Infected Blood Compensation Authority: Contingency Fund Advance

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Written Statements

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

I hereby give notice of the Cabinet Office’s intention to seek a Contingencies Fund advance to make compensation payments to victims of the infected blood scandal.

The Cabinet Office’s capital annually managed expenditure estimate does not provide funding for compensation payments already approved by Parliament through the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024. This advance will be used to quickly compensate victims of the infected blood scandal. While this will be received through the supplementary estimate, this advance will enable compensation to be made ahead of Parliament formally approving the ambit and the associated expenditure through an estimate, in line with the Government’s commitment.

Parliamentary approval for additional capital of £272,000,000 for this capital will be sought in a supplementary estimate for the Infected Blood Compensation Authority. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £272,000,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.

[HCWS321]

Government Response to the Infected Blood Inquiry Recommendations: End-of-year Update

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Written Statements

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

The infected blood inquiry’s final report was published on 20 May 2024 and made 12 recommendations. The recommendations made by Sir Brian Langstaff are wide-ranging, well considered, and necessarily complex.

In the months since the publication of the inquiry’s report, Parliament has come together a number of times to discuss the infected blood scandal. In the course of those debates, I committed to providing an update on the Government’s response to the recommendations by the end of this year. This update fulfils that commitment. Alongside this statement, I am publishing a Command Paper detailing the full update on www.gov.uk, and I have requested that copies be deposited in the Libraries of the Houses of Parliament.

The Government accept in full or accept in principle all of the recommendations made. Where recommendations are accepted in principle, we have sought to explain the rationale for doing so. Many of the recommendations are wide-reaching, and proper implementation needs time to be delivered effectively. The Government have worked to progress implementation and assess the deliverability of each of the recommendations. We are committed to making meaningful change. As per recommendation 12 of the infected blood inquiry, I will provide a further final update on the progress made on Inquiry’s recommendations by May 2025.

I am grateful to my ministerial colleagues for their co-operation, and in particular the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Gorton and Denton (Andrew Gwynne), for his leadership on the recommendations for which his Department is responsible. I am also grateful to Ministers in the devolved Governments, in particular the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health in Scotland, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care in Wales and the Minister of Health in Northern Ireland. Their engagement has been invaluable in ensuring that we have as consistent an approach as possible across the whole United Kingdom.

The victims of this scandal have suffered immeasurably. It is my utmost intention to deliver what justice and compensation the Government can as quickly as possible. This Government are taking concrete action to deliver on the compensation scheme. The Chancellor announced £11.8 billion of funding in the autumn Budget, and I am pleased to update that the Infected Blood Compensation Authority has been able to make the first payments to the victims of this scandal in the last few days.

Furthermore, I can also confirm today that the Government have extended their eligibility criteria for siblings for the infected blood compensation scheme to ensure that the scheme provides fair compensation to those who have been devastatingly impacted as a result of their sibling’s infection.

Under the new definition, siblings of infected people will be eligible if they, while under the age of 18, lived in the same household as an infected person for a period of at least two years after the onset of the infection, or would have been expected to live in the same household were it not for the impact of the infection. Siblings in this scenario will receive an injury impact award in line with the severity of the infection, and a social impact award of £12,000.

Alternatively, siblings will also be eligible as long as they cohabited, or were expected to cohabit with the infected person were it not for the impact of the infection, for at least two years while the affected sibling was under the age of 18. This is the case even if that period was prior to the infection, including if the infection happened during adulthood. Siblings in this scenario will receive an injury impact award in line with the severity of the infection, and a social impact award of £8,000. This mirrors the social impact award available to carers, parents, where the onset of a child’s infection began after age 18, and children, where the onset of a parent’s infection began after their child turned 18.

I hope that both these updates provide the infected blood community with some assurance that we are learning from and acting on the mistakes of the past.

[HCWS320]

House of Lords Appointments

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2024 Written Statements

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

From today, political parties will be required to provide citations when making nominations for appointment to the House of Lords, summarising why an individual has been put forward.

It is for party leaders to consider who is best placed to represent their party in the House of Lords when nominating individuals for appointment to the upper House. From today political parties will need to provide a citation for each of their nominees, which will be published on gov.uk on successful appointment.

The House of Lords Appointments Commission will collate these citations, and will maintain its existing role in vetting all nominations for appointment as life peers, including those nominated by the political parties, to ensure the highest standards of propriety.

The Government will keep the appointments system under review as we progress wider reforms to the House of Lords.

[HCWS284]

Oral Answers to Questions

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

3. What steps his Department is taking to help reduce trade barriers with the EU.

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

The Prime Minister and the President of the European Commission met on 2 October in Brussels and agreed to strengthen the relationship between the UK and the EU. Maroš Šefčovič, on behalf of the European Union, and I, on behalf of the UK Government, will now take forward that important work. We are committed to reducing barriers to trade, including negotiating a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement to reduce checks on food and put food on people’s tables more cheaply.

[Dr Chambers]

We are very proud that UK agriculture has some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world. It is for this reason that the production of foie gras was banned in 2007, as it is considered to be too cruel. While we are desperate to reduce trade barriers with the EU, are there any steps to ban products like foie gras to ensure that all animal products sold in the UK are produced to at least the same animal welfare standards as those in the UK?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise the issue of very high standards of animal welfare in food production. This Government will prioritise that in trade policy, unlike the Conservatives who, when they were in government, negotiated free trade agreements that consistently undermined agriculture in the UK.

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

We all support efforts to remove unnecessary trade barriers, but we must also be clear with our European partners on what we cannot accept. What is the Paymaster General prepared to say is off the table: dynamic alignment, British fishing rights, or maybe asylum burden-sharing?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The Labour party manifesto set out our red lines in this negotiation. We will not go back to the battles of the past. We will not return to the single market. We will not return to the customs union. We will not return to freedom of movement. What we will do is negotiate with the European Union to make the British people safer and more secure, so we have closer law enforcement co-operation. We will negotiate to reduce trade barriers to make the British people more prosperous.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats are glad that the Government have committed to resetting our relationship with the EU, and that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary are actively engaging to rebuild trust and our relationships with our European neighbours through meetings with the European Commission and the Foreign Affairs Council.

Establishing a UK-EU youth mobility scheme would mirror existing capped arrangements that the UK already has with 13 countries, including Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Delivering such a scheme would provide a return on investment in the form of soft power that was never seemingly factored into the approach of the previous Conservative Government. Will the Minister confirm that he will have discussions with Cabinet colleagues on the potential merits of a youth mobility scheme between the United Kingdom and the European Union?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The hon. Lady is right to highlight the importance of the Foreign Secretary’s attendance at the Foreign Affairs Council. It is hugely important that we work together with our European partners on security, particularly in the dangerous world environment we find ourselves in at the moment. On youth mobility, we have of course listened to what the EU has to say, but we have no plans for a youth mobility scheme and we will not return to freedom of movement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

18. What recent progress his Department has made on reform of the House of Lords.

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

The Government have brought forward the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill as an immediate first step in reform. That will remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. The Bill passed this House unamended and will have its Second Reading in the other place next week.

In addition, I am proud to announce today that I have laid a written ministerial statement that will ensure that political parties nominating people for peerages in the other place will now have to publish, alongside the nomination, a 150 word summary as to why they are putting that person forward. That is another reform that this Government are proud to announce as part of our wider agenda.

[Ms Billington]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s response, particularly the fact that it will increase transparency for the other place. Does he agree that we have a mandate for reform, and while respecting the individuals, we are absolutely determined as a Government to progress the abolition of the hereditary principle in lawmaking?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It just should not be the case, in a modern legislature, that there are places reserved for people by accident of birth. The Bill has now passed this House unamended. As I have indicated, it will now go before the other place for Second Reading next week. We want to get that Bill on to the statute book as soon as possible.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

T3. Last week, the Government released their latest departmental lobbying transparency data. The data was two months late and relates to the last months of the previous Government, namely April to June 2024. The public will learn who the new Government met during their first weeks in power only at the end of December, a full six months after the election, and that is only if the data is released on time. UK lobbying rules have more holes than Swiss cheese, so will the Government set a timeline for creating a central database of departmental transparency data, with monthly updates, thereby closing the litany of loopholes in the current lobbying rules?

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

The Government are committed to transparency around lobbying. That is why we will have regular transparency updates. The approach that we take will frankly be in stark contrast with that of the Government who preceded us.

[Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)]

T8. Last week, I listened earnestly to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster at the cyber-security conference, which was timely, given that my local council was subject to a cyber-attack, possibly by a foreign actor, just in the last four weeks. What measures has he undertaken to improve cyber-security resilience in local councils and critical national infrastructure that might impact us in the future?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I will of course look at the specific document that the hon. and learned Gentleman refers to. He also referred to the important consent vote taking place in the Northern Ireland Assembly next week. This Government support the Windsor framework. That is why, when we were in opposition, we voted with the then Government to support it. We are committed to implementing it in good faith, and that is what this Government will do.

[Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)]

Public procurement is a vital lever for delivering our growth mission, and growth must be felt by people in every part of our country. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that when taxpayers’ money is spent on private contracts, the key workers delivering the contract and local communities such as mine in Darlington maximise the benefits of that public money?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

I welcome the Government’s commitment to a duty of candour for public bodies. In the light of the appalling crimes of John Smyth, who left over 100 children assaulted and traumatised while senior members of the Church of England looked the other way, what steps is the Minister considering in conjunction with the Church so that bishops, dioceses, cathedrals and national church institutions are designated as public authorities for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act 2000?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

In relation to my hon. Friend’s second point, it is right that the Church of England looks very carefully now at its procedures in the light of what has happened and been brought forward. In relation to the duty of candour, I have no idea why the Opposition Front Benchers were laughing about that. It is a hugely important reform that we are bringing forward, and it will make a significant difference across public service. We will have public servants putting the public interest above their own personal reputations and above the reputation of institutions. I hope the Opposition Front Benchers will come to support and help with the leadership required for that step change—that culture change—across public service.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

The Golden Valley development adjacent to GCHQ in Cheltenham will pay a vital role in our nation’s cyber-security. The recent confirmation of £20 million from the Government for that development is welcome, but will the Secretary of State confirm that the project will continue to feature in future iterations of the national cyber strategy?

