he waits until 2027 to implement his insourcing reviews? If the threshold is not met in this case, where will the Minister consider it appropriate to use the powers that he has?

Finally, given the Minister’s conclusion that Capita has always been an unsuitable operator of the scheme, can he tell the House why the current Government chose to award Capita the new Department for Work and Pensions contract—not in 2023, but this February?

Public servants who have dedicated their working lives to this country deserve financial security and dignity. They have been let down by corporate failure, as the Minister says, but they are also being let down by this Government’s failure to manage the contract when it matters the most. It is time for the Minister to stop blaming the past, stop pitching future ideological tests, and finally fix the operational reality on the ground.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am quite astonished by the shadow Minister’s contribution. The House should be in no doubt that the previous Government signed a 10-year contract in November 2023. That is the situation we were left with, and I have been grappling with it throughout my time in office. The idea that I have put ideology above operational urgency is utter and total nonsense. I have intervened strongly at every single opportunity, and I have held Capita to account on its milestones time and again, to the tune of £9.9 million, in a way that the previous Government never did.

I have a lot more sympathy with the shadow Minister on his point about compensation. We have introduced a process to pay interest in respect of pensions paid by Capita from 1 December 2025, whereby full benefits are paid more than one month after retirement. The interest rate applied will be based on the Bank of England base rate plus 1% for the period of the delay between retirement and payment. That information has formally been published on a civil service pension website, and members will have the opportunity to ask for other losses to be covered as part of the complaints process. As for the rest of the shadow Minister’s comments, I think he will struggle to find anyone who has been as robust as I have been in holding Capita to account.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

The Public Accounts Committee and Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, its Chair—

[Mr Betts]

I will dive very deeply into the question, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The Chair of the Committee sends his apologies for his absence; he is presently in a Committee meeting. We have looked at this situation on a number of occasions, and we will have a joint session with the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee and the Minister on Wednesday. The individual cases that we have heard are absolutely appalling, and we will relate them to Capita and the Minister. We have heard from two widows who have been waiting since last year to get their pensions sorted out, which is not acceptable.

I have two issues for the Minister to reflect upon. When the previous Government let the contract, we were in a situation in which procurement could not properly take account of the past record of companies, and I understand that the Government have now changed that. Looking at Capita’s past record on both the teachers’ pension scheme and the civil service pension scheme, we see that it has not run one scheme properly. That should have been taken into account before the contract was let. 

The other issue, and this is where the Opposition spokesperson did say something relevant, is that this scheme was falling apart last year. The National Audit Office looked at it, and clearly it was going wrong then. So I ask the Minister: did he start to look at alternatives then and did he at that point start to put together in-house provision that could eventually take over?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that these cases are harrowing. He is also right to say that there were huge issues—I am sure we will cover this on Wednesday—with MyCSP, the previous provider. As I have said, the previous Government decided to sign this contract in November 2023. That is not, of course, to say that I was just seeking specific reassurances last autumn; we were also looking at contingencies. I am sure that he, and indeed the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), will cover that in the two Committees’ joint evidence session on Wednesday.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of his statement. The failure of Capita to meet the 30 June deadline is deeply disappointing, but, sadly, not surprising. Behind it sit 1.7 million current and former civil servants who simply want peace of mind that the pension they have earned through decades of public service will be handled competently, fairly and with dignity. Capita’s repeated failures are causing distress and uncertainty for people who deserve better, including several of my constituents, such as Sue from Romiley, Tracy from Offerton and Christopher from Marple.

The Public Accounts Committee did indeed warn that Capita risked not being ready to take over full administration back in December, and it raised serious concerns about weak contract management and poor oversight. Those warnings have now come to fruition as thousands of retired civil servants have experienced delays or complete failures in pension payments since Capita took over. How will the Government restore confidence for the 1 million-plus current and former civil servants who simply want reassurance that their pensions will be administered competently? What assessment has been made of the systemic failures in the administration of this scheme, and what lessons have been learned for future contracts of this kind? How can the Minister ensure that this failure is given sufficient weight should Capita have the brass neck to bid for any future Government contracts in this are or wholly unrelated ones?

The Minister has rightly called the thousands of unresolved bereavement cases harrowing. These grieving families are being denied closure. Will he commit today to ordering Capita to prioritise all bereavement cases as a matter of particular urgency, and will he guarantee that this specific backlog will be zero by a certain date?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

To take the hon. Lady’s final point first, yes, bereavement cases are being prioritised. Capita’s current working assumption is that the remaining backlog of over 6,700 quotations for past retirement dates and the 4,100 actionable bereavement cases will be systemically cleared through the rest of July and August, and I hope this House will hold it to that timetable.

More broadly, the hon. Lady is absolutely right about learning the lessons from this situation and robustly holding Capita to account. That is why, as the House will be aware, I took the decision to end, for example, its contract for the Royal Mail pension scheme. The House can be assured that I will not hesitate to take robust action.

On the hon. Lady’s other point, which I think is a central one, I am always very conscious—contrary to what the shadow Minister says—of the operational position week to week in order to ensure that I am still driving the improvement of this pension scheme to the level it should be at.

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

This is a real mess, and I am pleased the Minister has acknowledged that, but there are a few practical things that could be delivered. There is no MP hotline, and there is a long and complicated process for MPs and their staff to go through the other hotline. Could that perhaps be resolved, because it would make things a lot quicker? When emails are sent, the same AI-generated generic responses are sent back repeatedly, which means that no progress is made. The to-ing and fro-ing is just wasting time. There could be clearer guidance about what MPs can pass on to our constituents who have challenges. Finally, postal delays are a real issue in my constituency and others, particularly in London—I see that Members from around the country are nodding—so could there be more use of email to, at the very least, get out the statement, even if there is eventually paperwork to be signed? Most organisations now manage to do paperwork via email, so could Capita not sort that out?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am more than happy to take on board what my hon. Friend has said about streamlining MPs’ interaction with the service. The Parliamentary Secretary has passed on many of these points directly to Capita, and indeed has raised its behaviour directly with the Speaker’s Office. More broadly, I am more than willing to look at what my hon. Friend has said.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his statement and, through him, his officials, and particularly the surge team, who are trying to clear up this mess of Capita’s creation.

I am sure the Minister will share my bemusement at Capita’s stance. It seems to have no emotional intelligence whatsoever in relation to understanding the very demonstrable harm that is being done to constituents the length and breadth of this country. It does seem cognisant that His Majesty’s Government happen to be customer No. 1 as far as Capita’s balance sheet is concerned. Is it unwilling or unable to face into the situation as it currently presents itself, and really put its shoulder to the wheel and sort this out, or does he fear it has just given this up as a bad job, is just waiting for the contract to be taken from it and will just soft-pedal between now and when that time comes?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

As ever, the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee makes very sensible points. I make it very clear from this Dispatch Box that Capita certainly should not in any sense be soft-pedalling. It has specific contractual duties to which I have been holding it and to which I will continue to hold it. Aside from the commercial and money aspect of this, hugely important though that obviously is for public money, he is right to highlight the emotional impact. These people—the Liberal Democrat spokesperson talked about bereavement—are in a very vulnerable position in their lives and are seeking to access the money that they themselves paid in.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)]

Like other Members across the House, I have constituents who have faced unacceptably long delays, including a terminally ill lady who has been left waiting for months; a man in severe financial hardship who was due his first payment in December 2025, but, shockingly, is being forced to wait until 2027; and a lady, whose brother died in service in 2024, who is unable to settle his estate due to the delay.

The Minister has talked about the missed deadlines, yet in February Capita was awarded more contracts across four Departments. Frankly, it is shocking that the Government are unable to pay the pensions of their own civil servants, who have spent their lives serving the public. When will the Government finally take the civil service pension scheme back in-house rather than rewarding failure? Will he assure the House that no further Government contracts will be awarded to Capita?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

First, in line with the Government’s policy of looking across contracts of high value, as I set out in my statement, I think this contract is a prime candidate for outsourcing. Indeed, this Government have introduced the public interest test, which I hope will most certainly give a different dimension to procurement and a different approach to insourcing, in line with the manifesto commitment on which my hon. Friend and I campaigned.

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

One of my constituents, Caroline from Rickmansworth, has been waiting over six months to receive the documentation required to retire. Capita publicly stated that all outstanding retirement quotes would be issued by the end of June 2026. However, this deadline has passed and Caroline is still waiting. What advice can the Minister offer Caroline about what she should do to receive this essential documentation?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am very sorry to hear about Caroline’s case. If the hon. Member is willing to write to me directly with the details, the Parliamentary Secretary will gladly look into that case.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

The family of a terminally ill constituent contacted me in desperation last month after trying to resolve the pension issues of their family member since January. She died yesterday, with her pension still unresolved. Can the Minister be more specific for that family about what will be done to resolve this issue? It is too late for my constituent, but her family have been through enough.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am very sorry to hear about my hon. Friend’s constituent; it is a tragedy that she passed away only yesterday. I would be glad if she wrote to me about that particular case. The Parliamentary Secretary will look into it personally, because of the nature of what has happened. For that family, and for every other family with an interest in this scheme, we absolutely must restore the level of service that they rightly expect.

[Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)]

Sadly, it is not just Capita that is missing deadlines; it is the Government, too. I raised a constituent’s case in ministerial correspondence in mid-February and received a response from the Parliamentary Secretary only on 30 June, four-and-a-half months later. My constituents want a swift solution. Given that the April deadline has been missed and the June deadline has been missed, what confidence can they or this House have that the August deadline will be hit?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

On the right hon. Gentleman’s first point, we will look specifically at why that was the case. It should not have taken four-and-a-half months for him to receive a reply. The Parliamentary Secretary and I will look at the correspondence to see why that has happened. Secondly, on his point about confidence in the new July and August deadlines, what is critical—this is specifically why I am now looking at a range of options—is that we must be in a position where the service is being delivered properly.

[Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement. New cases are still coming into my office, with tales of failure to get through on the telephone or a lack of online access. They remain common, but most common is the financial distress. My case team keep hearing about people who are about to lose their house. The interim interest-free loans made available in January were welcome, but for those who are still awaiting settlements, will the Government consider further payments?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Yes. First of all, the interest-free loans introduced earlier in the year are important, but I know they are not suitable or the choice for every beneficiary under the scheme. Secondly, as I indicated in my answer to the shadow Minister a moment ago, compensation is also very important. I reiterate to the House that I have surged significant resources into this scheme, but I am absolutely determined that it will not be the taxpayer who picks up the bill.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I welcome the statement, and whenever we have come to the Government, they have reacted quickly. Capita appeared to be moving quickly, but this week a woman I have been representing since March, and who has been pursuing Capita for more than a year over her husband’s death in service benefits, told me this week that—this is a doozy—it is refusing to accept a Scottish extract of divorce and is demanding that she get an decree absolute, according to the English and Welsh courts. She is prepared to do that, but it would take so long that it will take her past the deadline after which her children will have to pay tax on the death in service benefits. Can the Government give her some reassurance that she will not be pursued for tax, and that something will be done to tell Capita that a Scottish extract of divorce is actually valid?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Well, quite. I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who I believe has had a few virtual surgeries. She has been in contact with my office and has a number of ongoing cases—I counted seven before I came in to deliver the statement. I think she has met the Parliamentary Secretary previously, but the Parliamentary Secretary would be more than willing to meet her again on this issue and to highlight to Capita the particular issue around Scottish divorce law.

[Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)]

I have heard from dozens of my constituents across the City of Durham who have been impacted by either delayed or missing pension payments, and the number grows every day. A recent disturbing case centres around a chap who, sadly, has been diagnosed with early-onset Alzheimer’s at just 46 years old. Ill health retirees should never be left without the vital support they need at the most difficult moment of their lives. Will the Minister please reassure the House that Capita will clear the existing backlog as a matter of urgency, prioritising those with ill health, bereaved families and those facing financial hardship?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Yes, it should absolutely be prioritising bereavement cases and people in the position my hon. Friend’s constituent finds himself in at the age of just 46. As I have said, Capita has set out the working assumption of clearing the backlog in July and August. She can rest assured that it will be held robustly to that.

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

I currently have 11 unresolved cases in my constituency and the numbers are going up. My constituents deserve certainty about these unacceptable delays. During Cabinet Office questions on 25 June, I raised these failures with the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Southampton Test (Satvir Kaur), who assured the House that “all…levers” were being used to ensure that Capita met its end of June deadline. Can the Minister tell us what those levers were, given the fact that they appear to be attached to nothing—Capita has still failed to meet that deadline—and what levers he will pull when the August deadline is, inevitably, not met either?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware from my statement that £9.9 million has been withheld from Capita. I will continue, where milestones are—[Interruption.] He makes a valid point; that is precisely why I am now looking at a range of options, while continuing to prioritise operational performance in the short term. He is right that this is where we have been driven to under this contract—to look at this range of options. We have had deadlines that, I am afraid, have repeatedly not been met.

[Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

I am sure it will come as no surprise to anyone in this House that the deadline was missed today, on top of the previous deadlines. I do not think that anyone has faith in the ability of Capita to deliver. In my constituency and across Blackpool, the Fylde coast and in the neighbouring constituency of Blackpool North and Fleetwood, we see such cases come to our surgeries week after week. Will the Minister outline when, and how quickly, the Government can bring this provision back in-house to ensure we have a transition? Enough is enough. Too many of our constituents—in my constituency and across the country—are suffering and this issue needs to be resolved.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Looking forward, the Government have already announced their new public interest test to end outsourcing by default. From April next year, all contracts over £1 million have to be assessed for in-house viability before renewal. Departments exceeding £100 million in annual spend must also develop five-year insourcing strategies. We are moving swiftly to deliver our manifesto commitment.

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

My constituents Scott and Pamela McBride from Peterhead are victims of this shambolic bùrach. They retired in April 2020 and are still waiting on a resolution. They came to me in February. I will keep it simple: if I write to the Minister with the details, can his surge team help me with a surgery appointment to sort this out?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The simple answer is yes, and I am sorry to hear about what has happened with Scott and Pamela.

[Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)]

I recently met a woman who had spent her career fighting fraud for the Department for Work and Pensions. If she had behaved in the way that this company is behaving around her pension, she would have been fired on the spot. It is one rule for ordinary working people and another for these outsourced companies, which behave so terribly on the taxpayers’ money. In Darlington, we have a Capita base with over 1,000 employees. Capita recently announced that it could no longer afford to pay the real living wage. How much profit is it making on this £200 million contract that it is failing to deliver?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I have not hesitated to use commercial levers to withhold millions of pounds from Capita when it has not delivered the performance it should have. My hon. Friend puts her finger on a very important point: it is for Capita to have a sense of self-awareness about its own conduct and the consequence for a lot of very vulnerable people.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

Like all of us, several constituents have raised heartbreaking issues with me—they are getting into real financial duress. My constituents viewing our proceedings today will be thinking, “Well, what’s going to change?” Will the Minister consider compensating people from Capita’s profits, so that all missed payments are given to people who are in financial difficulty? Everybody should get what they should have got on the date they should have got it, straight out of Capita’s profits.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

On the principle of compensation, the right hon. Gentleman has a valid point. I set out some of the arrangements that are already in place, particularly in relation to interest where money should have been paid that was not paid on time. There is a second principle here, which is that the taxpayers of the United Kingdom will not pay for Capita’s failure.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I declare a non-pecuniary interest as the chair of the Public and Commercial Services Union parliamentary group. I take it as read that, when the Minister refers to the stakeholder group, it will include PCS, as the trade union. I also take it as read from the tenor of the questions so far that insourcing will be top of the agenda for that review. I ask him, in all rationality: how is it that Capita has been awarded a £320 million contract to administer the pay of 250,000 civil servants?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

To my right hon. Friend’s first point: yes, of course, the stakeholder group includes PCS. His question on Capita being awarded the contract in the first place is a valid one. It is fair to say that the previous pension provider was certainly not providing a sufficient level of performance, but, as he will have heard in my answer to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), the contract was signed in November 2023; we inherited a long-term contract and I have been trying to deal with the issue since.

[Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)]

One of my hard-working caseworkers attended one of the virtual surgeries that have been mentioned, but every single update they received was wrong. Lump sums, quotes, paperwork and complaint responses were all said to have been sent out, yet not one case had actually moved. My constituents feel lied to and my staff feel disrespected. Will the Minister tell the House what further action will be taken to hold Capita to account for those false assurances?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Quite simply, that should not be happening. If the hon. Lady is willing to write to me with precisely the information that was given, and what the correct information was, the Parliamentary Secretary will look into it.

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

I thank the Minister for coming to the House to give this important update. To be honest, I think that many of our constituents will be watching with a lot of alarm, concern, anger and frustration, thinking, “How will this situation change?” A constituent of mine wanted me to raise his case. He said:

“I turn to you as a last resort for help in a moment of personal crisis and right to family life. For the past six months I have been trying to get the civil service pension scheme to issue me with a letter confirming my annual and monthly pension entitlement…I am a 70-year-old retiree with medical conditions. I reside 50% of year in Brazil…with the remainder of the time spent in the UK where I am a UK taxpayer. I am a retired member of the FCDO having served almost 38 years in various diplomatic roles.”

This is not a way to treat hard-working members of staff who have given so much of their time to our Government. Can the Minister assure me that Capita will be held accountable for the failure, and will he say that heads should roll?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the situation has been totally and utterly unacceptable. Capita has been and will be robustly held to account. That is why I have appointed an audit to look at the future of the scheme, as well as the remedial adviser—who is being appointed at Capita’s expense—to force rectification directly on the ground. There are two things too look at here: the immediate operational issues, and the future of the scheme.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Capita’s failures have caused significant hardship to retiring civil servants across the country. The Minister is right that the immediate priority should be to resolve the hardship caused to our constituents. Looking forward, it is also important that the Government—and I mean all Governments, not just this one—get much better at managing and overseeing third-party contracts, to prevent this and similar issues from happening in the future. Time and again on the Public Accounts Committee, we assess departmental oversight of third-party contracts; the commercial management is, frankly, not good enough. Will the Minister outline what the Cabinet Office is doing to improve commercial management throughout the whole of Government?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s constructive tone. The Government have introduced the new public interest test to end outsourcing by default, which will mean that the reassessment will happen from the start of next year. It is important, as the hon. Gentleman fairly concedes, that we need to look back over a few years across different Governments.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. The questions are far too long. Too many colleagues will be disappointed unless questions are kept short. I call Kim Johnson to show us how it is done.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Gosh—a long question and the hon. Member is saying “you”; it is not my responsibility. Minister, over to you.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Yes, we will continue to work with trade unions and other stakeholders. Yes, it is correct that £9.9 million in milestone payments has been withheld, but my hon. Friend can rest assured that I will not hesitate to continue to use all commercial levers if there is poor performance.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)]

I welcome the statement. I want to follow on from the question from the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson). Yes, Ministers must take responsibility for the contracts, but ultimately Whitehall fails to deliver value for money on behalf of the public. It is not enough to say that the Government plan to insource more contracts—they cannot insource everything. What are the Government doing to ensure that Whitehall gets better value for money when it does procurement and project management?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I know that the hon. Gentleman has looked carefully at a number of these things. The point of the public interest test is to end outsourcing by default, but he is right that there is an additional cross-governmental issue: the management of contracts. That is something that I have certainly been thinking about looking at in the Cabinet Office, and the hon. Gentleman is correct to say that we need to look at it across the board.

[Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)]

Angela, from Great Barr, worked for the civil service for 42 years. She was looking forward to retirement but it became a nightmare when, despite her long and loyal service, she could not get her pension from Capita for six long months, causing her huge distress. Will the Minister commit to holding Capita to account every single day, and will he make sure that we remember this if the company ever applies for public contracts again?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am sorry to hear about the experience of my hon. Friend’s constituent; she can be assured that we will continue absolutely to hold Capita robustly to account every day.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

The Minister set out for the House the robust accountability measures that he has in place. I appreciate that it is difficult for him to ensure that he gets the response he wants from Capita, but can he please ensure that when constituents of mine, like Keith Wyvill, contact their former employer, the Cabinet Office, they are not simply given the brush-off and told to raise the issue with Capita, but at least have set out for them the actions that the Government are taking?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Yes, and I am very sorry to hear about what has happened to Keith. The hon. Member will know about the pensions recovery taskforce, but if he can specifically tell me the date and what exactly happened to Keith, I would be more than happy to look into the matter.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)]

My constituent logged into the pension portal this morning and it told him that he had only been employed by the civil service for one year, not the 35 that he had been employed for. He was told this by an agency that did not even exist when he started working for the civil service, and that still cannot tell him what his annual pension value is. That is after a software upgrade at the weekend, by the way, so God knows what it was like before then. This shows just what a shambles the system is. I welcome what the Minister said about the public interest test, but do we not also need to make a competence test a key part of that, so that these companies that are serial offenders do not get near public contracts again?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am very sorry to hear about what has happened to my hon. Friend’s constituent. He is right: competence and delivery are absolutely central under these third-party contracts. We need to hold to account every person who has been awarded the contracts to ensure that they are delivering for the public to the standard they are expected to.

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

My constituent Anita was widowed suddenly in December 2025, and Capita has failed to calculate her lump sum and pension payments. She is living in desperate hardship; she has exhausted all her credit cards and there are no friends and family left who can support her. She has not even been able to scatter her husband’s ashes. The Minister has insisted that bereavement cases are prioritised, but the evidence suggests otherwise. What is the Minister doing now to ensure that people like Anita are not living in hardship? They need urgent action.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am very sorry to hear about the hon. Lady’s constituent. First, if her case is not being prioritised, we would want to see it individually so that we can take it up. Secondly, I am not sure whether her constituent has applied for a hardship loan, but that is the type of situation that I introduced the loan for earlier in the year. If the hon. Lady could write to the Cabinet Office with the details of the case, we could also look at eligibility, if a hardship loan was something her constituent wanted to look into.

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement and I appreciate all the Government’s work to resolve this inherited issue. However, the system is inadequate, and it is causing serious problems for many in my constituency, which has a higher than average number of outstanding cases. Capita’s communication is terrible; my constituents are left in the dark, and vital documents and quotes are repeatedly lost—either that, or it is a deliberate delay tactic. Capita builds up expectations, sets deadlines and, time and again, fails to deliver. When does the Minister envisage that all my constituents will finally get their pensions paid?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am grateful to all the public servants in my hon. Friend’s constituency and indeed across the country, who frankly deserve better. On past retirement quotations and past retirement dates, and on the actionable bereavement cases, as I indicated a moment ago, Capita’s working assumption is that they will be cleared during the rest of this month and next month. Collectively we must hold them to account for that.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)]

One of my constituents submitted a request for their pension just over a year before their proposed retirement date, but is still waiting—sadly, it is little wonder that the June date has been missed. My constituents will thank the Minister for explaining the significant resource that the Government have allocated to eradicating this backlog, but, in advance of the August deadline, what additional resource in terms of staffing or funding is Capita allocating to the task?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. I stand ready to continue with the surge resource; I have very frequent updates on that, and I give consideration to what additional resource might be required from me. However, he is absolutely right that we must not neglect the resource or prioritisation that Capita itself is giving to this. It is hugely important that it sticks to its word.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Paul and Susan Robinson each worked for the Health and Safety Executive for more than 40 years. They have not been able to plan for their retirement since finishing work last year; they have been living off their savings and the small loan that they have had. They are typical of the dozens of constituents who have contacted me. The Minister has talked quite rightly of his anger at the missed deadlines. How can he give us confidence that we will not be back here again in a few months’ time with another deadline having been missed?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

It is precisely because of that concern that I am looking to come back to the House in very short order to look at a range of options for this matter.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

I declare an interest as a former civil servant and a future civil service pensioner. Many of my constituents are angry about this situation, like Gary, who waited more than six months and has now received a pension that is wrong, or the widower who has not received anything yet. I am glad that the Minister is angry, but let me ask him this: if a senior civil servant had been responsible for this scheme, would he not have sacked them? What is he doing to ensure that the chief executive, who has told him so many lies, loses their job?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his many years of service to the public and pay tribute to him for his work before entering the House. On holding people to account, he can rest assured that I have been doing just that since last autumn and through this year, and that I am doing it financially with Capita as well.

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

A constituent of mine who served for 44 years in the civil service contacted me in May and said that, despite assurances given to Ministers that call wait times were down to a couple of minutes, she had waited that day for an hour and 40 minutes before giving up. Does the Paymaster General agree that civil servants who have served our country for decades are entitled to a far better standard of service than the woeful one Capita is providing?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

[Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)]

I also must declare an interest, as my husband is a civil servant and is currently paying into a pension. Does the Minister agree that this is one of the best examples we have of the social contract falling apart? People who have literally worked for the state are now unable to be paid by the state. I really welcome your statement about insourcing. You have said that it is important that the taxpayer not have to foot the bill—

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Good.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to talk about the cost in people’s lives; considering what has happened when people are at their most vulnerable, it clearly goes beyond the monetary. We absolutely have to restore a contractual level of service as a priority and then, as I say, look at a range of options in the medium term.

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)]

Mr Evans applied for early release of his civil service pension on health grounds because of terminal illness in November 2025, but sadly passed away this May. His case is still not resolved, despite repeated urgent representations from my office. Capita has failed inexcusably. What actions can be taken to ensure that Mr Evans’s family receives the pension and payments owed without further delay, and to hold Capita to account? Will interest be paid on back payments?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

On compensation, there is provision around interest. I would be very grateful if my hon. Friend could write to me about that specific case, and we will look into it.

[Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

I am pleased to hear the Government accept that part of the issue here is successive Governments’ obsession with outsourcing by default. I ask the Minister for some reassurance that, when assessing the merits of insourcing this particular contract, they will not do so in isolation, but will also take into account the wider benefits of building state capacity so that the Government are able to execute their core functions with confidence.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Yes, absolutely. That is why it is so important for the public interest test that we look at the different contracts right across Government. I agree.

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

I thank the Minister for this statement. Time and again, our constituents have been failed by outsourced companies; it is not just Capita, and it is not just Government services. Following on from an earlier question, what else will the Minister do to ensure that the other parts of the public sector—Government agencies, local government and so on—can learn from what he is now putting in place in future on outsourced contracts?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why the introduction of the public interest test to end outsourcing by default is so important for systemic change.

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

My team are dealing with 18 civil service pension scheme cases. One of them involves Frosoulla, from Glastonbury, who took partial retirement earlier this year to care for her 92-year-old mother. She has made more than 15 calls to Capita and each time been reassured that her case has been prioritised—but she still has not had any correspondence at all, and she has no pension to draw on. After years of public service, she deserves better. How does the Minister intend to restore confidence for people like Frosoulla, who simply want access to the money that they have worked hard to earn?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The only way to restore confidence is quite simply to get this service to the level it should be at—to the level that her constituent deserves.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

I have been contacted about this issue by 14 constituents and have raised their cases. Only three of them have been resolved; the unresolved ones include bereavement cases, which we were told would be prioritised. I went to the drop-in for MPs, but I sat there for 40 minutes and then left because nothing had happened. It beggars belief that this company has ridden roughshod over people who have been public servants for years. Can the Minister say what will it take for us to take the contract off Capita?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point about the drop-in for MPs. Again, that is why I felt I had to intervene directly, because even that was causing a problem. On his second point, he can rest assured that wherever contractual performance falls below the level required, I will take action—and I have. As I say, in the context of our policy on insourcing, we are also looking at this contract being a prime candidate.

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

My constituent Jamie Dalgleish served 25 years in the submarine service, followed by 23 years in the Ministry of Defence police. He retired last year, but is still waiting for his monthly pension to start. Such is his financial hardship that at 65 years of age, Jamie has now taken a civilian job back with the MOD police, cleaning out the dogs’ kennels for minimum wage. He has been failed by Capita. Will the Minister take Jamie’s case directly to Capita and find a speedy resolution to this shocking injustice?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am more than happy to do that for the hon. Gentleman’s constituent Jamie. That is totally unacceptable.

[Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

My constituents have been treated appallingly by Capita. Some of them have died waiting for their pension—the inevitable consequences of outsourcing contracts on the cheap. I welcome the Government’s decision to hold Capita to account at last. Will the Minister ensure that no more Government contracts will be awarded to Capita and explain why, given its dreadful performance, anyone thought it was sensible to award it the Synergy contract?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend has spoken powerfully on many occasions about how her constituents have been affected by this issue; I know she has many cases. The introduction last month of the public interest test, which will end outsourcing by default, will make such a difference.

[Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement and the work he is doing to bring this issue to a resolution. A growing number of my constituents are affected. The response from Capita has been appalling, and correspondence is taking weeks or indeed months to get through. Just today, at one of the surgeries that the Minister has set up, Capita failed to provide my caseworker with an update on an individual case, despite us giving more than a week’s notice of the background. The response from Capita continues to be shockingly poor. Can the Minister ensure specifically that those surgeries are fit for purpose? At the moment, they are not delivering.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Yes, I am certainly happy to do that. We now have taskforce members on each one, but if Members are not getting the information that they require, I ask them please to escalate it to me.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

One of my nine remaining open cases is Dr Carol Furlong, who lost her husband in 2015. She was told in October, after a long battle, that nearly £15,000 would be paid within 28 days. She still has not received a penny. Can the Minister please assure the House that Capita has sufficient resources in place to deal urgently with cases causing financial hardship, and will he confirm that claims involving bereavements will still be treated as a priority?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Yes; they should be being prioritised. I can assure my hon. Friend that I will continue with the surge resourcing until I am satisfied that the contractual standard can be met—it the moment, I am not.

[Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)]

My constituent Carol Campbell is a marine coastguard team leader in Stornoway. Civil servants like her do not just serve the public—they save the public. The June deadline has come and gone, and all she sees is a shambles. I know Carol; she has given a lifetime of service. She tells me, “At 63, I am loath to continue working through another Hebridean winter doing 12-hour dayshifts and nightshifts, but currently I don’t feel I have any alternative.” What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that Capita and its chief executive are held to account for failing these lifesavers?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am grateful to Carol for her service. She can be assured that I will robustly continue to hold Capita to account. I do not know whether, in her particular circumstances, a hardship loan would have been appropriate, but if my hon. Friend writes to me with the details of Carol’s case, I will be more than happy to look into it.

[Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)]

Too many of my constituents are seeing delays to receiving their civil service pensions because of Capita’s failures. In some cases, it is causing serious hardship, and I am doing all I can to assist people to access their hard-earned pensions. Will the Minister outline what steps he is taking to ensure that correspondence from Members in this place, advocating for their constituents, is dealt with quickly by Capita?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend puts his finger on the issue. That is why the Parliamentary Secretary escalated this problem to Mr Speaker, so serious was it. My hon. Friend can be assured that we will continue to hold Capita robustly to account on that.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement. He may recall that in a Westminster Hall debate on 4 February many of us raised cases of affected constituents. I spoke about four Dartford residents who were unable to access their civil service pensions. Two of those cases remain completely unresolved, and one has been only recently resolved. Does the Minister agree that our civil service pensioners deserve much better than this and that, of the tough measures he has announced today—I thank him for those—taking the contract away from Capita must be firmly on the table?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Absolutely. Public servants, who are represented in the Chamber by Members across the House, deserve so much better. My hon. Friend can be assured that the independent audit will be looking at a range of options.

[Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)]

Several of my constituents have been failed by Capita; with the support of my team, they have been battling to get the pensions that they are owed and deserve. Frustratingly, for some the June milestone has come and gone. Just last Friday I met Barbara, whose husband passed away in January. On top of that grief and sorrow, she is still battling to get her late husband’s pension. She has been asked by Capita for the same documents over and over again. Does the Minister agree that that is completely unacceptable, and can he assure me and the rest of the House that every single option is still on the table, including bringing the contract back in-house?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is right that that situation is totally unacceptable. People should not have to battle in that way at vulnerable moments in their life. He can be assured that we will look at every method to ensure that people get the level of service that they deserve.

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

Can I place on record my thanks to the pensions recovery taskforce that the Minister deployed? They have been working with my team in my constituency to resolve at least one of my constituents’ cases, so I am grateful for that. I am now being contacted by civil servants who are due to retire but are really worried that they will be swept up in this too. What reassurances can he give them?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

It is a good question. First, we will continue to prioritise operational delivery day to day, so people who are to retire in the very near future have that reassurance. Secondly, they can be assured that we are looking in the medium term at the best, most effective way to have a proper service level.

Civil Service Pension Scheme

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2026 Written Statements

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

I wish to provide an update regarding the Civil Service Pension Scheme administered by Capita.

Capita has been working to restore, to contractual levels, administration of the Civil Service Pension Scheme following its failed transition in December last year, which left far too many scheme members facing severe delays in accessing their pensions, after many years of dedicated public service. Capita committed to restoring the service by the end of June.

The Government are now undertaking a comprehensive assessment of the latest data provided by Capita post the end of June commitment. We will complete a full evaluation of the actions, outcomes and figures provided by Capita.

Members and their constituents will rightly question the next steps the Government are taking and I intend to provide a comprehensive update to Parliament in the coming days.

We will continue to hold Capita to account, including using all commercial levers and we have been consistently clear that the Government will not hesitate to take firm action for continued underperformance.

[HCWS168]

Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme: Amendments

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2026 Written Statements

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

Today I am laying an amendment to the principal civil service pension scheme under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972, which will come into force on 1 July 2026.

The primary focus of the amendments is to correct historical inequalities relating to the provision of adult survivor pensions in respect of same-sex marriages and civil partnerships. There are also additional technical changes to clarify the scheme rules and to align them with other relevant legislation.

As a result of the then Government’s response to two legal judgments—Walker v. Innospec and Goodwin v. the Secretary of State for Education—all public service pension schemes must provide pensions for surviving same-sex spouses and civil partners, as well as widowers of female scheme members, that are no less favourable than would be provided to the widow of a male member in similar circumstances. This change will only affect benefits in respect of service before 6 April 1988 as all other survivor benefit provision is fully equalised.

The implementation of these changes will not impact progress under the administration recovery plan, which has been agreed with Capita.

[HCWS151]

Cabinet Office

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2026 Written Corrections

The following extract is from the debate on the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme on 14 April 2026.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The consultation also invited respondents to raise any other concerns they had about the design of the scheme. One of the most compelling things we heard was that the scheme does not sufficiently recognise the profound impact of infection during childhood. We have heard the community clearly on that, so we will make a further change to the compensation scheme to address it: we will introduce a 50% increase to the core autonomy award for people who were infected at age 18 or under.

[Official Report, 14 April 2026; Vol. 783, c. 701.]

Written correction submitted by the Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds):

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The consultation also invited respondents to raise any other concerns they had about the design of the scheme. One of the most compelling things we heard was that the scheme does not sufficiently recognise the profound impact of infection during childhood. We have heard the community clearly on that, so we will make a further change to the compensation scheme to address it: we will introduce a 50% increase to the core autonomy award for people who were infected when they were under 18.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jeff Smith (Manchester Withington) (Lab)]

15. What steps he is taking to improve relations with the EU.

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

The Government held the first-ever UK-EU summit last year, where we announced a new common understanding that is good for bills, for borders and for jobs. We look forward to going further at the next UK-EU summit, which will be held at the earliest possible opportunity.

[Martin Rhodes]

Improving our relationship with the EU is about trade barriers, but it is also about standards. Many UK companies already follow the EU’s corporate sustainability due diligence directive in order to trade with our biggest external market. Without alignment, we risk becoming a dumping ground for unethically sourced products while responsible UK companies are undercut by less responsible enterprises. What conversations has the Minister had with Cabinet colleagues about aligning our human rights and environmental due diligence regime with that of the EU, to protect UK companies that do the right thing?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The UK supports the EU’s efforts to promote sustainable and responsible corporate behaviour within global value chains. We will continue to review the impact of measures taken by the EU and other countries, including, as my hon. Friend suggested, to see what lessons can be drawn from other jurisdictions to inform the UK’s approach.

[Rebecca Smith]

I was recently in Washington DC. On several occasions, our American counterparts raised concerns about the future of the EU-UK relationship and realignment. What discussions has the Paymaster General had with his US counterparts, as well as with EU counterparts?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am very pleased with the economic deal with the United States that this Government have delivered and with the advantages that it brings, particularly for our automotive sector, including the jobs saved at Jaguar Land Rover. It is perfectly possible, as the Government are demonstrating, to sign free trade and economic deals around the world while having a close relationship with the EU.

[Jeff Smith]

Following the agreement at the May 2025 summit to establish a UK-EU youth experience scheme, can the Minister update the House on the progress of negotiations on the scheme and confirm that it remains a Government priority?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I certainly can. Negotiations have been proceeding very well. I look forward to making the case for those opportunities to work, travel and study for young people—I think it is very exciting.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

The negotiations for the new relationship with the EU have been the body of the Minister’s work, so what pitch will he make to the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) about how important it is that he carries on doing this work, or will he give up so that he does not have to be involved in the right hon. Member’s flip-flopping?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am very proud of the Government’s work over the past two years. I do not think there is any doubt at all that the UK-EU relationship is in a significantly better place today than when we came into office. I look forward to making the case for a deal that will be good for jobs and for securing our borders.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

The Minister has submitted in answers to written questions that there will be no substantive vote in this House on UK association to Erasmus+, even though the Government plan to tie us into a multi-year programme without saying what it will cost after the first year. The Defence Secretary resigned because the Chancellor will not provide the funding we need for our defence, but apparently money is no object when it comes to this programme. Will the Minister finally tell us the Government’s own central estimate for the programme, or must the public rely on press reports of an £8 billion bill?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

We have re-accession to Erasmus+ from next year at a cost of £570 million, after I negotiated a 30% discount. After 10 months, there is a review clause so that we can balance participation versus cost. I have looked after every penny in this negotiation, and I have not signed up to things that do not deliver value for money. I am quite happy to explain it to the shadow Minister, rather than him just reading about it in the newspapers.

