Infected Blood Compensation Scheme
Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts(4 days, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will update the House on the Government’s progress in establishing an infected blood compensation scheme.
In July the infected blood inquiry published its additional report, which made a number of recommendations on ways that the compensation scheme could be amended to achieve a scheme that works better for all infected and affected people. I updated the House then to confirm that the Government were responding positively and that we would bring forward legislation as soon as we could to address the recommendations that we could implement immediately.
The regulations that I am laying before the House today will achieve a number of those changes and demonstrate this Government’s commitment to responding swiftly and constructively to the inquiry’s recommendations. Specifically, the regulations respond to five of the inquiry’s recommendations by removing the HIV eligibility start date; removing the minimum earnings threshold for a person to claim the exceptional financial loss award; removing the requirement for evidence of the date of diagnosis of hepatitis B or C; making changes to the deeming provisions for the severity of hepatitis C; and expanding eligibility to include estates of all affected people who have died between 21 May 2024 and 31 March 2031, which actually goes further than the inquiry’s recommended date range.
The regulations also put back the transfer of responsibility to make support scheme payments from the infected blood support schemes to the Infected Blood Compensation Authority—IBCA—by one calendar year. That means that IBCA will begin making phased support scheme payments from January to March 2027. IBCA requested that change to allow it to concentrate on accelerating the delivery of compensation and expanding the service to all eligible groups this year, while ensuring—this is essential—that there is no disruption to those receiving support scheme payments. There will of course be a separate opportunity for the House to debate these regulations in fuller detail before they are approved, and I look forward to that debate.
I would also like to inform the House that we have implemented the inquiry’s recommendation to reinstate support scheme payments to partners bereaved after 31 March this year until they have received compensation. Applications for those individuals reopened on 22 October, and I am grateful to colleagues across the devolved Administrations and the support schemes for the collaborative approach to making that happen.
Today I am launching a public consultation on proposed changes to the infected blood compensation scheme, as recommended by the inquiry. I encourage responses from the infected blood community and from all those with an interest in the infected blood inquiry. I assure hon. Members that every response will be considered carefully.
The consultation sets out questions across seven specific issues: harm caused by interferon treatment; the special category mechanism and its equivalents; severe psychological harm; past financial loss and past care; evidence requirements for exceptional loss; supplementary awards for affected people; and unethical research. The Government have sought initial advice from an infected blood compensation scheme technical expert group to develop proposals on those topics in response to the inquiry’s additional report for this public consultation. The feedback we receive through that consultation will inform the decisions that the Government take. The technical expert group will also take part in targeted engagement with the community.
I previously gave the House an undertaking that transparency would be at the heart of any expert group going forward. That is why the five additional members who have been appointed to the technical expert group were appointed following valuable feedback from infected blood community stakeholders, and it is why I am today publishing the minutes of the group’s meetings that have taken place so far. I look forward to hearing the views of the community within the consultation process and beyond as we work together to ensure that the Government’s response meets expectations. We will publish a response to the consultation on gov.uk within 12 weeks of it closing. As I set out in July, we will also need to bring forward further regulations next year to implement changes following the outcome of the consultation. Listening to and working with the infected blood community is essential to ensure a compensation scheme that works for everyone, and I am hopeful that this consultation will allow us to do just that.
I now turn to the delivery of the compensation scheme as it currently stands. IBCA has made significant progress in the delivery of compensation. As of 21 October, 2,476 people have received an offer of compensation, and over £1.35 billion has been paid. IBCA reached the significant milestone of having paid out over £1 billion in compensation last month, which I am sure the House will agree is welcome and notable progress in the delivery of compensation. I can also tell the House that offers totalling over £1.8 billion have now been made.
As of the end of September, all infected people registered with a support scheme have been contacted to begin their claim, and IBCA has set out its intention to open to unregistered infected people in November. In order to open, IBCA must build a service that allows it to confirm an infection before a claim begins, check the identity of each person claiming, and ensure that all the necessary legal and financial support is in place for anyone who wishes to use it. This approach, which IBCA also took with the first group of people making a claim, means that the numbers will initially be lower. However, I expect that—as with the first group—those numbers will rise exponentially as progress is made.
Earlier this month, IBCA also launched a registration service for people who intend to make a claim to register their details. As of 21 October, it has received 10,573 registrations of intent to make a compensation claim. To be clear, that figure represents all registrations, not unique people or claims. Those registrations will be particularly helpful in identifying the unregistered infected people for the next group, and indeed more as the service grows.
As Members of the House are aware from my previous statements on this matter, IBCA is an independent arm’s length body, and it is vital that we respect that independence while also ensuring that I do what I can to drive progress forward. That is why in July I asked for an independent review of IBCA’s delivery of the scheme. That review, led by Sir Tyrone Urch, began in August and concluded earlier this month. I am today publishing that review and have deposited a copy in the Libraries of both Houses. The report notes that IBCA has made “substantial early progress” towards delivering compensation to victims of infected blood, but it also makes recommendations to aid the scaling-up of operations and the delivery of compensation to complex cohorts. I will, of course, consider all of those recommendations carefully.
Alongside IBCA’s delivery of the compensation scheme, the Government have continued to make progress on interim payments. In July I informed the House that we would make a further interim payment of £210,000 to the estates of infected persons who were registered with an infected blood support scheme or predecessor scheme and have sadly passed away, in addition to the interim payments of £100,000 that opened for applications in October 2024. I am pleased that applications for those payments opened last week, meaning that some estates could now be eligible for up to £310,000 in interim payments.
Since applications for the initial interim payments opened last year, over 600 estates have received payments, totalling over £60 million. That is in addition to the £1.2 billion that the Government have paid in interim compensation more widely. I hope that this additional interim payment brings some temporary relief to the families impacted, and I also hope that IBCA’s intention to begin the first claims on behalf of estates of deceased infected people by the end of this year provides some reassurance.
I am resolute that we get this right, and I hope the progress I have set out today shows that we are taking positive action and, crucially, listening to and making progress alongside the community. After all, those who have been so impacted by this horrendous scandal must be at the core of every decision we make, in Government and across this House—they deserve no less. I commend this statement to the House.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his statement and for advance sight of it—although just under an hour is not a lot of time to digest 75 pages of documentation, so I will do my best. I join the Minister in acknowledging the work done by Sir Brian Langstaff and his inquiries, as well as the serious improvement in the pace of payments that IBCA has made in recent months. We thank Sir Robert Francis, David Foley, and all their team at IBCA. On behalf of the Opposition, I welcome the measures that the Minister has announced that implement some of Sir Brian’s recommendations from the additional report, particularly those dealing with HIV eligibility start dates, the deeming of severity bands, evidence of the date of diagnosis, affected estates, and bereaved partner support scheme payments.
Turning to the recommendations relating to hepatitis, we of course welcome confirmation that the Government will remove the earnings floor on the supplementary route exceptional loss award. However, I did not hear any specific reference in the Minister’s statement to measures to address recommendation 4(c) of the original report, which deals with effective treatment. Perhaps the Minister could set out how the Government intend to give effect to that recommendation. Similarly, could he set out what measures the Government are taking—beyond the appointment of the new members of the technical expert group that he has announced—in response to recommendation 2(e), which deals with the transparency of scheme design? That is particularly important in light of the inquiry’s worrying finding that victims did not feel that they were being listened to.
I now turn to the recommendations that the Government did not feel able to accept immediately. I welcome the fact that the Minister is consulting on a way forward on those issues; clearly, as I have said, there is a need for transparency and proper consultation. The consultation period will last until the end of January next year. We recognise that there is little that the Minister can do about that clearly defined period, but given the need to address these measures without undue delay, will he ensure that once that consultation period closes, the Government respond swiftly to the consultation paper and introduce any necessary further regulations with maximum speed, so that this House can consider any further measures that are necessary?
More broadly, how are the Government applying the lessons learned from the implementation of payment schemes for people infected to better inform the operation of payments to people affected and to their estates, as he referred to in his statement? What action is the Minister taking with the independent IBCA to ensure that the pace of payments, which has seen welcome progress, continues to accelerate and is not jeopardised by changes to rules and processes?
As I said, Sir Brian’s inquiries have done incredible and invaluable work to give a voice to those who have battled so courageously against decades of injustice, and to ensure that victims and their families have some remedy, although clearly no amount of money can ever reverse the terrible harm done by this scandal over many years. The recommendations in the additional report that Sir Brian published shortly before the summer are an invaluable contribution. Looking forward, there will need to be a degree of policy certainty as we move from a period of review to one of rectification and delivery. That is one reason that the cross-party work, both before and since the election, has been so important to give confidence and certainty. Looking ahead, does the Minister have any indication as to when we might expect the inquiry to draw to a close, and what might the mechanism be for doing so?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for the tone of his remarks. I note what he said about the time he received the statement and other documents, and he knows me well enough by now to know that I have great respect for this House and will always facilitate shadow Ministers having material with plenty of time. I will certainly take that issue away and look at why that happened.
I join the shadow Minister in paying tribute to the work of the inquiry and to Sir Robert Francis and David Foley, IBCA’s chief executive. This House rightly has held me to account for the number of payments. IBCA was running a test-and-learn approach, and I always said to the House that there would be a smaller number that was a representative sample of cases, which would then allow IBCA to scale up exponentially. We are now in that exponential phase—that steep curve. I look every single week at the number of payments, and it is starting to increase significantly. I know that Members across the House will welcome that.
The shadow Minister made a point about treatment for hepatitis. One of the things we are looking at in the consultation is the impact of interferon, which had such a detrimental impact on so many people.
The shadow Minister is right to raise the transparency mechanism. While I do not need a piece of legislation for that, I am looking at that mechanism and want to get it into place as soon as possible.
The shadow Minister asked about the 12-week consultation. The Government will respond to that within 12 weeks, and I will then want to bring forward a fourth set of regulations with the greatest possible speed.
The shadow Minister’s final point was about learning lessons, and that is precisely why I asked Sir Tyrone Urch to carry out his work. First, it was about learning the lessons from what has happened so far and how we can best take things forward. Secondly, it is about the practical steps I can take to assist IBCA with scaling up and making payments to affected people, which will clearly be a far larger number of people for IBCA to deal with.
To finish on a consensual point, the cross-party support on this issue has been important. The continuity between the work I have done and the work of my predecessor as Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) has been hugely important in the delivery of this scheme.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
I welcome the statement from my right hon. Friend. This issue has its origins back in the 1940s, and it has been going on for an extraordinarily long time. The state has not been responding to or providing information to the people it should have been there to serve. We find ourselves in a situation where people have lived almost all their lives waiting for compensation, and now this issue is arising that they may pass away, having just received compensation, and their estate will then be subject to inheritance tax. The state is giving with one hand and taking back with the other. I realise that my right hon. Friend is not in the Treasury, but we need to take that issue forward.
There is also this outstanding issue of support to the campaigning groups that support the applications of people who are infected and affected. Part of one of Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendations was that they need extra support from the Department of Health and Social Care. On both these issues, what can my right hon. Friend do to assist the people making these applications and to get them the response to Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendations that they deserve?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s work with the all-party parliamentary group. On the first question, the compensation that has been received clearly is exempt from tax. I understand exactly the point he is making about someone, such as a widow, who inherits or has the compensation on behalf of a deceased partner. That money will be received tax-free, but I appreciate his point about the speed that is needed, because of the age of so many of the victims of this scandal. That is through no fault of their own, but is the fault of the state. The tax exemption is in line with the policy that is pursued consistently across Government. On his second point about the campaigning groups, I am conscious that we are approaching the end of another tax year. I pay tribute to the work that the charities do, and I undertake to him that I will take up that matter with the Department of Health and Social Care.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I thank the hon. Lady for the tone of her comments. On her final point, that number is just the number of registrations, not the totality of the number of victims. On the point that she raises, I entirely share her concern. As I said when I gave evidence to the inquiry in May, the test that I always have at the forefront of my mind when making changes is about not causing additional undue delay to the payment of compensation.
The hon. Lady asked me about 2029; that is a backstop, not a target date. I said that to the inquiry in May as well. The target is to get the payments out as quickly as possible. As I said in response to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), the test-and-learn approach was always taken because we felt—and IBCA felt—that that would ultimately be the way to get the money out to the largest number of people as quickly as possible. I think we are now in an exponential phase where the number of payments is going up quickly.
The hon. Lady is entirely right to draw attention to the number of people who have died before actually securing justice. That is again a reason why I have been pushing for payments to be made as quickly as possible.
Finally, the special category mechanism is one of the seven issues mentioned in the consultation. I know this has been asked before, but I would urge her and her constituents to respond to that.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for the content, clarification and tone of his statement. It is clearly an awful situation. I would like to speak up for my constituents in Easington and to seek some clarification regarding those people who contracted hepatitis C. Will the Minister confirm that all in the infected blood community, including those suffering with hepatitis C, will have access to the consultation, as recommended by Sir Brian Langstaff? I understand that the consultation closes in January, and he mentioned that there would be a 12-week period in which the Government would consider that.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The straight answer is yes. My hon. Friend is a powerful advocate for the victims in his constituency of Easington. Whether for hepatitis C victims or the other victims of this scandal, I want the consultation to be as accessible as possible, and I very much hope that he will encourage his constituents to respond to it.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The Minister is clearly totally committed to this subject, and I thank him for the way in which he reaches out to the MPs he knows have an interest in it. Will he join me in commending IBCA for the quality of its communications? Both the website and the MPs’ toolkit recently sent out could not be more free of jargon, which sets an excellent example.
Going back to the point raised by the chair of the APPG, the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford), as I understand it, if a compensation grant is made to the family of someone who has already died, those relatives will receive it tax-free, but if the grant is made to the individual shortly before their death, the very same family members might have to pay inheritance tax on it. That is clearly an anomaly, so will the Minister speak to the Treasury about it?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman, who has campaigned on this issue for many years. On his first point, I agree; whether the documents and communications are from the Government or the IBCA, I am constantly pressing for plain English. To be fair to those tasked with producing those documents, some of the content is complicated, but trying to communicate in accessible ways is hugely important.