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I welcome the Government’s commitment to the infected blood compensation scheme, and everybody in the House and across the country is pleased to see it. As of this month, how many individuals have registered for infected blood compensation payments, and can the Minister provide an update for the delivery of compensation in 2025? I would be pleased to get those figures for the United Kingdom, but in particular for Northern Ireland.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am more than happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with the figures for Northern Ireland, as I have done in the past; he knows that I am always happy to do that. On the timescale for payments, I have already indicated that the first payments for infected people will be out the door by the end of this year. I have undertaken to bring forward regulations relating to the affected people, and to get them through the House—subject, of course, to the House’s approval—by 31 March of next year, so that payments to the affected can start in 2025.

Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015 (Extension) Bill [Lords]

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 14th November 2024 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I am pleased to open the debate on this important but straightforward piece of legislation. I should start by welcoming the shadow Paymaster General to his role. I have no doubt that we will have some great, robust debates over the Dispatch Boxes. I will just say to him, now that he is in the shadow role, that I very much hope we can continue the cross-party work that his predecessor and I were pursuing on infected blood compensation. That cross-party working has been extremely important.

Members will of course be aware—we debated this on Tuesday—that this Government are pursuing reform of the House of Lords. I should be clear with the House that this Bill is distinct from those reforms. It does not seek to make fundamental changes; its simple effect is to extend, by five years, the arrangements for the appointment of Lords Spiritual contained in the Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015. And like the 2015 Act, this Bill has been introduced at the request of the Church of England.

I think it may be helpful to give the House a little background as to how we arrived here. There are 26 bishops who sit in the House of Lords, and, before 2015, the process for how and when they sit in the other place was determined solely by the Bishoprics Act 1878. Five seats are automatically allocated to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of York, followed by the Bishops of London, Durham and Winchester. The remainder were filled on the basis of seniority—in other words, length of tenure.

In 2014, the General Synod of the Church of England passed legislation to allow women to become bishops for the first time. However, because of the rules of seniority, we would have had to wait many years before those first female bishops could have been eligible to receive their writs of summons and become Lords Spiritual. That would have created a situation whereby women were prominently involved in Church leadership but were unrepresented in the House of Lords.

To address that, at the Church’s request, both Houses passed legislation in 2015 to fast-track female bishops into the House of Lords. The effect of that legislation is that if there is a female diocesan bishop available when a Lords Spiritual seat becomes vacant, she will be appointed to the seat ahead of a male bishop irrespective of seniority.

Since enacted, the 2015 Act has had a clear effect. We have seen six female bishops sit in the other place earlier than they otherwise would have done. The Bishop of Gloucester was appointed to the House as the first female bishop on 7 September 2015. Since that first appointment, the Lords Spiritual have welcomed six more women to sit on their Benches.

The value of the legislation is about to be seen in action again. Following the recent retirement of the Bishop of Worcester, Debbie Sellin, the Bishop of Peterborough, will soon replace him in the Lords under the provisions of the 2015 Act. And then, the recently appointed Bishop of Coventry, Sophie Jelley, will be first in line for appointment to the House of Lords upon any future retirements.

Madam Deputy Speaker, as you can see, there has been progress, but there remain only a handful of female bishops on the Lords Spiritual Benches today. The issue is that that 2015 Act will expire in May 2025. What the five-year extension contained in this Bill does is to allow more time for the positive effects of that 2015 piece of legislation to operate.

The Bill means that if any of the Lords Spiritual seats that are not automatically allocated become vacant between now and 2030, they will continue to be filled by the most senior eligible female bishop—if there are any available at that point.

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

I am enjoying immensely my right hon. Friend’s very detailed explanation of how we got here. May I ask him what conversations he has had with the Church about the steps that it can take to increase the diversity of potential bishops and to ensure that, ultimately, there is a wider pool of people to appoint to the House of Lords.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. As he would imagine, I certainly have had discussions with the Church of England, and not just prior to the introduction of this Bill, but prior to the wider reform of the Lords in which the Government are engaged. Those conversations are hugely important, as is diversity. This legislation will extend the diversity—having women bishops in the House of Lords—that we have seen since the 2015 Act reached the statute book.

The Government’s view is that five years is an appropriate length of time to extend these provisions to consolidate the positive effect that there has been so far. I hope that this very narrowly focused and simple Bill, which will extend an Act that has achieved such positive change over the past nine years, will gain support from all parts of the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 12th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

Thank you for your firm chairmanship of this debate, Madam Chairman. The hon. Member made a strong and powerful intervention, which I hope is noted down. I can see him being the Parliamentary Private Secretary for the junior Minister in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs very soon. I am not sure if my commendation and support helps him in his endeavours, but I hope that it does. Of course, the hon. Member makes a thoughtful and interesting point. The Government do have time to introduce further legislation, but the reality is that pressure on time in this place is one of the greatest pressures—time is the most precious thing. I certainly would not engage in any form of political betting—I hope that can be recorded in Hansard—but if, perhaps in a previous age, I were a betting man, I might have offered this wager to the Paymaster General. I would wager a whole £5 that the Paymaster General will not be in a situation of getting any more legislation on Lords reform. I will give way to the Paymaster General, who is going to refute that.

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

I certainly would not enter into a wager. I would have hoped that the Conservative party would have learned its lesson on that.

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

I had hoped that the Paymaster General would have given a categorical assurance that there would be further legislation and that in the next King’s Speech a retirement age in the House of Lords will be introduced as part of that legislation, along with a minimum participation level, but he stayed silent. He made a little quip. I will give him another opportunity to do so, although he will probably stay in his place, which is of course his right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

That is a matter for those on the Front Bench. I see members of the Conservative Whips Office in their place and I see my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) sitting behind the Dispatch Box. These days, I am merely a highly regarded, distinguished and senior Back Bencher. [Laughter.] The days when I had any say in how the Conservative Opposition—or in previous times the Conservative Government—chose to vote in Divisions are gone, but they are not gone forever; this is only a sojourn on the Back Benches. I want to make that perfectly clear.

Let me return to my principal theme, which is that of authority. The authority of this House is partly born of its relationship with the other House. Were the other House to become elected, its authority would by definition grow and our authority by comparison diminish, so I am strongly opposed to an elected second Chamber. While I accept the principled argument of the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire and others, it is not for me. There is also the matter of the authority of our constitution. Our constitutional settlement, which we have rehearsed briefly in the debate, is dependent on that relationship, but also—I think it is fair to say—on reforms of this kind being measured.

It might surprise Members to hear that last night, I was looking at a short book written by Hilaire Belloc and Chesterton. That book, which is available from the Library of the House, rehearsed the arguments that prevailed at the time of the debate on the Parliament Act—it was then the Parliament Bill—in the House of Commons. It might surprise right hon. and hon. Members to learn, as I learned last night, that when Asquith introduced those changes—when the House of Lords rejected Lloyd George’s Budget and it became necessary to curb the powers of that House—rather than rushing to legislate, he set up a conference between both sides of the House to determine a compromise. Belloc, as Members will remember, was elected as a Liberal MP. He parodied that process and said that what came out of it was no better than what went into it. None the less, it was an attempt, at least, to reach a settlement in a dignified way on how we might reform the second Chamber. [Interruption.] It did take two elections. It took the 1906 election, as the Paymaster General will know, when the Liberals triumphed. I wonder whether he wants to intervene on me to sharpen up the history.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

That particular constitutional convention did not produce a consensus. It took two general elections in 1910—one in January and one in December.

[Sir John Hayes]

That is precisely right. In the first general election, there was an assumption that the Government would proceed, but the constitutional conference did not produce an outcome that brought about a reform that both sides could agree on. A further general election followed, and the right hon. Gentleman rehearses exactly what that short book describes. The point is that even Asquith at that time, who was determined to reform the House of Lords, felt that ideally that reform should be based on some kind of consensus, or at least a conversation about how that reform might happen and what shape it might take. That is important, because the authority of our constitution to some degree depends on its dignity.

Finally, I want to talk about the authority of Government. We have talked about mandates. It was long ago that the term “elective dictatorship” was first used. The nature of the relationship that I described earlier between Government and Opposition and between different sides of the Chamber is important to counter the risk of a Government with a very large majority ignoring counter-arguments and becoming—I hesitate to say corrupted—altered, changed or distorted by the scale of the majority. Frankly, in this Parliament, the Labour party will be able to legislate as it chooses at every turn. As experienced Members of the House know, including those on the Treasury Bench, Governments are better when they need to compromise, reach agreements and consider amendments.

When I was a Minister, many times in Bill Committees in particular, the shadow Minister would table an amendment. I would routinely and systematically have the argument and make sure that the amendment was voted down, but I would often go back to my civil servants and say, “I think that was rather a good argument. Why aren’t we doing it? I think he or she was right. We ought to alter the Bill.” I would engage with the shadow Minister privately and look at ways in which we could improve the legislation through that kind of scrutiny. Good Ministers and good shadow Ministers always worked in that way, as I did with the now Prime Minister when he shadowed me as Security Minister.