[Mike Wood]

I think everybody will have heard that the Minister has again refused to give any indication as to what he thinks would be an acceptable bill.

The Government used the cover of the Prime Minister’s resignation on Monday to sneak out a written ministerial statement to say that the Turing scheme was being cancelled —a good day to bury bad news. Turing reached 43,000 UK students and provided opportunities in 153 countries for £105 million. Six of the 10 most popular destinations were outside Europe. Erasmus+ will send about half as many UK students abroad as it will bring in, and for more than five times the cost. Given all that, and the Minister’s unwillingness to indicate what the long-term budget will be, how can he possibly be confident that this programme provides five times the value of the scheme that it apparently replaces?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Because it has a 10-month review clause to ensure that it is delivering value for money. Under Erasmus+, there are still opportunities to go around the world. I say quite candidly to the hon. Gentleman that he should look very carefully at all the different opportunities under Erasmus+. It is not just about traditional studies. People studying vocational qualifications go overseas as well, such as those studying sport coaching. There is a range of opportunities that are not available under Turing. If the Conservatives are seriously now setting their face against these opportunities for young people, best of luck to them.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

This week marked 10 years since the EU referendum vote, and the world has changed since then, with an unreliable Trump in the White House and Putin bombing schools in Ukraine. Labour’s red lines are holding Britain back. They are hurting the British people and playing into the hands of those who seek to divide us. It was made clear to me in Brussels last month that the ball is in the UK’s court and that there is real openness to Liberal Democrat plans for a sensible, pragmatic and deliverable plan for closer working. Will the Paymaster General commit to urging the new Prime Minister to drop Labour’s red lines and back Lib Dem plans for a new UK-EU growth and defence partnership to make the UK safer, stronger and richer?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

We have been building a growth and defence partnership, and we do not have to move the red lines to do it; it is what I have been doing every single week with the democratic mandate we have from 2024. The hon. Lady makes the argument for a customs union. This Government have managed to secure free trade deals with India and the Gulf Co-operation Council and an economic deal with the United States. Perhaps she might want to send her message to workers at Jaguar Land Rover, whose jobs have relied on the Government’s trade negotiation.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

4. What steps he is taking through national policy to help improve the resilience of communities affected by natural disasters.

--- Later in debate ---

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

As we approach the upcoming EU-UK summit, can I urge the Minister to make sure that restoring international trains at Ashford International is firmly on the agenda for discussions with our European neighbours? It would bring over half a million extra visitors to Sussex and Kent every year and £2.5 billion of economic growth. Everything we need is sitting there in pristine condition, ready to go—it is a no-brainer. Will the Minister support it?

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

My hon. Friend is a powerful advocate for her constituency and for this particular cause. What she has said today has been heard very clearly.

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

T5.   Yesterday, I asked the Prime Minister to launch an inquiry into the Peter Murrell scandal, because the SNP Government in Scotland refuse to do so. The High Court judge said that Murrell’s crimes were “not particularly sophisticated”, demolishing any suggestion that he somehow deceived everyone in the SNP. The people of Scotland deserve to know what John Swinney and Nicola Sturgeon knew and when they knew it, so will the Government set up an inquiry so that we can get to the truth of this matter?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

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

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

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

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

If I may, I will build on the question from the hon. Member for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale). Many of my constituents have contacted me about the problems they have been having with digital verification on gov.uk websites, and especially with facial recognition. What routes do people have if they are unable to use digital verification to access services?

[Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)]

The Trump Administration’s decision to deny access to Anthropic’s most powerful AI models to all foreigners—including the British state—has emphasised concerns over technology sovereignty. Will the Minister ensure that as part of the UK-EU summit, our leading technology sector works closely with European Union allies to ensure that we have greater competition and resilience in our technology stack?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

There are a number of areas where additional work with the European Union will be in our national interest. One of the great advantages of having annual UK-EU summits is that precisely those issues can be brought up.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

Public inquiries undoubtedly provide a significant mechanism to bring redress to enduring wrongs in the British state, but the cost of them and the lack of governance over them can mean that sometimes they cost extraordinary amounts of money. What conclusions is the Paymaster General coming to on how the Government ensure that money is spent well and that these public inquiries report in a timely fashion?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The right hon. Gentleman is entirely right about that. I think we all know the value of public inquiries and the moment of public justice that they give. What we need to be very careful about is, first, how much they cost and, secondly, the time they take, so that when recommendations do come, they are timely.

[Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

What steps is the Cabinet Office taking to co-ordinate work across Government on national resilience, particularly in relation to supporting SMEs in extreme weather conditions, such as we have at the moment?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Yes, I have. I assure my hon. Friend that I will continue to work on it with our colleagues, and it remains a priority for the Government.

[Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)]

Can the Minister update us on what recent actions he has taken to co-ordinate the Government’s domestic policy on the war in the middle east?

Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2026 Commons Chamber

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

It is a solemn privilege to close this debate, which has been extraordinarily moving. I start by paying tribute to the Backbench Business Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford). Whenever I see him, he says that he is the person to ask me the awkward questions—quite rightly. He always does so with great courtesy, and he speaks with great passion on behalf of the infected blood community. As has been recognised across the House, he does remarkable work as chair of the APPG. He has an able and loyal deputy in the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart), who supports that work and puts a great deal of time into it.

I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), for the tone of his remarks. I echo what he said about the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen), who I worked with and faced across the Dispatch Box when I was the shadow; he has continued that work since. I also thank the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) for the constructive tone that she took.

I thank the right hon. Members for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) and for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies), and my hon. Friends the Members for Newport East (Jessica Morden), for Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss), for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon), for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery), for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith), for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley), and for Rugby (John Slinger). They all made significant contributions and spoke powerfully on behalf of their constituents.

At the outset, I make the general point that many moving individual cases have been raised in this debate, as well as some specific points. My hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington raised the case of Sean Cavens, on whose behalf he has spoken many times. To be clear, the change that I made in the third set of regulations allows someone to switch from receiving support scheme or periodic payments to a lump sum. I am concerned to hear what he has said is happening to Sean. I say to my hon. Friend and others that they should follow up this debate with details, so that I can come back to them. I would say exactly the same thing to the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield. I was very moved, listening to her talk about her constituent Josie. I remember writing to the hon. Lady about that case, so I would very much like the details of what has happened in that claim process.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newport East spoke movingly about the Smith family. Their dignity in the face of extraordinary grief after the loss of Colin has been nothing short of inspirational over the years, and my hon. Friend speaks very powerfully for them. I note that some constituents, including those of my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby, would prefer not to be named, and I completely understand that, but I would be very grateful for the details of their cases.

I would like to acknowledge the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge, who spoke about his constituent Susan and her two daughters, one of whom, Louise, is in the Public Gallery. He spoke powerfully in memory of George. I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend does for them. It is very meaningful that the family have come along to the debate; I am grateful for their time this afternoon.

More broadly, I want to mark all the progress that has been made. As so many right hon. and hon. Members have said, this scandal was decades in the making, and many decades passed before any form of acknowledgement or justice started to be delivered. As has been pointed out, over £2.7 billion of compensation offers have been made, and more than £2.1 billion has been paid in compensation.

Members have quite rightly sought to hold me to account today on speed of delivery, and I will come back to that in a moment, but we should acknowledge in this debate those who waited so long, especially those who are no longer with us. We owe it to them to take the time to recognise the hardships that they suffered. We must also recognise the extraordinary resolve of the infected blood community.

The topic has been debated many times in this House, and I hope that Members will have seen that I always try to make every effort to be here for the debates. I think it is important that I personally hear what right hon. and hon. Members are saying. Indeed, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson) brought forward her amendment to the Victims and Prisoners Bill in 2023, I supported it, while in opposition.

Driving forward this work has been a key priority for the Government. Since I became the Minister responsible for this issue, I have brought three sets of regulations before the House. Most recently, we held a public consultation that asked for feedback on proposed changes to the compensation scheme, and I updated the House in April with the changes that the Government will be putting in place. I will shortly bring before the House a fourth set of regulations to make those legislative changes, and I am very grateful to the shadow Minister for saying that his party will support those regulations.

The compensation scheme is rightly the largest that any Government have ever launched. Alongside the £1.4 billion of interim payments, over £2.1 billion has now been paid out, but I totally recognise and hear that there is still a great deal of work to be done. Let me pick up the issue of IBCA’s approach to payments. IBCA is operationally independent, and it is very important that it is, given Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendations. That said, IBCA uses a test-and-learn approach to delivery. That means that at the start of a process, the numbers are small, but then there will be an exponential increase. That is what happened with the number of infected people who were paid towards the end of 2025.

