Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2025 Commons Chamber

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

Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to provide an update to the House on the progress made to provide compensation to victims of the infected blood scandal.

In May 2024, the infected blood inquiry’s report exposed a catalogue of failures at the systematic, collective and individual levels. Thousands of lives were needlessly lost, and too many people continue to suffer as a result of failures stretching back decades. I welcome the commitment across the House to holding the Government to account on responding to the inquiry’s recommendations, and I will continue to provide regular updates on the Government’s progress.

In December 2024, I published the Government’s response to the infected blood inquiry. In that response, on behalf of the UK Government and working closely with the devolved Governments, I accepted either in full or in principle all 12 of the inquiry’s recommendations. I will provide a further update on those recommendations in May of this year, as requested by the inquiry.

I will now update the House specifically on the inquiry’s recommendation on compensation. In August 2024, I established the infected blood compensation scheme in regulations. That enabled the Infected Blood Compensation Authority to begin making compensation payments to people who are infected. I was pleased that IBCA delivered on our shared commitment to make the first compensation payments by the end of last year. That was a significant step, and the work to progress payments quickly continues as an absolute priority.

Yesterday, I laid before Parliament the draft Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Regulations 2025. As those regulations are subject to the draft affirmative procedure, there will be an opportunity for parliamentarians to debate and approve them before they become law. When laying before the House the previous regulations to establish the scheme for people who are infected and are claiming compensation under the core route, I made a commitment on the Floor of this House that those regulations would come into force by 31 March, subject to parliamentary approval. I would welcome the support of the House in approving those regulations, enabling us to deliver compensation to those who deserve it as quickly as possible.

I am fully aware of how important it is to the House, and to the many victims of this appalling scandal, that the Government provide clear and regular updates on our progress in establishing the infected blood compensation scheme. I have therefore come before the House today to explain the steps that have been taken and what they mean.

Once approved by Parliament and in force, the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Regulations 2025 will provide IBCA with the powers it needs to begin making payments to eligible affected people. By way of a reminder, those affected include partners, parents, children, siblings and, in some instances, carers. Those people have suffered terribly from the impact of infected blood on their loved ones, and these regulations mark a significant milestone for them. The Government will do all we can to support IBCA’s aim of the first compensation payments to eligible affected people being made before the end of this year, and by laying these regulations we are a step closer to achieving that aim.

As we set out in August, the infected blood compensation scheme is tariff-based. The tariffs are intended to work in a way that would be appropriate for the majority of people applying to the scheme. However, we know that the impact infected blood has on people’s lives varies hugely. Each person’s experience is unique and heart- breaking, and the Government recognise that there are some exceptional cases where the level of compensation offered through the core route does not sufficiently address a person’s individual circumstances. For that reason, the Government have provided for higher levels of compensation for specific awards through the supplementary route, where people can demonstrate their eligibility. The regulations I have laid before Parliament set out the details of that supplementary route.

Once in force, the regulations will allow IBCA to make payments to eligible people through both the core and supplementary routes. All applicants will need to go through their initial core route assessment before applying to the supplementary route, but doing so will not delay payment of that initial core compensation offer. The regulations I have laid propose to restate and consolidate the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Regulations 2024, which were approved by Parliament in October last year. We have done that primarily for reasons of simplicity. Having a single set of regulations that consolidates the provisions means that it has been possible to cover all compensation routes for all eligible people in a single place.

Alongside the draft regulations, yesterday we published an accompanying explanatory memorandum and equalities impact assessment. We also updated the compensation scheme explainer on gov.uk. I have heard from the community the importance of a simpler document, so I commit today to the publishing of a wider, simpler document. I have already engaged with several hon. and right hon. Members across the House in recent days, and I will continue to do so on the substance of these regulations in the coming weeks.

I would also like to welcome the progress being made in delivering compensation. In addition to the over £1 billion of interim compensation payments that have been paid so far, IBCA has now invited 113 people to claim compensation. So far, 23 offers have been made, totalling over £34 million, and 14 offers have been accepted and paid, totalling over £13 million. IBCA remains on track to invite 250 people to apply by the end of March, and it will continue to publish its monthly statistics on its website. However, this is only the beginning, and there is much more work to do.

This week, IBCA set out its plans to open the compensation service in stages to make sure it is effective and secure for all those claiming. This decision was taken independently of the Government by the IBCA board. The groups that IBCA will work through as it builds the claim service will be as follows. The first will be people who are living infected and are already registered with a support scheme. IBCA already has the details of those people through the infected blood support schemes, and it began making payments to this group in 2024. IBCA intends to accelerate the number of claims it is processing from April.

The second stage will be people making supplementary claims. The regulations I am laying provide IBCA with the ability to process these claims. As IBCA develops its service, this will it to process the different types of evidence needed for supplementary claims and allow people to settle their claims in full as quickly as possible. People who have registered estates are in the third group IBCA has set out. This is where an estate has already been verified as eligible for compensation through the interim payment scheme that I announced in October last year. This will ensure that significant compensation can reach multiple people, who could include both those who are infected and those who are affected.

People who are affected and linked to a registered infected person or a registered estate will be in the fourth group. If an infected person or an estate is registered, this will allow IBCA to progress an affected person’s claim more quickly. The fifth group that the service will be developed for is people who are infected, but not registered with a support scheme. The sixth group will be people who are either applying on behalf of an infected person who has not previously been registered with an infected blood support scheme, or people who are affected and not linked to a registered claim. IBCA expects that it may take slightly longer to work through the claims of people who have not previously been registered for compensation.

The IBCA board assures me that this is in no way intended as a prioritisation of different claimants, but is the best way of building the service so that IBCA can get to the point where it can progress all claims as quickly as possible. Crucially, it does not mean that all claims in each group need to be finished before developing and opening the service for the next group.

IBCA has communicated its decision on its website and through the regular community update, and it has written to members of the infected blood community and right hon. and hon. Members with whom it has previously engaged to inform them of its plans. Determining these groupings is a heavy responsibility, and I am pleased that IBCA sought feedback from the infected blood community in reaching this decision. The community must, after all, be kept at the centre of all this work.

While the roll-out of the scheme is an operational decision for IBCA as an independent body, I fully support its commitment to moving forward as swiftly as possible, and I was encouraged to see the dedication of its staff and leadership in my visit to the organisation last month. As compensation applications increase, I know that IBCA is determined to ensure payments are made to people as soon as possible. I will set out more detail on this in due course, but it will include key performance indicators that IBCA will be working towards to make sure that compensation claims are dealt with effectively and efficiently. Of course, decisions on the parameters of and eligibility for the scheme remain ones for the Government, subject to parliamentary approval, as is set out in the regulations I have laid, and are not impacted by IBCA’s decisions.

Let me conclude by saying that in laying these regulations, we are one step closer to having the entire infected blood compensation scheme fully established in law. I understand the importance of providing an opportunity for everyone across the House to debate this matter. This will be another significant moment for all those who have waited too long. On 30 January, I was able to meet a number of representatives from the community to update them on the Government’s plans. As ever, I found it an invaluable experience, and I am hugely grateful to those who shared their thoughts and experiences.

On my appointment to this role in July, I was determined to meet the first statutory deadline of 24 August for the first set of regulations. Over the past seven months, I have been insistent to my officials and the community on the importance of making sure that, after 40 years of injustice, justice is now finally being delivered and compensation rightly being paid. The Budget announced £11.8 billion of funding for this compensation scheme, showing the scale of this Government’s commitment to concrete action. I hope parliamentarians across both Houses will support the regulations, so we can finally focus solely on delivering compensation to those who have waited for justice for far too long. I commend this statement to this House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I remind the Minister that statements should be limited to 10 minutes and that it is courteous to let the Speaker’s Office know if a statement will exceed this time. The Opposition will of course be allocated additional time. I call the shadow Minister.

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

I thank the Minister for his very thorough statement and for advance sight of it.

I want to start by thanking the campaigners and victims who have spent years pushing for justice for this terrible tragedy that occurred over a number of decades. The previous Conservative Government took the first steps towards recognising the horrific wrong inflicted on so many patients and their loved ones in opening and concluding the inquiry into the infected blood scandal, but particular acknowledgement must go to my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) who worked so hard when he was Paymaster General to make sure that victims and their families could at last receive some degree of justice.

I welcome the progress the Government have made since the election. Parliamentary politics inevitably focuses on division and there is plenty on which we profoundly disagree with the Government, but on this matter we speak as one. There is nothing of substance that the right hon. Gentleman and his Department are doing that is meaningfully different from what we would have done if we had still been in government. We will of course review the legislation on the next stage of the infected blood compensation scheme, but the Minister and all who are campaigning for justice can be assured that we will support the Government in their efforts.

We welcome the start of compensation payments by IBCA, but we know that victims have raised concerns about the pace of processing applications for compensation. I hope the Minister can confirm what measures he is putting in place to ensure that the processing capacity within the authority is adequate and that application processing can be sped up, because the next phase of the compensation framework will mean that applications to the authority could increase by tens of thousands. All victims and their families need to know what is being done to ensure that those claims can be processed at pace.

I am concerned by reports that only a very small fraction of those who may be eligible to claim compensation have been contacted so far; one estimate puts it as low as 0.2% of possible claimants, although I recognise that such estimates can sometimes be out of date. I hope the Minister will be able to provide some clarity on the percentage of those believed to be eligible who have been contacted so far. I know that the Minister will understand the need for the Government to communicate clearly to all who may be eligible to encourage them to apply.