On the right hon. Gentleman’s second point regarding the tax exemption, he is correct, I think, in his interpretation that there is a single tax exemption. The compensation is received free of tax in the first instance, but there is no subsequent tax exemption. That is in line with general Government policy on tax exemptions across the board.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for his statement. On lessons learned, I hope he has looked at the National Audit Office’s work on different compensation schemes so that we can learn from that. I also hope that he supports the national campaign to encourage people who received a blood transfusion to get tested for hepatitis C, as two people a month are contacting the helpline to say that they were infected during the relevant period.
To press the Minister further on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) and the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), under this scheme people get compensation because they are dying due to infected blood; it is not random, coincidental or due to something else. If they happen to receive the compensation just before they die, their family will pay inheritance tax on it. The victims want to ensure that their families are properly supported, because they are no longer able to do that, so will the Minister renew his efforts to talk to the Treasury about this issue? This is a small, defined group of people, which does not need to set a more general precedent, but for this particular scheme—where the state failed people so much—the issue is an important one to resolve.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend does on this. I entirely agree with her about learning lessons from the different compensation schemes across several Governments in recent decades. On her second point, regarding tax exemptions, I have set out the Government’s position, but I hear very strongly what Members are saying.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his meticulous and thorough analysis of all the different strands of this challenging problem, and for the work he has done to deal with the complexity of different groups’ concerns over delivery of the compensation. I also thank Sir Brian Langstaff for what he has done.
However, after six years, £140 million has been spent on this inquiry—and we do not yet have the accounts for the current year. In Sir Tyrone Urch’s review, which the Minister mentioned, the first recommendation is regarding policy stability. Can the Minister say something about how we will achieve that policy stability? Respectfully, is it not time to thank Sir Brian and Sir Robert for their work and then focus on the delivery of IBCA, rather than have more iterations of recommendations, which do not achieve much for the individuals who need this accelerated?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the painstaking, significant work he did when he was Paymaster General. The reference to Sir Tyrone Urch and his report is apposite, because I asked Sir Tyrone to look at the workings of IBCA—to look, practically, at what barriers are still there to delivering compensation quickly. Of course, Sir Tyrone’s first recommendation was around policy stability. As I said when I was before the inquiry in May, we would not want to be making changes to the scheme that were detrimental to the ability to deliver the compensation quickly. That is something that I think is really important going forward.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate and thank the Minister for his work on this; I know how much of his time it is taking. Further to the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) and for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), and the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), there is a perversity in the people who were failed by the state potentially being asked to repay 40% of their compensation to the same state that failed them.
The Minister has clearly set out that that is in line with policy; is he willing to stand at that Dispatch Box and state, categorically, that that is fair? If he cannot say that it is fair, will he at least undertake to again raise this issue with the Treasury, so that those people who were failed by the state are not then penalised by the state?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend and a number of Members have made that case powerfully. I will say to the House that they can be assured that I look at all aspects of this scheme and test whether they are fair, and I think we can see, across parties, the strength of feeling on this today.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
I congratulate the Minister on making real progress on this matter, after many years of delays. I recently met Jean Hill and her daughters. She has been campaigning on this issue for 30 years. Sadly, her husband died in 2004 at the age of 48; his brother died at 25; and a nephew died in more recent years. What assurance can the Minister give me—and Jean—that payments to deceased estates will be expedited as a matter of urgency, and what additional resources will be put in place to achieve that?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his work; I know that he has raised this issue on previous occasions. With regard to deceased estates, he will have heard what I said in my statement about the interim payments. Additional interim payments have just opened, which shows the urgency of the situation to the Government and the importance of the money getting to where it is needed. That is why I made sure that those payments were opened in recent weeks.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement today, and for the work that he has done. One issue raised by a constituent is that when she applied for the interim payment, she filled out lots of forms and gave information, as she has been doing for many years, because her husband died some time ago, having contracted infection back in the 1970s. She now has to apply again, and the same information will be asked for. There must be a way of expediting the process to make life slightly simpler for people like her. She, too, is in a situation in which, at the age of 88 and having not received all the payments that she is likely to get, she is worried about inheritance tax—not on her own behalf, but on behalf of her children. I am sorry to belabour the point, but may I add my voice to those around the Chamber? Perhaps those voices will help the Minister to have the ammunition to take to the Treasury to say, “We’re not happy with this.”
Nick Thomas-Symonds
With regard to my hon. Friend’s first point, on the interim payments, there is an expedited process if the details are unchanged from the first interim application. If my hon. Friend writes to me with the particular details of her constituent, I am happy to look at that. On her second point, I think the strength of feeling in the House is very clear.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
On previous occasions, I have paid tribute to the Minister for his sincerity and hard work in this matter, and I add to that the collegiate and consensual way that he approaches all of this, particularly in his work with the devolved Administrations, including the Scottish Government. I previously asked for the work of voluntary organisations—third-sector organisations—to be placed on a statutory footing. The Minister will understand that despite the system being fairly straightforward and simple, as has been acknowledged, claimants still need support, particularly those who are unwell. Can the Minister advise whether that work has now been placed on a statutory footing?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, I have worked with the devolved Administrations throughout. We have to take into account that this is a pre-devolution scandal, so it is UK-wide, and a number of Sir Brian’s recommendations from his initial report are UK-wide. They are now within devolved competence, so this is hugely important. I have always been conscious of that, and I work with the devolved Administrations in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.
With regard to the hon. Gentleman’s second point, on the issue of voluntary bodies, a couple of different issues are mixed up on that question. If he writes to me precisely about putting work on a statutory footing, I will give him an answer. More generally, the work of voluntary bodies and charities in supporting victims has been absolutely invaluable, and I am very conscious of the financial pressures they are facing.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
So many lives have been scarred or ended by this betrayal of trust, cover-ups, denials and delays, and my constituents have waited for up to decades for justice. Many are concerned that they will not see it in their lifetime. Can the Minister outline how he will ensure that my constituents and the infected blood community find the consultation accessible, and can he say when the third set of regulations that have been published will become law?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
On my hon. Friend’s second question, and subject to the will of the House, I would really like the third set of regulations to become law by the end of the year. His advocacy for his constituents has never been anything short of impressive, and I am more than happy to look at any specific case that he brings to me.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his commitment to finding solutions, and for his incredibly compassionate demeanour in handling these issues. I think we all thank him for that. The streamlined scheme for compensation opened just three weeks ago; can the Minister confirm that it is indeed now easier for people to access the money that they deserve? I hope that the scheme is not adding more worry and stress to those who live their life under a burden not of their making. Are the Government truly sharing the load with them, and what more can the Minister do to make the process smoother?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
As ever, the hon. Gentleman makes a very useful point, building on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) a moment or two ago. I am very keen to ensure that the consultation is as accessible as possible, and some of Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendations—for example, about how we calculate past and future loss—are quite technical. I always say to both the Department and IBCA that it is really important that we do everything we can to make the system simpler, but we also need ready explainers. The hon. Gentleman can be assured that I will continue to push for them.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his continued compassion and commitment to the cause, and for the communications that we have had about affected constituents in my constituency. As he will recall, their concerns are about bureaucracy and delays. Given what he said in his statement, can he assure me that this Government remain committed to ensuring that all affected and infected individuals will see their compensation as quickly as possible? What assurances can he give me and my constituents about when they will be invited to start their claims?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend; as ever, he makes a powerful case on behalf of his constituents. At the moment, offers have been made that are worth over £1.8 billion, but I remain restless about the speed of progress; I want it to continue to increase. I am very conscious that IBCA will be moving from dealing with those who have been infected to the much larger number of people who have been affected. I appointed Sir Tyrone Urch to look at the lessons that we can learn, and at how IBCA can best scale up to deal with a much larger number of claims. Indeed, over 10,000 claims have been registered. I stand ready to assist and support IBCA as we move forward into a new phase.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement and for his very clear personal commitment on this issue. He will be aware that building and maintaining trust between the affected families and the Government is essential. I am sure he will agree that the Hillsborough law, which comes before the House next week, is one example of how we can continue to repay that trust and demonstrate that we are determined to see recommendations, such as the duty of candour, put in statute. My constituents who are affected by the scandal still continually ask me for reassurance on transparency, so will he consider publishing regular data on claims received, assessed and paid, so that the public can clearly see the progress that is being made—exponential or otherwise?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is entirely correct about transparency. IBCA continues to publish statistics, which are very important. I have today published the technical expert group’s minutes, which are very important, too. My hon. Friend puts his finger on another really important aspect of the response to Sir Brian Langstaff’s report from last year: the duty of candour, which will be hugely important in driving cultural change across public service. I am proud that we will have the Second Reading of the relevant Bill on Monday.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s statement, and the opening of further interim payments last week. The families of infected people in Falkirk have in the past told me that systems could be better streamlined to improve the pace of delivery. I know the pace of delivery will continue to be imperative for families, so what assurances can the Minister provide that the actions set out in his statement, and actions taken following the consultation, will continue to reflect the feedback of infected people and affected families?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is entirely correct. We will have a consultation and introduce a transparency mechanism, but we will also look very seriously at the recommendations that Tyrone Urch has made. We need to ensure that the speed of payments continues to increase, but also, as my hon. Friend says, that feedback from victims is at the heart of the process.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
In one of the first contributions I had the privilege of making in the House, I raised the case of the Blake family. Their son Stuart was infected aged six, and he died at the age of 27, back in 2006. I have been in regular contact with the family, and it was my privilege to show them around this place just a few weeks ago. I am sure the Minister and the House will understand that this has consumed their family for four decades, and they are still seeking reassurance about the urgency with which the Government are bringing forward payments, and about whether they will be made as quickly as possible. I am really encouraged by the statement. The family are eligible for the second interim payment, but I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed his personal commitment to bringing such cases to resolution as soon as possible.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend has previously spoken to me movingly about the experience of the Blake family, and it is exactly families with such experiences who are at the forefront of all our minds across the House as we drive this forward. I can of course give him a personal commitment that I will continue to do all I can to quicken even further the pace of the compensation payments.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for the update, especially on behalf of my constituent Robert, who lost his brother aged 31, and who has been in regular contact with me on this issue. The Government previously announced that they were allocating funding to charities; that was a recommendation of the inquiry. Will the Minister confirm the steps that he has been taking with the Department of Health and Social Care to make sure that money gets to those charities, so they are funded to process applications as quickly as possible?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend raises a really important issue, because charities have played an absolutely vital role in supporting and advocating for the victims of this scandal. Money was already allocated in this financial year. I know that there are concerns going forward. He can be assured that I will work closely with Health and Social Care Ministers on that.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I am very grateful to the Minister for his update. I am pleased to report that one of my constituents, the one whom I have been most in contact with the Minister about, has finally been fully compensated, which is a huge relief to him and his family. I spoke with him this morning, and he is watching now. Although he welcomes the improved service from IBCA, and I find it reassuring that the intention is to begin paying the first claims on behalf of estates of deceased infected people by the end of this year, my constituent asks if there is anything we can do to prioritise those close to the end of their life, so that they can get the justice they deserve in life, bearing in mind the valid inheritance tax concerns raised by Members from across the House.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am pleased to hear that my hon. Friend’s constituent has had his compensation payment. My hon. Friend speaks very powerfully on his constituent’s behalf. On his point about those nearing the end of their life, IBCA has published how it prioritises claims. He and his constituent should be assured that it is exactly those who are at an advanced age, and who are dealing with this matter at this moment in their life for no other reason than the state’s failure to deal with it over past decades, who are at the forefront of my mind as I try to drive progress even faster.
China Spying Case
Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts(6 days, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
I will do my best, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart). First, I want to reinforce, not just as a Minister, but as a parliamentarian, the Government’s deep regret about the collapse of the criminal case concerning the two individuals charged under the Official Secrets Act 1911. Everyone in the Government was hoping that the trial would go ahead and planning on the basis that it would.
As a reminder, following the arrests of Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry in March 2023 as part of a counter-espionage operation, counter-terrorism police requested that the deputy National Security Adviser act as a witness in the case. [Interruption.] Let me go through this, because it is important to the challenges made by the hon. Gentleman. The DNSA made it clear that he would provide evidence on the basis of the Government’s position at the time of the offences, and that is crucial to the judgment that has been made in this case. The first statement was drafted—
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I will make some progress, and then I will give way to the shadow Home Secretary.
The first statement was drafted between August and December 2023. During that time, Counter Terrorism Policing was updated on progress, including the information that the deputy National Security Adviser would not be able to call China an enemy, as that was not the position of the Government at the time of the offences.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Okay, I will let the shadow Home Secretary intervene on that point.
Chris Philp
The Minister has said twice in the last minute that the question was the policy of the last Government. Let me take him to page 4 of the letter from the Director of Public Prosecutions, dated Thursday of last week. In that letter, the DPP said—
Chris Philp
The DPP said the opposite of what the Minister has said. He said that the issue was a question of fact, and not—categorically not—the policy of the last Government.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear! The right hon. Gentleman has just quoted page 4 of the DPP’s letter. Let me quote page 5 to him:
“The information that we required related to the period between 31 December 2021 and 3 February 2023. The position of the current Government was not relevant to the case.”
I suggest that the shadow Home Secretary look at the next page.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
No, it is not misleading. Will the right hon. Gentleman give me a moment? It was the position at the relevant time. What is even worse, however, is that the word “enemy” was not the position at the time. It came out of the statement, and that happened under the previous Government, I am afraid.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I took interventions from the shadow Home Secretary, and I must now make some progress.
Before finalising his statement in December 2023, the deputy National Security Adviser sighted the then National Security Adviser and the then Cabinet Office permanent secretary. On 18 December—this was all under the previous Government—the permanent secretary came back with three comments for the DNSA to consider. The DNSA then finalised the statement, and his private office sent a final version of the draft to the then Prime Minister through the No. 10 private office and No. 10 special advisers. Once the statements were submitted they were not shared, and in April 2024, formal charges were laid. That was the position under the previous Government.
Two supplementary witness statements from the DNSA were submitted in February and August 2025, following requests from Counter Terrorism Policing for further detail on the nature and extent of the threat to the UK from China. For the second statement, CTP specifically asked the DNSA to comment on whether China as a state, during the period from 31 December 2021 to 3 February 2023, posed an active threat; and whether that remained the case. For the third statement, CTP requested that the DNSA provide further points of detail regarding the UK Government’s assessment of the nature and extent of the threat, with examples. The DNSA faithfully and with full integrity—I noted that the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster implied that somehow he was not compliant with part 35 of the civil procedure rules—set out the various threats posed by the Chinese state in line with the UK Government’s position at the material time, in order to try to support a successful prosecution. We then come, obviously, to the meeting on 1 September to which the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster referred, and with which I shall deal in a moment.
