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

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 14th November 2024 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

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

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

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

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

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

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

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

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

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

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

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

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

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

[Sir John Hayes]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Ministerial Code: Policy Announcements

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Laura Trott]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

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

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

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

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

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

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

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

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

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

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

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

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

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

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

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

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

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

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

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

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

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

[Matthew Patrick (Wirral West) (Lab)]

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

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

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

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

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

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

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

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

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

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

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

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

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

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

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

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

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

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

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

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

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

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

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

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

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

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

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

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

[Josh Simons (Makerfield) (Lab)]

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

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

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

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

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

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

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

[Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

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

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

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

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

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

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

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

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

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

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

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

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

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

[Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

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

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

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

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

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

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

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

[Jim Shannon]

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

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

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

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

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

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

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

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to Paul Holmes.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

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

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

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

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I expect better of a senior Whip!

Oral Answers to Questions

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

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

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

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

[Clive Jones]

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

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

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

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

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

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

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

[Sarah Owen]

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

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

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

[Adam Thompson]

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

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

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

[Patrick Hurley]

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

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

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

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

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

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

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

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

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

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

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

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

[Abtisam Mohamed]

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

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

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

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

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

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

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

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

[Mr Speaker]

I call Dr Danny Chambers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

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

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

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

Interim Compensation Payments for Victims of Infected Blood

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2024 Written Statements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Only the personal representative of the estate is able to make the application. Applicants will need a grant of probate, letters of administration, or a grant of confirmation —specific to Scotland—to evidence entitlement to claim interim compensation on behalf of the estate. To assist the legal process of obtaining this evidence as quickly as possible—for those that do not already have it— applicants can claim back their exact legal costs up to £1,500.

The application form is available to download online at gov.uk, together with full guidance on how to apply. Applicants may request a hard copy of the application form from the UK infected blood support scheme operating in the nation of the UK where the deceased infected person was infected. The completed form and supporting documents should be sent to the relevant infected blood support scheme.

[HCWS164]

Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2024 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

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

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

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

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

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

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

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

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

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

[Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)]

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

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

rose—

[Pete Wishart]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

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

[Pete Wishart]

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

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

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

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

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

Sir Robert’s report said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ian Lavery]

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

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

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

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

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

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

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

[John Glen]

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

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

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

[Sarah Olney]

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

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“our ignorance was engineered by those in power.”

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

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

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

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

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

[Clive Efford]

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

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

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

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 15th October 2024 Commons Chamber

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

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

As set out in our manifesto, this Government are committed to reforming the House of Lords. As a result, I am proud to be taking forward our first commitment: the immediate first step to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. The Bill before the House today, which was introduced in the first 100 days of this Government, delivers on that commitment. Change begins.

It is a change that is long overdue. In the 21st century, there should not be places in our Parliament, making our laws, reserved for those who were born into certain families. In fact, we are one of only two countries that still retain a hereditary element in our legislature, which is a clear sign that the time has come to see through this long-overdue change. It is a matter of principle for this Government, who are committed to fairness and equality. It is not personal or a comment on the contribution or service of any individual hereditary peer, past or present. We are grateful to all peers who commit their time to valuable public service. However, what we do not accept is that, in this era, as a matter of principle, anyone should have a position in either House on the basis of their ancestry.

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

The Minister knows that I have a great deal of time for him, even though what he has said so far is nonsense, and what he is about to say is bound to be so too. The truth of the matter is that at the apex of our constitution is, of course, His Majesty the King. He is there because, in the Minister’s words, he belongs to a certain family and therefore derives a certain authority from that antecedence. Is that wrong too?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

No, because the monarchy is a completely different part of our constitution. First, no monarch since Queen Anne has refused Royal Assent to a law. Secondly, our constitutional monarchy enjoys popular support. I return the right hon. Gentleman’s respect, and the one thing he is is honest. He is actually setting out a defence of the hereditary principle, rather than hiding behind a smokescreen, which seems to be the position of Conservative Front Benchers, from whom we will hear in due course.

