Nick Thomas-Symonds
Main Page: Nick Thomas-Symonds (Labour - Torfaen)Department Debates - View all Nick Thomas-Symonds's debates with the Cabinet Office
(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
I beg to move,
That the draft Infected Blood Compensation Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2026, which were laid before this House on 18 June, be approved.
Before I begin the debate, I do want to pause and reflect on the reason that we are once again here today. Thousands of people had unimaginable suffering and hardship inflicted upon them through the use of infected blood. There are thousands of individual stories—in recent years, I have had the solemn privilege to listen to many of them—of how lives were upturned, changed and, in some cases, tragically lost. I know many Members across the House will, as they always do in these debates, very movingly share their constituents’ stories, and it is important that we keep those at the forefront of our minds. It is also essential that we base our work on these stories, and that the compensation scheme reflects the lived experience of those to whom it seeks to bring justice.
I would like to briefly update the House on the delivery of compensation. Since it opened in 2024, the compensation service—the Infected Blood Compensation Authority—has contacted all infected people registered with the support scheme to start their claim. By December last year, it had opened its service to all cohorts, including to affected people. It has made offers of over £2.7 billion and paid out over £2.1 billion, in addition to the £1.4 billion that has already been paid in interim compensation.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Paymaster General for his speech and the way he is framing the debate by talking about the victims of this scandal, which is really important. Can he confirm the number of interim payments of £100,000 that have already been paid out?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I will be delighted to write to my hon. Friend with the absolute up-to-date figure, but he is absolutely right to draw attention to the importance of progress. I know that Members across the House will, as they always do, welcome that progress. I also acknowledge, quite rightly, the House holding me, and indeed IBCA, to account on the speed of compensation. We always want to see swifter delivery of compensation.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
The Minister is right to point out that although we—I think across the House—welcome his work and diligence, and that of the previous Government, on the scheme and recognise the work that needs to be done, there is absolutely no doubt there are still too few who have received compensation. As of 2 June, my understanding is that just over 3,000 out of a potential 30,000 victims had received compensation. Can he update us on what he is doing to ensure that more people get the money they need as soon as possible?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I thank the hon. Lady; I worked closely with her on this issue when I was first in this role back in 2024 and she was in her previous role. What happens is that IBCA starts small. It uses a test-and-learn approach. With the infected, that worked very well because it reached a point where, if we imagine a graph that is time and numbers of payments, there was an exponential bit where the graph went up very, very rapidly. That is where we now need to get to with the affected cohort. Indeed, IBCA is taking that same approach; it is starting small. That allows the authority to learn what additions to the claims service are needed, and to open the service to more people, as it is built around specific needs. I completely accept that that does mean that the numbers are initially lower, but I certainly expect that with the affected cohort, as with the infected cohort, we will get that moment when the numbers rise exponentially as progress is made.
As well as ensuring that the victims of the scandal receive compensation as swiftly as possible, we must deliver compensation packages that reflect their experiences. The infected blood inquiry’s additional report, published in July 2025, made clear the importance of ensuring that the community of infected and affected people were at the centre of every discussion regarding the infected blood scandal. It has always been this Government’s priority to deliver a compensation scheme that truly recognises the hardships faced by those impacted, and to do so while acknowledging the extraordinary resolve of this community in continuing to tell the stories of their experiences and their fight for justice. The regulations before the House today are a direct product of what we heard in the consultation.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
There are still concerns among the community about the regulations before us today. The Minister knows that the regulations were laid on the day of the Backbench Business debate on 18 June. That meant there was no opportunity for Ministers to take on board the points that hon. Members were making on behalf of their constituents, who still would like to see the compensation scheme tweaked. Through his ongoing dialogue with the community, does he accept that there must be an opportunity for that tweaking to take place in response to some of those concerns?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
On my hon. Friend’s first point, what we have before us is based on extensive consultation with the community. On the laying of the regulations, I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will see that the timing of this debate is designed so that we can speed up payments as quickly as possible going forward. That is why, as I am sure the House will appreciate, I have done all I can to get the debate scheduled before the summer recess.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I will, and then I will come back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford).