That reinforces the importance that must be placed on processing claims quickly. Those who are eligible must have confidence that their claims will be accurately and quickly processed so that they receive the payment they are entitled to as soon as possible. I appreciate, of course, the staged manner in which the authority is taking claims and the need to prioritise certain claims, but I hope the Government can reiterate clearly that no one needs to worry about the capacity within the authority and the system, particularly in relation to claims that will be processed in the later stages.

I ask the Minister to offer some clarity on his assessment of whether the funding allocated so far will cover all the expected claims. We know that up to 140,000 relatives could apply for compensation as a result of the planned expansion of claim eligibility. While the Government understandably cannot provide an exact estimate of the total funding required, that would go some way to offering reassurance to victims and their families that the funding for the authority to compensate in full all who suffered harm or loss and for all the operational requirements of the authority is properly provided for.

All of us in this House understand the scale and damage of this scandal and recognise the immense efforts of victims and their families in pushing for justice, and we welcome the laying of the regulations. I conclude by repeating my assurance on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition that we will work with the Government to ensure that everyone who is eligible is aware and that they receive the compensation that they need and deserve as quickly as possible.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I will make sure that your stricture about time is properly communicated across Government, Madam Deputy Speaker.

May I start by echoing the comments of the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) about my predecessor as Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen), who did so much in government to push this forward? Just as I offered cross-party support when shadowing him, the continued cross-party support today is very important in respect of the speed at which we are able to push forward with the legal framework we are putting in place.

On the issue of speed, I am restless for progress. While IBCA is of course an arm’s length body and has operational independence, I will none the less have more to say in due course about key performance indicators, as the House will want to continue to raise the speed of payments being made to constituents.

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman’s comments about clarity of communication. I am forever emphasising the need for simple explainer documents on what are complex regulations. Finally, the Government have already allocated £11.8 billion in funding for the operation of IBCA and for compensation, and we are committed to compensate all the victims of this terrible scandal.

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

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and the progress he has made in seven months, not least on the £11.8 billion he secured in the Budget; he deserves credit for that. It is regrettable that we lost a year from Sir Brian Langstaff’s second interim report in which he gave his final recommendations on compensation, stating that the Government had no reason to delay setting up the compensation process. I know my right hon. Friend is aware that there are still concerns about the tariff, particularly among those infected with hepatitis C and those who endured unethical testing. Does he agree that, while we must move ahead with all haste to get people the justice they deserve, IBCA must have flexibility in its decisions when dealing with those who feel that the tariff does not recognise the suffering they have endured?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work he does as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood. Obviously the tariffs were set on the basis of the expert group chaired by Sir Jonathan Montgomery and I compliment him on the work he did in that regard. However, the tariffs and the scheme also recognise particular individual circumstances and cases that are more complex. That is why the supplemental route is being put in place. I would add that I saw when I visited IBCA—I understand that my hon. Friend will be visiting shortly—the sympathetic, compassionate approach being taken with regard to evidence, given how long ago so much of this happened.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement.

The Liberal Democrats are glad to see the introduction of this legislation and the extension of the infected blood compensation scheme. This scandal is a chilling story of people being failed not only by the medical professionals who treated them but by the NHS that should have been responsible for the safety of their treatment, and by a series of Governments who should have prevented the scandal from ever taking place.

We are glad that the new regulations will move the victims, both those infected and those affected, closer to long overdue justice. However, we are deeply concerned by the speed at which victims have been receiving compensation, with only 25 people having been invited to claim by December last year. It is right that the Government are now widening the scheme so that compensation reaches many more people as soon as possible.

It is also crucial that there are mechanisms in place to ensure that the concerns of the charities, organisations and affected individuals are heard. To that end, and to provide confidence to victims and their families, will the Minister outline a timeline for when all victims can expect to have received their long overdue compensation? Furthermore, will the Government introduce a duty of candour on public officials so that such a scandal is never repeated?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right that this scandal goes across decades and across Governments. While compensation is obviously one of the crucial recommendations, there are a total of 12 recommendations from Sir Brian Langstaff, on which I will be updating the House in due course. At present, IBCA will meet its target of 250 people by the end of next month. The approach it is taking is one of test and learn. That enables IBCA to scale up more quickly to be able to do what we all want it to do, which is to get compensation as quickly as reasonably possible to those who need it. I would expect the first payments to the affected to begin before the end of this year. Finally, on the duty of candour, which is another of Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendations, I expect to be introducing legislation to this House on that before 15 April, which, of course, is the Hillsborough anniversary.

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

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. I want to focus on what he said about the progress being made in delivering compensation for victims and their families. I recently met a constituent of mine, Sue Sparkes, who lost her husband Les owing to infected blood in 1990. She is concerned that it will take many, many years to make all these payments. I do not doubt my right hon. Friend’s commitment and passion on this issue to tackle injustice and deliver the culture change that is needed, but will he assure Sue and me that every lever of government is being pulled to ensure that all payments to infected and affected individuals are made as a matter of urgency?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I can certainly give that assurance both to my hon. Friend and to his constituent, Sue. The Government will continue to push this forward as quickly as is reasonably possible. I am conscious of the strength of feeling, and I am also conscious that victims have waited decades for justice, and that need for speed is recognised across Government.

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

Every Member of this House should welcome this statement, as I certainly do, as there is no greater horror imaginable than becoming chronically sick as a result of what ought to be a routine medical procedure—a blood transfusion. Will the right hon. Gentleman, following on from the previous question, ensure that these matters are dealt with promptly? Will he reflect on what the report into these matters describes as institutional failures? The National Audit Office looked at compensation for a range of scandals and concluded:

“There is no central coordinated approach when government sets up new compensation schemes resulting in a relatively slow, ad-hoc approach.”

The report recommended that the Cabinet Office reviews its arrangements to

“allow compensation schemes to begin and operate in a more timely…and effective manner”.

When the Minister returns to the House, will he reflect on that recommendation and perhaps say to the House what the Government will do in response?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point, and what is crucial, whether it is this compensation scheme or others that have been run by Government, is that we learn the lessons between the different compensation schemes and we learn best practice. I absolutely agree with him that that is crucial with this compensation scheme, too.

[Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement. Brian Heatlie, a haemophiliac, was given infected blood products in 1982 at the age of five. As a result, he died in 1996 at the age of 18. His devoted parents, Lynda and James, from New Mills in my constituency of High Peak, have been waiting 28 years for compensation, and they are now in their 70s. Can the Minister confirm that the new regulations will mean that it may be possible for victims who have lost loved ones in this scandal, such as Lynda and James, to receive both their own compensation and compensation for the estate of their loved ones?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I think I speak for the whole House in sending our sympathies to Lynda and James for the indescribable sense of loss and the experience that they have been through over so many years. The answer to my hon. Friend’s question is yes. These consolidated regulations are for the estates of infected people, but also for the affected, too. But I know, and the whole House would agree, that no amount of money can make up for that awful experience.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister most sincerely for his statement. Nobody in the House is not reassured by what he has said. He also referred to the regional Administrations and how this will affect them, and he has had those discussions with them. There are reports today that only 0.2% of eligible family members have been contacted about the scheme, and there are concerns that the scheme does not have the capacity to cope with the numbers of potential applicants. Can the Minister outline how he will ensure that there is capacity for all those families to have a sense of recognition and to be definite about a form of restitution?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

First, in terms of numbers, as I indicated, IBCA is operating a test and learn approach that then allows it to scale up. It will scale up its capacity alongside that, to ensure that it has the capacity it requires to process the claims. As I indicated, I visited IBCA last month. I can already see that scaling up starting to take place, and the hon. Member can certainly give assurance to his constituents that the Government will continue to do all we can to ensure the swift delivery of compensation.

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for today’s update. My West Dunbartonshire constituent, Fiona, was infected with hepatitis B following blood transfusions in 1954 and 1985. Fiona is apparently not entitled to any form of support or compensation payment because of missing medical records and because of receiving a transfusion both before and after the 1972 cut-off relating to screening for hepatitis B. Will the Minister agree to meet my constituent and me to discuss this matter and ensure that she and others affected in similar circumstances—apparently a small number—can receive compensation and justice under this Labour Government?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Generally, with regard to evidence, the Infected Blood Compensation Authority has said that when an individual is invited to make their claim, it will aim to gather some of the information, including medical records and information about an applicant’s condition and severity, from organisations that already have it. That should mean that those claiming will be asked for the least amount of information possible. I know that IBCA is currently considering what guidance can be provided for people ahead of making a claim. On the specific case of my hon. Friend’s constituent, Fiona, if he sends me the details, I am more than happy to look into it.

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

May I thank the Minister for the thoroughness and thoughtfulness with which he has made his statement? I think he would agree that there are still issues around speed, quantum, flexibility and care. Am I right in thinking that IBCA does not have any flexibility about the amount of damages paid? If so, can he give a rough indication of what sort of compensation is paid when someone has lost their life as a result of being poisoned by the NHS? Is it the case that people have to make an individual settlement and agreement on what they will accept? If so, is there any professional support that someone, who might be quite ill, can get before signing on the dotted line and possibly signing away their rights to more compensation than they might otherwise receive?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

On the right hon. Gentleman’s point about tariffs, they have been set out and published. There are then assessments to be made about severity within the tariff bands. There is also, as I have indicated, the supplementary route for more complex cases. I cannot give him a single figure across these cases as they obviously vary, but the House will gradually see the overall amount being published by IBCA.