I want young people growing up in Blaenavon, Pontypool and Cwmbran in my constituency, and indeed in every part of the country, to feel that they have the same chance as anyone else to play a part in making the laws of the land. The continued presence of hereditary peers in our legislature is indefensible in a modern democracy.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The trouble with this sort of partial reform is that it opens other issues. Why does the Church of England have a monopoly on places in the House of Lords? I am all in favour of the established Church, and of letting it have perhaps 12 bishops, but why can we not share the other places between this country’s other Christian denominations and non-Christian faiths? Do they not deserve a voice?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am certainly in favour of the representation of different faiths in the upper House, but the Government set out a step-by-step process in our manifesto.

[Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I will come back to the right hon. Gentleman after making some progress.

Our manifesto sets out a series of steps, which is the key point. This Government have a mandate to reform the House of Lords.

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

One moment. I will come back to the right hon. Gentleman.

Our manifesto sets out that there should be an alternative second Chamber that is more representative of the nations and regions of the United Kingdom. We have been elected on a manifesto to get there on a step-by-step basis.

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

As this is his third attempt, I will show sympathy.

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

I thank the Minister for being so generous. He makes a very interesting argument, and I think many Members were excited about the change he proposed. I have read his manifesto, which makes a number of interesting points about hereditary peers, a retirement age of 80, strengthening the circumstances in which disgraced Members can be removed and an alternative second Chamber. All of this is missing from the Bill, but it was in his manifesto. Is he open to accepting amendments to include these proposals that were in his manifesto?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am delighted to hear the right hon. Gentleman’s support for the other steps in our manifesto, which he should have communicated to Conservative Front Benchers when they were drafting their reasoned amendment—[Interruption.] It looks like it too. If the right hon. Gentleman reads our manifesto with his usual diligence, he will see that it states that this Bill is the immediate first step. That is the mandate we bring before the House today.

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

Will the Minister update the House on the wider reforms that our Government are seeking to introduce to the House of Lords, and why these reforms should not be delayed by this specific Bill that, as the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) said, was widely supported by the electorate?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. As we look to the other reforms, from the retirement age to participation, the Government will look to build wide support on the way forward—support that, frankly, has not been found in previous attempts at reform. At its heart is the principle that people are placed in the House of Lords to serve the public, and I look forward to debating those wider reforms with Conservative Members, but not in this Bill.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Does the Minister recognise that a recent survey of Church of England clergy showed the need to reform the participation of Church of England bishops in our legislature? Will he reflect on that, and on the fact that it looks like we are in danger of having bishops who, instead of focusing their efforts on the cure of souls, are more like mitred politicians? That cannot be good for any of us. Finally, we are talking about the Church of England in the Parliament of the United Kingdom. In that respect, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) is correct about expanding the clergy’s membership to include other denominations, or removing them entirely if that proves impossible, for reasons that are pretty clear.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The Church has recognised the need for reform, particularly in terms of size, and today’s debate is further evidence of why it is sensible to reform in stages.

[Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)]

There has not been a single reform of the House of Lords over the last 14 years. Is my right hon. Friend as surprised as I am that Conservative Members now want huge reform of the second Chamber?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

After the past 14 years, they now show a new-found enthusiasm for reform and change.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I will give way once more, and then I need to make some progress.

[Dr Spencer]

The Minister is generous in giving way. There is a fertile debate on this side of the House, and the Government should reflect on the fact that Opposition Members tend to think independently. Does he not think that the idea that a step-by-step process will work at all is for the birds?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I cannot comment on the coherence of the Opposition in the course of that process. What we have seen so far is a pretty incoherent effort, but perhaps it will improve when we hear from the shadow Minister.

This Bill is about making immediate, long-overdue progress. The House of Lords existed for centuries as a nearly entirely hereditary House. There was an attempt to introduce life peers as long ago as 1869, with a further attempt to introduce life peers and remove the hereditary element in 1888. Despite those efforts, it was only with the passage of the Life Peerages Act 1958 that non-judicial life peers began to join the other place.

Some 40 years later, a Labour Government introduced a Bill to end the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. The events that smoothed the Bill’s passage led that Government to accept an amendment on the principle of the removal of hereditary peers. The amendment retained 92 hereditary peers on a temporary basis, until further reforms to the other place were brought forward. Despite attempts at further reform, that temporary measure is still in place.