I was fascinated by the opening speech of the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in which he talked of the “clarity” of the last Government’s position.
“The government’s approach to China is guided by three pillars: strengthening our national security protections, aligning and cooperating with our partners, and engaging where it is consistent with our interest.”
Who said that? The shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster did in 2023, and here he is now trying to talk about the clarity of the position in 2023.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Not for a moment.
On 1 September, the National Security Adviser convened a routine meeting to discuss the UK’s relationship with China in the context of this case and several other upcoming moments. That is entirely what we would expect the National Security Adviser to do. We have learned that entirely separately, and entirely independent of Government, the CPS was deliberating on not offering evidence in this case. On 3 September, the DPP told the Cabinet Secretary and the DNSA of his intention, subject to confirmation, not to put forward evidence, and unfortunately that decision was confirmed on 9 September. I must say to the Opposition that that is a matter of regret. It is quite rightly an independent decision, but it is a matter of regret. On 15 September 2025, the CPS officially confirmed the decision to discontinue the case against Cash and Berry.
I actually welcome scrutiny of that decision. That is why I welcome the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy’s inquiry into espionage cases and the Official Secrets Act and the Intelligence and Security Committee’s investigations into how classified intelligence was used. Since we last discussed the matter in this House, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, the Attorney General, the Cabinet Secretary, the National Security Adviser and the deputy National Security Adviser have all submitted evidence to the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy.
Yesterday, the Joint Committee heard evidence from the Director of Public Prosecutions and the First Treasury Counsel, and from the Cabinet Secretary and the deputy National Security Adviser at a later session. Tomorrow, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister and the Attorney General will give more evidence. A question has been raised about the National Security Adviser; he will also be giving evidence soon, and certainly before the end of the year.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
The Minister expresses deep regret that this case has not gone to trial. I want to believe him on that, but the case did not go to trial. With the power of hindsight, if he was to go back and do this all again, what would the Minister have done differently to ensure that this case did go to trial?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I will tell the hon. Gentleman exactly what would have made a massive difference: if we could have updated the Official Secrets Act far sooner than 2023. That would have made a material difference. This case was being prosecuted under a 1911 Act. The National Security Act was passed in 2023. If only the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had been in the Cabinet Office to be close to what was going on; perhaps the legislation could have been changed at an earlier stage and we would not be in this position.
Let me be clear with the House: the allegations of political interference in this case are absolutely baseless. The CPS decision to discontinue the case was independent of Government. Indeed, the Opposition should ask what the Director of Public Prosecutions himself said about that; he reiterated it again yesterday when he gave evidence, sitting alongside Tom Little KC.
Sir Julian Lewis
Can the Minister explain to the House, once and for all, how it is possible for a Government to believe that China is responsible for posing a wide range of threats, but is not a threat itself? He would clear matters up, and allay suspicions that the Government are holding back for economic reasons, if he would simply say that China is a threat to our national security. Will he say that?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
China poses a multiplicity of threats; it poses a threat in terms of espionage, in terms of cyber, and in terms of economic security. However, with the greatest respect to the right hon. Gentleman, the issue is whether it was considered a threat at the material time, and I cannot go back and change that.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
I am listening carefully to what the Minister is saying, but can we be informed how MPs today are to be further protected from foreign intelligence services?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is 100% correct, and that is a huge priority for the Government; it is a very serious issue. As I said when I opened this debate, it is not just about the position of the Government; I say as a parliamentarian that we in this place have to be protected from foreign interference.
The shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster asked about the meeting on 1 September. We heard about that yesterday from the Cabinet Secretary and the deputy National Security Adviser, who both attended that meeting: it was a discussion about the bilateral relationship between the UK and China in the context of the case. The Cabinet Secretary made it clear yesterday that the meeting was entirely appropriate; no discussion of evidence took place, and everyone involved was participating on the assumption that the case was going to go ahead.
It was only on 3 September—as was confirmed by him in his evidence to the JCNSS yesterday—that the Director of Public Prosecutions informed the Cabinet Secretary and the DNSA of his intention, subject to confirmation, that the CPS would not be putting forward evidence at trial. The Attorney General was informed on the same day.
It is important that I finish this point, because I have been challenged on the chronology and I am only too delighted to enlighten the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The DPP confirmed to the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy that the position was agreed after a period of internal decision making within the CPS in the run-up to the meeting on 3 September. At that meeting, the DPP made it clear that the facts must not be briefed out further, with the exception of informing the NSA and the permanent secretary at the FCDO. The Cabinet Secretary and the DNSA therefore did not inform anyone else until shortly before the case became public. On 9 September, the CPS confirmed the decision to offer no evidence to the DNSA. That is the chronology.
Let me now directly address what the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said, because I am conscious of the time. There is already an established mechanism for Parliament to address this issue. The Government are fully co-operating with the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy inquiry and the ISC, and will provide evidence and appear before the Committee in the usual way.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
In one moment.
In the motion, the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is seeking a wide range of documents. He was a Cabinet Office Minister himself, and he knows the sensitivity of those documents. He knows the legal professional privilege—
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I will give the hon. Gentleman one more chance before I conclude. I say to him that highly classified material is subject to legal professional privilege and includes advice to the Prime Minister, which successive Governments have not released to the public. Why? Because it is in our interests to protect such material. The hon. Gentleman knows that in his heart of hearts.
Alex Burghart
I have always admired the shine on the Minister’s brass neck, and never so much as at this moment. I remember the Brexit debates, when he and many of the other gentlemen and ladies on the Labour Benches overrode legal privilege and asked for classified documents week after week. Members of this House may have been spied on, and the Government have a duty to be transparent. They cannot hide behind anything, given that they have previously asked for similar documents. Make them available!
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am looking at the hon. Gentleman and remembering the debates we had. Let me tell him the difference between what I was doing then and what is happening now. First, I was applying at the time, via a Humble Address mechanism, for a single document. By the way, his rather shambolic motion, which seems to be a fishing expedition, is totally imprecise. Secondly, that was not security material at this level, which is in our national interest.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Yes, I did.
Let me emphasise that I support parliamentary scrutiny. I support and welcome the ongoing process with the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy. I support the Government’s continuing to engage with the ISC. What we will not do, though, is accede to the hon. Gentleman’s demand. He knows in his heart of hearts that it would be totally inappropriate for the long list of material he has stuck in the motion to be put in the public domain. Asking for open publication is completely different from the appropriate parliamentary scrutiny which, quite rightly, will go on.
Let me conclude by saying this. The Government and I are gravely disappointed that the trial did not proceed. In response to the point that was put to me by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), the DNSA’s evidence articulated clearly the range of threats that China posed to the UK’s national security and, indeed, our economic security at the material time. In the light of the threats that have been identified—I agree with the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—this is a very grave matter. The Government are resolute in our determination to work across all parties and in partnership with the parliamentary security authorities, as was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley), to ensure that espionage and interference by China or any other country is not successful in the UK.
Several hon. Members rose—
Infected Blood Victims: Interim Compensation Payments
Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
On 9 July 2025, the infected blood inquiry published its additional report on compensation. The inquiry made a number of recommendations to the Cabinet Office and to the Infected Blood Compensation Authority to ensure that fair compensation is provided to every person that is eligible without delay.
As of 21 October, IBCA has contacted over 3,614 people to start their compensation claim; 3,371 have started the claim process; 2,476 people have received an offer, totalling over £1.8 billion; and so far 2,033 people have had their compensation paid, with more than £1.35 billion paid in compensation by IBCA. IBCA has now contacted all registered infected people to begin a claim, and the Government expect IBCA to open the service for those who are infected and unregistered, deceased infected and affected this year.
I am pleased that progress is being made, but I acknowledge the calls from the community highlighting the need for faster payment. That is why, on 21 July 2025, I informed the House that the Government would make a further interim payment of £210,000 to the estates of infected persons who were registered with an infected blood support scheme or predecessor scheme on or before 17 April 2024 and who have sadly passed away.
This is in addition to the interim payment of £100,000, which opened for applications in October 2024, meaning an estate could be eligible for up to £310,000 in interim payments. Since applications opened, over 600 estates have received payment, totalling over £60 million.
Today, I can announce that the process under which estates can apply for a further interim compensation payment has now opened. I hope this payment goes some way in recognising the hurt of those who have been impacted by losing their loved ones due to infected blood and blood products.
These payments will be delivered through the existing infected blood support schemes. They will be made to the estates of deceased infected persons As with all compensation payments related to infected blood, it will be exempt from income tax, capital gains tax and inheritance tax, and disregarded from means-tested benefit assessments.
Only the personal representative of the estate is able to make the application. Applicants will need a grant of probate, letters of administration, or—specific to Scotland —a grant of confirmation to evidence entitlement to claim interim compensation on behalf of the estate. To assist the legal process of obtaining this evidence as quickly as possible for those that do not already have it, applicants can claim back their exact legal costs up to £1,500. The application form is available to download online at gov.uk, together with full guidance on how to apply.
For those estates that have already received £100,000, an expedited application form is available. This requires much less information from the applicant than provided previously. Estate representatives can access this directly by contacting the UK infected blood support schemes.
I hope this additional interim payment brings some relief to the families impacted by a scandal that is a shameful mark on our national history. Please rest assured that delivering compensation for every eligible person remains an utmost priority for this Government.
[HCWS984]
Oral Answers to Questions
Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
I will answer on behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven (Chris Ward), who, with your permission, Mr Speaker, is at an event with the Prime Minister in his constituency today. This Government’s new social value model includes fair working skills criteria, so that authorities can reward suppliers providing good-quality jobs, supporting people into work and providing their employees with additional development opportunities. We are consulting on further reforms to public procurement and will update the House in due course.
Andy McDonald
With the Government’s welcome commitment to improving terms, conditions and career progression in adult social care, as demonstrated through the planned fair pay agreement and the care workforce pathway, will the Minister confirm that the Government’s response to the public procurement consultation will deliver a public interest test that accelerates insourcing and requires providers to recognise trades unions, as well as more sustainable careers and long-term employment opportunities?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
As always, my hon. Friend makes a powerful case. The Government want public bodies to examine carefully how best to deliver public services. That is why we are consulting on proposals to introduce a public interest test, allowing for the evaluation of services being more effectively delivered in-house before they are contracted out, covering value for money, service quality and wider social and economic benefit. We will consider the range of responses, including those from trades unions.
Euan Stainbank
I declare an interest as the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for British buses. Alexander Dennis and Wrightbus create 13 jobs for every four directly hired in bus manufacturing, and for decades Alexander Dennis has been an invaluable piece of the Scottish economy. After the business almost left Scotland following the Scottish National party’s disastrous Chinese bus-buying strategy, to its credit it spent nearly £4 million fixing the near fatal error. Will the Minister set out what the Cabinet Office is doing through public procurement so that my constituents’ taxpayer money is maximising Falkirk, Scottish and British-based businesses?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Unlike the SNP Government, evidently, this Labour Government believe that where things are made and who makes them matters. That is why we are consulting on further procurement reforms to boost domestic supply chains and create more opportunities for businesses of all sizes, whether that be in Falkirk or across the United Kingdom.
Kenneth Stevenson (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
Some 2,476 people have now received offers totalling over £1.8 billion. Alongside the work I am doing to prepare further secondary legislation and a public consultation, I am pleased to announce that applications are opening today for further interim payments of £210,000 to the estates of infected people who have sadly passed away. In addition, the Infected Blood Compensation Authority has now asked every living infected person registered with a support scheme to come forward and start their claim, and has also opened a service for people to register their intent to claim.
Liz Jarvis
Many survivors of the infected blood scandal and bereaved families are still waiting far too long for compensation. They include my constituents, the family of Kevin Newman, who was infected with HIV and hepatitis C while a pupil at Treloar’s college and tragically died in 2018. The family received their first payment last December, but have been waiting for another ever since, and now have to fill in yet another form with a time limit. Will the Minister ensure that these payments are speeded up?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Absolutely, and that has been my objective throughout. IBCA took a test and learn approach, and this House quite rightly held me to account at the start of that process when the numbers were lower. Those numbers are rising exponentially at the moment—that is why there are offers totalling over £1.8 billion—but the hon. Lady should be reassured that I am 100% not complacent, and will continue to drive progress.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
I declare that I am a member of the Unite union and refer to my relevant entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests on support in general election campaigns. The Office for National Statistics estimates that 36,000 working days were lost because of labour disputes in the public administration and defence sector, which includes the majority of the civil service, between July 2024 and August 2025. That is down from the 95,000 days lost between May 2023 and June 2024.