Governments need to understand that to alter their position through that kind of exchange and consideration improves the exercise of government and adds to, rather than subtracts from, the Government’s authority. Good Governments behave in a way that, rather than taking advantage of their power, mitigates it by the choices that they make.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I thank right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the House for their scrutiny of the Bill throughout its passage. I am grateful to all those who contributed in Committee, as well as those who contributed to the lively debate on Second Reading last month. I also thank you and your colleagues for their chairmanship, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I thank Members on both sides of the House for their contributions, including my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) and for Leeds South West and Morley (Mr Sewards), the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson), my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell), the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart), my hon. Friends the Members for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) and for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman), the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), the right hon. Members for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) and for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), and the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed).

This Bill is a matter of principle. It has been introduced to address an outdated and indefensible feature of our legislature, rather than as a criticism of any contribution made by individual Members. The Government have listened to the debates in this House with interest and I look forward to following the Bill’s passage in the other place, where I am sure there will be further thoughtful contributions. I thank my officials and the whole team who have worked on the Bill.

This House will send to the other place a Bill that fulfils a manifesto commitment, and our manifesto was very clear:

“The next Labour government will…bring about an immediate modernisation, by introducing legislation to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords.”

That is precisely what the Bill does. It has a clear and simple purpose, a single focus, and it completes a process that started a quarter of a century ago. It sends a powerful message to people growing up in my constituency —in Blaenavon, Pontypool and Cwmbran—and beyond, right across the country: “You do not need to be born into certain families to make our laws.”

On Third Reading of the Parliament Bill—that landmark reform of the House of Lords—on 15 May 1911, the then Prime Minister, Herbert Asquith, said:

“I repeat, as I began, that our first duty, in view of the electoral and Parliamentary history of this measure, is to place this Bill on the Statute Book. It is stamped, if ever a measure was stamped, with the authority and approval of the electorate of the United Kingdom.”—[Official Report, 15 May 1911; Vol. 25, c. 1699.]

In that spirit, I commend this Bill to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Ministerial Code: Policy Announcements

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on whether Ministers disclosing policies to the media before the Budget are in contravention of the ministerial code’s statement that the most important announcements of Government policy should be made, in the first instance, in Parliament.

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

Mr Speaker, I reassure you that what you said yesterday, and indeed what you said a moment ago, has been heard not just by me but across Government.

The Government take their obligations to this House very seriously. Yesterday, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury made a statement to the House on the fiscal rules, in which he made it clear that details will be announced to the House in the Chancellor’s Budget statement tomorrow, alongside an economic and fiscal forecast produced by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility. Treasury Ministers have also answered questions in the House this morning.

The Chancellor will come before the House tomorrow to set out in detail the Government’s Budget to fix the foundations of our economy, and the House will then have a further four days of debate on the measures announced in that Budget. Throughout it all, Members of this House will see a Government who are committed to fixing the foundations to deliver the change our country so desperately needs. This Labour Government will invest in Britain’s future so that we can rebuild the national health service and our country, while ensuring that working people do not face higher taxes in their payslips.

[Laura Trott]

The response from No. 10 yesterday, and Labour’s whole argument, seems to be, “We did it because you guys did it.” But I am old enough to remember a fresh-faced Prime Minister coming into Downing Street and promising change. Labour justifying its actions based on things that the Conservatives have done does not seem like the change we were promised, does it? We are learning the lessons of why we lost the election, but this Government seem to be taking lessons from the worst bits of our record. And not just ours—from the last Labour Government, too. It is like the greatest hits of Government mistakes being replayed in just 100 days.

Cronyism? Is it Blair? No, it is the fresh-faced Labour Government giving civil service jobs to donors. A gross betrayal of pensioners? Is it Brown? No, it is the new Chancellor deciding that those on £13,000 are rich and do not need their winter fuel payments. Rampant politicisation of our institutions? Was this not something Labour accused Boris Johnson of? No, it is the Chancellor again, who said this weekend that the ex-Prime Minister and ex-Chancellor will have to answer to the Office for Budget Responsibility, despite the OBR saying that the report has nothing to do with previous Ministers and led The Times to argue that the OBR has been reduced

“to the provisional wing of the Treasury press office.”

Disrespectful statements emanating from No.10 about your decisions, Mr Speaker? Not the Conservative party, but the No. 10 press office, just yesterday. And potentially breaching the ministerial code with abandon about Budget leaks? Right again, it is this Government.

This Government’s false piety has been breached comprehensively by the Downing Street passes scandal and crony appointments to the civil service, and their hypocrisy has been laid bare for all to see. Yet still they bleat on about the Tories like some broken spell they mutter over and over again in an attempt to conjure up the old magic, but it is not going to work. Labour is so obsessed with playing political games that its Members find themselves going over the Budget, simultaneously claiming that the Conservatives spent too much, but also spent too little. It is nonsense.

The question that I want to ask the Government today is who is going to take responsibility for the Budget leaks? What assessment have the Government made of whether this is a breach of the ministerial code?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

As I have said, I have the deepest respect for this House and its Members. The coming days will be very important to debate the Budget in full. I am sure right hon. and hon. Members will forgive me if I have a degree of cynicism about the Conservative party’s new-found passion for parliamentary conventions, given the number of times it failed in its 14 years in office to update the House ahead of major announcements.

The truth is that Conservative Members are desperate to speak about anything other than the appalling mess in which they left our national finances. There are many groups of people who I would listen to on budget management, but certainly not Members of the party that crashed the economy. We would think they might have learned some lessons from attacking independent financial institutions, but they have not. The shadow Chancellor and the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury are attacking the Office for Budget Responsibility once again.

Families in my constituency and across the country are still paying higher rents and mortgage costs because of the mini-Budget two years ago that created and wreaked such havoc on our economy. Unlike the Conservative party, this Government will never play fast and loose with the nation’s finances. Tomorrow we will see a Budget focused on investment, to get the economy moving again. This Government will take the long-term decisions needed to rebuild Britain and fix our schools, hospitals and our broken roads. The Conservatives have not changed. All they offer is decline and more austerity, with working people paying the price.

[Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)]

In Bury North, rents and mortgages are still sky high as a direct consequence of the economic legacy of the last Conservative Government. Does the Minister agree that it is no surprise that the Conservatives want to talk about anything other than their economic record?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I certainly do agree. I am sure it will come as a surprise to right hon. and hon. Members that one of the Conservative’s former Chancellors decided to comment on the September 2022 fiasco. What did Kwasi Kwarteng say the other day? “Okay, my Budget wasn’t perfect”—the master of understatement.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

It is a sad state of affairs when the run-up to the Budget of this new Government so closely resembles that of the previous Government, with consistent leaks and briefings to the media rather than announcements being made where they should be—in this House—so that Members can scrutinise them on behalf of their constituents. The previous Conservative Government did so much damage to trust in politics, including by consistently undermining the ministerial code. Will the Minister put things right and toughen up the status of the code by enshrining it in law?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

We have already said that the Prime Minister will publish an updated ministerial code shortly. There is a stark difference between this and the previous Administration. The approach of the previous one is probably best characterised as, “If you break the rules, try and change the rulebook,” but we on the Labour Benches take the ministerial code seriously. That is why we want to ensure that it is fit for purpose, deals with problems such as the Tory freebie loophole and meets the high standards that the Prime Minister expects of all who have the privilege of serving in his Government.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

I am sure the whole House will welcome the constructive response from the Minister today. Will he confirm that the former Conservative Treasury Front-Bench team had to have paragraph 9.1 of the ministerial code drawn to their attention twice this year—in both April and May? It is do as they say, not do as they did.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Frankly, when I heard Conservative Members talk about ethics and standards in Government, I thought that irony had died.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Can we take it that the Government did not think that the Chancellor’s announcement in America last week was important? I think most people in this House felt that it was. Therefore, if it was important, did the Chancellor break the ministerial code?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury made a statement to the House yesterday. The entire Treasury team has been here answering questions today. The Chancellor will deliver a Budget tomorrow and we will have four days of debate on it. I doubt that the House has seen so much of the Treasury team since the Tories were forced to deliver two emergency Budgets in September 2022.

[Louise Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

My constituents in North East Derbyshire are still paying the price of the mini-Budget, with rises in their mortgages and rents. Does the Minister agree that the Conservatives should be talking about that and holding themselves to account rather than throwing out chaff to distract everyone?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In the contribution of the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, one word was noticeably missing: sorry.

[Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

As Chair of the Procedure Committee in the previous Parliament, I made a point of making sure that when Ministers had breached the rules, it was clear to them that both the Committee and others were very unhappy. Will the Minister confirm that he will make sure that the revised ministerial code makes it clear that announcements need to be made to this place first, as has always been the case?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

With the greatest respect to the right hon. Lady, she will not have long to wait for the ministerial code. In my opening remarks to Mr Speaker, I indicated my respect for this House in regard to the matter that she is talking about.

[Matthew Patrick (Wirral West) (Lab)]

The chutzpah from Conservative Members is quite incredible. Does the Minister agree that although they make a point today about process, they totally ignored the Office for Budget Responsibility ahead of the disastrous mini-Budget, which is still causing immense pain to my constituents?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Absolutely. It is no surprise that we have a Conservative party that wants to talk about process, but it will not take responsibility for the £22 billion black hole that it left in our finances.

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

Yesterday, Mr Speaker, you made the strongest statement of condemnation on a subject of this sort that I have heard from the Chair in 27 years in this House. The Minister is a decent chap and, for all I know, he may be a skilled cricketer, but he must admit that he is batting on a sticky wicket today. Does he understand that if his defence is just to say, “We did it because the previous party did it,” nobody will ever break this cycle? His party has a big majority. It could just say sorry and resolve to do better in future.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I have a great deal of respect for the right hon. Gentleman. I am not a cricketer, as it happens, so I cannot comment on the condition of the wicket. With regard to Mr Speaker, I did initially set out in my remarks today my respect for what he said both yesterday and today, and my respect for Members of this House.

[Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)]

I think we all understand that Conservative Members are desperate to talk about anything other than their record of 14 years of failure in government. We hear from hon. Friends and Opposition Members how those failures are affecting constituents every single day. My question is, what next? How will the Conservatives distract us next?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is entirely right about the Conservative party’s desire to distract from its record, whether it is the lockdown parties or the PPE VIP lane for contracts. This Government are appointing a covid corruption commissioner to get the public’s money back.

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

Those of us who have been in this place for some time will remember the outraged indignation of the now Government, when they were in opposition, every time the now Opposition pulled a stunt like this. The only constant is you, Mr Speaker, and your efforts to have whichever of them is in power treat this House and its Members with respect. Can the Minister not see that the Government displaying such arrogant contempt for the rules only feeds the public perception that one is as bad as the other? Rather than delivering the change it promised, the Labour party is really saying, “It’s our turn now.”

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The hon. Gentleman cannot possibly be saying that there is any comparison with breaching the rules during the covid pandemic. He really cannot; that is not a serious proposition. Nor is it a serious proposition to suggest that this is comparable with the money that was lost in the PPE VIP lane—it really is not.

[Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)]

Despite the rumours being spread, including by the Conservative party, can my right hon. Friend confirm that not a single change to taxation has yet been announced, and that they will in fact be announced at the Budget tomorrow?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

As my hon. Friend says, the measures will be announced at tomorrow’s Budget in the normal way, with the Office for Budget Responsibility’s economic and fiscal forecast. The Conservative party may denigrate the Office for Budget Responsibility, but this Government respect our financial institutions.

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

Can the Paymaster General confirm that the Chancellor receiving £7,500-worth of free clothes and declaring them as office support is a breach of the ministerial code?

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I must say, the Conservatives have learned absolutely nothing. They trashed ministerial standards and standards in this House when in government. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Shannon, you are meant to sit down again.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The Conservatives trashed standards in government. My suggestion to them is to reflect on the past 14 years.

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

I am very grateful to several Conservative Members for admitting to quite a lot of the mistakes that they made in government. People in my constituency are still paying the price, in their mortgages and rents, for the disastrous Conservative economic record. Is it any wonder that the Conservatives are so desperate to speak about anything other than their disastrous record?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the Conservatives will talk about anything but their own record. Is it any wonder that they did not conduct a spending review before they called a general election? The reality is that they made unfunded spending commitments and then ran away.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

A remit of the new Modernisation Committee is to enhance the ability of Members of this House to hold the Government to account. In the light of the failure that has been exhibited over recent days, would the Minister be in favour of referring this issue to the Modernisation Committee?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I was not aware that financial mismanagement by the Conservative party was a matter for the Modernisation Committee, but it should certainly be referred to something.

[Josh Simons (Makerfield) (Lab)]

Like others, I am surprised to hear that Conservative Members recently rediscovered their moral compass—the one that they lost perhaps when the former Prime Minister sent out the “bring your own bottle” invite to Downing Street, when he spent taxpayers’ money jetting his girlfriend around the world, or when they unlawfully suspended this place. Perhaps the Minister agrees that there might be another motivation. Does the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) want to keep her job next week?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Of course, we wish the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) well for the reshuffle next week. As ever, my hon. Friend makes a very persuasive point. The Conservatives will talk about anything apart from their record.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

At 10 pm last night, the Government announced a £70 million increase in funding for radiotherapy. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for radiotherapy, I very much welcome that, but would it not have been better and right for the Government to make a statement to the House so that the policy could be properly scrutinised? That £70 million equals about 30 linear accelerators, but it will take 70 linear accelerators just to replace those that are going out of date this year. It will not meet the needs of people living in rural communities such as mine. We desperately need a satellite radiotherapy unit in Kendal so that people can get to treatment quickly. Will the Paymaster General put that lack of scrutiny right by arranging for a Health Minister to meet me and the rest of the all-party group, so that we can work closely to take forward those plans together?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I will certainly pass on that request to the relevant Health Minister. Putting aside the point that the hon. Gentleman makes about scrutiny, I am sure that he joins us in welcoming the focus on radiotherapy, and there will be a real desire to work on it with him across party lines.

[Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)]

I was elected to keep the promises that we made in our manifesto. The Conservative party broke nearly every promise that it made in its 14 years in government. Does the Minister agree that it is only right for this Government to confirm that we will honour the pledges we made at the election?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am afraid that trust was one of the many things that the Conservative Government destroyed over 14 years, and this Government are determined to rebuild it.

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

The Chancellor, the Education Secretary, the Health Secretary and the Work and Pensions Secretary have all made significant announcements to the media and not to the House. Will those breaches of the ministerial code be investigated? Why has the Prime Minister not yet published an updated version of the ministerial code—are the Government still working out whether it is right to accept suits and glasses?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

We have already said that the Prime Minister will update the ministerial code and publish it shortly to ensure that it is fit for purpose, deals with problems such as the Tory freebie loophole, as I have said, and meets the high standards that the Prime Minister expects.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

We hear a lot about “14 years of failure”, but it seems to me that this Government have had 14 years to learn how the ministerial code works. In reality, the announcement made by the Chancellor last week moved the markets: bond yields went up, which means that mortgages and people’s bills have gone up. The right thing for the Government to do is to apologise.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

First, we will see the impact of what the Chancellor announces tomorrow and in the days afterwards. The ministerial code will be published shortly. That stands in stark contrast to what the previous Government did. I watched from the Opposition Benches as they tried to tear up the entire rulebook to protect one of their friends—that is not something that we will do.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

After your statement yesterday, Mr Speaker, I think you will have been as disappointed as I was that when the Chancellor came to the Chamber for Treasury questions this morning, she failed to apologise for the serious and important announcements that she had made outside the House. Without deflecting any further by talking about the previous Government’s record, will the Minister promise now that the ministerial code, and the Speaker of this House, who represents us all, will be respected by the Government?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Of course this Government respect both Mr Speaker and the ministerial code, but I make no apology whatsoever for holding the Conservative party to account for its record.

[Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

Conservative Members, in their faux outrage, have complete amnesia about their series of egregious failures in government, for which people in my constituency are still paying the price. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to consider the future that this Government can bring to the people of Central Ayrshire?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In recent weeks, we have had the investment summit, where this Government—an active Government —got pledges of £63 billion of investment into our economy. That is already a much better record than that of the Conservative Government, under whom investment was in decline.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

I declare an interest as a governor of the Royal Berkshire hospital, and a family member of mine has a shareholding in a health company. Yesterday, I asked the Chief Secretary to the Treasury whether he would commit to urgent funding for the Royal Berkshire hospital, and I was told very politely to wait for Wednesday’s Budget. Does the Minister agree that there is a democratic deficit when elected MPs cannot get an answer on issues that affect their constituents, but details of the Budget are, at the same time, being briefed to the press?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

There are a range of ways in which the hon. Gentleman can get answers for his constituents, from written parliamentary questions to securing a debate in Westminster Hall or an Adjournment debate. He does not have long to wait for the Budget, and he will have four days of debate afterwards to raise that point.

[Jim Shannon]

I say this very gently to the Minister, but it must be said: throughout his term, Mr Speaker has been painfully clear that there is a procedure for this House that we must all follow. Does the Minister not agree that this Government, who have come to power on a mandate to do things the right way, must pay respect to that convention? It is not in place simply due to tradition but to ensure that policy changes are heard and debated in this Chamber first, which is the purpose of this House, rather than heard and debated in TV studios throughout the country with a simple nod in the direction of the discourse of democracy.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I have huge respect for this House, to which the hon. Gentleman is a frequent contributor. The Government’s respect for the ministerial code, for Mr Speaker and for Members of this House is absolute.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

Over the past few days, we have had multiple leaked definitions of what working people are. Will the Government place in the House of Commons Library a definition ready for tomorrow’s Budget, so we can all understand who they are talking about?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I can tell the hon. Gentleman about working people. Working people are the people who have been so appallingly let down by the Conservative party. They are the people who are paying extra costs in their mortgages and their rents every month; they are the people hit by the cost of living; they are the people left on record waiting lists by the Conservative party; and they are the people who this Government are determined to deliver for.

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to Paul Holmes.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker—there I was ready to defend your honour, Sir. Even after your ruling yesterday, the Government made more announcements on the BBC this morning concerning health services, so has the Paymaster General asked his advisers at the Cabinet Office whether they think the Chancellor or any other Minister has broken the ministerial code? If he has not asked for that advice, why not?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Come on. The Conservative party, which showed zero respect for the ministerial code in office, trying to put questions like that is appalling—it is double standards. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I expect better of a senior Whip!

Interim Compensation Payments for Victims of Infected Blood

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2024 Written Statements

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

In May, the infected blood inquiry produced its final report, and the country heard the full extent to which thousands of men, women, and children had their lives overturned by the use of infected blood and blood products in the NHS. The infected blood scandal is a shameful mark on our national history. I pay tribute to the courage and determination of every single person who has suffered because of the use of infected blood and to those who have taken tireless action to ensure their community is heard. Every death that results from the infected blood scandal is a tragedy, and this Government are committed to acting on the findings of the infected blood inquiry to ensure swift resolution for all of those impacted.