On the right hon. Gentleman’s second point, a victim making an application to the IBCA will be given a particular claim manager—I met the first claim managers only in recent weeks—to speak to and guide them through the process, which is crucial. I know that the culture imbued by Sir Robert Francis is an enabling one about helping victims, particularly with evidence. I have also signed off both legal support and financial support, because it is about receiving what are, in many cases, life-changing sums of money.

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

May I first thank my right hon. Friend for the update? Despite his sterling efforts—I really mean that—the process has taken far too long. Victims are dying at the rate of two per week, never having seen the compensation they deserve. Victims are very much unaware of, and desperate to understand, what and how much compensation they might even be due under the process.

Can the Minister say how many of the 5,000 infected victims will be invited to apply to the scheme during 2025? Has he considered, or is there potential to consider, allowing victims to take support scheme payments as a lump sum without any reductions?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

On people’s having a sense of the amount of money they will get, the Government published explainer documents in August last year—and in recent days—that are on the Government website. The Infected Blood Compensation Authority is intending to publish a compensation calculator for the infected core award by the end of March.

On my hon. Friend’s other points, the number of victims paid will be regularly published by the IBCA during the course of the year. The payments to the infected have started, and I expect payments to the affected to begin before the end of the year. As regards the support schemes, one change that the Government made was to allow both a lump sum payment and the continuation of the support schemes. That came through from the consultation that Sir Robert Francis undertook during the general election campaign. I have made that change to the scheme, and how that works precisely is set out in the explainer document.

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

I am grateful to the Paymaster General for the update; indeed, I am grateful that he has given several updates to the House. My North East Fife constituent was infected a number of years ago and involved in the campaign for a long time. He has shared concerns about the evidential standard expected of claimants, particularly in relation to medical records. Indeed, his lawyers have told me that they have concerns that case managers are not correctly interpreting the initial date of infection because medical records are not available to substantiate that. They also have concerns that the Australia antigen has not been properly understood as an indicator of HBV. Is the Paymaster General aware of those concerns? Can he comment on them?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The hon. Lady is entirely right to raise the issue of evidence. There is the specific issue that she referred to, but there is also a far more general problem about incidents often being from a long time ago. We also know that in some cases there was deliberate destruction of records. The level of evidence is therefore clearly a significant issue. As I have indicated, when I visited the IBCA, I heard from claim managers about the approach they are taking and the culture that is being imbued—an enabling culture—and about how the IBCA will aim to gather some of the information to assist victims, which I think will be a vital part of the process.

[Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and his commitment to this issue. Will he say a little more about how he is working with colleagues in Scotland to drive forward the final compensation scheme? I share the concerns already expressed by hon. Members across the House about the need for speed in ensuring that victims receive the compensation that they so rightly deserve.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I assure my hon. Friend that I work closely with the devolved Administrations on the issue of compensation. There is a broader point as well: events that took place in the 1970s, 1980s and beyond occurred in the pre-devolution age. Over the next few months, as we look to implement the rest of Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendations, partnership work with the devolved Administrations will become even more important.

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

I thank the Paymaster General for an advance copy of his statement. I recognise his sincerity, and the hard work that he and his colleagues are putting into progressing this vital compensation scheme. I also understand the need for him and his colleagues to take small initial steps to test their systems and processes, but as others have said, legal representatives fear that many will die while they wait, and justice delayed is justice denied. Does he really think that is good enough, given the numbers involved? Will he consider strengthening the authority’s teams who are processing these claims, so that the pace can be rapidly accelerated, and so that they can meet the forthcoming key performance indicators to which he referred? Finally, the last time we spoke about the scheme in the Chamber, he undertook to look at the role of voluntary organisations that provide vital support to claimants, and to consider putting funding for them on a statutory basis. Will he comment on that as well, please?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, he mentioned me and my colleagues, but of course IBCA is an arm’s length body—it is operationally independent—so it takes operationally independent decisions on how best to pay out the money to as many people as possible, as quickly as possible. As I said, it has decided to adopt a test-and-learn approach to make that possible.

One of Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendations is that we look at support for voluntary organisations. That will be covered in an update that I will give to the House in due course on all 12 recommendations. However, I give the hon. Gentleman the general assurance that I am, and will continue to be, restless for progress. On his point about IBCA scaling up and having more staff and claims managers, that is precisely what it is doing at the moment.

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement and update. In Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages, I have a constituent, Janet, who is in her 80s. She tragically lost her first and second husband to infected blood, and she is due to receive compensation as their next of kin. She would like to ensure that she can pass the payments on to their children, who, as the Minister rightly said, are victims, too. However, she has been advised that if that happened, it would constitute a secondary transfer and be subject to inheritance tax. We are talking about people who lost their father and stepfather to this issue. Will he meet me to explore whether a solution can be found in these cases?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

First, I should say for clarity that all IBCA payments made to those in the UK will be exempt from income tax, capital gains tax and inheritance tax. Anyone who is in direct receipt of compensation from IBCA, or is a beneficiary of an estate to which compensation was paid on behalf of the deceased, does not need to pay income tax, capital gains tax or inheritance tax on the amount that they receive. I am aware of the concern that my hon. Friend is talking about; that is a slightly different situation. If she writes to me with the details of the case, I will be more than happy to look into it.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I thank the Paymaster General not only for his statement, but for the clarity and commitment in his answers. As he may remember from previous occasions in the Chamber, I have the personal experience of having lost a very close family friend in the 1990s who was a victim of this. His widow died without compensation, and his children are now among those waiting to hear what will happen. I thank the Minister for his application and commitment, but as others have mentioned, there remains the issue of speed and best practice going forward. He mentioned that he will simplify the process. Can we have updates from him in future on what the Government are doing to examine best practice, and how can future victims of such scandals be assured that they will not have to wait as long as 40 years?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

As on the last occasion, I express my sympathies to the hon. Lady for the loss of her family friend back in the 1990s. Of course, I am always looking to share best practice, as I said a moment ago to the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), who is no longer in his place. That is vital. I can also give the hon. Lady the undertaking that I will continue to update this House, as I hope right hon. and hon. Members have seen me do over the past seven months. There will also be a debate on the regulations. I will have to give an update on the 12 recommendations from Sir Brian Langstaff by the May deadline, but IBCA will also provide regular updates via our newsletter, and I refer her to those as well.

Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Written Statements

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

In August 2024, I established the infected blood compensation scheme in regulations. This enabled the Infected Blood Compensation Authority (IBCA) to begin making compensation payments to people who are infected and the work to progress payments quickly continues as an absolute priority.

Today I laid before Parliament the draft Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Regulations 2025. These regulations need to be debated and approved by both Houses before they can come into force. Once in force, the regulations will provide IBCA with the powers it needs to begin making payments to eligible affected people (such as partners, parents, children, siblings and, in some instances, carers) this year, and to make payments to eligible people through the supplementary routes. This is in addition to maintaining the core route for eligible infected people as established last year. As we set out in August, the infected blood compensation scheme is tariff-based, with the core route setting out tariffs which are intended to work in a way which would be appropriate for the majority of people applying to the scheme.

The Government have published an accompanying explanatory memorandum and equalities impact assessment alongside the regulations on legislation.gov.uk. On gov.uk, we have published an updated compensation scheme explainer and an addendum report from the expert group.

I would also like to welcome the progress being made in delivering compensation. In addition to the over £1 billion of interim compensation payments we have paid, IBCA has now invited 113 people to claim compensation. So far, 23 offers have been made, totalling over £34 million and 14 offers have been accepted and paid, totalling over £13 million. IBCA remains on track to invite 250 people to apply by the end of March and will continue to publish the monthly statistics on its website. However, this is only the beginning, and there is much more work to do.

By laying these regulations, we are one step closer to having the entire infected blood compensation scheme fully established in law. This will be a significant moment for all those who have waited for this for too long. My aim remains for these regulations to be in place by 31 March and I hope parliamentarians from across both Houses support these regulations so that we can finally focus solely on delivering compensation to those who have waited for justice for so long.

[HCWS443]

Public Inquiries: Enhancing Public Trust

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2025 Written Statements

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

I am today publishing the Government’s response to the House of Lords Statutory Inquiries Committee report, “Public inquiries: Enhancing public trust”.

Public inquiries are a valued and well-established part of our administrative justice system. Recent years have provided ample demonstration of their value. They are widely considered to be an independent, legitimate and trusted method of investigating complex issues of deep public concern. Inquiries have shown themselves to be a way to shed light on injustices of the past, and have provided a means for victims and survivors to finally have their voices heard, and to help to rebuild trust in national institutions.

The House of Lords Statutory Inquiries Committee was appointed last year to consider the efficacy and practice of inquiries established under the Inquiries Act 2005. The evidence it heard and the thoughtful report it published recognised that despite the value of inquiries, there is scope for improvements to make them more efficient and effective, and in particular, to ensure greater transparency and accountability in response to inquiry recommendations.

The Committee’s report is a valuable contribution to a timely discussion and the Government are grateful to Lord Norton and his colleagues for their report. Our response, which is published on gov.uk, signals my intention to build on this important work with a wider review of the policy and operational framework around public inquiries and I look forward to providing an update to Parliament on this work in due course.