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

One of the dates the Minister missed was Labour’s pledge, which has stood for over 100 years, to abolish the House of Lords. That pledge was reiterated by the Prime Minister only a couple of years ago. Is it still Labour’s intention to abolish the House of Lords? Does he understand the cynicism about further progress, given that the pledge has not been honoured in over a century?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I cannot comment on the hon. Gentleman’s cynicism about progress, but our manifesto clearly sets out the Government’s position, which is that we should have an alternative second Chamber that is more representative of the nations and regions.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

In recent decades, major corporations that were family businesses, such as Ford in the United States or Peugeot in France, realised that recruiting from within the family and making a family member the chief executive was not necessarily a good idea. Is this not just the same thing?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

It is great to have my hon. Friend’s support. As the Leader of the House of Lords said when this matter was debated a few weeks ago in the other place, for the last 25 years, one of the arguments has been that nothing should be done until everything can be done. We see that same, tired, stale old argument once again at the heart of the official Opposition’s amendment. That approach means that in 2024 we still have hereditary elements in our legislature.

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

On that point, will the Minister give way?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I have already given way to the right hon. Gentleman once.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

In a moment.

It is not right that what was seen, even in 1999, as a temporary arrangement should persist any longer. This Government were elected on a manifesto that was explicit in its promises that we would bring about immediate reform by removing the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. The Bill has a tightly defined objective, and a clear focus and aim that delivers on that mandate.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

The Minister talks about piecemeal reform and says the argument is stale, but surely the really stale argument is Labour’s. The Labour party came into government with an enormous majority and wants to reform the House of Lords, so why does it not get on and do it? Why do the Labour Government not set out some cross-party work that we can all get involved with, and introduce proper reform measures, rather than just tinkering at the edges, as the Bill does, for pure political advantage?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Who exactly speaks for the Opposition? Who knows. Rather than put that point to me, the right hon. Gentleman should take it up with the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden), who proposed the amendment. Do the Opposition have any coherent position left?

[Olivia Bailey (Reading West and Mid Berkshire) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the legislation gives young people, such as the impressive A-level students I met at Little Heath school in my constituency, an equal chance to make the laws of this country from either House? How will he ensure that the legislation progresses quickly?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the situation for young people in her constituency. The Bill has a clear mandate, and I hope that hon. Members will back it in big numbers today.

[Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s assurances that the bishops in the House of Lords will continue to play a role in our national life. We must not bow to calls from Conservative Members who resent that, because the bishops shine a bright light on aspects of our national life that require scrutiny. Will he confirm that there is nothing to stop the hereditary Members of the House of Lords who provide valuable contributions and expertise in that Chamber becoming life peers?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

There is no bar on that happening. When the new Leader of the Opposition eventually emerges from their parallel universe leadership contest, I am sure that they will have a quota, as all Leaders of the Opposition do. It is for them to consider that issue.

[Sir Roger Gale]

Some minutes ago, the right hon. Gentleman said that the young people of Torfaen believed in and wanted equal opportunity, a point reiterated by the hon. Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey). I am not quite sure how that equal opportunity squares with a Labour party that wants to stuff the House of Lords with its cronies. I cannot see any equal opportunity in that. That aside, this legislation, on which we will be required to vote, is ill thought through. Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the hereditary peers who are Members of the House of Lords have made, and continue to make, a considerable contribution to the work of the upper House, and if so, has he given any consideration to, at the very least, ensuring that those hereditary peers who are abolished are given life peerages in a future Parliament?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

How can Members of the Conservative party talk about stuffing the upper House with people after the events of the last 14 years? I thought irony had died. As for the right hon. Gentleman’s point about life peers, I have just said that having been a hereditary peer is no bar to becoming a Member of the Lords. That will be a matter for the new Leader of the Opposition, having looked at the contributions individuals have made. I have not denigrated the contributions of hereditary peers—far from it. I have thanked people for their public service in the upper House, but it is for the new Leader of the Opposition to decide whether to put forward former hereditary peers as life peers. There will be no objection from Labour Members.

I have covered why the removal of the hereditary peers from the other place is overdue. Let me turn to why it is essential. It is indefensible in this day and age for people to sit in our legislature as a result of an accident of birth. Prime Minister Harold Wilson, putting forward a programme for change in this House in October 1968, said:

“the Government believe that reform should achieve the following objectives: first, the hereditary basis for membership should be eliminated”.—[Official Report, 30 October 1968; Vol. 772, c. 34.]