As the House has rightly observed, the target of paying the first affected person before the end of 2025 was met, but the affected numbers are relatively small at the moment because they will go into that exponential phase. As I have said to the House before on many occasions, yes, we have what I call the backstops, which are the bulk of infected people being paid by the end of 2027 and the bulk of affected people being paid by the end of 2029, but those are not targets. I stand ready to assist IBCA to ensure that we can drive forward with delivery as quickly as possible. The reason the numbers of affected people are small is precisely because of the test-and-learn approach, and I will hold IBCA to account on the moment at which the speed of those payments increases.

I have been on more than one occasion to IBCA’s office in Newcastle. As a number of right hon. and hon. Members have reflected today, the claims managers and the staff are dedicated and diligent, and are certainly building a system that, I believe, is sympathetic. I will be frank with the House: I am troubled by some of the contributions that have mentioned the level of evidence being required, and I say that for two reasons. First, there is often an ask for evidence of things that happened a long time ago, and secondly, we know from Sir Brian Langstaff’s inquiry that there was deliberate document destruction. For those two reasons, I have repeatedly said from the Dispatch Box that I expect not just a sympathetic approach to evidence but some assistance and pointers as to where evidence, if required, might be obtained. I hope that when Members write to me about individual cases, they give me specific examples of where there have been issues regarding the level of evidence. I am more than happy to take up that issue.

I have set up a new feedback mechanism for the scheme. That was one of the things that I was expected to do, and Sir Brian Langstaff was clear that he expected that to be done. I was not prepared to just create some sort of correspondence-sifting mechanism; I wanted to create a system whereby the concerns raised went to the appropriate level. In some cases that will be IBCA’s board, but in others it will be things that have to be elevated back to the Cabinet Office and to me. I expect to publish the first quarterly summary of issues raised through the mechanism in early July, but I will continue to push forward to ensure that it is working in the way it should and that victims have a voice going forward.

I will try and go through the different themes.

[Clive Efford]

I pay tribute to the work of my right hon. Friend to move things forward. When he receives representations from the infected and affected community, how does he intend to put those into effect and change the compensation process? That is what they approach us about and we are all raising a number of those representations, asking for changes in the regulations he is about to lay before the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

It depends on the nature of the change. For example, on the issue being described as burden of proof, I have already repeatedly mentioned from the Dispatch Box the sympathetic approach that I expect. It depends on the specific issue being raised. In some cases, they will be things that I expect IBCA’s board, rather than me as a Minister, to deal with. The point is that I want the issue raised to go to the appropriate level to ensure that it has an appropriate response. We will see how the mechanism works, and I am sure that my hon. Friend, through the all-party parliamentary group, will start to see people having experience of it. I will be interested to hear that feedback.

Unethical research has been raised across the House today. I do not think that any amount of money could ever make up for the experimentation on children that happened as a consequence of this scandal. The right hon. Member for East Hampshire, who represents Treloar’s, will be aware from his constituents of how frankly heinous the situation was.

When I became the responsible Minister, I accepted a recommendation—it was one of the first things across my desk—from Sir Robert Francis, who had conducted a review of the scheme. He recommended that there should be an amount of money that does not in any sense reflect the totality of the harm done, but that is there, as an amount within a much larger amount, as a marker of what was particularly heinous in the experimentation. That is the context behind the unethical research awards; they were lower sums than those before the House today, but I accepted the recommendation because I thought it important to have that in the scheme. The amounts that we see are not the totality of the settlement.

The right hon. Member for New Forest East asked about the differences between the compensation awarded to living and deceased infected people. I recognise that financial loss awards may be lower for awards to estates— I think that was his point—but that is because the future financial losses for estate claims are paid to the infected person’s dependants rather than the estate.

A point was made about psychiatric disorders. The Government have certainly been looking at how to make the severe health condition award for psychiatric disorders more accessible, with a less intrusive ask for evidence. We examined using types of evidence—these are such difficult issues—such as suicide to qualify for the award, but in my view imposing a retraumatising requirement would place an unconscionable burden on families who have already been through decades of mental suffering. When designing any compensation scheme, the Government have to ensure that no mechanism or award criterion inadvertently creates a risk to potentially vulnerable people. Instead, the new special category mechanism of a severe health condition award allows applicants to access more compensation for mental health problems that they have experienced, in excess of the core route—without, I repeat, an unreasonable ask for evidence.

A really important point was raised about the recognition of carers. The care award is provided to a person making a claim as an infected person or as the representative of a deceased infected person’s estate. A living infected person claiming compensation can, however, instruct IBCA to pay all or some of the award to an eligible affected person who provided them with care.

The right hon. Member for East Hampshire asked about criminal prosecutions. The House will realise that it is not for me as a Minister, or indeed for any other Minister, to make prosecutorial decisions—that is rightly independent of Government and is a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service—but I thought that the House would welcome an update.

Given the nationwide scope of the independent infected blood inquiry, and in the absence of a clear lead police force, the National Police Chiefs’ Council has engaged experienced senior investigators to conduct a review of the available evidence. They have been assessing extensive information provided by the inquiry, which has been supporting the investigation fully, and legal advice to look at next steps.

In March, I wrote to the National Police Chiefs’ Council to reaffirm my and the Government’s commitment to make any and all relevant information around the infected blood inquiry available to the prosecuting authorities, where requested, so that an informed decision could be based on the evidence. In May, as the right hon. Member for East Hampshire may already be aware, the National Police Chiefs’ Council published a statement that its initial review, which focused on events at Treloar’s, did not provide sufficient information for a viable criminal investigation. However, terms of reference are now being developed for a further review of the remaining chapters. Decisions on that investigation and the timeframe are obviously for the NPCC, but the House should be assured that I stand ready to assist in providing evidence in any way possible.

My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli asked about the eligibility of affected estates. It is right that following the inquiry’s additional report, we have amended the scheme so that the estate of a deceased affected person is now eligible to claim compensation where an affected person passed away between 21 May 2024 and 31 March 2031. The recommendation from Sir Brian Langstaff was a cut-off of 31 December 2029, but we have actually extended that a couple of years further.

The issue of interferon was raised by a number of Members. The Government have accepted the inquiry’s recommendation to introduce a new higher level award for infected people who were treated with interferon. The new level 2b core compensation award will provide more financial loss and care compensation for the full two years after treatment and will be available to anyone treated with interferon who would otherwise be receiving a level 2 award. I did not recognise the point made by the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield about a 12-week minimum, but when I look at the detail of the case, I can look into that.

The point being made to me was twofold. The first point about evidence and transparency was made by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire. A technical expert group gives advice to Government. One of the things I have said is that we need transparency on its members, its minutes and its evidence, and my attitude is that we should publish it so that it is out there and people can see it. The second point about the long-term impact was raised by a couple of Members. If someone has experienced long-term impacts following interferon treatment that have impacted on their ability to work or their need for care, they may be eligible for additional compensation through the special category mechanism severe health condition award. That ensures that those with long-term side effects receive additional financial support.

The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), who is no longer in her place, raised a point about inheritance tax and secondary transfers. That is a matter that I hope I have rectified and that was announced in the Budget last year, but I will certainly follow up with her on the specific case that she raised.

A number of Members mentioned the duty of candour. The House should be in no doubt about my commitment to the Hillsborough law and the duty of candour. I believe that we are well over 90% of the way there. As the House has been told in previous updates, the outstanding issue on the Hillsborough law is how exactly we strike that balance between a duty of candour and the work of the security and intelligence services, but I am very confident that we can resolve that satisfactorily. I look forward to driving forward the work on the Hillsborough law, which will be a landmark moment in terms of the legal duty that we are talking about in this House.

When we think of so many of the scandals that have come before us, even in my 11 years as a Member of Parliament, they all have a similarity. Sir Brian Langstaff said in his inquiry that it was not really about specific people who were involved in a conspiracy—if that was the case, we could identify them and they could be prosecuted. He said it was about a culture of institutional defensiveness—that, actually, what people do when terrible things happen is to protect either their own reputation or the reputation of the institution in which they serve. We will have a landmark moment when that law goes on the statute book, but beyond that there will be a need to drive cultural change to ensure that terrible scandals such as this do not happen in the future.

This compensation scheme exists because it is absolutely the right thing to do, but it exists because of the way that campaigners over many, many years continued in the face of state denial to drive this forward because of their suffering and that of their families. We cannot in this House change the past, but we certainly can mark it and remember it. It was a solemn privilege for me to attend the service of remembrance organised by the Infected Blood Memorial Committee in St Paul’s cathedral last month. It was designed by the community, for the community, and it was a profoundly moving moment, and I was privileged to speak to the members of the committee, very ably chaired by Clive Smith. They are continuing their important work towards a national memorial, and I know they take a very open approach to seeking the community’s views at every opportunity.

For me, that service of remembrance underscored the importance of getting this right. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge pointed out, it is absolutely crucial to get the compensation scheme right, but it is one of a number of Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendations. We owe it collectively as a House to get that right for future generations, to ensure that nothing like this can happen again. I believe that is the very least we can do.

Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Government’s response to the House’s humble Address of 4 February 2026.

On 4 February I came before the House to debate the Humble Address motion. I said at the time that it was in the national interest to be transparent and to act as quickly as we could, and with the second publication of documents earlier this week on Monday, the Government have done so. Today’s debate is a further opportunity for Members to put questions and, indeed, debate the content of the documents. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, who is alongside me on the Front Bench, will listen to the debate and close it in due course.

As we debate these issues today, we should ensure that we keep Jeffrey Epstein’s victims at the forefront of our minds. What Epstein did was abhorrent and unforgivable. He was a vile, evil paedophile, and I denounce him and his actions as strongly today as I did on 4 February when I came to the Dispatch Box.