[HCWS425]

UK-EU Relations

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2025 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the UK’s relationship with the EU. On Monday, in Brussels, the Prime Minister attended an informal retreat with the 27 EU leaders and Presidents von der Leyen and Costa. This marked a clear step forward for this Government’s reset of the UK’s relationship with the EU. He is the first British Prime Minister to join a meeting of European Council members since the UK left the EU. The Prime Minister discussed the common threats that the UK and the EU face, and the value that closer UK-EU co-operation on security and defence could bring. These were points that he also discussed earlier in the day, when he met the Secretary-General of NATO.

With the EU’s 27 leaders, the Prime Minister outlined a number of steps to increase co-operation on shared threats, including cross-border crime and illegal migration, while delivering growth and security at home. He called on Europe to step up and project strength, to keep up the pressure on Putin, alongside sustained military support to Ukraine, to put it in the strongest possible position this year. He set out a strong case for European security and defence: an ambitious UK-EU security partnership; a deeper role for Europe within NATO; the continued importance of small groups such as the joint expeditionary force; together with a continent-wide increase in defence investment. The Prime Minister was clear that the UK would play its full part in European defence and was ready to work together with the EU.

On Tuesday, we announced that the UK will welcome the Presidents of the European Council and the European Commission to the UK for the first UK-EU leaders’ summit, which will take place on Monday 19 May. This first summit will provide an opportunity to further strengthen the relationship between the UK and the EU, for the benefit of all our people.

On Tuesday, I attended the UK-EU forum in Brussels to discuss the shared challenges and opportunities facing the UK and the EU, opposite my EU counterpart, Maroš Šefčovič. I made the case that this Government will be guided by what I am calling “ruthless pragmatism” —working in the UK’s national interest to make people across the UK safer, more secure and more prosperous. The Government’s position is that it is in the British national interest to improve our economic, safety and security relationships with our nearest neighbours. We reject the ideological approach of the past and will take a hard-headed assessment of the British national interest.

As the Leader of the Opposition recently said:

“We announced that we would leave the European Union before we had a plan for growth outside the EU.”

She said:

“Those mistakes were made because we told people what they wanted to hear first and then tried to work it out later.”

This Government will end that chaotic, dogmatic decision making. We should be guided by the principle of mutual benefit, finding collaborative solutions to our common problems. We should be open-minded to proposals that deliver better outcomes for the British people, within the manifesto on which this Government were elected.

This Government have been clear that we are not hitting rewind. We are not undoing Brexit and we are not rejoining the single market or the customs union, but we are looking to make Brexit work in a ruthlessly pragmatic way. That is the spirit that we are taking into the discussions with the EU—not a zero-sum game, but a win-win for both sides, with people across the UK and the EU benefiting. Yesterday I met my EU counterpart, Maroš Šefčovič, and discussed how we can best work together to enhance co-operation in areas of mutual benefit. We are committed to staying in regular contact as we progress this work.

This Government were elected on a mandate to increase national security through strong borders, to increase people’s safety and to increase prosperity through growth. Our European friends have mutual interest in those priorities. It is those priorities that form the three pillars of the reset in our relationship: security, safety and prosperity. And I am pleased to say that on all three of those issues we are making progress. And work is happening right across Government, from the Prime Minister to the Chancellor at the Eurogroup and the Foreign Secretary at the Foreign Affairs Council.

There have been nearly 70 direct engagements between UK Ministers and their EU counterparts since we came into government, and we look forward to many more, including at the upcoming UK-EU summit. Some people make the false argument that we need to choose either America or Europe, but for this Government the UK’s national interest is paramount and demands that we work with both.

The Prime Minister made the point on Monday evening that the world today is very different from that in 2016, and even in 2024. In this time of change, this Government are stepping up to build alliances in a bid to make people safer and more prosperous. That is the core of our national interest, and I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

I thank the Paymaster General for advance sight of his statement, and I am grateful to him for coming to the House today to give us a rendition of the speech that he gave in Brussels on Tuesday—I am sure that it sounded even better accompanied by a cool glass of Belgian Chardonnay and the promise of a long continental lunch.

I note that the Paymaster General described the Prime Minister’s meeting with 27 EU leaders this week as being an “informal retreat”. An informal retreat indeed—that is, one suspects, how these words will come to characterise this Government’s negotiations with the EU. The last Conservative Government took us out of the EU and, despite the attempts of the Labour party to frustrate the will of the people, into an era of our being a sovereign nation, which has brought major benefits.

Under the Conservative Government, we secured more than 70 trade deals with other countries around the world and, since leaving the EU, UK trade has increased from about £1.04 trillion in 2015 to £1.74 trillion last year. We ended the supremacy of EU law, we delivered on our promise to leave the common fisheries policy, and we delivered the fastest vaccine roll-out in Europe. We turned a page, and it is vital that the Labour Government do not turn it back.

The Paymaster General talks of ruthless pragmatism in our negotiations with the EU. I wonder whether this will be the same ruthless pragmatism that is bringing us the Chagos deal.Will it be the same ruthless pragmatism that has caused the Government to spend £9.4 billion a year on above-inflation pay rises for unionised sectors without any promise of reform? Perhaps it is the same ruthless pragmatism that saw the collapse of the £450 million AstraZeneca deal last week. When Labour negotiates, our country loses.

I have a great deal of respect for the Paymaster General—I hope he will do better than his friends and colleagues. He has talked to us about security, safety and prosperity—all very nice, but enough of the platitudes, let us talk about the plan. What do the Government actually want from the negotiations? What are the tangible gains they hope to make, and what are their red lines? We have heard about the customs union and a single market, but he knows that that is not enough. He says the Government “are not hitting rewind”, but we know the Government are open to dynamic alignment and a role for the European Court of Justice because he has twice declined to rule that out in this House. Going back to the ECJ for GB would be completely unacceptable.

On defence, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the NATO Secretary-General’s plea to step up and project strength. Is that what the Government will do? I know the Secretary-General has been asking European countries for a marked increase in defence spending. What is the Government’s response to that? Will he confirm that NATO remains the cornerstone of our defence arrangements?

There was no mention of fish. A word of advice to the right hon. Gentleman: fish are very important, and they will be very important in these negotiations. What is the Government’s position? Will he commit to there being no reduction in our current fishing rights? It is reported that our friends and allies in the French Republic have said that nothing can be negotiated until fish are negotiated. Will he confirm that he has told them firmly and politely, “Non”?

There is no mention of free movement. I noticed the other day that the Home Secretary ruled out a youth mobility scheme. Is that Government policy or was that just the Home Office freelancing? I ask because last week in Westminster Hall the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be pretty open to the idea. What is the Government’s position?

On the Pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention—PEM—a Minister told the “Today” programme on 23 January that the Government were “not seeking” to join PEM. Later that day, the right hon. Gentleman said that the Government

“do not currently have any plans to join PEM”.—[Official Report, 23 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 1091.]

On 26 January, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the Government were considering joining PEM, but then on 3 February, the right hon. Gentleman said in answer to a written question from the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) that the Government

“do not currently have any plans”.

I would be grateful if he could tell us what the Government’s position is, and if he cannot, perhaps he would be good enough just to make up another one.

The Opposition believe there should be no backsliding on free movement or compulsory asylum transfers. We believe that no new money should be paid to the EU. We believe that no reduction in our current fishing rights should be given away. We believe in no rule-taking, dynamic alignment or European Court jurisdiction. We believe in no compromise on the primacy of NATO as the cornerstone of European security. That is what the Opposition believe; it is time for the Government to tell us what they believe. A future Government will not be bound by a bad Labour deal.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I thank the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for his contribution. Of course NATO remains the cornerstone of our security; that has been a cross-party position for decades. He asks about plans and red lines. I refer him to our manifesto, which was put to the people last year, that contains those clear red lines of no return to freedom of movement, the single market or the customs union. He can see in that examples of what the Government are seeking to negotiate.

The hon. Gentleman talks about negotiating international agreements. There are many people from whom I would take advice about international agreements, but I hope the House will forgive me if the Conservatives—the party that managed to send hundreds of millions of pounds to Rwanda and all they got in return was sending some volunteers and most of their Home Secretaries there—are not at the front of the queue for giving advice on how to negotiate international agreements.

I give some credit to the Leader of the Opposition, who strikes a markedly different tone on this issue from that struck by the hon. Gentleman today. She admits freely that the last Government left without a plan for growth, and that, frankly, they ended up making it up as they went along. I was surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not begin his remarks by repeating that apology. Perhaps he has a different view than the one taken by his leader.

The hon. Gentleman talks about the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, but he was part of a Government who negotiated a role for the European Court of Justice in the Windsor framework. He talks about standards. This Government are committed to the highest standards, whether that is on product safety, employment rights or consumer rights. We believe in a race to the top on standards, not the race to the bottom that would be the dream of the Conservatives.

As the Government move forward, our test is the national interest. It is about making Britain safer, more secure and more prosperous. There is another test for the Leader of the Opposition, however. I see that she has put out a social media video about tests, which is worth a couple of minutes for mild entertainment if nothing else. The test for her is whether she will face down the ideologues in her party. Is she going to show some political courage and back the national interest, or is she just going to back down in the face of the ideologues in her party? On the basis of the hon. Gentleman’s contribution, I am not optimistic.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee.