Jerome Mayhew
I am grateful for that answer, albeit partial, from the Minister, because he is quite right: he relies on the Office for National Statistics for the compilation of these figures. Now, even its staff have a strike mandate. They are refusing to attend work even for two days a week. What are the Government doing to enforce attendance levels at work? When does he think the ONS will find time to report on it?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Attendance levels are certainly important, but the hon. Gentleman has got some chutzpah, because under the previous Prime Minister—I note he is no longer in his place, although he was earlier in the questions—the UK lost more days due to strike action than France did, and the hon. Gentleman is here trying to lecture us about it. We will work in partnership with trade unions to avoid unnecessary disruption and not end up in the situation that the last Government did.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
My hon. Friend is a powerful advocate for infected blood victims, and he can rest assured that I will continue to drive progress as quickly as I possibly can. That is how we have got to the stage where over £1.8 billion-worth of offers have been made, and I will continue to drive that progress quickly.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
Nick Thomas-Symonds
We are going even further than that, because the Government are looking to negotiate a youth experience scheme with the European Union. It will of course be capped, but it will give significant opportunities not just for young Brits to travel, work and study abroad, but to welcome young Europeans here.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I thank my hon. Friend for again raising this issue. Any scheme would give young Brits, including her young constituents in Aylesbury, the opportunity to travel and experience other countries’ cultures, as well as to work and study abroad. Of course, the exact parameters will be subject to discussion, and negotiations are under way, but we certainly hope to stand up these opportunities for young Brits as soon as possible.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I welcome the Paymaster General’s remarks on the acceleration of the delivery of payments in relation to infected blood. It is very welcome for one of my constituents who has had it. I also welcome his response to the additional report by Sir Brian Langstaff in July. Given that, can he update the House on the lifetime of the public inquiry and any conversations he has had about ending the inquiry, which seems to be going on rather a long time given that the legislation was passed in May last year?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, and I again pay tribute to him for his hugely important work in this area when he was the Paymaster General. On the public inquiry and the recent report, I hope to update the House in due course—subject, of course, to your permission, Mr Speaker—about action on the recommendations. On the public inquiry remaining open, that is of course a matter for the chair, Sir Brian Langstaff.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is a powerful advocate for her constituents, and the common understanding will of course benefit the businesses she mentions. Our deals on emissions, energy trading, food and agricultural trade will all reduce costs for businesses. Astonishingly, the Conservatives and the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) want to reverse that and reimpose those costs on businesses.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
Given that the Cabinet Office advises the Government on establishing public inquiries, will the Minister meet the families of the senior military and intelligence personnel who were killed when an RAF Chinook helicopter crashed on the Mull of Kintyre in 1994? The families have gathered compelling evidence suggesting that the Ministry of Defence was aware that the Mk 2 Chinook in which they were travelling was not airworthy. They are petitioning the Government to establish an independent, judge-led public inquiry. Will the Minister meet the families or at least advise a relevant Cabinet colleague so to do?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who raises a very serious case. If he were able to write to me directly about it, I will certainly look at what would be the most suitable ministerial meeting.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has just come to the Dispatch Box and said that we have done a new trade deal with the European Union, which I think is news to both the Prime Minister and Brussels. The only thing this Government have done so far in terms of EU relations is to sell out our fishing industry for the next 12 years. With that in mind, will the Minister actually stand up for British interests in future negotiations with Brussels?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I stand up for British interests in every negotiation with Brussels. I will tell the hon. Gentleman what is not standing up for British interests. We negotiated, within 10 months of coming into government, the new common understanding that will be good for jobs, bear down on bills and give us the tools to secure our borders. The leader of the Conservative party opposed it before even reading it.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
I have been thinking about the cost of software licensing in the public sector, because North West Anglia NHS foundation trust is trying to move to an electronic patient record and one of the biggest ongoing costs of that is third-party payments for software. Other trusts are in the same position, as are many schools paying for pupil management software. Will the procurement Minister commit to looking into whether we can instead deliver some of that in-house and save significant sums?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Cases of the kind my hon. Friend is talking about are the reason we have been consulting on a public interest test. On the specific case he raises, if he writes to me I will ensure that the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven (Chris Ward) provides him with a response.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
My constituent Phil is in the special category mechanism for the 916 people who were inexplicably excluded from the infected blood compensation scheme in February, even though the Government’s expert group said in August last year that they should be compensated. On 5 June, the Paymaster General said he would consider the compensation arrangements. I may have missed it—forgive me if I have—but I also asked for a list of conditions that might be included within that. Does he have an update for me, please?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am certainly looking at the issue of the special category mechanism, as I undertook to do. If the hon. Lady writes to me I can look at the specific list, but I am also hoping, with Mr Speaker’s permission, to update the House on this and other infected blood issues very shortly.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
Residents in a housing development in my constituency are facing a number of issues after yet another developer has gone bust. Parts of the shared communal land have reverted back to the ownership of the Duchy of Cornwall, rather than to the residents themselves, who have to purchase the land back and cover the duchy’s legal costs. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, quite rightly, has Cabinet oversight, but who does the Duchy of Cornwall answer to and what recourse do my constituents now have in this case?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
On the infected blood compensation scheme in Northern Ireland, as of 21 February, 149 people had started the process, with 38 offers made totalling some £48 million. What assessment has been made of the time taken from when an application is made to when a payment actually arrives through the door?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The Infected Blood Compensation Authority is operationally independent, but I am accountable to this House. It is important that I have regular conversations and provide challenge on the kind of timescales the hon. Gentleman is talking about. The infected blood scandal predates modern-day devolution and he can rest assured that all four corners of the United Kingdom are at the forefront of my mind in respect of the speed of delivery.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
The Minister was earlier asked about the ever-growing size of the civil service and the Cabinet Office under this Government and whether we would see those numbers coming down, not going up, next year. Instead of answering the question about the future, they talked about the past. Let me ask the question again, but from a different angle: when are this Government going to take ownership of the fact that they are in government now, and these are their problems that they need to resolve?
Public Service: Ethics and Integrity
Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts(3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
On 21 July 2025 the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster laid out the Government’s plans to put ethics and integrity at the heart of the Government’s approach to public service. Today, we are delivering on those plans.
Ethics and Integrity Commission
The Ethics and Integrity Commission has been launched today. The Prime Minister has written to the EIC’s independent chair, Doug Chalmers CB DSO OBE, to issue the commission’s terms of reference. A copy of the terms of reference have also been deposited in the Library of the House.
The commission will play a leading role in supporting public bodies as they implement the planned forthcoming obligation in the Public Office (Accountability) Bill for all public bodies to have a code of ethical conduct. The Prime Minister has commissioned the EIC to report on how public bodies can develop, distribute and enforce codes so that they effect meaningful cultural change, ensuring public officials act with honesty, integrity and candour at all times. On the publication of its report, and on the Hillsborough law receiving Royal Assent, the EIC will act as a centre of excellence on public sector codes of conduct, providing guidance and best practice to help all public bodies put ethics and integrity at the heart of public service delivery.
As previously announced, the commission will have a responsibility to engage and inform the wider public on the values, rules and oversight mechanisms that govern standards in public life, and to convene the leaders of ethics and standards bodies in central Government and Parliament to identify and address areas of common concern. The commission will also report annually to the Prime Minister on the overall health of our standards system. The commission will not have the ability to launch investigations or field complaints.
The Government are launching today a recruitment campaign for three new independent members to join the commission, to ensure a strong independent majority. The commission otherwise takes on the existing members and governance structure of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. The commission also inherits CSPL’s mandate to be the custodians of the seven principles of public life, and to report to Government on how arrangements to uphold standards in public life can be strengthened in specific areas.
An updated ministerial code and terms of reference for the Independent Adviser
The Prime Minister has today reissued the ministerial code to implement reforms in relation to ministerial severance payments and changes to the operation of the business appointment rules.
The ministerial code makes it clear that Ministers will be expected to forgo their severance if they leave office having served less than six months, or if they leave office following a serious breach of the ministerial code. Similarly, the new code states that if a former Minister is reappointed to a ministerial office within three months of leaving, they will be expected to waive their salary for the period that overlaps with their severance payment.
The updated code and terms of reference for the independent adviser on ministerial standards also reflect changes to the operation of the business appointment rules for former Ministers. From today, advice under the rules will be provided by the independent adviser, and the Prime Minister may ask former Ministers to repay their severance payment if they are found to have seriously breached the business appointment rules.
One further change to the ministerial code is that the Cabinet Office will advise the Prime Minister before any decision to establish a public inquiry is taken, and before the terms of reference are agreed. This is to ensure decisions are well judged and proportionate, and that inquiries focus on finding the right answers and help effect change.
The closure of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments
The Advisory Committee on Business Appointments has now closed. From today, its function to provide independent advice on the application of the business appointment rules in respect of the most senior civil servants and special advisers is transferred to the Civil Service Commission. Similarly, ACOBA’s function to provide independent advice in respect of former Ministers is from today transferred to the Prime Minister’s independent adviser on ministerial standards, Sir Laurie Magnus, who already provides independent advice to the Prime Minister on adherence to the ministerial code, and to individual Ministers on the appropriate management of their private interests while in office.
This structural change is accompanied by wider reforms to strengthen and streamline the system and enhance compliance. As set out above, in the event of a serious breach of the business appointment rules, Ministers will now be expected to repay any severance payment they have received. To improve the consistency of the application of the rules in Departments, the Civil Service Commission, which already audits Departments for compliance with the civil service recruitment principles, will undertake regular audits of departmental decisions on business appointment applications for grades below the level currently administered by ACOBA. This enhanced sanction and oversight will be underpinned by a more efficient and responsive system, focused on ensuring applicants understand their obligations under the rules. New guidance on the system has been published on www.gov.uk today to reflect these changes.
[HCWS939]
Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Technical Expert Group
Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
On 21 July, I updated the House that the Government would be bringing forward further regulations to respond to the recommendations of the Infected Blood Inquiry’s additional report. I also informed the House that to make the proposed changes to the infected blood compensation scheme would require further technical clinical and legal advice. I can now confirm that this advice will be provided by a new Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Technical Expert Group.
The technical expert group will assist the Government in developing proposals, in response to the inquiry’s additional report, for public consultation. Following that consultation, the Government will be in a position to finalise any changes to the infected blood compensation scheme, informed by the consultation findings and the technical expert group’s advice.
I have published the terms of reference for the technical expert group, including full membership, as well as its work programme. To ensure the necessary changes to the compensation scheme can be implemented with the minimum possible delay to the Infected Blood Compensation Authority’s ongoing delivery of compensation, I am appointing all members of the previous expert group to the new group. In addition, I am pleased to have personally appointed five further experts to broaden the group’s expertise and ensure any changes to the scheme are thoroughly assessed and validated. The new additional members to the technical expert group are as follows:
Dr Lise Estcourt, Transfusion Medicine specialist
Dr Susie Shapiro, Haematology Specialist
Dr Chloe Beale, Psychological medicine—psychiatrist
Professor Deborah Christie, Psychological medicine—psychologist
Professor John Weinman, Psychological medicine—psychologist
The appointments I have made reflect feedback from infected blood community stakeholders and I thank the community representatives for their valuable input into this process.
While the previous expert group, appointed by my predecessor, provided advice which enabled the Government to take critical decisions on the design of the infected blood compensation scheme, I acknowledge the inquiry’s and community’s criticisms about the transparency of its work.
After reflecting on the inquiry’s report, I gave the House an undertaking that transparency will be at the heart of any expert group going forward. Today I published an open letter to Professor Sir Jonathan Montgomery, who I have asked to chair the new technical expert group, setting out my expectations on how it will operate. This includes an expectation that the group will undertake targeted engagement with the infected blood community on issues raised in the inquiry’s additional report, to inform its work and help it answer the questions set out in its work programme.
[HCWS922]
Windsor Framework: Internal Market Guarantee
Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, I think for the first time, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) on securing this debate, and I thank the other Members for their interventions. He has also asked me questions in the main Chamber a number of times, and he always makes his case powerfully. He and I share a background in law—we were barristers before becoming Members of Parliament—so I recognise how he structures his argument effectively.
I begin with the things on which we agree, and I will leave it to the hon. and learned Gentleman to judge at the end of the debate whether my language is “dressing up”. We agree on the importance of protecting Northern Ireland’s integral place in the UK’s internal market, and I repeat my commitment to that endeavour today. That is every bit as sincere as the commitment I made to stakeholders across Northern Ireland when I visited. I have great affection for Northern Ireland. When I came into this job, an early priority of mine was to visit Belfast to speak to politicians, visit the Assembly and speak to businesses and people across Northern Ireland.
Yes, of course I speak today as a Minister in the Government, but it is also my great privilege to serve as Member of Parliament for Torfaen. Serving as a Welsh Member of Parliament only adds to my conviction that our nations of this United Kingdom stand to achieve far more economically, socially and culturally by working together than we would ever achieve alone.
I say directly to the hon. and learned Member, and indeed to all those who have intervened today, that this Government’s commitment to the UK internal market is not a vague concept or an aspiration; it is real.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I thank the right hon. Member for giving way and for his engagement on this issue. I wrote to him at the beginning of the year, asking him to come to hear directly from businesses in Upper Bann. The offer was declined, but he kindly sent officials along.
The impact was laid bare at the meeting with those officials last week by used agricultural machinery folks, by small retailers who are impacted by the parcels border, and by agrifood businesses. Each business around the table noted the diversion of trade. Today, we are alerting the Minister to the diversion of trade. What is he doing about it? There is anecdotal evidence from each of those businesses, but there is also evidence from the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency that the proportion of GB manufacturing selling to Northern Ireland has reduced from 20.1% to 12.9%. We need action, and we need it now.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I will certainly be visiting Northern Ireland again. However, on the diversion of trade, that is precisely what the independent monitoring panel is currently looking at. The panel is looking at it for the earlier part of this year, and I expect it to report shortly. Of course, when the panel makes recommendations, where there are issues, the Government will consider them very carefully.
The Government’s commitment to the UK internal market is in our manifesto. It is set out in law, in section 46 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, which, to respond to the point made by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim, also explicitly provides that Northern Ireland is part of the UK’s customs territory. As I say, this issue is not just about the guarantee, important though that is; it is also important that the independent monitoring panel does its work.
I also have to say that the position of Northern Ireland has always been at the forefront of my mind when I have negotiated with the European Union. The hon. and learned Member talks about checks on the Irish sea. Of course, it is the case that this Government will implement the Windsor framework in good faith. Indeed, I give credit to the previous Government for negotiating the Windsor framework. We supported it in opposition, and we have implemented it.
Of course, the purpose of what I have been doing is, far from increasing checks on the Irish sea, to reduce them. That is what a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement will do, once we are able to implement it. In a speech I made in recent weeks, I said that I want to see the SPS agreement in place by early 2027. That will have the effect of reducing precisely the kind of checks that the hon. and learned Member has been referring to.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I have only about seven minutes left. I will give way to both Members, but I will have to do so quickly.
Mr Campbell
I thank the Minister for giving way. Things have improved only marginally, and not at sufficient speed. I suppose that those of us who live in the real world will say that things would have been much worse if Stormont had not been back up and running. However, I will give an example of the issues.
A constituent who visited me just this week said that they had ordered a product from the Natural History Museum, here in the centre of London, but they got this reply:
“Unfortunately, we are currently unable to ship to any EU countries.”
That is a reply from the Natural History Museum in London to a resident of Northern Ireland who was trying to order a product. Is that not an example of how much distance we have yet to travel?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I would certainly be interested in learning more about that specific case. If the hon. Gentleman wants to write to me about it, I will happily look into it.