All these years later, that first objective still needs to be fully achieved. It is time for the hereditary nature of the House of Lords to come to an end. The former Lord Speaker Lord Fowler put it eloquently:

“It is not a question of personalities; it is a question of whether appointment of the House based on heredity is the right solution for the 21st century, and I do not believe that it is.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 July 2024; Vol. 839, c. 388.]

As I said in response to the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale), the Bill is not an attack on individuals in the other place. As I have said twice already, we recognise individual contributions. We are saying that we should reflect on the millions of people who were unable to make the same contribution as a result of the family they were born into. The time has come for change. If we are to maintain trust in our democratic institutions, it is important that our second Chamber reflects modern Britain. I hope Members will vote for the Bill this evening, and agree with me that it is indefensible, in this day and age, that over a 10th of our second Chamber is essentially reserved for certain individuals due to an accident of birth.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

I am deeply worried about the Minister’s arguments. If he talks in that way about accidents of birth, how can he possibly defend constitutional monarchy? If he questions the hereditary principle in this place, how can he defend the idea of a hereditary monarchy?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

If the hon. Gentleman had been here at the start at the debate, he would have heard exactly the same point made to me in the first intervention. I will repeat the two points I made in response. First, that is a completely different part of our constitution, and no monarch has withheld Royal Assent from a Bill since the reign of Queen Anne. Secondly, we have a constitutional monarchy that enjoys popular support. I gave the same answer to the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) at the start of the debate.

Let me summarise this short five-clause Bill. Clause 1 removes the remaining hereditary peers from the House of Lords and puts an end to the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in that House. Clause 2 removes the current role of the House of Lords in considering peerage claims, reflecting the removal of the link between hereditary peerage and the House of Lords. Complex or disputed claims will now be referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, under section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act 1833, instead of the House of Lords. Clause 3 makes consequential amendments, and clause 4 sets out the territorial extent of the Bill and when it will commence. The Bill will remove the remaining hereditary peers at the end of the parliamentary Session in which it receives Royal Assent. Finally, clause 5 establishes the short title of the Bill.

To conclude, the Bill fulfils an explicit manifesto commitment to deliver this reform to the House of Lords.

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

In my generosity, as the right hon. Member has asked so many times, I will, for the last time, give way to him.

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

The right hon. Gentleman has been truly generous. We know that he is a radical at heart, and that he has been suppressed by No. 10 Downing Street and the Whips’ Office, but we want to see the radical come out of him. His manifesto has four paragraphs on constitutional reform. The first is a little waffly, but the second is very important, as it mentions the abolition of hereditary peers and the 80-year retirement age. Surely a retirement age provision could be a key element of the Bill. It could be added on to it, to help the right hon. Gentleman deliver more of his promised reforms. I say to the House that I am willing to defy my Whips to deliver the reform that many of us want to see.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Together, the right hon. Gentleman and I could form the new radicals. When we move on to the next stage of reform, I look forward to a similar amount of independent, enthusiastic support—support that he will no doubt demonstrate when we get a new Leader of the Opposition.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I will take one more intervention.

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

I thank the Minister and his colleague, the Minister without Portfolio, for having made themselves available to Members of the Opposition—as well as to those in the Government party, no doubt—to discuss these things privately in a less dramatic environment than this one. One incidental by-product has been pointed out to me by that very important group of peers led by Lord Norton of Louth, whom I know the Minister is going to see, who are in favour of sensible and credible reform. They say that, by removing the hereditaries, he will be removing the only group of peers who are not appointed in a process that is subject to prime ministerial influence. That is not an argument for not doing it, but it might be an argument for putting the House of Lords Appointments Commission on a statutory basis. What does he think about that?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Even with the removal of hereditary peers, the Conservative party will remain the largest party in the House of Lords. As for reform of the House of Lords Appointments Commission or any other aspect of reform, that discussion is clearly why the Government have chosen to take this more considered, measured approach. I was grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his constructive contribution when the Minister without Portfolio and I held our drop-in. I am more than happy for that dialogue to continue, both during the passage of this Bill and when we move to the second stage of reform.

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

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I keep being persuaded to give way.

[Chris Ward]

I am delighted to see the Minister picking up from where Harold Wilson left off. Does he not agree that the key part of the Bill is about making our legislature much more relevant to modern Britain and modernising both Parliament and the country? Is it not inexplicable and indefensible to have hereditary peers in the 21st century in modern Britain?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is entirely right.