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)]

I very much welcome the statement from my right hon. Friend, but the reality is that he has inherited a deal with the European Union that has knocked about 4% to 5% off our economic output each year. Certainly, the Business and Trade Committee heard in Brussels last week a clear message from the business community that we need to be as specific and as ambitious as we can be ahead of the reset summit with the President of the European Commission. What plans does the Paymaster General have to bring together the British business community and, indeed, the trade union community so that the Prime Minister can go into his summit with President von der Leyen clear-minded about just how ambitious our wealth creators want him to be?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The Chair of the Select Committee is entirely right about the involvement of civil society, trade unions and businesses. I am sure that he will have seen the comments of the managing director of food at Marks & Spencer only today, who said:

“We wholeheartedly support the Government’s plan to negotiate a Veterinary Agreement; the benefits would be significant, there is no discernible downside, and we will offer whatever help we can to aid the negotiations.”

There was a time when the Conservative party was on the side of business—clearly no more.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. I welcome much of the statement’s content—that the Government are serious in their commitment to resetting our broken relationship with the European Union—but what the Liberal Democrats want is action. The European Union is our closest neighbour and largest trading partner. I sense that the Minister knows that we have to get on with repairing the trading relationship which was so badly damaged under the former Conservative Government, so please let us get on and do it. The botched Brexit deal has been a complete disaster for our country, especially for small businesses, which have been held back by reams of red tape and new barriers to trade, costing our economy billions in lost exports. The Minister talks of pragmatic negotiation. Surely what is pragmatic is to drop the Government’s red lines and agree a new UK-EU customs union. It would be the single biggest step that the Government could take to unlock growth, and I cannot think of anything more pragmatic. Liberal Democrats will continue to call on the Government to do the right thing.

We are also disappointed by the Home Secretary’s comments at the weekend on ruling out a youth mobility scheme. Does that represent the Government’s stance? A youth mobility deal would be good for our economy, especially our tourism and hospitality sectors, while providing young British people with the opportunity to work and study abroad. It would be a win-win. Not only that, it is what the British public want. New polling shows that two thirds of the UK population are in favour of such a scheme. Does the Minister not agree that introducing a youth mobility scheme is exactly the kind of pragmatic negotiation that the Government should be prioritising?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am grateful as always for the contribution of the hon. Lady; we had a fine debate in Westminster Hall last week. All I would say to her about speed, though, is that this Government are acting on the red lines in our manifesto around the single market, customs union and freedom of movement, on which we were elected and which delivered this majority last July. I looked at the Liberal Democrats manifesto and its plans for the relationship with the European Union, and it contained four steps. If we were choosing to do this in four different phases, we would be moving a lot more slowly than we are at the moment, so I hope the hon. Lady will welcome the progress we are making.

I know there is a lot of speculation on the issue of youth mobility. Of course, we consider sensible proposals in accordance with our red lines, but our position remains the same: there are no plans for a youth mobility scheme, and we have been clear that there will be no return to freedom of movement.

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

I guess I should not be surprised to hear the Conservatives trying to defend an impossibly bad deal for British business, which is why I am so relieved that the grown-ups are going to Europe and working out what is in the national interest. May I press the Minister on something that it is very clearly in the national interest to resolve with our European partners? National Grid estimates that it will cost the UK Exchequer £5 billion to £8 billion over this Parliament to have a differential emissions trading scheme between us and Europe. Pollution does not respect borders, and we all want to tackle the climate crisis. Can he confirm that resolving the issues around the carbon border adjustment mechanism will be on the agenda for the summit in May?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who I know has campaigned on this issue. Energy is very much a priority for the discussions—specifically the emissions trading scheme and linkage. The existing trade and co-operation agreement commits the UK and the EU to considering that.

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

The Minister rightly speaks about the importance of NATO, which is key to our defence strategy. However, I have real concerns about the negotiations taking place on the defence strategy and on working with the European Union. We on the NATO Parliamentary Assembly have often spoken about the role of PESCO—the permanent structured co-operation—and the procurement strategy. Different countries procuring different elements can run into some constitutional problems, which can be a problem over generations of procurement, and it is important that protocols are made now for how those two things interact. I ask the Minister not to sign up to European programmes without ensuring that we build in protocols, so that PESCO cannot undermine article 5 decisions. As it stands, the ideology of PESCO stands in the way of article 5 decisions. If the Minister would like to speak about this further, I would be happy to meet him.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I would be more than happy to speak to the right hon. Gentleman—I acknowledge his expertise in these matters. He refers to interoperability, which is hugely important. He will have seen that the Prime Minister met the Secretary-General of NATO on Monday. That sends out a signal that NATO remains absolutely fundamental; it is the foundation stone of post-war security and of our approach going forward. What we seek to do will be complementary to NATO, to build on our collective strength in these dangerous times.

[Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)]

British businesses are clear that they want the Government to cut paperwork, tackle the trade barriers that they face, and lower the cost of selling goods and services to our trading partners in the EU. The Leader of the Opposition said last week that the Conservative Government left the EU without a plan. Does the Minister agree that that is typical of the chaotic economic management of the Conservatives, and that once again it is up to the Labour Government to clean up their mess?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. At least the Leader of the Opposition was candid about the chaotic decision making under the previous Government. Together with our friends and neighbours in the EU, we have over £800 billion-worth of trade. It is clearly in our national interest to lower trade barriers pragmatically in that space.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I am pleased that this Government are moving away from the ideological fantasies of the Conservative Government and taking a pragmatic approach to EU-UK relations. Passive divergence—doing nothing when regulations move forward in the EU—is increasingly a concern for British businesses. It leads to huge trade barriers in emissions trading, for example, which is badly hurting the UK economy. What does the Paymaster General propose to do about passive divergence?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

We are not doing nothing. There are areas where this Government will be in a world-leading space. Let us look, for example, at what we are doing on employment rights and product safety. As I indicated earlier to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), the Government believe in a race to the top on standards, not a race to the bottom.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

I welcome the increased number of British officers now working with Europol. Will the Minister tell me more about how we will work with our European partners to tackle transactional crimes such as people smuggling and drug trafficking?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. I am pleased that we have already increased our National Crime Agency presence at Europol. The speed with which we can share data is hugely important. When crimes are committed, those early hours and days are so important for catching those responsible. We want to work with the EU and international partners so that criminals have no place to hide on our continent.

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

Those in the fishing industry will have noted not only that the Minister did not mention fish in his statement, but that he did not respond to the question from the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), about fishing. Will he give an assurance to those in the industry that there will be no sell-out—whether on fishing grounds, quotas, days at sea and so on—and that he will do absolutely nothing to worsen the industry?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The hon. Gentleman is right to mention fishing. I can tell him first and foremost that I will engage with the fishing industry and its representatives about the issues that they face, particularly in selling into European markets. We will of course advocate for the interests of our fishers, and ensure that we fulfil our legal obligations on the marine environment.

[Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)]

As a result of the previous Government’s bad deal, companies in my constituency tell me about the impact that the barriers to trade with the EU are having on their businesses, hitting profits and affecting jobs. Does the Minister agree that it would be foolhardy for this Government not to tackle those barriers and back British businesses?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We speak to businesses, and they want fewer barriers to trade. It is astonishing that the modern Conservative party does not seem to share that view.

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

I welcome the Minister’s statement on closer co-operation with the EU on defence and security, but on the day the Bank of England cut its growth forecast from 1.5% to 0.75%, does the Minister agree that the single biggest thing we could do to turbocharge our economy in the medium and longer-terms is to form a customs union with the EU?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

We were elected on a manifesto that set out clear red lines, but of course there is significant economic advantage, not just to the United Kingdom but to citizens all across Europe, in the reset that we are now looking to take forward. Whether in making our citizens more prosperous, or in making them safer and more secure, that work will deliver for Britain.

[Chris Ward (Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven) (Lab)]

I warmly welcome the Minister’s statement. Isn’t it nice to finally have a Government who want to work with, rather than alienate, our European partners? In that spirit, does he agree that there is a chasm between the thin, last-minute deal that the previous Government negotiated—which the Leader of the Opposition now derides as a deal “without a plan”—and the red lines that he and his Government have set out? That is the landing zone that I hope the Government will get to as soon as possible.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The chaos of the previous Government did extraordinary damage to this country on the international stage, and frankly it sullied our international reputation. I am pleased that the Leader of the Opposition at least understands the chaos that the Conservatives caused our economy. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: this Government take a completely different approach. We were elected on a manifesto that we will now seek to deliver.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his answers to all our questions—he always replies in a positive fashion. As for my question, he probably knows what is coming, but I will ask it anyway. The thorn in the side of any restoration of good faith with the EU lies in the abhorrent Northern Ireland protocol and the EU’s grip on Northern Ireland. That may well exclude Northern Ireland from any trade deals with the United States of America, with which we already have multimillion pound supply deals in place. Will the Minister confirm that allowing Northern Ireland to have her place in the United Kingdom, and an end to the game that is hurting the people of Northern Ireland both financially and constitutionally, are at the top of the agenda for good relations?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I would like to reassure the hon. Gentleman that Northern Ireland is always at the forefront of my mind. Since I came into office, I have visited Belfast twice; I chair the inter-ministerial group, which obviously includes the Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland; and the Windsor framework taskforce sits within the Cabinet Office, so I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the interests of the people of Northern Ireland are fundamental to this Government. I would also suggest to him that successful negotiation of a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement would be of significant benefit to the people of Northern Ireland.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

I welcome the Paymaster General’s statement today. I notice that he said that there are currently no plans for a youth mobility scheme with the European Union. As a former Erasmus student myself, may I urge him to look at the schemes that are already in place with countries ranging from South Korea to Uruguay, Australia and New Zealand, and the immense cultural, economic and societal benefits that come from those schemes, which do not rub up against the Government’s red lines on single market access, customs union membership or freedom of movement?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, and if we look back over recent decades, there have been many people in this House who have had the benefit of studying abroad. As my hon. Friend has also pointed to, though, the red lines upon which this Government were elected are fundamental.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the Paymaster General for that statement.