The principal recommendation from the infected blood inquiry was that the Government compensation scheme for victims of infected blood should be established “now”. The infected blood compensation scheme was legally established for people who are infected and claiming compensation through the core route in regulations laid on 23 August. We expect the Infected Blood Compensation Authority to begin making payments to people who are infected by the end of this year, and last week the Infected Blood Compensation Authority reached out to the very first claimants under the scheme. However, there is still more to do. Subject to parliamentary approval, the Government are aiming for a second set of regulations to be in force by 31 March 2025. This will support our shared aim to begin payments to people who are affected in 2025.

The Government also recognise that people have waited far too long for compensation payments. That’s why interim payments are crucial for supporting people until the Infected Blood Compensation Authority is up and running. In October 2022, interim payments of £100,000 were made to living infected beneficiaries or bereaved partners registered with the infected blood support schemes. In June this year, further interim payments of £210,000 were made to living infected victims of infected blood. Through these interim payments, over £1 billion has been paid to people who are infected or their bereaved partners.

The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 placed a statutory duty on the Government to deliver interim payments of £100,000 to estates for deaths not yet recognised through financial compensation. This followed the recommendation in Sir Robert Francis’ compensation framework study that interim payments should be made

“to recognise the deaths of people to date unrecognised and thereby alleviate immediate suffering”

and achieves the spirit of recommendation 12 of the infected blood inquiry’s second interim report in the most practicable way.

On 26 July, I informed the House that the applications for interim payments due to be made to estates of deceased infected persons were scheduled to open in October, and that further details were to follow. Today, I can announce that the process under which estates can apply for interim compensation payments has now opened. For many people, this is the first substantial compensation payment they will benefit from to recognise the lives of people they have lost as a result of the use of infected blood and blood products.

This is a £100,000 interim payment, and as with any compensation payment related to infected blood, it will be exempt from income tax, capital gains tax and inheritance tax and disregarded from means tested benefit assessments.

As with the previous interim payments, these payments will be delivered through the existing infected blood support schemes. These payments are to be made to the estates of deceased infected persons, where interim payments have not already been received, in those cases where the deceased infected person was registered with an existing or predecessor scheme on or before 17 April 2024.

Those who were not registered with an existing or predecessor scheme on or before this date may still be eligible for compensation. For these cases, estate representatives will need to apply to claim compensation with the Infected Blood Compensation Authority, once applications open. I will provide a further update on this in due course.

Where an interim compensation payment has already been made directly to the infected person, to their bereaved partner, or their estate, an estate will be ineligible for this interim payment.

Only the personal representative of the estate is able to make the application. Applicants will need a grant of probate, letters of administration, or a grant of confirmation —specific to Scotland—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. Applicants may request a hard copy of the application form from the UK infected blood support scheme operating in the nation of the UK where the deceased infected person was infected. The completed form and supporting documents should be sent to the relevant infected blood support scheme.

[HCWS164]

Oral Answers to Questions

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

4. What steps his Department is taking to help reduce trade barriers with the EU.

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

The Prime Minister and President von der Leyen have agreed to strengthen the relationship between the UK and the EU. Vice-President Šefčovič, whom I met in Strasbourg on Tuesday, and I will be getting the reset moving this autumn. As part of this, the Government will seek to negotiate a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement and remove other barriers to trade.

[Clive Jones]

The British Poultry Council has recorded a 50% drop in poultry-linked exports since 2020. Between 2019 and 2022, UK agrifood exports to the EU contracted by 5% and have struggled to recover to 2019 levels. Rural businesses are being held back from exporting to the EU due to costly border charges and administrative hurdles. Has the Minister’s Department assessed the impact on food prices if a veterinary and plant agreement with the EU is not reached before Christmas?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The hon. Gentleman’s question sets out exactly why negotiating an SPS agreement is so important. The Government have set out that there will be a UK-EU summit in the first half of next year, and it has been made clear to me, and indeed to Vice-President Šefčovič, that there should be progress by then.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I offer the congratulations of Liberal Democrat Members to our hon. Friend the Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) on the safe arrival of his baby son yesterday. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I offer our very best wishes to David, Gemma and all the family.

I am sure the Government agree that support to provide opportunities for young people should be central to the policy of any Government. We are glad to see the new Government working to build closer economic and cultural ties with Europe. We want to forge a new partnership with our European neighbours, built on co-operation, not confrontation, and move to a new comprehensive agreement. We must rebuild confidence by agreeing partnerships or associations, helping to restore prosperity and opportunities for British people. Will the Minister consider the extension of the youth mobility scheme and acknowledge the breadth of ways in which it could strengthen our cultural, educational and economic links with Europe?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

First, I add our congratulations to the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) on the safe arrival of his new baby.

On the specific point that the hon. Lady makes, we will not give a running commentary on the negotiations. We will obviously consider EU proposals on a range of issues, but we are clear that we will not return to freedom of movement.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Last week, the Infected Blood Compensation Authority issued a small number of invitations to begin testing a new claims service. Furthermore, I can announce today that applications for interim payments to the estates of people whose death has not yet been recognised have now opened. This is an important step in getting money into the hands of victims of the infected blood scandal.

[Sarah Owen]

My constituent Sharon Moore has been a fierce campaigner for victims of the infected blood scandal and their family members. After decades of Government negligence, Sir Brian Langstaff was clear that the community of infected and affected people should be included to enact his inquiry recommendations. However, the previous Government engaged in little to no communication with patients or organisations such as the Haemophilia Society and the Terrence Higgins Trust. I am delighted that those recommendations are being enacted today, but could the Minister please tell us how he will be working with the Department of Health and Social Care and his colleagues in that Department to make sure that people get the compensation they deserve?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s constituent Sharon Moore for all her campaigning. As I have said to the House, I have now given the instruction for interim payments to the estates of the deceased infected to open today, and I expect the Infected Blood Compensation Authority to make its first payments before the end of the year. Subject to the House’s processes, I would hope that regulations for those who are affected—the second set of regulations—will be completed by the end of March next year, and I expect that payments to the affected to begin next year as well.

[Adam Thompson]

I am very pleased to hear that the Minister has opened applications for interim payments. Will he elaborate on how those payments may be accessed, so that my constituents in Erewash can get their hands on them as fast as possible?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I invite all right hon. and hon. Members to go on the gov.uk website, which gives the details for the Infected Blood Compensation Authority. I urge people with an interest to register with the authority, which is already sending out newsletters. However, right hon. and hon. Members are also very welcome to write to me at the Cabinet Office about specific cases. I will of course look into those cases and ensure there is a response.

[Patrick Hurley]

I welcome the urgency with which this Government have moved this important issue forward, especially now that we know there is a timescale for applications being opened. Will the Minister update the House on when victims can expect to receive their final compensation payments?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

As I have indicated to the House, I expect the Infected Blood Compensation Authority to make its first payments before the end of the year, and to start payments to the affected next year. The Government are moving as quickly as they can to ensure that people receive the compensation that, frankly, is long overdue.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

I warmly welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s announcement on the £100,000 interim payments to the estates of the deceased infected, thereby maintaining the momentum that was established earlier this year, and I thank him for his thorough statement to the House yesterday introducing the statutory instrument. Will he confirm that it is his intention to ramp up rapidly from the payouts to the test case cohort of 20 infected? Can he give the House as much detail as he can about when others in the infected cohort should expect to receive their payouts?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the constructive tone he has taken throughout the debates under this Government. That continues the work we did when I was the shadow Minister, when we worked together to try to deliver these payments as quickly as possible.

The whole purpose of having the test cohort is to enable a range of different cases to be considered by the Infected Blood Compensation Authority, to give us the best possible opportunity to ramp up as quickly as possible. That is why I expect the first payments to be made before the end of this year. I then expect payments to the affected to begin next year, and I will ensure that regulations are placed before this House to make sure those deadlines are reached.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

8. What steps he is taking to ensure high ministerial standards in government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

12. What steps he is taking to reform the House of Lords.

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

As is set out in our manifesto, this Government are committed to reforming the House of Lords. Our objective is to bring about a renewed focus on active contribution within a smaller House of Lords that better reflects the country it serves. As an immediate first step in reform, the Government have introduced legislation within our first 100 days to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords.

[Abtisam Mohamed]

It is extremely welcome that this House overwhelmingly supported the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill. The Lords must be more reflective of society. Currently, it is not reflective of society or of regions like South Yorkshire and Sheffield. Does the Minister agree that there should not be places in our Parliament that are reserved purely for those from certain families, as that only preserves the privilege of the aristocracy?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Conservative party seems to stand for few things currently, and it was astonishing that it decided that one of them is hereditary privilege in the House of Lords.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

Last week’s legislation was welcome and was supported by the Liberal Democrats, and we were glad of the Government’s suggestion that these were initial steps ahead of broader reform. Will the Minister outline a timeframe for when further legislation will be brought forward for democratic reform of our upper Chamber, and can he assure me that safeguards will be put in place to protect against cronyism, with improved mechanisms to review appointments to the other House?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her constructive approach to this matter. Clearly, we want to see the current Bill on the statute book as soon as possible. We will then move on to the second stage of our reforms, looking carefully to build a consensus to have that smaller, better value, active House of Lords that we all want to see providing more considered scrutiny of this House. We will certainly consider her specific points about the appointments process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

T3. Will the duty of candour in the Hillsborough law apply to the 70-year-long nuclear test veterans scandal?

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

I thank my hon. Friend for that question; she is a long-standing champion for justice for victims of the infected blood scandal and, indeed, the nuclear test veterans that she mentioned. We are looking to introduce a broad duty of candour—a general duty of candour. I should also point out that criminal sanctions will be really important to punish the most egregious breaches, and I am pleased to confirm today, as the Prime Minister announced in September, that the Bill we will bring forward will include criminal sanctions.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Dr Danny Chambers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his interest in this matter and his words of support about the progress the Government have made. Sir Robert Francis conducted an extensive engagement exercise during the general election period, and the Government responded to that by adopting 69 of the 74 recommendations that were subsequently made. I met victims of the scandal in the days before I made the announcement back in August. I also work closely with the Health Ministers of the devolved Administrations, including Northern Ireland.