Chris Vince
I thank the Minister for giving way again; he is being very generous with his time. It strikes me that the victims of these sorts of scandals—sadly, this is not the first we have discussed; I think of the Horizon Post Office scandal—are put in this position through no fault of their own and do not necessarily have degrees in how to access compensation schemes. What support—for example, through some sort of caseworker—is he giving to people who are looking to claim?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that point. I have always been clear about the individualised caseworkers and the personalised approach of IBCA, and about the importance of legal and financial support, so that people can make informed decisions as to what they want to do with regards to the compensation.
I return to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst. Following on from what Sir Brian Langstaff said, I have sought to introduce a proper mechanism for feedback from the community, so that whatever the issue is within the regulations, it can be elevated to the appropriate place: to me, or whoever is the Minister, to IBCA, to IBCA’s board, to the chair or the chief executive—whoever has the power to deal with the issue. As my hon. Friend and I have discussed before, the mechanism and ability to look at the scheme is important.
The other point I would add, which my hon. Friend and I have previously discussed, is that many of the issues raised are to do not with the structure of the regulations, but with their implementation. It is important that, where there are issues of implementation—indeed, hon. and right hon. Members raise them with me—we make adjustments where necessary. I think he would acknowledge that there is a diversity of views in the community on certain issues, but we have sought to ensure that the compensation scheme reflects the views of the majority.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
The Minister is being generous in giving way. I have met people in Wokingham who are affected by the scandal. It does not just affect the person infected; it affects their family as well. My constituent is adamant that the effect on their spouse must be recognised. Does the Minister agree that the Government should give clarity on whether the spouses of those infected should receive their own separate compensation?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Yes. That is why the scheme is designed for both infected and affected people—and not just spouses; it includes children and siblings, and I am proud that it also includes carers. We think about the awful injustice for those who were infected, but we also remember the effect on their families and those around them. The hon. Member makes a powerful point.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
On that point, I acknowledge the huge amount of effort, attention and concentration that the Minister has put into the scheme. I am therefore slightly surprised that the Haemophilia Society, which is a great champion for the community, says that in its opinion, care provided by family members is not being fairly compensated. It says that the scheme does not currently enable carers to make an adequate claim for the full impact of the care they provided, and that it does not sufficiently reflect the financial and personal sacrifices made by those who have delivered that care over decades, with particular reference to children and their educational sacrifices. I know there are no easy answers to this, but has the Minister had an interaction with the Haemophilia Society, which is well placed to represent the affected community?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
As the right hon. Gentleman can imagine, I have interacted with the Haemophilia Society and many other charities over the past two years. It is important to mention that the scheme does include carers; I am perfectly willing to look at what the Haemophilia Society is saying about the precise package for carers, but the fundamental point is that carers should be recognised, and they are within the scheme.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I was interested in the Minister’s answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford). He said that, notwithstanding the regulations and all the work to set out the rules and scope of the compensation scheme, there is an opportunity for people who are affected or infected to go all the way to the chief executive or chair of IBCA—to all the bodies involved or even the Minister, if necessary. Could the Minister set out in detail the parameters of that? That could ride roughshod over a carefully developed scheme, even if not everything is perfect. How far could it go? There might be a risk that many people feel that they have not been fairly treated and then take it all the way up to the Minister, which would put this or a future Minister in an invidious position.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend makes a fair point. When it came to this particular recommendation from Sir Brian Langstaff, I was concerned about two things. First, I wanted to ensure that there was a proper structure for the infected blood community to be able to put forward their views. I did not want that to become a glorified post box—I did not want it to just be a grand correspondence scheme, where letters came in and replies were sent back. What I wanted was a proper mechanism for sifting, so that complaints can go to the right place based on the particular nature of each one, so that the appropriate person can look at each complaint and see whether it can be dealt with.