Humanitarian Medal: Eligibility

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2025 Written Statements

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

I have today placed in the Libraries of both Houses a copy of the Command Paper setting out updated eligibility for the Humanitarian Medal. The Humanitarian Medal will be awarded to those in public service, and members of organisations such as charities, who respond in support of human welfare during or in the aftermath of a crisis. The updated criteria ensure that individuals who assist with His Majesty’s Government’s response to humanitarian responses overseas are able to receive the medal, as was its original intention.

In addition, I am also announcing the first three eligible humanitarian incidents:

the earthquake in Morocco in September 2023;

the flooding in Libya in September 2023; and

the ongoing conflict in Gaza.

Eligible individuals who assisted with His Majesty’s Government’s response to each of these humanitarian responses will receive the medal. My ministerial colleagues in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office will be responsible for determining which individuals will be eligible.

[HCWS402]

Youth Mobility Scheme: EU

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2025 Westminster Hall

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

What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) on two counts: first, on securing this debate—she always holds me to account on European matters at Cabinet Office questions, and I very much welcome the scrutiny that she provides—and, secondly, on her appointment as the Government’s trade envoy to North Africa. The case that she is making today about deepening trade links is one that I am sure she will be able to employ in that role as well, so I look forward to her doing that and to hearing all about it.

When I hear the hon. Lady speak about a more co-operative, close relationship with the European Union, I entirely agree. That is precisely what the Government are seeking to build. I would, however, introduce one note of caution. As the hon. Lady can imagine, I read the Financial Times avidly; it is a fine, authoritative publication. However, although we now move towards the first of the UK-EU summits, we have not actually entered that intense period of negotiation yet. She should perhaps treat what she reads in the FT, including about what that negotiation will consist of, with a little caution.

I will turn in a moment to the specific issue of youth mobility, but I want to set in context the EU-UK reset this Government have embarked on. First, I am very pleased with the progress that has been made so far. I am sure hon. Members will appreciate that, going into this more intense phase of negotiation, it was very important that the new European Commission was formally in place. That happened in December and we can now move into this new phase. However, the Government have already been making significant strides forward. There have been dozens of ministerial visits across Government and we have been working co-operatively with our European counterparts.

The Prime Minister met the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, on 2 October. I was with them in Brussels when that meeting took place. They agreed to strengthen the relationship between the EU and the UK, put it on a more solid, stable footing and then move forward in their discussions ahead of the first of the summits. The Foreign Secretary attended the Foreign Affairs Council in October, the Chancellor attended the Eurogroup meeting in December and I have had frequent meetings and discussions with my counterpart at the Commission, Maroš Šefčovič. Those discussions are, of course, ongoing.

On 3 February—Monday of next week—we will see the Prime Minister attend the European Council. He was invited by the President of the Council António Costa, who I met with the Prime Minister at No. 10 Downing Street just before Christmas. As I say, we will then move towards the summit, which we have said will take place in the first half of this year.

[Freddie van Mierlo]

The Minister is giving a good account of the diaries of various Ministers. If meetings were a measure of success, we would all say that the Government were very successful, but they are not. When will we see outcomes from this rapprochement with the EU?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I do not share the hon. Member’s downbeat assessment, and neither does the European Union. Maroš Šefčovič himself said last week that our relationship with the EU is definitely in a more positive place. I hope the hon. Member welcomes that.

What we have is a very co-operative relationship. For example, I am responsible for the Windsor framework taskforce, which is in the new EU relations secretariat at the Cabinet Office, in the centre of Government. I am sure he would welcome the creation of this new secretariat as it prioritises this relationship, which is precisely what is being argued for in this debate. I will give him an example from when we first came to office, that of dental amalgam and EU regulations on mercury. In previous Administrations, that would have blown up into a significant row, but it did not. With our new, mature relationship, it was dealt with very pragmatically. He will not have to wait too long until the EU-UK summit, after which he will be able to see the concrete progress and deliverables he is asking for starting to take place. I say gently that he should welcome the progress and the constructive relationship that we have. I hope he does not have too long to wait for some more concrete outcomes, which are hugely important.

We are taking the discussions on the reset forward, and they fall, essentially, into three categories—three pillars, if you like. The first is about foreign policy and a more structured defence co-operation. We have already made progress. The Foreign Secretary and the High Representative have already agreed on six-monthly foreign policy dialogues. That agreement is already in place and we will move further forward on that.

The second category is about the safety of our citizens, so on judicial and law enforcement co-operation. The hon. Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) challenges me on concrete progress and we have already increased the National Crime Agency presence at Europol. I visited Europol in opposition, as did the now Prime Minister and the now Home Secretary. We are determined to work more closely together on serious and organised crime—from the vile crime of people smuggling to issues such as fraud, money laundering and drug trafficking—to ensure that there is nowhere on our continent where criminals can find a place to hide from the force of the law.

The third category is looking to make significant progress on trade and reducing trade barriers. We were elected on a manifesto with a very firm framework that we would not rejoin the single market or the customs union, or go back to freedom of movement, but that manifesto contained examples of what we wanted to secure, which we have a mandate from the people to negotiate. That includes a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement, which will reduce trade barriers significantly for agriculture and agri-food products, mutual recognition of professional qualifications for our services industries, and what we can do to make it so much easier for our touring artists to once again be able to tour the EU, and for European artists to come here. On those aspects that are within the trade and co-operation agreement as it stands, we will already have to move forward on negotiation. A good example of that is energy, where the trade and co-operation agreement is already putting an obligation on the UK and EU to look at how they operate the emissions trading scheme. There is a substantial agenda that the Government will be taking forward.

[Caroline Voaden]

Since the election, I have seen and heard lots of evidence of more conversations happening between the UK and the EU than did over the previous few years, so I accept what you are saying about a rapprochement and a more positive engagement. You say that the Government are keen to increase trade—

[Caroline Voaden]

I apologise, Sir Jeremy. The Government are saying that they want to increase trade with the European Union. Could the Minister comment on how helpful he thinks it is when suggestions are put forward by the European Union? Last week, for example, we had a suggestion of a pan-European Mediterranean customs agreement, which could benefit the just-in-time supply trade and complex manufacturing in this country, but was instantly dismissed by the Government. Would the Minister like to comment on how helpful he thinks that is?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I disagree with the hon. Lady’s descriptions of PEM as a customs agreement—that is not quite how it operates, or is meant to operate.

Secondly, I observe that on the various proposals and comments, the Government will of course be expected to refer to their manifesto commitments, for which we have a mandate. I have always said constructively that of course, within our red lines, we will always listen to the proposals that the EU puts forward. That was the message the Government sent out. I also observe that my very constructive, positive relationship with Maroš Šefčovič is evidence of proposals going between us that are being very constructively received on both sides. Do not take my word for it: have a look at Maroš Šefčovič’s interview from last week where he was asked about his relationship with me and how that is going, and he was very clear about what a positive, different place it is in. The proof is in what is being said on both sides.

Further, I am interested in this press on progress, because I took the time before coming to this debate to have a look at the Liberal Democrat manifesto at the last election, which included a four-step process. I would gently say that if we were doing a four-step process we might take significantly longer than has been taken.

[Sarah Olney]

First, our four-step process was about a much more comprehensive programme of engagement with the EU than what we are solely calling for today, which is a youth mobility scheme. Secondly, I put it to the Minister that since our manifesto was published back in June of last year, there has been substantial change in the global arena, in terms of trade and defence, with the re-election of President Trump in Washington, so naturally the environment has moved on since then. That is why we are now renewing and intensifying our calls for greater co-operation with the European Union, because we think that the issue is so much more pressing.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I will just say, first, that when the hon. Lady talks about a “comprehensive programme of engagement”, that is precisely what the Government have been engaging in.

The hon. Lady is certainly right to observe that of course world circumstances change, and I am sure that that will be the case in the years ahead as well. However, what will not change is the Government’s prioritisation of deepening our trade links with the European Union. It is also really important to say that that is of mutual benefit—it is of benefit to the United Kingdom and it is of benefit to the European Union that we move forward together on this agenda. That is precisely what will happen over the next few months.

[Ms Creasy]

I know more than most how much work my right hon. Friend has been doing on this issue. As for rejoining the pan-European scheme, it already exists; it is not a bespoke scheme. On youth mobility, it would be very helpful for us to understand things from the Minister’s perspective, because there are a lot of issues to balance in the best interests of the British economy and British growth. May I bring him back to that point? When there are so many challenges in the world, it is wonderful to have UK leaders in Europe who do not question whether we are friend or foe to our colleagues there, but we also need to speak up for British interests. I hope he can set out a bit more about what he considers those to be.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend makes a really powerful point. It was a particularly low moment for the country when one of its Prime Ministers could not answer a question as to whether the French President was a friend or foe. France is our NATO ally, with huge and deep ties to us. The fact that we ever reached that point was, frankly, disgraceful. However, we are not in that position any more. We are very clear with our European friends and partners that our relationship with them is constructive and positive, and that we will make it even closer in the years ahead. That is hugely important. My hon. Friend also makes a really powerful point about national interests, because our national interests and those of European economies go hand in hand. This process is not some sort of zero-sum game. It is a negotiation—a set of discussions—from which both sides can mutually benefit.