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Can the Minister confirm that the procurement reforms will consider social value and local impact in contracts of Government and partners, such as the Crown Estate and Great British Energy, in important areas where there are World Trade Organisation non-competition exemptions, for example floating offshore wind contracts in the Celtic sea? They can provide a critical boost to the economies of places such as Cornwall.

Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2024 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Regulations 2024 (SI, 2024, No. 872), dated 22 August 2024, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23 August, be approved.

Let us start by reminding ourselves why we are here today. The infected blood scandal is a mark of shame on the British state. The infected blood inquiry’s final report, which was published on 20 May, shed light on the trauma inflicted on thousands of people across the country through no fault of their own. People were given contaminated blood or blood products and contracted HIV, hepatitis C and hepatitis B, and then for years they had their voices ignored. Those who were affected—the people who loved, knew and cared for someone who was infected—similarly had their voices ignored. That did nothing but compound the trauma for all involved.

The infected blood inquiry’s second interim report, published in 2023, set out 18 recommendations on compensation, informed by Sir Robert Francis KC’s 2022 compensation scheme study. The inquiry was unequivocal that a compensation scheme must be set up immediately.

The regulations before the House are essential for delivering that compensation scheme and getting money to people as quickly as we can. In May, when the now Prime Minister and I responded to Sir Brian Langstaff’s inquiry, we were absolutely clear. I said:

“One of the most powerful conclusions in this report is that an apology is meaningful only if it is accompanied by action”.—[Official Report, 21 May 2024; Vol. 750, c. 748.]

Today, with the regulations and the compensation scheme, we are delivering that action and taking another step on the road to the justice that has been so cruelly delayed.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

My constituent Alex Robinson lost her father to this scandal in 2006, having been his carer since the age of 13. In her words:

“He never got to walk me down the aisle or hold his grandchildren.”

She is incredibly concerned about getting justice. Can the Minister confirm that my constituent, along with all the families, will receive legal support to ensure that they can make their application to the compensation scheme successfully?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am sure the whole House will join me in expressing our sympathies with the situation that my hon. Friend’s constituent and her family have been through. The Infected Blood Compensation Authority will aim to ensure that appropriate advice and support is available to assist people in managing their compensation awards, in accessing financial services and, where relevant, in accessing benefits advice. Sir Robert Francis KC recommended in his report that legal support be available to people who want to claim compensation; the Government and I have accepted that recommendation. We will work with the Infected Blood Compensation Authority to develop the package of support services.

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

One of the report’s recommendations is that charities and support organisations that provide advice to victims and their families be placed on a statutory funding basis. Can the Minister confirm that the Government’s intention is to implement that recommendation?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

If I understand the hon. Gentleman’s intervention correctly, he is talking about the different organisations that already exist. We will consider all the recommendations in the round, but he is absolutely right to highlight the hugely important role of those organisations. The Infected Blood Compensation Authority will look to work with the different support organisations. That is vital.

The scheme is based on the recommendations and principles put forward by the inquiry. In line with those, and supported by advice from the inquiry response expert group, it was updated following the engagement exercise that Sir Robert Francis KC undertook in June with victims and representatives of the infected blood community. The Government have sought to design a fair and comprehensive compensation scheme, which will also be quick and simple for eligible applicants to access.

I turn first to eligibility. The scheme and the regulations define people who are eligible as infected people, in line with recommendation 2 of the inquiry’s second interim report. That covers people infected with HIV, hepatitis C and hepatitis B, and it includes people directly infected by treatment with blood as well as people indirectly infected via transmission from a directly infected person.

Secondly, the regulations establish a core route for claiming compensation as an infected person. The core route provides for compensation to be awarded under five categories or heads of loss, as set out in recommendation 6 of the inquiry’s report: an injury impact award, a social impact award, a care award, a financial loss award and an autonomy award. Together, they will comprise the total compensation award to infected individuals, or to the estate of any deceased infected individuals, to recognise the wide-ranging harm resulting from their infection.

Earlier this year, the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 established the Infected Blood Compensation Authority in law to deliver the scheme. I am proud to have campaigned with many Members across the House to have delivered that change in legislation; I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) for his role. I am proud that this Government are now delivering on that commitment.

The regulations before the House will provide the Infected Blood Compensation Authority with the legal powers that it needs to begin making payments. They also provide further detail on how it will accept applications and pay awards. The authority, under the chairmanship of Sir Robert Francis, has been working hard to design and implement effective, simple and secure processes that put the infected blood community at the heart of its work.

Last week, the Infected Blood Compensation Authority reached out to the very first claimants under the scheme. The authority is taking a test-and-learn approach that will ensure that it can take feedback on board and improve the service before it opens its full compensation service. I hope that that step provides confidence that we are absolutely committed to driving forward progress to meet our shared intention of beginning payments by the end of this year, as I have previously said to the House. I will do everything in my power to ensure that all those who are entitled to compensation receive it as soon as possible.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I commend him for the way in which he is handling this very sensitive matter; he has got the tone just right. On behalf of a constituent, Mr A, who was infected by being born of a mother who was infected, I have corresponded with Sir Robert Francis KC. If my constituent were here, he would be keen to know that the compensation scheme will cover people in his circumstances, both for their physical and mental distress. For the avoidance of doubt, could the Minister please confirm that those people will be covered by the scheme as well?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Yes. First of all, and I am sure I speak for everyone in the House, I express my sympathies to the right hon. Gentleman’s constituent and his family. The right hon. Gentleman is entirely right to raise the case directly with Sir Robert Francis. I urge Members across the House to look up the details of the Infected Blood Compensation Authority on the gov.uk website and point their constituents in that direction—the authority is already setting out newsletters—and to do as the right hon. Gentleman has done and write directly to the authority. On the basis of being infected through transmission from his mother, his constituent clearly fits the category of an infected person under the scheme. He is precisely the kind of person the scheme is designed to help. The right hon. Gentleman is right to raise the case on the Floor of the House today in this debate.

[Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. This has been a long, long journey for the people who have been affected by this scandal—and that is exactly what it has been. Can he clarify an issue that has been raised about inheritance tax? Given that many payments will be paid to the very elderly, many second generation recipients are worried about inheritance tax. Will they be exempt from inheritance tax? Is that possible?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Yes, the awards are exempt from inheritance tax and capital gains tax. That is precisely how the scheme has been designed. I hope that gives reassurance to the hon. Gentleman.

Let me move on to the points raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, as it is important that I address them. As the Committee noted, the infected blood scandal stretches back over many decades, and access to records, in particular medical evidence, will be very challenging—I acknowledge that. That is at the very heart, as I am sure hon. and right hon. Members will understand, of the challenge of trying to address an injustice that has been allowed to continue for so many decades. Where that is the case, the authority will need to make objective decisions relying on the evidence that is available in order to determine, on the balance of probabilities, that treatment with infected blood occurred. The authority will—I expect it to do this—provide assistance to those who believe that their medical records have been lost or destroyed, and evidencing eligibility will be easier, faster and more compassionate than, for example, one would experience through any court proceedings.

The Committee highlighted the complexity of the regulations. That is why, alongside the publication of the regulations and the explanatory memorandum, the Government published a detailed policy paper in August on how the compensation scheme will operate, setting out what individuals can expect to receive, including case study examples. Additionally, the Infected Blood Compensation Authority will ensure that appropriate advice and support is available to assist people with managing their compensation awards, accessing financial services and accessing benefits advice where relevant, as I set out in response to an earlier intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash).

Thirdly, the Committee raised questions on how claimants will receive payments. As set out in recommendation 10 of the infected blood inquiry’s second interim report, the regulations include a mechanism for electing for periodic compensation payments or a lump sum. That is responding to the wishes of those who have told us that they wanted that option to be available to them. We have also provided an alternative for those currently receiving support scheme payments through the infected blood support schemes. The so-called IBSS route was developed following the recommendations of Sir Robert Francis KC, following his engagement with representatives of the infected blood community.

The clearest finding from that engagement was around the continuation of the existing support scheme payments. The Government have listened, and we have agreed and accepted that support scheme payments will continue for life for those who elect the IBSS route. The route will be available for those who applied to be registered on a support scheme on or before 31 March 2025, and delivered as part of the compensation package. The tariff-based scheme is designed to be fast, fair, consistent and secure. We hope that people will be satisfied that they have been provided with full and fair compensation, as the scheme sets out. However, should that not be the case, the regulations make provision for review of decisions made by the authority and for appeals to the first-tier tribunal.

[Mike Amesbury (Runcorn and Helsby) (Lab)]

Michael in my constituency will benefit from the compensation, and I commend the Minister and the Government for their swift action. How do we ensure that we maintain trust in the process? Is there an opportunity for victims to review any aspects of the compensation scheme that may not be working?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point about trust in the process. The scheme is designed to have a core route, and a supplemental route for particular issues around care claims or financial loss that are not appropriately captured in the core route. There is also provision around review and appeals to the first-tier tribunal, which is important. One of the purposes of having a tariff-based scheme is to try to make it simpler and easier to access, so that the need for subsequent appeals is minimised.

I know that the House speaks as one when it comes to paying long overdue compensation to those impacted by this harrowing scandal. Following the passing of the Victims and Prisoners Act, these regulations are the next substantial step towards getting money to people who rightly deserve it. However, although there has been progress, the work is far from finished. A second set of regulations will provide for other elements of the compensation scheme, including compensation payments to those who are affected and for claims outside the core route. Subject to parliamentary approval, the Government aim for the second set of regulations to be in place by 31 March 2025, to support our intention—as I have previously told this House—for those affected to start receiving payments next year.