Sammy Wilson
I thank the Minister for giving way. Having issued that invitation to my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), Members in this Chamber will probably raise a whole lot more cases.
The Minister has indicated that, as a result of the SPS agreement and so on, checks will be reduced even further. Could he explain why a £140 million border post is being erected in my constituency, with work being frantically carried out to make sure it is operational by October this year? If fewer checks will be needed, why are we spending all this money on building state-of-the-art border posts?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Quite simply it is because, to secure further agreements, the United Kingdom has to show good faith with the agreements it has already signed. The Windsor framework had cross-party support. We voted for it in opposition, so we have to show good faith in implementing it. However, there will come a point when we can reduce the checks—and it is not a point in the distant future, as we will be implementing the SPS agreement by 2027. At that stage, I will be more than happy to visit the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency to see the reduction of checks.
The internal market guarantee mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim is hugely important to the Government. Alongside independent scrutiny, it is there to deal with precisely the concern about trade flows. He talks about “Safeguarding the Union”, which is on my desk as I am looking at this issue.
An exercise has been carried out to see whether the guarantee was being met in the first scrutiny period during the first part of the year—from January to June 2025. As I have indicated, that will report shortly. If the report recommends further action that the Government need to take, we will look at that.
More generally, and the hon. and learned Gentleman referred to this, I have a role not only to supervise the Windsor framework in the Cabinet Office, but to negotiate with the EU. In that endeavour, which I have led and will continue to lead in the months ahead, I have always had Northern Ireland at the forefront of my mind.
There have been a lot of references to businesses, as well as to a number of businesses benefiting from dual market access, such as PRM group, which is investing £15 million in new premises and jobs distributing chilled and frozen foods. The chief executive of Denroy, a manufacturer, said it really has
“the best of both worlds.”
Manufacturing supplier Crushing Screening Parts has described dual market access as giving it
“a huge potential customer basis”
and enabling it to
“fulfil orders quicker than competitors.”
Food supplier Deli-Lites Ireland has described Northern Ireland’s trading arrangement as “very positive” for its businesses, and as having enhanced its competitiveness.
Jim Allister
The spin was that dual market access would make Northern Ireland the Singapore of the west, but the fact is that Invest Northern Ireland has had to say that there has not been a single inward investment because of dual market access. The reason for that is very simple: it is all very well to have access to the EU, but there is no advantage whatsoever if access to raw materials from GB is fettered. Inward investment is not happening because they do not want to have to bring their goods through an international border.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The four businesses I have just quoted evidently do not agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman. He and I both want to see an economically successful and prosperous Northern Ireland, and I have no doubt that dual market access will provide that.
I am conscious of the time, but I repeat not just this Government’s commitment, but my personal commitment to the UK internal market. As I negotiate with the European Union, Northern Ireland will be at the forefront of my mind.
Question put and agreed to.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill
Nick Thomas-Symonds ExcerptsThursday 4th September 2025
(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill 2024-26 View all House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 4 September 2025 - (4 Sep 2025)
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
With this it will be convenient to discuss:
Lords amendment 2, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 3, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 8, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendments 4 to 7 and 9.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
This House sent the second Chamber a Bill that had a simple and direct objective outlined in this Government’s manifesto, but I have to report to the House that something very strange has happened since then. People said that the Conservatives were in some sort of hibernation since the general election, but it would appear they have found an issue that has awakened them from their slumber. On the order of their Whips, some hundreds of Conservative politicians, finally mustering the strength to make their mark in Parliament and ready to take action for what the 2025 Conservative party believes in, have found their crusade. What is it? Keeping hereditary Lords in the jobs they accessed by accident of birth. I have to say that it is a tale as old as time—the Tories blocking progress. Who knew it?
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
This is an opportune moment for me to mention my summer reading list and the first Labour Government in 1924. Even at that time, there was talk about reform of the House of Lords, so this is very much a tale as old as time itself. In fact, looking back in historical Hansard, it goes much further back than 1924, so is it not good that this Labour Government are finally getting on with dealing with it?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Whether we go back to 1924 or even further back—and I will during my speech—we find Conservatives in this House protecting their friends born into positions of power. This Bill will finally remove such an archaic right. Just as the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) —he is overseas at the moment, I understand—wants to send people, certainly in Wales, back down the coalmines, the Leader of the Opposition is stuck in the politics of the past.
Before I turn to the amendments sent back from the other place, I want to draw attention to comments made by the noble Lord Strathclyde. He said of this Bill that
“inevitably, there will be repercussions. They”—
the Government—
“are storing up huge problems for themselves.”
The Conservatives have not only complained that the Government are removing hereditary peers while offering “nothing in return”; more sinisterly, they have threatened to use delaying tactics on this Government’s agenda. We only have to look at their behaviour in debates in the upper House, to see that they have been trying to hold the Government hostage on the Football Governance Bill, the Employment Rights Bill and the Renters’ Rights Bill—all to protect the hereditary principle. We know that the Conservative party is in no fit state to take action on very much, but where is their energy being directed at present? It is being directed at the self-preservation of hereditary peers in the House of Lords. That is unacceptable and, frankly, it deserves to be highlighted.
As I say, the Bill has returned to the House amended by the other place. Most of the amendments serve to undermine the core purpose of the Bill, or go well beyond the Bill’s intended remit. Lords amendment 1 has to be read with its consequential amendment—Lords amendment 8. It seeks to end the system of hereditary peer by-elections while retaining the current cohort of hereditary peers. The Government cannot endorse those amendments, which fundamentally undermine the core purpose of the Bill. The Government have a manifesto commitment to bring about an immediate reform by removing the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. Lords amendment 1 would allow existing hereditary peers, the youngest of whom is 39, to remain in the other place for decades to come. That therefore blocks an immediate reform.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
The Minister will be aware that the reason hereditaries still sit in the House of Lords was the deal done in 1999. The promise made by the then Labour Government was that hereditaries would remain until the House of Lords was properly reformed. The Minister is aware that he is removing the hereditaries but giving no assurance about when full reform of the House of Lords will take place. What assurance can he give this Chamber about when the Government will make proper proposals to reform the upper Chamber?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
As the Leader of the House of Lords has set out in the other place, immediately this Bill is on the statute book a Select Committee will be created to look at those issues of retirement and participation. The hon. Gentleman is talking about politics as they stood in 1999. This Government were elected on a manifesto that delivered 411 MPs in 2024, and this Government are following that manifesto.
Across both this House and the other place, there has been broad consensus that the hereditary route to the House of Lords should end. I also make it clear, as Ministers have from this Dispatch Box and Labour peers have in the other place, that this is not a judgment on individuals. It is not a judgment on the work and contribution of individual hereditary peers; it is a judgment on the principle. Let me also say that there is no barrier to any hereditary peers—in the case of the Conservative party, through a party list—being nominated as life peers, should the Leader of the Opposition, for example, wish to do that.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
The hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) mentioned the very long period of time that his party has been anxious for and agitating about reform of the House of Lords. Is the creation of a future Select Committee really the sum of all that anger and agitation? As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) has said, we could have seen a full picture of a modernised, reformed and accountable House of Lords that works to deliver bicameral scrutiny, but we do not have that. The Minister is asking us to vest hope in the creation of a Select Committee, with no timeframe attached to when it would report and no promise of future legislation. Surely, he must be as disappointed and unhappy with that situation as I am.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
It is great to see that the hon. Gentleman is disappointed that House of Lords reform is not going far enough. If he wants to talk about the 20th century and the length of time that his party was in power, I would say that it had every opportunity to bring about full reform of the House of Lords. Not only did the Conservatives bring about minimal reform, at best, but they blocked every attempt at major reform. It is difficult, therefore, to take their 2025 position seriously.
The point about the Select Committee is that we have had on the one hand accusations that the Government are acting in a party political way and, on the other, requests for the Government to do things cross-party. That is precisely what the Select Committee will do: it will give the opportunity to consider issues such as retirement age and participation. The debate in the upper House covered those matters across different parties. The Select Committee will be established within three months of Royal Assent. The hon. Gentleman asked about deadlines, and I can tell him that the Committee will issue its findings by next summer.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I, for one, am perplexed. We have heard Opposition Members say that they want us to go faster and further in reforming the House of Lords, and we have heard them chuntering about the divine right of whoever and whatever in that place. Does the Minister agree that the Opposition seem to be rather confused about this, which perhaps stands as testament to the ability of the Leader of the Opposition to lead her party?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The word “confused” sums up the Opposition, whether on this Bill or any other.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I do not purport to speak on behalf of my party, but rather as an individual who has long had an interest in the positive role that the Lords play in revising legislation, which any elected and strongly whipped House would not be able to do. The Minister partly anticipated the point I want to make, when he mentioned the ability to appoint some of what would otherwise be outgoing hereditary peers to life peerages. That may be a way forward for people of good will to pursue, but given the quite high number of people who find themselves in quite responsible positions in the Lords, what sort of numbers does he have in mind to allow the parties that will lose a large number of hereditary peers to appoint as life peers?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The right hon. Gentleman always makes an individual contribution, to his great credit, not only in this debate but in others. I will not be drawn on numbers, which are always a matter for the Prime Minister and the usual channels. As in every Parliament, the Leader of the Opposition of whatever party will have the opportunity to nominate. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will make a persuasive case to her about some Members of the upper House.
Sir Julian Lewis
I do not expect the Minister to be specific about numbers, but can he at least tell the House whether he accepts the principle that a considerably larger one-off tranche would be needed to cater for this unique situation?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
There will be the usual periods in this Parliament when there will be an opportunity, and I repeat that there is no barrier to someone who serves as a hereditary peer being appointed as a life peer.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
Opposition Members seem to want lots of reassurances for the people who feel they are born to rule. Can the Minister tell me what reassurances the Government can give my constituents and young people in Kinson and West Howe that they will have equal right to be part of this legislative body?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She speaks powerfully about her constituents, and I want my constituents in Blaenavon, Pontypool and Cwmbran to be able to aspire to be Members of Parliament, including in the upper House, and that places are not reserved for people through accident of birth—[Interruption.] The shadow Minister chunters from a sedentary position. If he is in favour of the hereditary position, let him tell us, instead of hiding behind the smokescreen of pretending he is in favour of full reform. Let us hear him say from the Dispatch Box that he believes in the hereditary principle, if he does.
We have said from the outset that we wanted this Bill on the statute book before turning to the next phase of reform. Delaying this legislation means delaying the establishment of the Select Committee and delaying further reforms. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) mentioned, the reality is that since we last reformed the Lords, the outside world has changed. Our Parliament should always be a place where talents are recognised and merit counts. It should never be a gallery of old boys’ networks, nor a place where titles, many of which were handed out centuries ago, hold veto power over the will of the people.
Chris Vince
Does the Minister recognise the irony that, given these issues were discussed in 1924, we are probably now discussing the hereditary peers who are the grandchildren of the hereditary peers they were talking about getting rid of 100 years ago?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is right. One would think that the 1924 debate about bloodlines and pedigree as a basis for participation would no longer have any advocates, but it appears that a number of such advocates are left, a century later.
From the Parliament Act 1911 to the House of Lords Act 1999, the history of Lords reform is littered with examples of individual Members straining every sinew and making every different argument to try to resist reform. In 1911, Lord Curzon coined the term “the ditchers”—the Unionist peers who were to fight into the last ditch over the then Parliament Bill and whose efforts have acted as an effective block on further change. Today’s ditchers all sit on the Opposition Benches—
Paul Holmes
I guarantee to the Minister that, as a council estate boy from Lewisham, I am not someone who ever thought that my bloodline would get into the House of Lords—[Interruption.] One day!
I want to challenge the Minister about the points he has made about future reform. His party has a majority of 170, and we know that it won the general election. Why is he claiming that we are trying to block reform, which is completely untrue, while the Government are so lacking in ambition and do not have the courage or political will to bring a full package of reform to the House, which the Opposition might well support? What we are asking is why he is tinkering at the edges and then attacking us for not being in favour of reform, when he has refused to bring reform in the first place.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
In respect of the hon. Gentleman’s bloodline getting to the House of Lords, I am sure it is only a matter of time before we see that.
In terms of the antics of the Opposition, I do not know whether the Conservative parliamentary party in the Commons speaks to peers, but it should talk to them about their behaviour on the Bill and other Bills that they have blocked and blocked and blocked. I understand that the Leader of the Opposition is apparently spending time to come up with credible policies—no one will believe that the Conservative party is in favour of wholesale reform of the House of Lords.
It has been more than 25 years since Parliament agreed to end the hereditary route, with a supposedly temporary arrangement to retain 92 hereditary peers. It is almost 200 years since the Great Reform Act 1832, which took away the hold of the great aristocratic families, opening up the franchise and taking their presence in electoral politics from monopoly to anomaly. Nonetheless, the hereditary principle remains in our Parliament: sometimes as symbol of tradition, sometimes as obstacle to real reform—as Conservative peers have recently demonstrated.
There is a real opportunity today for the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. He has protested several times about newly found passion for wholesale Lords reform—
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am glad to hear that—there is the real voice of the Conservative party.
We have also therefore heard a lot of protestations that there is no attempt from the Conservative party to block this—we will see in the voting Lobby in due course whether the Conservatives actually seek to block further progress again. We talk about history and nostalgia, but this has in a real sense been used in the upper House to block Bills with a democratic mandate since last year.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
For the completeness of history, it is 115 years since the Labour party promised to abolish the House of Lords, and I think we will be waiting another 100 before it even gets close to that. The Minister is absolutely right that the public cannot stand the hereditaries—it is something they are bitterly opposed to—but they are also opposed to prime ministerial patronage. It is almost as unpopular as the House of Lords. Now, 57 new peers have gone into the House of Lords since Labour came to power, and The Guardian has reported that dozens more are set to follow. Are we just going to be replacing the old nobility with new Labour nobility?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Absolutely not, because the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is a Member of Parliament who enjoys the confidence of this House. That is entirely different from the situation of having places in the House of Lords on the basis of an accident of birth.