Let us take, for example, an SPS agreement, as seeking negotiations on that is one of our specific manifesto pledges. It works for and reduced barriers on both sides. That is good for businesses and the agricultural sector on the European continent, and it is good for the agricultural sector here in Britain. Cultural exchanges are also good for both sides, as is mutual recognition of professional qualifications in services. That is not just about our brilliant services exports; it is about those services that we can get from the European Union.

I am conscious, Sir Jeremy, that this is a short Westminster Hall debate and we are coming to the last few moments. People-to-people contacts are hugely important; there is no doubt about that. Obviously, the previous Government eased the position regarding school trips, particularly with France. We have just indicated our reinvestment in the Turing scheme. There are also numerous deep people-to-people links with Europe right across the United Kingdom.

As we have had this exchange across the Chamber many times, the hon. Member for Richmond Park will know that youth mobility was not part of the plans that the Government set out at the election. We have said that we will not go back to freedom of movement; that is a very clear red line. However, I approach the negotiations with the European Union in a constructive spirit. I, of course, will put forward and advocate for our national interests. It is, of course, for the EU to come forward with its negotiating position.

Who knows whether points in the Financial Times on this matter are accurate or not? They may or may not be, but I look forward to these negotiations. This is going to be a really positive period in relationships between the UK and the EU, and I am sure we can come back with the deliverables that are being asked for by the hon. Lady and her colleagues.

Finally, I am very grateful to you, Sir Jeremy, for your chairmanship of this debate.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

I am grateful, too, to the Minister and to everyone who has contributed to the debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)]

19. What steps he is taking to improve relations 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 have agreed to strengthen the relationship between the EU and the UK, putting it on a more solid, stable footing. I am taking forward discussions with my EU counterpart, Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič. In two weeks’ time, the Prime Minister will attend a summit with fellow European leaders on European defence.

[Richard Baker]

Does the Minister agree that the arts, musicians and the wider creative sector play a vital role in our economy, which is why working to negotiate a deal with touring artists is so important? Will the Minister confirm that this is still a priority for him?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I can confirm that our priority remains ensuring that UK artists can continue to perform and promote themselves around the world. That is why the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is working collaboratively with the creative sector and across Government to address key issues for our brilliant artists and their support staff touring the EU. As we set out in our manifesto, we will work with the EU and member states to explore how best to improve those arrangements, but without seeing a return to freedom of movement.

[Joe Morris]

I am frequently contacted by businesses in my constituency who are deeply concerned about the trade barriers put up by the previous Government that are damaging growth in the north-east. May I urge my right hon. Friend in the strongest possible terms to prioritise pragmatism in our relations with the EU and to ensure that businesses in my part of the country can get the support they need and export the goods they manufacture?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend raises a good point. Of course, we set out in our manifesto that we would not return to the single market, to the customs union or to freedom of movement. Within that framework, we absolutely take a pragmatic approach, putting the national interest first to tear down trade barriers wherever we can.

[Rachel Blake]

The end of this month will mark the anniversary of Brexit. Will the Minister assure me that we will not return to the appalling divisions of the past, and does he agree that the forthcoming summit and reset negotiations are a vital opportunity to discuss growth, not just for the diverse communities and businesses in my constituency, but for our nation?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: this is a time to look to the future, not to go back to the divisions of the past. The forthcoming EU-UK summit presents significant opportunities to make people in the UK and the EU more secure, safer and more prosperous.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

For more than 15 years, the European Union has been in breach of its international treaty obligations to join the European convention on human rights. What are the Government doing to address the arrogance of the European Union on that issue?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I would say, first, that the Government are committed to our membership of the European convention on human rights, and secondly, that the hon. Gentleman talks about bodies and organisations not being compliant with international treaties, but one of the big problems with the previous Government was how they signed international treaties and then sought to condemn them when they themselves had put pen to paper.

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

Maroš Šefčovič is today dangling the prospect of the UK joining the pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention. Of course, the quiet part is that that would once again turn this country into rule takers, not rule makers. Ahead of the summit, can the Paymaster General rule out the prospect of the UK falling in line with so-called dynamic alignment—in other words, taking EU rules and regulations—and will we instead strike out in the world and do new deals with America and around the Pacific rim?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I do not accept the binary choice that the hon. Gentleman presents. We want to increase trade and export all around the world—that is hugely important. As the Prime Minister said, we do not choose between allies; we look to deepen all our relationships. Of course, we welcome the positive and constructive tone from Commissioner Šefčovič. We are always looking for ways to reduce barriers to trade, but within our manifesto red lines, because we take a pragmatic view on where the national interest lies. We do not currently have any plans to join PEM, and we will not provide a running commentary on every comment that is made.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

Yesterday in Davos, Mr Šefčovič suggested that the UK and the EU were talking about dynamic alignment. As the Paymaster General will be aware, that is, if true, a very significant step. Will he be clear with the House: is dynamic alignment on the table?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I have to give the hon. Gentleman top marks for audacity. I do not know whether Conservative MPs have heard, but a week ago, the Leader of the Opposition gave her new year speech, and, as I am sure they know, we listened to it extremely carefully. Do they know what she said about previous EU-UK negotiations? She said that the Conservative Government were engaging in them

“before we had a plan for growth outside the EU… These mistakes were made because we told people what they wanted to hear first and then tried to work it out later.”

Why doesn’t the—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think we are in danger—[Interruption.] I am not going to sit down, Minister. [Interruption.] Thank you. We have a lot of questions to get through. If you want to make a statement on that in future, I would welcome it.

[Alex Burghart]

I would welcome that, too, Mr Speaker, because the right hon. Gentleman was not answering my question—just as he did not answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper), and just as his Department is not answering questions of any hue at the moment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) made clear. It comes to something when Mr Šefčovič is a better guide to what is going on than the British Government. If the Government are committed to dynamic alignment, that is a significant step, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, because it could bring the European Court of Justice back into having jurisdiction over the United Kingdom. So, for the avoidance of doubt, will he rule out the ECJ having jurisdiction over the UK in any regard in the future?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am astonished by the question, because the hon. Gentleman is also the shadow Northern Ireland Secretary, and will know the role that the European Court of Justice plays in the Windsor framework. Turning to his question about the negotiations, we have set out our red lines in the manifesto, and have set out examples of things that we are seeking to negotiate—that is already there.

The Leader of the Opposition was apologising last week for the conduct of the Conservative party in its relationship with the EU. Why is the hon. Gentleman not starting with an apology, or did he just not get the memo from his leader?

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

The wholly inadequate deal with the EU negotiated by the previous Conservative Government has done enormous damage to British businesses, which have seen soaring import costs, increased workforce shortages, and reams of red tape creating huge barriers to growth. The return of a Trump Administration in Washington changes the landscape of trade deals globally with the threat of high tariffs, and will be deeply worrying for many businesses across the country. The UK must lead on the world stage again, standing up for our interests by working closely with other countries—most importantly, our European neighbours—as set out by my right hon. Friend the leader of the Liberal Democrats in his new year’s speech last week. I urge the Minister to be more ambitious in rebuilding our relationship with Europe. Does he agree that the best way to boost growth and fix our relationship with the EU is to agree a new UK-EU customs union?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am grateful to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for her question, but as I indicated in an earlier answer, we do not choose between allies. We are looking to deepen our trade links right around the world with different partners, but the hon. Lady should be aware that we are ambitious on the UK-EU relationship, and we will take that ambition forward into the UK-EU summit.

[Jade Botterill (Ossett and Denby Dale) (Lab)]

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

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

17. 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)]

As an immediate first step in reform, the Government introduced the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. That Bill was amended and passed in this House, and will soon be in Committee in the other place.

[Jade Botterill]

I regularly meet talented, hard-working and intelligent young people across Ossett and Denby Dale who often feel detached from politics. How quickly can the Government make progress on this legislation so that all young people have an equal chance to make the laws and shape our future, not just those born into privilege?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and we want to see this Bill on the statute book by the end of this Session. The role of hereditary peers is completely indefensible in this day and age. Last year, the Bill was resoundingly approved by this House, and it is currently going through the other place, where it will soon be in Committee. It is a clear manifesto commitment by the Labour party, and I look forward to it being delivered.

[Mark Sewards]

I thank the Minister for his answer. Being the MP for Leeds South West and Morley is the greatest privilege I could ask for, and constituency boundaries ensure that all parts of our country are represented in this place. The same is not true of the other place, which is not representative of our nations and regions. What work is being done or considered to remedy that, to ensure that all of our communities are represented in the other place?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

As the Member of Parliament for the seat where I grew up, I share my hon. Friend’s passion for representing my area. He will be aware of the Government’s manifesto commitment to reform the process of appointments to the House of Lords so that it better reflects the country it serves, and we will consult on proposals for an alternative second Chamber that is more representative of the nations and regions.