The Prime Minister has taken responsibility for appointing Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States. He has said that if he knew then what he knows now, he would never have appointed him, and he has apologised.

I think it is worth setting out the process that was followed in order to publish such a large volume of material on Monday.

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

As the right hon. Gentleman is going to talk about process, I would be very grateful if he could clear up one matter. I have a high regard for the right hon. Gentleman’s integrity, and so I hope he will not dance around this subject, as has been done by others in the past.

In the first tranche of documents there were a number of notes sent by private secretaries to the Prime Minister. If I were allowed to use a prop, I would open the documents to pages 3 and 8, where Members would see notes discussing the situation as regards how to appoint the ambassador, Peter Mandelson and so forth. Under those notes are big boxes headed “Prime Minister Comments”. The normal course of action when a Prime Minister receives a document of that sort is that he notes down his response to it. These boxes are totally blank. My simple question to the right hon. Gentleman is this: are they blank because the Prime Minister made no notes whatsoever or because any notes that the Prime Minister made have been redacted and removed? The Intelligence and Security Committee deals routinely with even more sensitive material, and every time there is a redaction in a publication, there are three asterisks to show that the redaction has taken place. Have there been redactions of the Prime Minister’s notes on these memorandums that were sent to him for decision?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The answer is that they are blank now because they were blank then. The formal decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as the ambassador was conveyed by the Prime Minister’s then principal private secretary in a letter to the Foreign Office. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the empty box notes, and the reason that they are empty is that there was nothing to redact. I hope that is a sufficiently clear answer.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, because I want to ask about the process of the appointment, rather than the process of the release of the papers, which I think he is about to move on to.

I have previously spoken in this House about the process in the future, and I think the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), has made not-dissimilar comments. Whether we have a future Conservative Government—hopefully—or another Government, we should have pre-appointment scrutiny of senior posts, both ambassadorial appointments and, I would argue, permanent secretaries of Departments. That would be a safer way of doing things.

On senior appointments to the ISC—there are lots of current ISC members present in the Chamber, as well as former members such as myself—the Paymaster General will know that the appointment is made by the Prime Minister, but the double-lock mechanism ensures that the House has a say and can veto appointments if necessary. I am not necessarily asking for that mechanism, but certainly the relevant Select Committee should carry out pre-scrutiny for senior appointments of ambassadors and other senior officials, whether they are political appointees or not. I think that would help the whole House, whatever our politics.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am not hiding from the fact that we have to make changes to the appointments process. Indeed, the Government have changed the process for all direct ministerial appointments to make sure that due diligence and national security vetting have to take place prior to appointment. It is absolutely right that that change was made.

Let me turn to the process. The process that was followed was obviously a significant one in order to publish such a large volume of material. When I was at the Dispatch Box on 4 February, I committed to publishing material in scope of the motion—bar that which the Intelligence and Security Committee agreed would be prejudicial to national security and international relations.

At this point, I want to put on record my thanks to the Committee. Members who were in the House that day might recall that even as I was speaking in the Chamber I was making the case for the involvement of the Intelligence and Security Committee. I know that it was not a small undertaking for the Committee. A huge amount of time has been spent on this, and I am very grateful to the Committee’s members for their very careful and—it looks to me—painstaking work in going through the volume of documentation.

On 4 February, and indeed since, Members have raised a range of issues, and it is absolutely right that the Government are held to account on those. As Members will have seen from the material that was published on Monday, the Government have acted on the House’s request for transparency to an extraordinary extent.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

On Monday, I asked a question to the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister about the fact that it is extraordinary that there appeared to be no WhatsApp or text messages from the Prime Minister—that was the information available to us at the time. We now know that there are no text messages from the Prime Minister to Mandelson after a few days after the general election, and the WhatsApp messages have totally disappeared.

The answer I got on Monday from the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister was slightly disingenuous, I have to say. He said that Prime Ministers do not operate in this way. Rather like Mr Gladstone, they sit at the Cabinet table and men in frock coats bring them papers. It is complete rubbish. We know that the Prime Minister must have been using WhatsApp all the time. To use disappearing WhatsApp messages is contrary to what the covid inquiry suggested, and it is quite contrary to transparency.

I say to the Paymaster General that these scandals are made much worse by any hint of a cover-up. Everybody knows that a mistake was made, and people are very forgiving of the Prime Minister if he has made a mistake. What they are not forgiving of is some sort of cover-up, where numerous text messages and WhatsApp messages have suddenly vanished.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I think some Conservative Members would be quite happy to have Gladstonian principles in government.

I really do reject the point about a cover-up, and I reject it for this reason: this process was quite rightly driven by and led by officials without political interference, working with the Intelligence and Security Committee—a cross-party Committee that is very well respected across this House. Not a single redaction in those documents came about because of a ministerial decision, and that is simply because we have not played that part in the process—and neither should we have done, so I completely reject the idea of a cover-up.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

rose—

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

On the subject of someone who might be keen on Gladstone, I will give way.

[Sir John Hayes]

The right hon. Gentleman knows me well, and he knows of my disdain for Gladstone and my deep admiration for his rival Benjamin Disraeli, who in my judgment was the greatest ever Prime Minister by far.

The key thing about the ISC, on which I sit—I am grateful for the Minister’s comments about its work—is that the House took the view that the ISC should see the whole of the information. Whether that was the right view or whether the Humble Address was too permissive is an open question, but the House took the view that we should see all matters relating to international relations or national security.

An executive decision was taken—I do not know whether it was endorsed by Ministers; it was certainly endorsed subsequently by the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister—not to make the UK Security Vetting file available to the ISC. That is not what the Humble Address says. Subsequently, that has been legitimised by the argument, which I do not buy, that it would have a chilling effect on the whole vetting process. However, the Minister—and by the way, I share the respect of my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) for him—knows that the ISC’s seeing material is not the same as disclosing it. This is about scrutiny, not disclosure, so why was an executive decision made not to make that information available to the ISC? Who made it, and when? Was it made by officials? Was it made by Ministers? Will he explain how he can square that with the remark he just made?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

It was an official-led process. Let me just make that clear, because the right hon. Gentleman points towards a pretty important issue. We had the Humble Address and its wording—hon. Members can read that wording—with the quite extensive list drafted by the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart). At the end, it said:

“except papers prejudicial to UK national security or international relations which shall instead be referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee”.

What the Government have done, and indeed were entitled to do so, is take into account the precedents set by previous responses to Humble Addresses—under the Government whom the right hon. Gentleman supported, indeed. The Prime Minister has written to the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee on precisely that point.

There were a number of Humble Addresses during the 2017-19 Parliament when I was in opposition. I would not say that they were a constitutional innovation, because they have quite an ancient origin, but I personally played some part in their re-emergence. It is obviously the case that, as those Humble Addresses have been replied to—now by a number of parties in government—principles have been used in approaching them which come from things such as the Freedom of Information Act, the duty of Ministers under the ministerial code, the Data Protection Act 2018 and the general data protection regulation. Those are based on precedents for responses to Humble Addresses.

[Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)]

The Minister is being incredibly generous with his time. As an aside, I think many hon. Members in this place—those on the Conservative Benches at least—would like to go back to the 19th century.

It is clear that officials have done a huge amount of work with regard to this process. Will the Minister say a little bit about the independent King’s Counsel, and what assurances it has provided that the Government are complying with the Humble Address?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

That was another important part of what was done, and the House should also take reassurance from that. I made the point about precedents to the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), and the Government also sought to take that independent legal advice on their interpretation of complying with the Humble Address.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

rose—

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I will take an intervention from the right hon. Gentleman, but then I need to make a bit more progress.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I want to clear up the point about precedents. It may be that I am wrong about this, but I do not think there is any precedent for the House deciding that the Intelligence and Security Committee specifically should look at material that was to be redacted before it went to the public. The Intelligence and Security Committee, as the Minister well knows, was founded in 1994. Since that time, there has never been even one leak from the Committee. So there is no comparison between making things available to the Intelligence and Security Committee—the only parliamentary body entitled to see highly classified material, and one which never leaks—and to any other body. While he says, “This is all led by officials. It is okay for the officials to see it, but not to release it to anyone else,” the reason the ISC was chosen for the motion is that it is within the ring of secrecy, and that is unaffected by any precedents regarding bodies that do not have that special status.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It is just that if he looks at the wording of the Humble Address, he will see that it lists a series of classes of documents, and then it says, “except papers”—those that were referred to the ISC. That is our compliance with the motion.

Let me turn back to the process, which, as I said, was undertaken by officials. They sought returns from all Government Departments, including material, as has been referred to, on non-corporate communication channels. There were multiple rounds of discovery to ensure that searches returned material relevant to the full scope of the motion. Some documents were assessed as likely prejudicial to national security or international relations—the point I was just making—and, as I committed to the House in February, they were then referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee.