I should say, though, because I do not want to just criticise the Conservative party today, that I do appreciate that should the hereditary Lords finally be given leave, the title of “the most ancient and outdated relic” will then be awarded to the modern-day Conservative party, so I guess self-preservation is the Conservatives’ real motive. The hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) spoke about our majority—we will not allow the Conservative party to block this change.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
If the hereditary principle is so wrong, where does that leave the principle of an hereditary monarchy, which has infinitely more influence than any hereditary peer?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
We have a modern constitutional monarchy that enjoys very wide popular support. It is a completely different matter. I do not think a monarch has blocked an Act of Parliament since Queen Anne in 1714, so I would say that the monarchy plays a very different role in our constitution from that of the hereditary peers in the House of Lords.
The Government are determined to deliver this reform to rectify this historic wrong and move us closer to a fairer, more equitable Parliament. I therefore urge the House to reject Lords amendments 1 and 8.
I do need to deal with other amendments now. Lords amendment 2 would prohibit future unpaid Ministers from being eligible for membership of the House of Lords. I understand the strength of feeling expressed in the debate on this amendment in the other place, and I should make it clear that I am proud of the work of all Ministers across Government—I know that ministerial colleagues in the other place work incredibly hard. In this House, both Ministers and shadow Ministers are able to focus on our departmental portfolio—with the honourable exception of the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who, as far as I can make out, seems to be about a third of the shadow Cabinet with his various roles. In fairness, he carries out his public duties, as ever, with great dedication. In fact, the situation that the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster finds himself in is quite regular in the House of Lords, where Front Benchers cover a number of different portfolios, which they do with skill and dedication.
However, I have to say that although I understand the motive behind this amendment, it would do little to address the problem it seeks to resolve. It would not result in all current Lords Ministers receiving a salary, and would instead mean that the number of Lords Ministers would in future be reduced. Ministerial salaries are determined by the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975, which sets a maximum of 109 ministerial posts across both Houses, and the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, which limits the number of Ministers in the House of Commons—paid or unpaid—to 95. The reality is that any meaningful change to the number of Ministers or ministerial salaries would have to amend that legislation.
It is for the Prime Minister of the day to advise the sovereign on the appointment, dismissal and acceptance of resignation of other Ministers in line with those legislative limits. The amendment would therefore have the effect of placing a further restriction on that prerogative power and reducing the ability of the Prime Minister to choose the best people to serve in their Government. The Bill should clearly not be used as a vehicle to address changes to those Acts, and I therefore urge the House to reject Lords amendment 2.
Lords amendment 3 would create a new form of statutory life peerage and seeks to create a two-tier peerage system that distinguishes between the honour of a peerage and membership of the House of Lords. Under this system, individuals could receive the title of a peerage but not be entitled to sit and vote in the House of Lords.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
I wonder whether the Minister could help me out, because I feel that I might be having a dream about some strange alternative reality where the hill that the modern Conservative party is prepared to die on is giving unelected peers who are no longer peers the name and title Lord, as if that is the most important issue of the day in 2025. Can he help me—is that actually what is happening? Am I awake or not at this point?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I can help the hon. Gentleman out on one issue: I can reassure him that he is most definitely awake; this is most definitely reality. Where I am afraid I will fail is in explaining the priorities on the Conservative Benches. The hon. Gentleman is quite right to draw attention to that.
Paul Holmes
I thank the Minister genuinely for giving way again; he is courteous and gentlemanly in doing so. I promise that this will be my last intervention. Could I just ask him about the difference between the problems he is discussing and what the Bill will enact, where a hereditary peer is not given membership of the House of Lords, but is still given the title and privilege of being a peer of the realm?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Quite simply, the amendment is trying to create the title as an honour without the actual membership. That is the difference. I had an exchange earlier about there being no barriers to life peerage; that is not saying no barrier to the title. The life peerage, if granted, obviously confers both the title and the participation. That is the difference between the two.
On the point about the amendment being unnecessary, as my noble Friend Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent stated in the other place—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Family connections exist on the Government Benches, as well. The UK already has an extensive and long-standing honours system, which recognises and promotes the outstanding contributions made by individuals the length and breadth of the country and from all sections of society.
As has been said, being appointed as a peer is an honour, but it also brings the responsibility to contribute to the work of the second Chamber. The Government have a manifesto commitment to introduce a participation requirement to ensure that all peers contribute to the work of the other place—an approach that has received widespread support from peers. I certainly do not think that creating another layer to that system to provide for the statutory creation of non-sitting peers is in keeping with the mood of either House. I therefore urge the House to reject Lords amendment 3.
I turn finally to an issue on which I hope there will be cross-party consensus, which is resignation by power of attorney. Lords amendments 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 would allow the House of Lords to set out arrangements for resignation from the other place where a peer lacks capacity, including when someone is acting under a lasting power of attorney. During the passage of the Bill in the other place, it became clear that there was considerable support to address in legislation the long-standing concern that Members who lack capacity were unable to resign from the House of Lords, and the Government have listened and acted. Following discussions with peers across the House of Lords, the Leader of the House of Lords brought forward these amendments to address the matter. What they make clear is that a notice to resign from the other place may be given and signed by a person acting on behalf of a peer who lacks capacity, providing that it is done in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House.
The amendments relating to resignation would come into force on Royal Assent to ensure that families who wish to avail themselves of these new arrangements do not have to wait until the end of a parliamentary Session to do so. It seeks to provide certainty to peers who have raised this issue. It is a solution that has received unanimous cross-party support in the other place, and I hope that the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will confirm the support for that amendment.
This a short and focused Bill. It delivers on a manifesto commitment to immediately remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. It is not personal, and nor is it a comment on the contribution that hereditary peers have made. The Government are grateful for their service in the other place, and I stress again that there are no bars on them returning as life peers if their party leaders wish to nominate them. However, the time has now come to deliver this immediate reform, so that we can move on to further reform of the other place, as set out in our manifesto, and deliver on what was promised in July last year. I therefore urge the House to support the Government’s position.
Alex Burghart
I am interested in my hon. Friend’s excellent point, and I hope the Minister will respond to that in his closing remarks.
What we will see is the removal of a group of public servants to make way for Labour placemen and Labour stooges—a huge act of patronage. I do not think anybody here believes that will improve scrutiny. It is just a numbers game. It is simply an attempt to give the Government a more compliant majority in the House of Lords, which they do not need. The Government will be able to get their business through the House of Lords anyway, so this is an unnecessary change that, despite the comments of the Paymaster General, belittles the contribution of the peers who already sit. It belittles their service, and it does not need to be done.
I turn to Lords amendment 2, on pay. I was interested by the Paymaster General’s response and listened closely to the detail he set out. There is an important principle here. We ask people to serve as Ministers of the Crown, and I think most of our constituents would agree that those Ministers should be paid. Members of the House of Lords are on no salary. They can collect their £361 a day if they turn up, but let us assume that one such Member is an unpaid Minister in the Home Office. They will find that on many working days they will be expected to travel—perhaps to Northern Ireland, Scotland or the north of England—and they will not be able to collect their allowance. On top of that, for taking on that important, unpaid job, they will also, for understandable reasons, have to give up their outside interests.
That means simply that many people in the House of Lords can afford to take ministerial jobs only if they are already of considerable means. I just do not think that the Paymaster General, in his heart of hearts, wants to see the perpetuation of that. If he does not agree with the Lords amendment, will he confirm whether the Government intend to bring forward comprehensive plans on that?
I will correct the Paymaster General on one small point of fact. He said that if Ministers in the House of Lords were paid, we would need to reduce the number of Ministers in the House of Lords as only a certain number of Ministers can be paid.
Alex Burghart
I will let the Paymaster General intervene if he wants to provide clarity on that technical point.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
It is a consequence of the interaction between the existing statute and this statute. I was not arguing for that; I was saying that that would be the effect of the Lords amendment.
Alex Burghart
With the amendment, what the Government could do is reduce the number of paid Ministers in the Commons and have more paid Ministers in the Lords. That would be possible under the Lords amendment.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
With the leave of the House, I will close the debate, and it is a privilege to close this wide-ranging and well-natured debate. The shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), has been treated somewhat unfairly in the course of the debate. The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) accused him of a lack of energy, but he was completely wrong. The contribution from the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster may have been ill-judged, but it was certainly energetic; we can give him that. His contribution was, in some ways, brave—some would even say it had a chutzpah about it—when he accused me of trashing precedent while simultaneously trashing precedent himself.
Alex Burghart
We are under no obligation to support Government legislation in the Commons.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Let me just repeat that point to the hon. Gentleman, because it is important. He claims to respect precedent and the rights of Parliament, but the position he takes in supporting Lords amendment 1 runs a coach and horses through that.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Fine, let me put it this way: the hon. Gentleman is supporting the position that his peers are taking, which is in breach of that convention.
I will give the hon. Gentleman another chance, because he is trying to put a defence up on that particular precedent. He supported the closing down of Parliament in 2019, and now he sits here lecturing me on precedent. I think it is best not to take any lectures from the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on that.
There was an opportunity for the Opposition this afternoon. They did not have to join in with the filibustering tactics that have been used, with tens of hours of debate on this very narrow Bill. The shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster could today have not joined in, but he will lead his troops through the Lobby to continue to try to block these reforms. That is what this is all about. It is not, as he pretended, about trying to improve the Bill. It is not that those on the Tory Front Bench are secretly in favour of radical reform, and this is not radical enough for them. They are trying to wreck this Bill, and that is exactly what he will do as he goes through the Lobby with his troops later.
Paul Holmes
The Minister may remember that at the beginning of the debate, I asked him to bear in mind the circumstances of some of the people who have given their life to this place over the last 25 or 30 years and are not in the best financial health. We are not in “Downton Abbey”—the film had its premiere last night. If he makes the decision to get rid of hereditary peers immediately, what support will be put in place by the House authorities, which I know he would want to work with, and the Government to ensure that those people are looked after? May I push him to consider the more practical proposal of waiting until the end of the Session, rather than immediately getting rid of the hereditary peers?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
It is not my decision; it was the decision of the British people at the last general election in supporting our manifesto. If the Bill gets on to the statute book, hereditary peers will leave at the end of this parliamentary Session. I repeat the point we have heard throughout the debate: there is no barrier to them becoming life peers. Indeed, there is no barrier to them standing to become Members of this House if they wish to continue their public service.
Sir Oliver Dowden
I thank the Minister for his generosity. He frequently cites the Labour party manifesto, which did include this provision in relation to the abolition of hereditary peers. However, it also included a provision in relation to a mandatory retirement age. Why has he chosen to bring forward the abolition of hereditary peers but not wait until he has resolved the position in relation to the retirement age? Surely there is only one reason for that, which is that it benefits the Labour party politically to remove Conservative hereditary peers immediately, and it is of less political benefit to the Labour party to have a mandatory 80-year-old retirement age.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The manifesto was clear that the reform would be staged, and that this would be the immediate first step. The Government remain in favour of a House of Lords that is more representative of the nations and regions, and this is the first step. As the Leader of the House of Lords announced, a Select Committee will then look at retirement age, and indeed at participation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) made the point, which I repeated, that this is not a personal issue but an issue of principle. I know the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), welcomes the Bill as a first step, and she also spoke about the appointment process. Indeed, over recent months the Government have ensured that when people are selected for a place in the House of Lords there is now an explanation or citation. We always had a citation when people were awarded honours, but we did not have one for those nominated for a place in the House of Lords. That has now been changed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Shaun Davies) set out powerfully that Lords amendment 1, which concerns the abolition of hereditary by-elections, has been put forward time and again by Lord Grocott, and on every single occasion it was blocked by the Conservatives. The right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), a regular sparring partner of mine, accused me of being a bit unfair to the Conservatives in the 20th century. Life peerages were of course introduced in the late 1950s, but it is certainly the case that the Conservatives have blocked every opportunity to abolish the hereditary principle, and that is exactly what they are doing again.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) made a powerful speech about the central purpose of the Bill and the Government’s position on the amendments. The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire made his characteristic contribution to the debate, and I would agree with the point he made about filibustering in the other place on this Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) made well the point that even after this change, the Conservatives will still be the largest single party in the House of Lords. I then come to the speech by the hon. Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) who seemed, I think, to be simultaneously arguing for maintaining the hereditary peers and for radical reform. When he talked about a parliamentarian with the “attention span” of a TikTok video, I thought he meant the shadow Justice Secretary for a minute. We have heard the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) make a comparison with North Korea, but the hon. Member for Windsor made a comparison with Iran. This Bill is quintessentially British. It is about British democracy. It is about putting an argument to the electorate last July, and then putting that into practice.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) made the powerful case that this is about principle, and about there not being a series of places in our legislature that are reserved for people by accident of birth. My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson), who I am sure the whole House will wish well for the Great North Run, made a powerful case for the abolition of the hereditary principle and the position of the Bill. I also say a real “thank you” to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), who has made a powerful case for change throughout every stage of the passage of the Bill through the House of Commons.
This has been a perfectly reasonable debate—
Alex Burghart
I am grateful to the Paymaster General for giving way, as I feel that he is drawing to the end of his comments. One thing he has not discussed in his round-up of the debate is ministerial pay. I appreciate the remarks that he made at the start, and that he does not believe this is the right way or place to do that, but does he accept in principle that in future the Government should find a legal mechanism for ensuring that all Ministers of the Crown, regardless of the House in which they sit, are paid?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I will just come to the other points that we are raising. I have made clear that Lords amendment 1 guts the purpose of the Bill, which is why the Government oppose it.
On the other amendments, first I am pleased with and thank the hon. Gentleman for his support on amendment 4, on the introduction of the power of attorney. I think that the whole House accepts that there are people who wish to retire, and that is a dignity that we should give them. We all appreciate that. On the other two points, I do not regard the creation of a new, separate honour as necessary or worthwhile—I had this exchange earlier with the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes). We already have an honours system that recognises outstanding contributions to our society. I think that we should maintain that link between the title and doing work in our legislature.
I understand the point that the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar has made a couple of times about ministerial pay and Ministers carrying out roles. The point that I would make to him, however, is that that requires an amendment. If he wants to make that argument and have a debate, he is perfectly entitled to do that, but the mechanism in the Bill will not have the impact that I think he is seeking to have in that respect.