There is shared determination across the House to deliver compensation as swiftly as possible and with the minimum delay. I hope that today, hon. Members across the House can agree that these regulations are a significant step towards that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford). In me, he has another willing volunteer to assist him in the group, as he knows. He is absolutely right to pay tribute to our former colleague, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), who led the group with such distinction and energy in the last Parliament. She was almost personally responsible for ensuring we had the legislative solution to take forward the compensation schemes.

I also pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen), who made a significant difference when he took leadership on this issue for the last Government, after years of obfuscation, delay and dithering. The right hon. Gentleman got to grips with the matter and all the campaigners recognise what he brought to the role. I hope that this Minister does the same. We all acknowledge that he has made a good start. The points that the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst makes as chair as the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood are absolutely right. If he continues in that curious and investigatory style, we will continue to encourage the Government to do the right thing by the infected and the affected.

I am happy to say, with a great deal of satisfaction, that we have made significant progress. We are at the point of being able to deliver the scheme, and we will start to see payments to those who have needed support and compensation so badly throughout all these decades. My only slight criticism of the right hon. Member for Salisbury is that it is a pity that we did not get the opportunity to debate the issue in the last Parliament. There was an unsatisfactory statement from the former Prime Minister, who then just disappeared. There was no real opportunity to ask questions properly. I know he made an effort to address some of the concerns, but it would have been good to hear more at that point about how the schemes were being taken forward. The general election created a massive gap, after all the energy and activity that had been summoned up to resolve the issue, but we are where we are.

The final report by the infected blood inquiry was a fantastic piece of work. I pay tribute to everybody involved in it. They went about their jobs diligently and comprehensively, and we ended up with a wide-ranging report that shed a dramatic light on all the things that had gone wrong. It paved the way to create a positive way forward that is now beginning to deliver.

We must remember why we are here: thousands of people were caught up in probably the worst health scandal this country has ever endured. It is a failure of the British state that we ended up in a situation where people, through no fault of their own, contracted HIV, hepatitis B and hepatitis C. When those who were caring for them raised concerns, they were constantly ignored and told, “There’s nothing to see here.” The inquiry was unequivocal that a compensation scheme must be set up immediately. The regulations we are debating today are essential for delivering that compensation scheme as quickly and effectively as possible.

I have been supporting victims of the infected blood scandal for about 20 years, since it was first brought to my attention by a constituent, who died about 10 years ago and is no longer with us. I remember the frustrations of those early years when I was constantly writing on behalf of this constituent just to be stonewalled—to be told that there was nothing to see and nothing further to be considered. It was that reluctance to take these issues seriously that defined those early years.

I said to the former Minister, the right hon. Member for Salisbury, that I hoped we would get some sort of separate investigation into why Members of Parliament were consistently deceived and—I shall say this—lied to by people working in the Department of Health. We were constantly writing letters on behalf of our constituents, and the replies were clearly rubbish. As a recipient of several of those letters from Ministers, I want to know why I was deceived in the way that I was. I pay tribute to Andy Burnham: he recognised this and he actually signed many of those letters as the former Health Secretary. I want to know how this came to his desk and why he actually did this.

The key thing is, as other Members have said, that the groups that are representing the community are properly listened to and are engaged in the construction of the regulations. It is too late for the regulations we are debating, but when it comes to the affected, the representative groups have to be central to the design of the new regulations. I say that because they have real life experience of this matter. They know what the issues are. They have fought for decades to get to this stage to secure this justice and compensation. I know that there is frustration. I saw the Minister screwing his face in response to the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst, but those groups do feel frustrated. They feel that they are being ignored, that their concerns are not being taken seriously, and that they are getting generic general replies from the Minister instead of detailed, proper responses to their issues.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

rose—

[Pete Wishart]

I will give way to the Minister if he will explain to me exactly why that is happening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I just want to say that the hon. Member should read nothing into that facial expression. When I close this debate, I shall talk in detail about the consultation that has taken place. That includes the extensive consultation that Sir Robert Francis undertook during the election campaign—the period between me and the right hon. Member for Salisbury being in office. That was hugely important. The Government have listened and have made significant changes to the scheme. It is not about giving generic replies, as the hon. Member has suggested. The Government will continue to move extremely carefully and listen to concerns, and the Infected Blood Compensation Authority will do the same.

[Pete Wishart]

I am to grateful to the Minister for his response. I look forward to his summing up, as I know that he will sincerely try to address these matters, but I say to him that all I am doing is reflecting the concerns that I have heard from the groups that I have worked with so closely over the years. There is a sense that they are not being taken all that seriously and that they are not getting the responses and the information that they think are important.

The Minister mentioned Sir Robert Francis. There has been nothing other than glowing praise for the way that Sir Robert has carried out his business. I know that he had a useful and productive meeting with representatives of Haemophilia Scotland where everything was aired and properly discussed. There is absolutely no complaint from anybody in this House about the way that Sir Robert Francis has gone about his business. He has been up and down the country listening to the groups. But there are certain things that only the Minister can respond to, particularly when it comes to policy decisions. That is why I encourage him to hold a debate on them. He has said that he is prepared to do so, which I am grateful for, and that he has perhaps been misunderstood. The community must be given the information and advice that they require.

There are a couple of matters that I hope the Minister will address in his closing remarks. I will not repeat some of the points that have already been raised, as I know he has taken a note of them. Sir Robert Francis proposed an additional autonomy award under the supplementary route for those who had been subjected to the unethical treatment and experiments that have been described. Although that is welcome, it is not clear how the figures have been arrived at, so I would like a little more clarity on that. How have these figures been calculated?

One issue that possibly has not been raised today is those with hepatitis C who were treated with interferon. Early treatment methods for the eradication of hepatitis C had many negative side effects, which were extremely difficult to go through and had a lasting effect on those treated. Is that a group that the Minister will consider?

The future operation of support schemes is also important. The decision to continue existing support scheme payments for life for those who were registered with a scheme before 1 April 2024 was a welcome development. The House will know how important that is to me as a Scottish Member of Parliament, as we had a very effective, productive and useful support scheme that I think will now be concluded and no longer open to new members. I would like to hear a little more on that point.

Sir Robert’s report said:

“The benefits offered by the scheme to eligible recipients for financial and other support services should be no less than those offered by any of the current support schemes.”

I want to know whether that is still the Government’s position. It is also assumed, based on Sir Robert’s recommendation, that all the benefits of the support schemes will continue. It would be good if the Government could confirm their position at an early date so that individuals have clarity on their future entitlements.

Under the regulations, the Minister has the power to make arrangements for the provision of support and assistance to applicants or potential applicants for compensation under the infected blood compensation scheme. Sir Robert Francis has identified three groups to which the Minister might usefully apply that prerogative: IBCA-funded legal representation, IBCA-funded financial support from an independent financial adviser and IBCA-funded legal support to executors of estates where there are complex matters to resolve in determining entitlements and access to an independent mediation service.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) spoke about the need to ensure that representative groups are properly supported and resourced to continue their vital advocacy work on behalf of so many in the community. I would like the Minister to say a little more about the willingness of the Government to ensure that those groups are properly funded. The effort that they have put in over decades—sometimes in a solitary exercise by two or three people—is extraordinary and should be recognised as part of the scheme.

We are looking forward to the next round, and it is important that we go forward. I have queries, which I know the Minister will probably address, about why only 20 people have been contacted, as the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst mentioned. I have no idea why it is only 20, so perhaps the Minister can tell us a little more about the rationale. It is right that the system be tested to see whether it is robust before it is opened to a wider community, but he has to say a little more about why it is those 20.

I am not having a go at the Minister, who I think is doing a good job; I am here to congratulate him and encourage him ever so gently to get moving just that little bit faster. We have had decades of obfuscation, a lack of progress, and people dying as they waited for compensation. This matter now sits on the Minister’s shoulders. We will be watching him and keeping an eye on it. I know that there will be regular updates to the House. Believe me, we will all be here to ensure that he is doing the right thing by the victims.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I note that time is short. I will get through as many of the points that have been raised as I can, but I say to all right hon. and hon. Members that my door is very much open; please do follow up with a letter to me if there are specific points that you want me to provide a more detailed response to. I would be more than happy to do that.

In this debate we should always start with the victims at the forefront of our minds—what they went through, and how long, unfairly, they had to fight for justice. Several Members have raised the excellent work that support groups do, in supporting victims and providing advocacy for them. The Government will be engaging with those groups. The Government will be asking what more support is required. Several Members asked about that; the Government will take that work forward.

I will try to move through the points on the basis of the order in which they were raised, starting with the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen). He can certainly take my assurance that the Government are in rapid delivery mode. The point he made about complexity is a fair one. In addition to the explanatory memorandum there was an explainer, and there were case studies, published on gov.uk. I know, too, that the IBCA will provide direct support to each individual who applies for compensation. There will be caseworkers to seek to ensure that individuals understand how the scheme works and the choices they can make. Work is under way on the second set of regulations. In drafting the new explanatory memorandum I will take on board the point that was made by the Committee, and by the right hon. Member for Salisbury, and use plain and simple English wherever possible.

I have set out a number of times in the House that payments will be beginning by the end of 2024. A number of Members asked about the initial 20. The reason for that is that the IBCA is adopting a test-and-learn approach. Taking an initial representative group is the best way subsequently to ramp up the process to be as swift as possible. That has been done with the objective of getting money out of the door as quickly as possible. Of course it will now be for the IBCA to build a service that balances speed with ease of use—and of course data security, which I know would be another concern for the House.