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

In 2022, the then shadow Leader of the House rightly accused Boris Johnson of abusing the honours system by appointing cronies to the House of Lords, and promised that an incoming Labour Prime Minister would never do such a thing. Now, having lost her seat at the general election, that former shadow Leader of the House is one of 30 new Labour peers waiting to be appointed by the Prime Minister to sit in the House of Lords. Could the Minister explain how the Labour party stuffing the House of Lords with its cronies is any less of an affront to democracy than when the Tories did it?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I do not think the hon. Gentleman can seriously compare the appointments we have put forward with what happened under the Conservative party. We have already set out that each and every appointment will be accompanied by a citation indicating the experience to be brought to the upper House, and the people he refers to will make an excellent contribution there.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

7. What progress he has made on payments to infected and affected people under the infected blood compensation scheme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

21. What steps he is taking to monitor compensation payments for people impacted by infected blood.

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

The Infected Blood Compensation Authority has made the first compensation offers to 11 people, with a total value of more than £13 million. The Government have also paid over £1 billion in interim compensation, and in the Budget we announced £11.8 billion of funding for the scheme. Yesterday, I visited the Infected Blood Compensation Authority office in Newcastle, and I was reassured to see the progress that is being made swiftly and compassionately.

[John Glen]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his update to the House. I note the press release that went out yesterday, and no doubt there will be another one on 5 March, the day before the next Cabinet Office questions. However, I want to be constructive in my approach; I, too, will be visiting the Infected Blood Compensation Authority in Newcastle, next Thursday.

The legal representatives of the complex web of stakeholders in the infected blood and affected communities remain concerned about the status of the arm’s length body, the appeals process and the role of victims in the oversight board. I am absolutely clear that the Infected Blood Compensation Authority has the necessary authority and will work through those issues. I urge the Minister to work with and reassure the victims’ representatives, so that the lawyers can be more constructive in supporting these people along this difficult pathway. No doubt hon. Members will come in with more questions, but does the Minister agree with me that we need to move forward in a constructive manner?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Yes, the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I look forward to the former Paymaster General’s reflections after his visit next week. I was delighted yesterday to meet the user consultants— three victims; two infected, one affected—who are certainly making their voice heard at the Infected Blood Compensation Authority. That voice of victims is hugely important, as is the constructive approach the right hon. Gentleman has indicated.

[Jessica Toale]

I welcome the £11.8 billion allocated in the Budget for the infected blood scandal, which is a clear commitment from this Government that they are acting on this injustice. However, parents and partners of the infected, including in my constituency of Bournemouth West, are rightly apprehensive about when they will receive compensation; many are elderly or in poor health. Given the urgency of the situation, can the Minister outline when they might receive compensation and whether he will consider including them in the initial waves?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

In October, applications opened for eligible estates to claim interim compensation payments of £100,000. So far, more than 230 estates have received payments. I hope those payments are welcomed as the beginning of recognition for those who have lost loved ones to this devastating scandal. The delivery of compensation payments is rightly a matter for IBCA, which is an independent arm’s length body chaired by Sir Robert Francis. The Government expect payments to eligible affected people to begin this year, following a second set of regulations that I will be laying before Parliament in the coming weeks.

[Gregor Poynton]

I do not imagine there is one MP in this House who has not had constituents come to talk to them about the infected blood scandal. In fact, this week I spoke to one such constituent, Linda Cannon, who told me her story, saying:

“I lost my husband, Billy, in February 2013 to Hepatitis C after a blood transfusion in 1986, for a stomach ulcer, at Bangour Hospital. He was not informed till 2011 that he had been infected, only finding out after presenting with a sore back. He underwent severe treatment, without success, which will live with me forever. Life has been difficult to deal with after this”.

The consequences have been completely devastating for her family. Mr Cannon will not see justice, but several of my other constituents must. I welcome the urgency with which this Government have moved forward with this issue, because justice for the victims of this injustice is long overdue. Can the Minister update the House on how he has been working—not just in England, but across Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—to make sure that payments get to those who need them immediately?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The whole House will be moved by the story of my hon. Friend’s constituent. It is a story from this appalling scandal that many of us across the House will be hearing from our constituents. I am pleased that first payments have been made to people who have waited far too long for compensation. Those payments were made by the end of 2024, as I committed to the House to do. I also commit specifically to my hon. Friend to working closely with the devolved Administrations to ensure that victims across the United Kingdom can achieve justice.

[Liz Jarvis]

The victims of the infected blood scandal, including those from my constituency who attended Treloar college in Hampshire, have been fighting for justice for decades. They have raised deep concerns about the slow progress of compensation payments; the Infected Blood Compensation Authority projects that by the end of March just 250 people will have been offered compensation. Will the Government accelerate the roll-out of the compensation scheme to ensure that victims see justice within their lifetimes?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am restless for progress on the speed of payments, and I will do everything in my gift as a Minister to lay the regulations before this House speedily. IBCA is obviously operationally independent and—I was having this discussion yesterday in Newcastle—the test and learn approach that it uses, which starts with a representative sample of cases, will allow it to ramp up delivery. When I was in Newcastle yesterday I saw a group of public servants working efficiently in a compassionate way to deliver.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

8. What steps he is taking to reduce the cost of ministerial travel.

--- Later in debate ---

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

12. Whether he has had recent discussions with the fishing industry on the UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement.

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

I engage with a range of stakeholders relevant to our relationship with the EU, for example through the UK-EU trade and co- operation agreement’s domestic advisory group, which I last met in September and which includes representatives of the UK fishing industry. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is the responsible Department, and has ongoing dialogue with the industry. I recently met my hon. Friend the Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs to discuss fisheries matters, and I will meet representatives of the Scottish fishing industry in the very near future to discuss their interests in our fisheries relationship with the EU under the trade and co-operation agreement.

[Mr Carmichael]

I am delighted to hear that those meetings are scheduled, because the review of the TCA is seen by fishing industries around the UK as an opportunity to undo some of the damage that was done by Boris Johnson at the end of the Brexit negotiations. I met the EU Commission official who will be leading the EU side of the negotiations and it is clear that she is informed of their industries’ priorities and has a plan for achieving them. The EU sees this as an important piece of work. The Minister can only do what needs to be done if he is prepared to engage with and listen to the views of our fishing industries and communities.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I understand and recognise the strong interest in what happens in 2026 when the arrangements that were negotiated by the previous Government end. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that I will listen and engage. We will protect the interests of our fisheries, and also fulfil our international commitments to protect the marine environment.

[Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)]

13. What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to reform public services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)]

T8. Travelling and working abroad can be an incredibly enriching experience, and I welcome the Government’s steps to strengthen our relationship with the EU. My young constituents would like to know specifically what steps are being taken to increase their opportunities in Europe. What discussions has the Minister had with Cabinet colleagues and EU counterparts regarding an EU youth mobility scheme and any other further actions to ease work and travel for young people in Europe?

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

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. We have arrangements with France to make school trips easier. I think we agree across the House that school trips are an enriching experience. The Department for Education works with the British Council on the learning assistance scheme, which the Government hugely support and want to drive forward. With regard to a youth mobility scheme, I am not going to give a running commentary. What I will say is that we will, of course, always act in the UK’s national interest and that we will not go back to freedom of movement.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

How much longer will it be before we get an answer from the Government on the review of the vaccine damage payment scheme? It was initiated when my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) was in the Cabinet Office about a year ago. When will we get an answer?

--- Later in debate ---

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

What progress has been made on improving engagement with those infected and affected by the contaminated blood scandal? As the Paymaster General is aware, there has been a great deal of concern among those people and the organisations that represent them. May I urge him to sit down with his opposite number in the Department of Health and Social Care, which is responsible for getting aid to the organisations that support those people who are infected and affected, because they are desperately in need of the resources?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I will be carrying out another round of engagement with victims next week. As I said in answer to the former Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen), the role of user consultants in the Infected Blood Compensation Authority is vital as well.

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

There are still, sadly, two victims of the contaminated blood scandal dying on a weekly basis. Will my right hon. Friend say what is preventing the Government from instructing IBCA to issue core payments today to all living infected victims registered with the existing support schemes?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

IBCA is operationally independent, but I expect the first payments for the affected to be made before the end of this year. I am restless for progress and will do all I can as a Minister to drive this forward.

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

Public sector procurement is a fantastic way to drive productivity, innovation and local value in public services, but too often, small businesses, start-ups and voluntary service providers in Newcastle tell me they have difficulty accessing public sector contracts; they do not have as many lawyers, consultants or project managers as bigger businesses. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure better access to public sector contracts?

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

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Wednesday 18th December 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 the Third time.

I will say, first of all, what a remarkably efficient Committee stage that was. In that tradition, which has now been set, I will keep my remarks brief.

The Bill will continue the positive effects seen from the Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015 for a further five years. The 2015 Act followed the very welcome decision made the year before by the Church of England to allow women to be ordained as bishops, and the legislation passed the following year began to allow ordained women bishops to enter the other place as Lords Spiritual earlier than would otherwise have been the case.

I want to take the opportunity to thank all the officials who have worked on the Bill for their support to me and to the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Ms Oppong-Asare), as well as to my right hon. Friend, the Leader of the House of Lords.

I thank all those who spoke on Second Reading and today: my hon. Friends the Members for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) and Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee), as well as the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and the shadow Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), who showed that wonderful talent today of being succinct in the passage of the Bill. In all seriousness, I wish to put on the record my thanks for the spirit in which the official Opposition have approached the Bill. We are grateful for that. Finally, I give particular thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) in her position as the Second Church Estates Commissioner.

During the passage of the 2015 Act, the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), described the legislation as “unopposable”. I am pleased to say that nearly a decade later, that sentiment continues to ring true. I commend the Bill to the House.

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]