To conclude—I am concluding not just this afternoon’s debate, but tens of hours of debate in the other place—we are moving towards a House of Lords that is fair, open and truly representative of the nation it serves, a House where expertise is recognised and not inherited, where policy is shaped by merit and not by bloodlines. I commend the Government’s position to the House.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
Covid-19 Inquiry Response Costs
Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
The covid-19 pandemic impacted each and every person in the UK. The work of the UK covid-19 inquiry is crucial in examining the UK’s response to and impact of the covid-19 pandemic. There are evidently lessons to be learnt from the pandemic, and the Government are committed to closely considering the covid-19 inquiry’s findings and recommendations, which will play a key role in informing the Government’s planning and preparations for the future.
The Government recognise the unprecedented and wholly exceptional circumstances of the pandemic, and the importance of examining as rigorously as possible the actions the state took in response, in order to learn lessons for the future. The inquiry is therefore unprecedented in its scope, complexity and profile, looking at recent events that have profoundly impacted everyone’s lives.
The independent UK covid-19 inquiry publishes its own running costs quarterly. The chair is under a statutory obligation to avoid unnecessary costs in the inquiry’s work, and she has been clear as to her intention to complete her work as quickly and efficiently as possible.
I would like to update the House on the costs to the UK Government associated with responding to the UK covid-19 inquiry.
Figures provided are based upon a selection of the most relevant Departments and are not based on a complete set of departmental figures and are not precise for accounting purposes. Ensuring a comprehensive and timely response to the inquiry requires significant input from a number of key Departments, including, but not limited to, the Cabinet Office, the Department for Health and Social Care, the UK Health Security Agency, the Home Office and HM Treasury, many of which are supported by the Government Legal Department. While every effort has been made to ensure a robust methodology, complexities remain in trying to quantify the time and costs dedicated to the inquiry alone.
It should be noted that alongside full time resource within Departments, inquiry response teams draw on expertise from across their organisations. The staff costs associated with appearing as witnesses, preparing witnesses and associated policy development work on the UK covid inquiry are not included in the costs below.
Breakdown of staff and costs
The Government’s response to the UK covid-19 inquiry is led by inquiry response units across Departments. These associated staff costs for Q1 2025-26 are below.
Q1 number of UK covid-19 inquiry response unit staff: 248 full-time equivalents
Q1 cost of UK covid-19 inquiry response unit staff: £5,004,000 (including contingent labour costs)
Total inquiry response unit legal costs
Inquiry response units across Government Departments are supported by the Government Legal Department, co-partnering firms of solicitors, and legal counsel. These associated legal costs (excluding internal departmental advisory legal costs) for Q1 2025-26 are below.
Q1 legal costs: £5,194,000
[HCWS909]
Infected Blood Inquiry: Additional Report
Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
The infected blood inquiry’s additional report was published on 9 July, and today I would like to provide the House with an initial response. I am grateful to Sir Brian Langstaff for seeking justice for victims and for the inquiry’s constructive additional report. His ambition was to ensure that fair compensation is provided without delay to every person who is eligible, and that resonates across the country.
Before considering the detail of the report, I want to share the latest delivery figures from the Infected Blood Compensation Authority. As of 15 July, IBCA has contacted 2,215 people to begin their claim, and 1,934 have started the claim process; 808 offers have been made, to a total value of over £602 million; and 587 people have accepted their offer, and over £411 million has been paid in compensation. That means approximately 60% of infected people registered with a support scheme have been contacted to begin their claim.
I am pleased that progress is being made, but I acknowledge the calls from the community for faster payment. That is why the Government wrote to the Public Accounts Committee and the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee last month outlining the steps we are taking to remove administrative barriers to IBCA speeding up payments. I am also pleased to announce further interim payments of £210,000 to the estates of infected people who were registered to an infected blood support scheme and who have sadly passed away. That is in addition to the more than 500 interim payments that have already been paid, on which I will provide further information as soon as I am able to do so.
The Government are committed to providing fair compensation to victims of the infected blood scandal and in the autumn Budget we set aside £11.8 billion to do that. The inquiry has recognised the Government’s commitment, saying:
“There can be no doubt that the Government has done right in ways which powerfully signal its intent.”
However, I agree with Sir Brian’s statement that
“there is still more to be done to ensure that the detail and operation of the scheme matches up to its intent.”
Sir Brian has made a number of recommendations on ways the compensation scheme could be amended to achieve a scheme that works for everyone. We will publish an update on gov.uk today setting out the Government’s approach to the inquiry’s further recommendations. I will deposit a copy of that update in the Libraries of both Houses. We will also provide a comprehensive response to all the recommendations in due course.
The report includes several recommendations for IBCA on speed and transparency. I reiterate that the Government still expect IBCA to contact all registered infected people to begin a claim, and to open the service for affected people, by the end of this year. The announcements I am about to make do not change that position.
On Friday, Sir Robert Francis and David Foley confirmed that they will accept the recommendations that the inquiry made to IBCA. They have committed to working with the community to develop plans for designing and implementing those recommendations. IBCA will design and introduce a process for registration. It will also update its sequencing in line with the inquiry’s recommendation, noting that that will inform the order in which it opens up to cohorts this year. IBCA will introduce a process for prioritisation, recognising that community involvement is needed in tackling any uncertainty that may be introduced.
Alongside that, I have asked for a review of IBCA’s delivery of the scheme to ensure that it progresses as quickly as possible. That will be supported by the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority and led by an independent reviewer. I expect the review to begin in August.
The inquiry has made recommendations across nine key areas to ensure that infected and affected people feel that they have overall been compensated fairly by a scheme that is designed and delivered with their input. Separate to the delivery of compensation by IBCA, the inquiry has made recommendations relating to the design and structure of the scheme. The Government will accept, and implement as soon as we can, seven of those sub-recommendations, so that IBCA can get on with paying compensation. Others will require engagement with the community before changes are made, in line with the spirit of the inquiry’s report.
When I gave evidence to the inquiry in May, I said that I would take a constructive approach and look at the issues that had been put to me. The inquiry has made eight sub-recommendations in those areas, and I am pleased to confirm to the House that I will either accept them or agree with the inquiry that the community should be consulted on next steps. I can confirm that we will remove the 1982 start date for HIV infection to ensure that anyone infected because of infected blood or infected blood products with HIV is eligible for the scheme regardless of the infection date.
We accept the inquiry’s recommendation on affected estates; in fact, I will go further than the recommendation. The inquiry recommended that if an eligible affected person has sadly died or dies between 21 May 2024 and 31 December 2029, their claim does not die with them but becomes part of the estate. I will extend that by a further two years until 31 December 2031.
The special category mechanism has been a concern for members of the community and for this House. Again, I promised the House that I would consider it, and I am pleased to say that we accept that change is needed to acknowledge the special category mechanism as part of the supplementary route severe health condition award. We will engage with the community on how best to realise those changes.
Another area that I committed to considering was the reinstatement of support payments to partners bereaved after 31 March 2025 until they have received compensation. Again, I accept that recommendation. I will ensure that those impacted will also be able to continue receiving those payments as part of their compensation package.
Unethical research is one of the most shocking aspects of this scandal. I can also confirm to the House that we will consult on revising the approach for the additional autonomy award on unethical research, including the scope and value of the award. A number of hon. Members have raised that with me.
The final area that I said I would consider was whether further supplementary routes for affected people could be introduced. The inquiry recommended that we consult to understand the feasibility of their implementation, alongside changes in the exceptional financial loss award. I agree with the inquiry that consideration should be given to those issues, and consideration rightly involves those impacted.
In addition, we are accepting further inquiry recommendations to remove the requirement for evidence of the date of diagnosis for hepatitis B or C, which we hope may allow claims for those mono-infected with hepatitis to be processed more quickly. By accepting those recommendations, we can start to implement the necessary changes as soon as possible.
There are several recommendations on areas in which changes to the scheme are needed. We intend to engage with the community on how best to achieve them. The inquiry is clear: people impacted by decisions need to be involved in them, and that is what we will seek to do before implementing the changes in the scheme. That includes acting on recommendations regarding compensation for the impacts of Interferon. We will introduce a new core route infection severity band for those who received Interferon treatment, and consult on the evidence requirements and threshold for a supplementary route award for severe psychological harm. Additionally, we will work with IBCA to introduce a mechanism that individuals can use to raise concerns to aid continuous improvement of the scheme.
As I am sure hon. Members understand, to do that the Government will need to make further regulations. Our top priority is to move quickly, so to make some of the simpler changes, we will bring forward a set of regulations as soon as parliamentary time allows. Those regulations will not implement all the policy changes recommended by the inquiry. In evidence to the inquiry in May, I said that I was open to changes that do not lead to further delays. I believe that making these changes recommended by the inquiry will not delay the speed at which offers are currently being made.
A further set of regulations will be needed to implement the more substantial changes, particularly those for which we are taking time to engage the community on how those updates can be realised. I therefore expect this second, more substantial set of regulations to be brought before Parliament in 2026, but—and I really emphasise this to hon. Members—we do not expect this engagement to cause delays to the roll-out of the compensation scheme as it currently stands, which is absolutely crucial, as I said to the inquiry. We are responding swiftly and constructively to Sir Brian, and putting the voices and needs of the community first.
I will also provide a further update on the Government’s response to the 2024 report. I have continued to engage with the charities named by the inquiry in recommendation 10. I recognise their concerns about the allocated funding, and can confirm that the Department for Health and Social Care is re-examining funding for this year and will look at options for the future.
With regard to recommendation 2 on memorialisation, I am pleased to announce that, following engagement with the community, Clive Smith has been appointed as chair of the memorial committee. I am delighted to be able to appoint a chair with his wealth of experience, and I am confident he will be able to bring the community together to make great progress on this work.
The Government have made progress in implementing the recommendations, but progress is never a foregone conclusion. Sir Brian is clear about the importance of scrutinising progress in delivering what the Government have committed to, and I agree. I am pleased to confirm that I have asked the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee to take on the role of scrutinising implementation of the inquiry’s recommendations in the May 2024 and July 2025 reports. It is for the Committee to outline how it will approach that work, but I trust that it will see fit to follow the example of the inquiry through scrutiny of the design and delivery of compensation.
In addition, today I am publishing a record of inquiry recommendations and the Government response on gov.uk, as promised in our response to the recommendation of the Grenfell Tower inquiry. Those records will be periodically updated to show implementation progress, and will include all recommendations of future inquiries.
To conclude, I quote directly from Sir Brian’s report, which he ends by stating:
“Truly involving people infected and affected in how the state recognises their losses would start to turn the page on the past.”
He is absolutely right. Our focus as we move forward must be on working together with the community, with IBCA, and indeed with each other in this House, not only to deliver justice to all those impacted, but, essentially, to restore trust in the state among people who have been let down too many times. I commend this statement to the House.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement and for advance sight of it.
On behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, I thank Sir Brian Langstaff for his initial work on the inquiry and for all his follow-up work. This additional report, focusing on compensation, is a significant and thorough piece of work that has been done in good time. Our thanks also go to those working at the Infected Blood Compensation Authority to get the money out to those who desperately need it. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) welcomes the valuable insight that he gained from his recent visit to the team on the ground in Tyneside. Above all, we pay tribute to the victims, the families and the campaigners who have fought relentlessly and bravely on this issue.
I have previously raised in the House the concerns of victims and their families about the speed and structure of the compensation scheme. They have been repeatedly frustrated by a failure to speed up payments. Although there are signs that the pace is finally starting to increase, I know that their frustrations remain, and we share them. This scandal happened over decades, under successive Governments of different parties, but we all have a responsibility to do what we can to right the wrongs of the past as quickly as possible, and the Opposition will support the Government when they are doing the right thing in doing so.
I have also raised the issue of engagement and called on the Government to further solidify ongoing consultation and communication with victims and their families. It was disappointing to see that, as Sir Brian laid out in his additional report, sufficient progress has not yet been made on that. I welcome the Government’s response on that matter, but I urge them to ensure that that engagement work is carried out rapidly and urgently. Victims and their families deserve real action and, as the additional report makes clear, they have had far too many assurances but not yet enough substantial engagement.
I am pleased that the Government are now taking action on some of the issues relating to atypical personal or health impacts and supplementary routes, which I raised when we discussed the infected blood compensation scheme regulations in March. I know that will bring great comfort to many of those who have been infected with the diseases mentioned.
I appreciate that the Government are taking forward Sir Brian’s recommendation on a grievances mechanism, and I am certain that across this House we all hope that implementation of this recommendation and the others from the report will meet the terms of reference of Sir Brian’s inquiry and will complete the compensation and resolution process. However, the Government must ensure that this mechanism is an active one, not simply a recording device. While it is incredibly important that lessons are continuously learned from this tragedy, it is also really important that those cases that contain difficulties with regard to compensation eligibility—which we know make up a significant proportion—are addressed as a matter of urgency, and that all such cases, many of which will probably come through this new mechanism, are considered carefully, and that all information on the claim status and decisions made on it are communicated clearly and frequently to the complainant.
Above all, learning those lessons must not come at the cost of delaying payments to those who simply cannot afford to wait any longer. To that end, I would appreciate the Minister’s clarity on the number of personnel whom he expects to be tasked with the grievances mechanism and the oversight structure that will be put in place over it. Will that be the advisory board being established and, if so, what specific oversight powers will the advisory board have?
We support the Government in taking these measures forward, and we will do what we can as the official Opposition to help these actions be implemented, but it is incredibly important that the Government are clear to this House what measures they are putting in place to ensure that the steps announced here today are carried through and enacted efficiently and effectively. No amount of money can undo the harm that was tragically inflicted on so many, but a comprehensive and effective compensation scheme can offer a lifeline to victims and their families who have suffered far too much for far too long.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I thank the shadow Minister for his contribution and, in particular, for its tone. The cross-party way in which this has been approached has been crucial—I took that approach in opposition. I pay tribute to my predecessor as Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen), for the work he did in driving this forward. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this additional report is a very significant piece of work, and I echo his thanks to IBCA’s staff.
On the speed of payments, the hon. Gentleman referred to the number of payments and of course IBCA has used the “test and learn” approach, but I want to tell the House that I have announced today a substantial number of changes to this scheme, but it has to be on the basis that that will not affect the current speed of roll-out of payments. That is why I still expect IBCA to contact all registered infected people to begin a claim before the end of the year, and indeed to open the service to affected people by the end of the year.