To the broader point that my hon. Friend is alluding to, we also had to have stability in the policy in order to be able now to continue to drive forward compensation. My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst, who does a fantastic job chairing the all-party parliamentary group, is quite rightly raising concerns with me. I want a proper mechanism for dealing with those concerns. That is why I have pushed so hard to make sure that we had this debate before the summer, because we must also ensure that we are doing what we can collectively to push forward the speed of payments as quickly as possible.
I should say that I have always been very grateful to the opposition parties, who have always facilitated that when I have brought regulations before the House. This is, I think, the fourth time I have done so.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I will give way to my hon. Friend, but then I had better get on to the regulations.
Ashley Dalton
My right hon. Friend is being very generous; I thank him for giving way. It was my sombre privilege to work with him on this matter when I was a Minister in the Department of Health. He is talking about driving forward the scheme; can he outline what work he has done with our devolved Governments in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales to drive forward the final compensation scheme?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
It was a privilege to work with my hon. Friend in Government. She was excellent to work with on this matter, and I am very grateful for all her contributions. Of course, I have been dealing with a number of Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendations in the Cabinet Office, but, as my hon. Friend knows, the Department of Health also had responsibility for a number of them, and I know that she drove those forward very well.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to talk about working with the devolved Administrations. Again, I have been lucky over the past two years to have worked very constructively with the devolved Administrations on this matter. This is a pre-devolution scandal, but we are taking measures to seek justice now, in the post-devolution age. To reflect that, it has been really important to work with Governments across the United Kingdom—all of whom have been constructive in the time that I have been working on this.
I will turn now to the regulations. Regulation 3 introduces a new level of award as recommended by the inquiry, so that the people who suffered from the side effects of interferon treatment will receive an additional injury award, as well as further financial loss and care compensation, to reflect the impact on their lives. Following the consultation, the regulations also ensure that people who received more than one round of interferon will be properly compensated for each of those rounds of treatment.
Regulation 4 removes the 25% deduction applied to past care compensation for people who choose to receive support scheme payments for life. Following the consultation, the regulations ensure that people will receive past financial loss compensation based on whichever of the two ways of calculating the award is most financially beneficial to them. I chose to do that to recognise that selecting only one way of calculating the award would mean that some people’s expected awards would reduce in size, which was not the intention. By running both calculations and giving each person whichever is the highest amount in their personal circumstances, we will ensure that everyone gets fair compensation through this award.
Regulation 5 makes provision for a 50% uplift to the core autonomy award for those infected under the age of 18, calculated based on the highest severity of infection they experienced during childhood.
Regulation 6 amends the eligibility criteria for the unethical research award, so that everyone treated for a bleeding disorder before 1986 will receive an unethical research award. The regulations also introduce a new unethical research award for children, which means that people who were treated for a bleeding disorder in childhood will receive an uplifted award.
The regulations also increase the amount of compensation that all eligible people receive for this award. It is one of the most shocking aspects of this scandal; I do not think that any amount of money could ever truly make up for that heinous experimentation, particularly where it took place on children. We have listened to the feedback received through the consultation, and, as a result, people who attended Treloar’s will receive £60,000 rather than the £25,000 proposed in the consultation. Other children will receive £45,000. Those treated in adulthood will receive £30,000, tripling the amount that they currently receive.
Regulation 7 ensures that everyone who was eligible for the special category mechanism or an equivalent payment through the infected blood support schemes—IBSS, as they are known—receives additional financial loss and care compensation. Following the consultation, the regulations ensure that everyone in this position has the award backdated to 2017, when the SCM award was first introduced, regardless of when they were assessed. Living people who were not assessed as eligible for SCM can also now apply for it through IBCA, including those who were previously unsuccessful in their application to the infected blood support schemes.