On the second set of regulations about the supplemental route in respect of the infected and the affected, I am saying not that they will be laid by 31 March 2025 but that, subject to the vote of this House, I want them to have passed through the House by that date. I want us to move as swiftly as we possibly can.

The decision on the sequencing—the split between the infected and the affected that the Government have adopted in these regulations—was made on the basis that it would allow orderly implementation of the legal framework without impacting or delaying the delivery timetable for payments to the infected and the affected. As I have said, I hope for, and am sure that I will have, the House’s assistance in ensuring that the regulations can be approved by 31 March next year. I may have misunderstood the point made by the right hon. Member for Salisbury about an impact assessment, but the equality impact assessment is on the Government website. As for the question of cost, he has not long to wait now; he will be able to study the Budget Red Book next week.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) has been an extraordinarily powerful advocate for the Smith family. I do not think any of us can ever imagine the pain of losing a child in those circumstances. I hope that she heard my reassurance about the work of charities, and the work that the Government will now do to engage with the groups.

I have been asked a number of times about our next action, which involves the interim payments for the estates of the deceased infected. I promise that the deadline of the end of October will be met, and I will update the House tomorrow during Cabinet Office questions. I have also been asked about further opportunities to debate this issue. I have already promised that there will be a debate this year about progress on the implementation of Sir Brian Langstaff’s 12 recommendations. Compensation is obviously one of them, and I am sure that the House will understand why I am trying to drive that forward as quickly as I can, but the others are hugely important as well, and will be debated in the House.

[Ian Lavery]

One recommendation was for the establishment of a memorial, or memorials, in all the countries of the United Kingdom. Can my right hon. Friend update me on where we are with that?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I hope to be able to make an announcement about it shortly. I have told the House previously how important I think the memorialisation proposals are, and they will certainly form part of the update that I will give the House before the end of the year.

I join the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), in congratulating the students whom she has had with her and on the work that they did in researching this subject for her speech. What she said about a culture of cover-up was important. What Sir Brian Langstaff said was not that there was some specific conspiracy between individuals, but that there was something far more pervasive, which he described as a culture of “institutional defensiveness”. People and institutions put their own reputations above the public interest, and to tackle that the Government will be pushing forward with a duty of candour. That, in my view, will be a powerful lever that the House can pull for change, but it is not just about a change in the law. It is about leadership as well, and it is about culture and changing the culture, in order to bring about a system in which the public interest is put first and we collectively do all that we can to minimise the chances of a repetition of what has happened in relation to not just this scandal but others, such as Horizon and Hillsborough.

The hon. Lady and a number of other Members asked about the severity bands. The scheme is tariff-based, and the tariffs were developed through the work of the infected blood inquiry response expert group, whose members were appointed by the right hon. Member for Salisbury when he was Paymaster General. They were clinical and legal advisers, assisted by social care specialists. The Government then chose to improve the scheme after the engagement exercise that Sir Robert Francis carried out, as I mentioned to the right hon. Gentleman during the general election campaign.

The comparison between HIV and hepatitis C has been raised. For people infected with hepatitis C there are four severity bands, and they are designed in line with clinical diagnostic markers. Recognised health conditions, for example liver damage, have, therefore, been informed by the work of the expert group. It is correct that in comparison there is a single severity band for people infected with HIV. That is because HIV is a lifelong infection. The vast majority of people infected with HIV through blood products have experienced progression to advanced symptomatic HIV disease, including AIDS conditions, and have died as a consequence of the infection. Those who survived continue to be severely impacted by the infection, and the view of the expert group was that it was disproportionately complex and onerous to disaggregate that category into different experiences, and that contrasted with hepatitis, where there is a wide range of experiences, including both acute infections with long-term limited impacts and very serious and ultimately fatal infections. That is the approach, based on the expert group, that the Government have adopted.

Similarly, on siblings, which several Members have raised, the scheme is based on recommendations from Sir Robert Francis’s framework compensation study. It does not exclude siblings over 18 who may have been carers and provided care.

[John Glen]

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that when he assessed the June engagement exercise that Sir Robert Francis supervised, he did not resist any of the recommendations from the expert group that interrogated the scheme—apart from four or five where he thought the Government could do better—and there was no attempt either by the previous Government or his to resist the advice of the expert group who are engaged with the communities?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. He took exactly the same approach that I did to the expert group. I accepted, as I told the House, 69 of the 74 recommendations, including, crucially, the continuation of the support schemes. On the other five, there were reasons of simplicity or speed—of getting compensation to people more quickly. I hope the House will take the assurance that there is that imperative to act as quickly as possible.

[Sarah Olney]

I am exceptionally grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s explanation of how the different tariffs have been arrived at, which aids comprehension. However, will he also explain a little more about what the expert group did to engage with the affected communities so that they can better understand the tariff for themselves?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

As the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) and I have indicated, Sir Robert Francis engaged extensively around the country during the general election. The point the hon. Lady makes about continuously trying to make what is a complex scheme open and transparent is entirely fair and I share the desire to do that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) has constantly been a powerful voice for victims of the infected blood scandal. I have indicated in previous remarks that we will engage with the charities and groups on what more support we can give to them. On the 20 cases, that is about a test-and-learn approach to try to be able to ramp up the scheme and make it operate more quickly.

On the unethical research—an appalling and dreadful practice—the Government have accepted the amount of money that was suggested, but it should be emphasised always that these are not payments in isolation; they are just a part, and in the vast majority of cases will be a small proportion, of the amounts of money that will be paid out.

The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) spoke powerfully, and I echo his words about the former right hon. Member for Horsham, with whom I had a number of conversations about this matter. I know that he was concerned and wanted to drive the matter forward. The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford spoke powerfully about the two cases in his constituency and the need for closure, which is a hugely powerful emotion.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale) spoke powerfully about Jane Fitzgerald. She also spoke about Ronan Fitzgerald, who I understand is in the Gallery today and who is continuing the extraordinary fight for justice in which he has been engaged for so long. My hon. Friend asked a series of questions. If she writes to me with each of them, I will ensure that she receives a response.

The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor), who is back on the Liberal Democrat Benches, raised the issue of siblings, which I addressed a moment or two ago. He is entirely right to highlight the importance of communications and transparency.

My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) steps into giant shoes as the chair-designate of the APPG, because my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson) did an extraordinary job in taking this matter forward. He talked about different Government Departments. The Cabinet Office has led on this issue because of the history of the Department of Health in the 1970s and 1980s. That is why I and the previous Paymaster General took on this responsibility. My hon. Friend is right to emphasise that we should continue to engage with the infected blood community; that is a discussion I frequently have with the chair of the Infected Blood Compensation Authority, who I know shares my hon. Friend’s desire to do so.

The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) asked me about legal support, and we have accepted that it should be provided. He talked about my powers in that regard, which have been exercised. That legal support will happen, and it is hugely important that it does. We want the tariff scheme to be as quick and accessible as possible, and we want people to have that level of support.

My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) spoke powerfully of people’s scepticism about state institutions. The introduction of a duty of candour is hugely important with regard to not only this scandal, but others such as Horizon and Hillsborough. His point about document destruction was very well made, but one of the reasons for using a tariff-based scheme, rather than having thousands of individual court cases, is precisely that the documents that are available can be treated more sensitively and on the basis of the balance of probabilities.

The hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) spoke extraordinarily movingly about her constituent Graham Knight, his wife Sue and the support that she provided.

It was a privilege to listen to a fantastic maiden speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Katie White), who is the first female Member of Parliament for her constituency. She spoke with great Yorkshire pride and about her constituents understandably feeling let down in the past. She certainly did not let them down today with her maiden speech, which was positive about the way that politics can deliver real change. I am sure it is the start of a very fine parliamentary career. Her grandmother, Marjorie Simms, would have been extraordinarily proud of her today.

The hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) spoke about her constituent Philip, who summed up one chilling aspect of this scandal when he said,

“our ignorance was engineered by those in power.”

It is worth reflecting on that sentence as we look at the changes that we will need to make, beyond ensuring that people receive compensation.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee) spoke powerfully about his constituent, Roberta, and the stigma that she suffered. He also spoke about the Murray family, and if he writes to me about their specific circumstances, I will ensure that he gets a response.

The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) spoke movingly about family members and carers, and I agree with her about their huge importance. My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) spoke about the Blake family. I think that caseworkers will be hugely important in the work of the Infected Blood Compensation Authority.

I note that, understandably, the first constituent the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) mentioned did not even want her name to be mentioned. That is an indication of the ongoing pervasive nature of this scandal.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody) spoke for all of us when she said it had taken far too long to reach justice. She is welcome to write to me about the point she raised. I think she was talking about legal fees that have already been incurred, but if she writes to me I will ensure that she gets a response.

[Clive Efford]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his answers. Notwithstanding his reassurances, widespread concerns are still being expressed by those who have been affected or infected as a result of this scandal, so will he agree to a meeting with the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood, in his Department, to discuss the issues that they still want to raise?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I would be only too delighted to engage with the all-party parliamentary group, and I am sure that if my hon. Friend sends an invitation in the usual way, we can find a mutually convenient date.

My hon. Friend has just referred to the all-party group, and the spirit in which this debate has been conducted is really important. It is crucial that that cross-party approach continues. We are dealing with people who have been failed by the state, and we must acknowledge that. The regulations we are debating ensure that we can finally deliver compensation to those who have fought so hard and waited so long for justice in the most harrowing of circumstances. They deserve nothing less, and I hope that colleagues across the House will join me in supporting the regulations. I commend them to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Regulations 2024 (SI, 2024, No. 872), dated 22 August 2024, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23 August, be approved.