I also agree with the hon. Gentleman about the need for an active consultation mechanism, and I entirely agree about clarity of communication. I very much hope that we can continue this cross-party spirit into the delivery phase as that is so important.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
Victims, survivors and campaigners have been fighting for decades for truth and justice due to cover-ups by public servants. Last year, the Prime Minister called for a duty of candour law to prevent future cover-ups, such as the infected blood and Post Office scandals, and I could not agree more. But if we are to restore trust in the state, does the Minister agree that it is high time for a Hillsborough law to be implemented in full, as promised by the Prime Minister last September?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I entirely agree on the need for a Hillsborough law, and I say to my hon. Friend that this Government are absolutely determined to get it right and to lead that culture of change that we need across public service so that people are not putting their own reputations or the reputation of institutions above public service. We are determined to lead that change.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I thank the Minister for his statement. We, too, pay tribute to Sir Brian Langstaff and his team for their ongoing work as they continue to investigate this appalling scandal.
Liberal Democrats know that the victims of the infected blood scandal deserve compensation. They and their families have been mistreated and have been waiting for decades to see justice. We welcomed the establishment of this scheme in August 2024 and the commitment shown by Governments from both sides of the House to justice for these victims.
However, Sir Brian Langstaff’s additional report has been excoriating about the glacial pace of payments and the abject failure to listen to victims. One of the report’s most scathing findings stated that victims of the scandal had “not been listened to”. As Sir Brian has reported, the experts who were responsible for the design of the compensation scheme were forbidden to talk with victims and their families. After so many years of secrecy, deceit and delays, excluding victims and their families was wholly unacceptable.
This report has been welcomed by many victims, including many of the 122 haemophiliac boys who attended the Lord Mayor Treloar college in Hampshire. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) has been a powerful advocate for these victims, and I thank her for her work advocating for constituents such as Gary, who welcomed the findings of this report. That is why we are urging the Government to set out clearly and in detail the timelines for delivering compensation. We are calling on the Government to engage properly with victims and their families. Does the Minister agree that it is entirely unacceptable that victims were not involved in the original design of the scheme and that they had been consistently ignored? When can victims of the scandal expect the implementation of Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendation to introduce a formal advisory body of victims for the Infected Blood Compensation Authority?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
In relation to transparency on the expert group established under my predecessor, I entirely acknowledge Sir Brian Langstaff’s criticisms and points on that. The Government are now going to have to create new sets of regulations, and clearly I will have to reconstitute an expert group, but I give the House an undertaking that transparency will be at the heart of that group, including publication of its work and its minutes, because that is essential to regain trust.
The hon. Lady is also absolutely right about how essential it is to put the voice of victims at the heart of what we are doing, but I would also say to the House, in relation to today, that at the autumn Budget last year the Chancellor set aside £11.8 billion of funding to the end of the Parliament to pay compensation for victims, and the policy decisions that I am announcing today are currently estimated to cost around £1 billion in further compensation payments. The total cost depends on what is agreed following consultation with the community, but the Government have said—and we will stand by this—that we will pay what it takes to fund the scheme, and we will update the forecast costs at the autumn Budget of 2025. But victims should be in no doubt of the Government’s determination to seek justice.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Following the inquiry’s report, will the Government now speed up the current timelines of 2027 and 2029 for the payment of compensation to victims?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The 2027 and 2029 dates were backstops. My determination was for payments to be made as soon as possible. I hope that what I have said to the House about offers of payment, and indeed payments starting, to affected people this year is an indication of that speeding up.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
I welcome what the Paymaster General has said about removing administrative burdens to payment and accepting the recommendations, and his commitment to working with the community and doing so in a timely way. I know that he will continue to devote his considerable energies to those things. Could he also say a word more about memorials? I am thinking particularly of the young victims from Treloar. I welcome what he said about the appointment of a chair to that committee, but is there a timeline for that; obviously there are sensitive matters to deal with, but given the passage of time does he have a timeframe in mind for its completion?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The right hon. Gentleman raises the issue of Treloar’s, which is in his constituency. He speaks very powerfully. I have also spoken in recent weeks to a former Treloar’s student. Hearing about the experiences there never fails to move people. I am pleased to have appointed Clive Smith—that has already been done—and I am asking him to progress that memorialisation work, first, quickly, because the right hon. Gentleman is right about the passage of time, and secondly, in a way that brings the whole community together. Clive has set out his intention to appoint a vice-chair to represent the whole blood transfusion community. I welcome that effort to bring the community together in what will be a very emotional memorialisation.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement. The infected blood scandal is the worst treatment disaster in NHS history, but as the inquiry’s chair said:
“This disaster was not an accident”.
Institutional reputation was put above truth and ordinary people paid the price. It is far from alone—there is Horizon, nuclear test veterans, Grenfell and Hillsborough. A Hillsborough law would end the culture of cover-up, which is why victims and families, including those from the infected blood scandal, fully support it. The Prime Minister promised that one of his first acts would be to introduce that legislation, but one year on we are still waiting. Does the Minister recognise the importance of fulfilling that pledge before Labour returns to Liverpool for the party conference in September?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I absolutely understand the importance of introducing the duty of candour to which my hon. Friend refers, as I indicated in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson). Sir Brian Langstaff talked about the “pervasive” culture—the concept of people putting their own or institutional reputation above the public interest. The Government are determined to change that and to get the duty of candour right by working with the families, which I think is absolutely crucial.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on HIV, AIDS and sexual health, I very much welcome the removal of the 1982 start date. Coincidentally, today is Zero HIV Stigma Day, so it is important to recognise the stigma that many people suffered as a result of contracting HIV through infected blood. I hope that one of the supplementary routes to compensation might be to those who suffered extreme stigma and discrimination, or severe psychiatric consequences from the contraction of HIV.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments about the removal of the 1982 date. I promised in my evidence to the inquiry to look at that, so I am pleased to remove it. He is absolutely right about stigma; I visited the Terrence Higgins Trust in recent weeks, and listening to the terrible stigma that people suffered is extraordinarily moving. He is right to remind us of that, and as we move forward with trying to deliver justice, we should all keep that at the forefront of our minds.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
On behalf of the APPG on haemophilia and contaminated blood, I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. It is a major step forward. As he knows, the issue of engagement with the affected and infected community has been a major bone of contention since the expert group set the tariff. For over 40 years, that community have been ignored and lied to by the state, which should have been on their side. When Sir Brian Langstaff published his recent report, he said:
“For decades people who suffered because of infected blood have not been listened to. Once again decisions have been made behind closed doors leading to obvious injustices.”
My right hon. Friend said that he will accept most of the recommendations, but if he is going to consult, he must consult with the community. Will he guarantee that he will set up a proper mechanism that will be approved by the community, and that he will provide financial support to those organisations that are giving advice to victims who are making claims?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
First, on consultation, my hon. Friend is right. I am determined that we are going to get this right. Secondly, as I indicated in my statement with regard to the organisations and recommendation 10 of Sir Brian Langstaff’s May 2024 report, DHSC is looking not only at this year again, but to the future. My work in recent weeks speaking to charities has made it clear that they want to look beyond this financial year, and I agree.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I, too, thank the Minister for his statement, in particular the fact that IBCA will design and introduce a process for registration. Sir Brian Langstaff concluded that the current approach to compensation perpetuates harm by creating different treatment for registered and unregistered victims. Can the Minister confirm whether that includes interim payments for unregistered victims, which was another recommendation in Sir Brian Langstaff’s additional report?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
In relation to registration, as the hon. Gentleman will have seen, IBCA has accepted all of Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendations, including that one. With regard to the estates of those who have sadly passed away, I have just, from the Dispatch Box, extended interim payments, and I hope to be able to announce the timetable for that very soon.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
The very fact that Sir Brian Langstaff reopened the scheme for the additional report bears testimony to the fact that there is something sadly wrong with the initial scheme. I am wondering whether the infected blood victims will be warmly welcoming my right hon. Friend’s statement, or whether they will be a bit apprehensive, frustrated or disappointed because the Government have said that they will accept, at this point, only seven of the nine recommendations. Only 460 victims have settled to date, but many others have sadly passed on. Can my right hon. Friend clarify what will happen to those waiting to start their claim? They are the Tuesday night lottery club—they have been waiting for months for a phone call to tell them that they will get an invitation to apply for compensation. Will new invites be put on hold while IBCA revisits the settled claims? Is it still a priority to start all living infected claims by the end of the year?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The answer is yes, absolutely. I would not have made such a substantial number of changes without assurance that it would not delay the ongoing payments. IBCA has said that there will be offers to all the living registered infected by the end of the year. That is unchanged by the changes I have made to the scheme today. The promise that we made to start the affected by the end of the year also stands. As I said a moment ago, IBCA has accepted the recommendation about registration. It has also accepted Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendation about cohort prioritisation and is looking at that. I hope that my hon. Friend, who is a powerful advocate on these matters, will see that having said at the inquiry that I would look constructively at these issues, that is precisely what I have done. On the recommendations where we are consulting, that is precisely because I want the voice of the community to be heard.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
It was in 2015 that I first raised the case of my constituent, Lesley Hughes, who was infected with contaminated blood in 1970 and discovered the reason for four decades of ill health in only about 2010, so it is great that this progress has been made. Very large sums of money will be paid in compensation, so can the Minister outline what provision there will be for the recipients to receive financial advice to make sure that they are not taken advantage of by unscrupulous people—for example, people trying to tell them how to make a claim that they can make directly?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman about that risk. I have been very conscious of that, which is why the Government have signed off financial support for both legal advice and financial advice. For the reason that he said, that is crucial.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
The Minister has heard me talk about my constituent Brendan West, a veteran who lived unknowingly with hepatitis C for decades after being infected through a military blood transfusion. Brendan talks about how he feels lucky to be alive, but his view is that successive Governments continued to delay justice for him by design. Brendan has just received an invitation to start the process for compensation, which I welcome, but how long can he expect that process to take? He has served our country and suffered a horrific injustice in the process, and he deserves to be able to not waste a single further day in living out the next chapter of his life.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I say to my hon. Friend, who has raised her constituent’s case before, that IBCA is operationally independent, but I stand ready to give any support that is required to speed up claims, which I think is crucial. There is absolutely no deliberate delay from the Government in terms of the money being paid. Some £11.8 billion was allocated in the autumn Budget, and I have just announced a series of measures worth around £1 billion. That is the commitment of this Government to securing justice, and I will continue to do all I can to speed up payments.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
As far as I can see, some of the Paymaster General’s announcements and his acceptance of some of the recommendations and sub-recommendations will cause devolved administrative bodies to have to stay open for a longer period. I believe they were initially scheduled to close on 1 February 2026, but they will now have to stay open for longer than that. I seek his reassurance that he will ensure that all the costs will be met by the Treasury and that there will be no divergence between the support given to those infected or affected anywhere across the United Kingdom, as there was previously due to the work started by the inquiry.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly reasonable point. I spoke on Thursday to the Health Ministers of all three of the devolved Administrations, including Minister Nesbitt in the Northern Ireland Executive. The hon. Gentleman is right that the schemes for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will stay open for a further year. That has been done to make sure that we can keep up the pace of payments at IBCA, but I give him the reassurance, which I gave to the Health Ministers, that that will be funded by the UK Government. We are not asking the devolved Administrations to bear the cost of that.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
The Minister knows that I have raised the case of my affected constituent Ronan, whose mother Jane died from hepatitis C after a blood transfusion she was recommended following an ectopic pregnancy. I welcome the announcement on the affected estates, but when will the affected, particularly parents and partners, be invited to start their claims? Many have been waiting decades for justice and are concerned that they will not see it in their lifetime.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. In the first instance, as I have said, payments to the affected will start by the end of the year; that remains the case. There has been concern about the affected estates, and I hope that my hon. Friend will have seen that I not only accepted the recommendation, but extended it by a further two years to try to give that reassurance.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister—and the Government, because ultimately he is doing this on their behalf—very much for his statement; no one can doubt his commitment, and we thank him very much for that. It is always good to hear that movement has been made on compensation, to make it as fast as possible. Will the Minister reconsider the rejection of the recommendation by Sir Robert Francis of an enhanced award for people with extrahepatic disorders resulting in long-term severe disability, including people currently included in the special category mechanism and its equivalents in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? Also, he referred to substantial regulations being made in 2026; can they come forward in 2025?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
On the first point, as I have just said, we have acknowledged Sir Brian Langstaff’s criticisms on the special category mechanism. That is why I am taking action on that and announcing that today. In relation to the very specific condition that the hon. Gentleman talked about—I think he is referring back to Sir Robert Francis’s previous report—I am certainly happy to write to him on that particular detail. The first set of regulations that I have spoken about will be brought forward before the end of the year.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. One of my constituents, who is now in her 80s, cared for her husband, who was a victim of unethical research in Edinburgh. Her son now fears that she will die before receiving recognition or redress for what she endured. Does my right hon. Friend recognise that there is a real fear that carers of infected people will die waiting for their compensation? If so, what steps will the Government take to ensure that carers reaching the end of their lives can be prioritised for compensation?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is why I have changed the scheme in respect of affected estates. Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendation was for those who sadly pass away between May 2024 and 2029, and I have extended that by two years to 2031 for precisely the reason that she raises.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement, which is the right response to a very thorough report that yet again details the significant size of the scandal we are trying to undo. He mentioned the level of increased payments that these measures will lead to, and I think he mentioned a figure of £1 billion. Will additional resources be given to deliver the recommendations, in addition to extra payments?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I just give my hon. Friend the reassurance that the Government have said that they will pay what it takes to fund the scheme. We will then update the forecast costs at the autumn Budget this year.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Paymaster General for his statement. I think the hearts of all of us across the House go out to the victims of this terrible scandal and their families. As somebody who saw a family member die of AIDS, I know how incredibly difficult that must have been for many of them. Does the Minister agree that the common thread in the infected blood scandal, the Post Office scandal, Hillsborough and the pelvic mesh scandal—the one that comes across my desk the most—is that victims were not listened to? He mentioned the need to consult on the recommendations. How will he go about that consultation? Can he assure me that it will be thorough?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend speaks very powerfully about his own personal experience. He is entirely right about a consistent failure on behalf of the state over many decades on many scandals that have been debated in this House and on which we have listened to victims. Getting the consultation right and ensuring that we hear the voices of victims and the community is crucial to the Government.