Regulations 8 and 9 make changes to the exceptional loss award under the supplementary route. These regulations introduce a compensation uplift of £60,000 for people who had entered or had an offer to enter a career that generally would have paid 10% more than the gross national median average earnings, as determined in 2024, at any point prior to retirement age, but were unable to progress in that career due to their infection. That award is on top of their core route financial loss award.
We also heard in the consultation that some people are concerned that they will not be able to access the exceptional loss award if they do not have historical payslips. The Government will work with IBCA to ensure that all relevant evidence can be used to help someone to show that they are eligible for the exceptional loss award, so that that is not a barrier. I have said repeatedly from the Dispatch Box that I want the scheme to be as sympathetic and unburdensome to applicants as possible.
On the occasions that I have visited IBCA, I have been very impressed by the culture being imbued there of taking a can-do approach when people are ringing and trying to find appropriate historical documents. That is particularly important for two reasons. First, the events often happened long ago. Secondly, we know from Sir Brian Langstaff’s report that there is evidence of deliberate document destruction. For both those reasons, there needs to be a sympathetic approach.
Dame Meg Hillier
There have been occasions, in various roles I have had in this place, when we have looked at documents. The Government have a document destruction plan. At the Department for Work and Pensions, for example, a year after death one’s records will be destroyed; that has been an issue when there have been problems with pensions.
Although the Minister is focused today on the regulations, what he has said is very interesting in the context of document retention and other schemes that require proof in order to pay out. With immigration, for instance, someone might need to prove that they had been in the country, and they might need to access doctors or school records. I wonder whether he, or others in the Cabinet Office, are thinking about how lessons can be learned from IBCA’s approach in this case that could be applied to other areas of Government and other compensation schemes, so that we do not lose the learnings from this for the next time—because, inevitably, sadly, things will go wrong with Government.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right and there are certainly lessons to be learned. That point applies in this case and, sadly, to a number of the other historical scandals that the House has dealt with over recent years.
Clive Jones
It is very clear that the Minister agrees that the infected blood scandal is a tragic disaster and a failure of public service. The Government must ensure that it never happens again and must strengthen any accountability measures that they can. Does he agree with me and many of the survivors that there must be a duty of candour on all public officials that is robustly enforced?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Yes, I do. The Hillsborough law is something that I have given a great deal of personal time to over the last couple of years; it has been before this House, and I do not think that it is far away at all from becoming law. I hope that over the next few months we will start to see the rolling-out of the duty of candour. It is a landmark law and putting it on the statute book will make a huge difference. It will be a hugely significant moment. It is also important that we drive forward the cultural change that it requires.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
The cultural point is really important because all the NHS scandals have this point of cultural failure, with cover-ups and defensiveness and people being badly let down. The Health Bill is going through Parliament at the moment, and one of our concerns is that the abolition of Healthwatch and the Health Services Safety Investigations Body will not help to progress that cultural change. Will the Minister urge his counterparts in the Department of Health and Social Care to reconsider those abolitions?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The point I am making around duty of candour, which I think overrides all these other points, is really what Sir Brian Langstaff was referring to. He called it institutional defensiveness, saying that the problem when awful things happened was that people put either personal or institutional reputations above the public interest. It is that cultural change that we need to drive forward.
I will return to the regulations as I am conscious of the time. Regulation 10 introduces a 50% uplift to the core injury award for some affected people. That includes eligible bereaved partners, and children and siblings who themselves became affected under 18 years of age. Eligible bereaved parents will also be able to receive this award in the tragic circumstances where their child passed away while under the age of 18. I know that some Members have raised concerns about the eligibility for this award in previous debates, and I want to assure colleagues that, as with the rest of these regulations, the decisions we made on this award directly reflect what we heard through the consultation about the specific impacts of the scandal on children.