Due to the wide scope of the motion and the significant volume of material that needed to be located and reviewed, the first publication, on 11 March, was focused on the parts of the motion that were of most urgent interest to the House: Peter Mandelson’s appointment, his withdrawal and the severance. The second tranche, which was published on Monday, contains material relevant to the parts of the motion that cover communications and documents concerning Peter Mandelson’s appointment and vetting, and messages between Peter Mandelson and Ministers, special advisers and senior civil servants in the months prior to and throughout his tenure as ambassador. All documents held by the Government have now been disclosed, save those that are being withheld on the request of the Metropolitan police.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

On the point of communication between Peter Mandelson and Ministers, the fact remains that the more documents that are released, the more questions emerge about Peter Mandelson’s reach across Government. Will the Minister tell the House whether Lord Mandelson had any discussions whatsoever with Ministers, officials or advisers about Palantir? Will further documentation with regards to that be released?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

On Palantir, I refer my hon. Friend to the methodology statement at the start of each of the three volumes, where it is made absolutely clear that there is a recognition that Palantir is a matter of interest to the House; indeed, there are references to Palantir within the documents. As I am sure the House will understand, I will not speculate on the contents of the documents that remain with the Metropolitan police, but certainly I invite everyone to look at the references to Palantir in the tranche of documents before the House—indeed, the public can do so as well.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

I am interested in the mitigations, which are the reason we have this great gap between what would seem to be a security threat and Peter Mandelson being appointed. I cannot find any documents about that, but I have found that in written evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee in September 2025—after the appointment, and when it was about to be withdrawn—Ian Collard said that he had requested a copy of the vetting summary. He made some notes based on the summary as an aide-mémoire, in case it was needed, and submitted them for the Humble Address. I am interested in seeing what the notes are of the mitigations: the man responsible for the mitigations took a note—presumably of what he had seen—and put it in for the Humble Address, yet it is not in the papers.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Officials leading the process will have heard the exchange—and this exchange—in relation to that specific point about Ian Collard. As the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister set out in his statement on Monday, the documents with the Metropolitan police fall into several categories: internal correspondence relating to Peter Mandelson, and documents in relation to conflict of interest and national security vetting. I appreciate the point that my right hon. Friend makes and officials will have heard the exchange between her and me.

[Emily Thornberry]

I want to make it clear that the document I referred to is not part of the original decision making; it is an aide-mémoire that Ian Collard made. If I cannot see the original documents, can I at least see that later one?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

As ever, my right hon. Friend makes her case forcefully. I am treading carefully in my language because this process has been led by officials working with the ISC. The officials working on it will have heard the request that she just made.

[Sir John Hayes]

I will take up the point that the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) raised about mitigation later in the debate—should I catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, which is not a given. Will the Minister address the issue of when the Metropolitan police asked for information on UK vetting? We will not know the granular detail because the executive decision based on precedent was made, although my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) has challenged the precedent. However, there was an assumption that some information on vetting would be made available, perhaps in a redacted form having been considered first by the ISC—I will say no more than that. We now hear that no information on vetting will be made available until the Metropolitan police has finished its work, when it will come back through the ISC according to the process agreed as part of the Humble Address. When did the Metropolitan police begin to take an interest in the vetting part of all this, and why?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

To the right hon. Gentleman’s direct question, I have not been part of the process or been given precise dates for when the Metropolitan police said what. However, I will say this: the documents with the Metropolitan police have been viewed by the chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), so within the confines of not wishing to undermine the ongoing investigation we have tried to be as transparent as we can be with Parliament at this stage. In addition, the summary document of the vetting has been shared with the Intelligence and Security Committee, so to the extent that we have been able to share documents, we have. The request in this debate from the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury, will no doubt have been heard as well.

Let me turn to the issue of redactions, which I started to develop in earlier answers to interventions. I will not repeat what the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister said on Monday, nor the methodological note that is available for right hon. and hon. Members to look at, but I want to clarify some issues so that there is no doubt about the process that was followed. As I have said, no material was redacted on grounds of prejudice to national security or international relations without the ISC’s approval. The redactions agreed with the ISC are all triple-asterisked throughout the publication. When you see the three asterisks, that material was agreed with the ISC to be redacted.

On my point about precedent in the earlier exchange with the right hon. Member for New Forest East, the redactions were limited to the names of junior officials, contact details such as telephone numbers and email addresses, the personal or commercially sensitive data of third parties not relevant to the motion, and some cases where there was legal professional privilege. That is in line with the process that has been followed by successive Administrations in relation to Humble Address motions. Those redactions are clearly labelled in the publication. To reconfirm, no Government Minister or special adviser has determined any of the redactions; that was done by the official-led process. I echo the comments made by the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister on Monday in thanking the Chair of the PACAC, the hon. Member for North Dorset, who is not in his place, for reviewing our approach to the third-party redactions and the material withheld, so as not to prejudice the ongoing police investigations and to ensure that we are being transparent with Parliament, as we should be.

Let me turn to the specific point about the Metropolitan police. Everyone across the House will appreciate the need not to prejudice the investigation, and will understand that I am unable to answer questions about certain documents that have been withheld. They include questions to Peter Mandelson by the Prime Minister’s then chief of staff and Peter Mandelson’s responses. The remaining documents, as I said a moment or two ago, fall broadly into the following categories: national security vetting material, conflict of interest process material and relevant internal correspondence with Peter Mandelson. Such information will be published in due course, either at the conclusion of the investigation, or at a point, if there were one, at which publication would no longer be prejudicial to the police investigation.

On 4 February, the House made its will clear.

[Emily Thornberry]

It may be that I am just lacking in imagination, but I do not understand why the police would not allow us to see the letter from the Foreign Office to Peter Mandelson saying, “You are given this job subject to not having anything to do with x, y and z”, or whatever the mitigations were. At the moment, we just do not have anything at all and so it is very difficult to understand why he was appointed. We are told that we need to wait for some time in the future—there is no date by which that will be disclosed—and at that stage all will become clear. It is as if the central point of the investigation and all these thousands of pages do not amount to anything until the police eventually decide to give us those crucial documents.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

It is, quite rightly, for the police and not for Ministers to determine the way in which they want their investigation to proceed and to identify documents that they feel are reasonable lines of inquiry. However, to give the House reassurance, even that class of documents was viewed by the Chair of PACAC—obviously, under particular controlled circumstances —because we wanted for Parliament the level of transparency that we could provide at that stage, despite the ongoing investigation.

The Government have discharged their duty to the House in complying with the Humble Address motion, aside from that small amount of information that will be subsequently published in a final tranche. As Members will have seen, Monday’s publication complies with the spirit and the letter of the motion, as well as being one of the largest ever publications laid in this House. Members have had some time to consider the document—certainly, since Monday—and I am grateful to the Leader of the House for making further time to debate the issue today. I know that throughout the course of the debate, Members will be conscious of not prejudicing the ongoing criminal investigation. I am grateful to the House for understanding the position the Government have taken and my position on answering questions on that.

I look forward to the debate before the House. The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister will close and respond to points made during the debate. I commend the motion to the—

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I will, just.

[Martin Wrigley]

I was trying not to interrupt his flow—[Interruption.] Until I did.

Throughout the files there are mentions of Palantir and Peter Mandelson, including a memo in which he tries to introduce Peter Thiel to No. 10 staff in June last year. Even though Mr Louis Mosley has written to me today suggesting that Peter Mandelson was not intervening regarding Palantir business with the Government, does the Minister agree that he still was doing so?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I reject the suggestion that there is any wrongdoing, as regards Palantir contracts being renewed—I think one was renewed by the Ministry of Defence—in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. I reject that absolutely. On the meeting between the Prime Minister and Peter Thiel, to be clear, that did not happen.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

rose—

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

rose—

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

We have set off a surge of interventions. I will give way to the hon. Lady and then the right hon. Gentleman, and that is it.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I was listening to the reassurances the Minister gave about the material that has been provided, and the fact that this is all the material bar that which is being held back. May I just ask for a further assurance from the Minister that if things do come to light, which were not found in what I appreciate were significant trawls, and which constitute correspondence that would fit the Humble Address terms, he will follow up and ensure that those things are published as well as the stuff that has been held back because of the police investigations?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I do not expect that to happen, but of course if it did, we would consider it. I will finally give way to the right hon. Member for Islington North.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I thank the Minister for giving way; he is being very generous with his time. Is he able to confirm whether Peter Mandelson had divested himself of all his financial interests in companies, including peripheries or actuality of Palantir, while he was ambassador in Washington?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

That of course strays into the conflict of interests class of documents, which is still one of the classes that is with the Metropolitan police.

I conclude by saying again that it is very important that the House has this debate today. From the debate in February to today, I have certainly taken my duties, and indeed the Government’s duties, to the House very seriously, as has my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister—I think today is his eleventh appearance in the House on this matter. He will, of course, close the debate and answer any further questions. I commend the motion to the House.

Covid-19 Inquiry Response Costs

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Wednesday 20th May 2026 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 that 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 a selection of the most relevant Departments and are not based on a complete set of departmental figures, and different Departments organise their response teams in different ways, according to business need. As such, these 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 HM Treasury, many of which are supported by the Government Legal Department. While every effort has been made to ensure a robust methodology, complexities remain in trying to quantify the time and costs dedicated to the inquiry alone.

It should be noted that alongside full-time resource within Departments, inquiry response teams draw on expertise from across their organisations. 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’s response to the UK Covid-19 Inquiry is led by inquiry response units across Departments. These associated staff costs for Q3 2025-26 are below, and include retrospective adjustments for Q1-2.

Q3 number of UK Covid-19 Inquiry response unit staff: 167 full time equivalents

Q3 cost of UK Covid-19 Inquiry response unit staff: £3,486,000 (including contingent labour costs)

Financial year 2025-26 (Q1 + Q2 + Q3), total cost of UK Covid-19 Inquiry response unit staff: £12,800,000 (including contingent labour costs, and retrospective adjustments for Q1-2)