Regulations 11 and 12 are unrelated to the public consultation, and relate to the transfer of responsibility for making support scheme payments from the infected blood support scheme to IBCA. To maintain consistency with the support schemes, the value of someone’s support scheme payments will be uprated every year in April at the rate of the consumer prices index of the previous September. These regulations therefore account for the next CPI uplift taking place in April 2027, after IBCA takes responsibility for making those support scheme payments from the existing infected blood support schemes.
Ashley Dalton
I thank the Minister for his kind words earlier. Could he clarify whether co-infected people will be able to make a compensation claim for each round of interferon that they had, or whether those are being lumped together?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
It is per round of interferon treatment. I am pleased to provide that clarification to my hon. Friend, and I repeat my thanks to her for her work.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Just to be absolutely tidy, could I make a plea on behalf of those families where the member is deceased but the estate still has a claim? There is sometimes, possibly wrongly, an impression that these people are put to the back of the queue. Could I have an assurance that that would not be the case?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Certainly every single situation is a priority. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that IBCA is operationally independent. It has come up with a priority set of cohorts, which is publicly available, but the estates of the deceased are absolutely a priority. He can certainly have that assurance.
The regulations are a result of listening, as we have been doing through the public consultation, to those impacted by this terrible scandal. We want the scheme to reflect the hardships and suffering faced by those who had their lives upturned through no fault of their own, and we are always keen to balance this with ensuring that the scheme can be delivered as quickly as possible. I am pleased with the progress we have made on the compensation scheme, but this debate is not about the Government’s work today. Rather, as has always been the case in these debates, it is about the House coming together to put the voice of the community first.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Once again, this has been an excellent debate. It has been excellent in tone and excellent in terms of hon. and right hon. Members speaking about their constituents. I will try to deal with some of the issues, but there will be others, particularly issues of detail, that I will address if Members write to me.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) on his work as the able deputy for my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) on the all-party parliamentary group. The 1986 date is simply because the last medical study identified as unethical by Sir Brian Langstaff’s inquiry was from 1984. The date goes forward a bit to try to ensure that we capture everything; that is the significance of the date. He and I have had the discussion about interferon during the debate some weeks ago. I agree with him and the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom), on the duty of candour. It is hugely important that we drive that forward.
If my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) could, will he send me that list of questions about his late constituent, Jane Fitzgerald? I just make one observation: there is a difference for those who have died versus those who are living, but I point out that money gets paid to dependants in the first circumstance, which should be taken into account. I will come back to him in detail if he sends me those questions.
I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst for his work. I agree with him on the sympathetic approach to evidence, on the importance of the ongoing dialogue and certainly on the importance of speed. I could not agree more with the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), about clear communication; it is something that I speak about frequently, and I will continue to do so. On the review mechanism, people can ask IBCA for a review. Beyond that, they have the option of a first-tier tribunal and, beyond that, the courts. The initial stage is a review by IBCA. Although IBCA is operationally independent, I entirely agree with his point about me being available to offer appropriate support where necessary. The bulk of infected people should be paid by the end of 2027 and the bulk of affected people by the end of 2029. However, those are backstops, not targets. As I have often said to the House, the aim is to speed up those claims and get to that point of exponential growth in payments of the affected claims.
The point about care was raised by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) and the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire. The care award is not paid directly to the person who provided care simply because if we did that, we would be asking IBCA to determine who provided the care and to go to affected people for evidence that they provided care. We could even end up with IBCA having to mediate disputes between multiple people talking about care. Going down that particular route could have led to further delays, and that is why we have taken the approach that we have.
It is absolutely right that these regulations reflect the majority of what we heard in the consultation and that we do make changes. The regulations complete the Government’s response to the additional report, but as Members across the House have said, the hard work to deliver the compensation must now accelerate. It is our duty to remember the tragedy inflicted on thousands of people and to bring real change not just to this compensation scheme, but beyond that, and not least to the duty of candour, which is another of Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendations. I hope that colleagues across the House will join me this evening in supporting these regulations. I commend them to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Infected Blood Compensation Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2026, which were laid before this House on 18 June, be approved.