The second Chamber plays a vital role in our constitution, but people should not have a role in voting on and scrutinising our laws in Parliament by an accident of birth. This Government have been elected with a promise to put public service at the heart of politics, and this legislation, introduced in the first 100 days, shows that we are intent on driving that commitment forward.

On 21 February 1911, when the then Prime Minister, Herbert Asquith, moved the Second Reading of what became the landmark Parliament Act of 1911, he said that

“we present it to the House as the first and the most urgent step towards a more perfect attainment.”—[Official Report, 21 February 1911; Vol. 21, c. 1911.]

I present this Bill, over a century later, in the same spirit —as the first and most urgent step that we can now take in the 2020s. I hope that I can count on Members in all parts of the House to support this Bill. In that spirit, I commend it to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Oliver Dowden]

Well—

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The right hon. Gentleman would not want to break convention, would he?

[Sir Oliver Dowden]

The Paymaster General knows how much I respect conventions, but that is ultimately a matter for the other Chamber.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Oliver Dowden]

That is a very important point. I believe that the Government have plans to address that in the legislation. Having those people, with their experience of organising coronations—as I saw during the coronation two years ago—is another part of how our constitution works. All of the elements work together, and if we pick away at one, there are unintended consequences.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

To be clear, the Lord Great Chamberlain and the Earl Marshal will not continue to sit and vote in the House of Lords under this Bill, but they will continue with their important ceremonial functions.

[Sir Oliver Dowden]

The risk is taking away something that has formed part of the fabric of our constitution. The role of those two officeholders has been essential to the role of the Crown, and preventing them from fully playing their part in the House of Lords may have unintended consequences that are deleterious to the interests of the nation.

Hereditaries and appointees aside, I would argue that the precise composition of an unelected second Chamber is a second order issue. Both the Government and Parliament should be considering how we can better improve the scrutiny powers of the revising Chamber. We need a strong Government, but we need a muscular Parliament too. All Governments should be held to account, particularly one with the biggest gap in history between their number of MPs and their popular vote. We should particularly consider how Parliament can better scrutinise the quango state—unaccountable tiers of government that are ballooning under this Labour Government.

Lords reform is challenging. For a century, no one has cut the Gordian knot—certainly not Gordon Brown. The system we have inherited from the turn of the millennium still works, proving the strengths and adaptability of the British constitution.

Constitutional change is an area where one should tread lightly. It requires proper consultation, engagement and consideration. On that basis, as set out in our reasoned amendment, the Opposition will oppose the Bill, not to defend the privilege of old, but in defence of a strong and independent Parliament that stands up to an over-mighty Executive, and for our nation’s long-standing liberties and freedoms.

Infected Blood Compensation Authority: Independent Member Appointments

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2024 Written Statements

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

I should like to inform the House that I have appointed three interim non-executive board members to the Infected Blood Compensation Authority under part 3 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024:

Russell Frith, appointed as an interim audit and risk board member, effective from 1st October 2024 until 1 October 2025;

Deborah Harris-Ugbomah, appointed as an interim commercial board member, effective from 1st October 2024 until 1 October 2025; and

Paula Sussex, appointed as an interim digital and data board member, effective from 1st October 2024 until 1 October 2025.

Sir Robert Francis KC, the interim chair of the Infected Blood Compensation Authority, has also appointed three interim non-executive board members:

Sir Robert Behrens, appointed as an interim community engagement board member, effective from 1st October 2024 until 1 October 2025;

Helen Parker, appointed as an interim community engagement board member, effective from 1st October 2024 until 1 October 2025; and

Gillian Fairfield, appointed as an interim medical board member, effective from 1st October 2024 until 1 October 2025.

These short-term appointments will support the Infected Blood Compensation Authority to deliver compensation to people who are infected and affected in a timely manner. An open and fair recruitment process will commence in 2025 to fill these posts substantively.

The Government are absolutely committed to acting on the findings of the infected blood inquiry and today’s announcement is progress towards that collective aim. I will continue to update the House as we progress work to deliver long overdue compensation to people infected and affected as a result of the infected blood scandal.

[HCWS116]

UK Covid-19 Inquiry Response Costs: Quarter 1 2024-25

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Monday 2nd September 2024 Written Statements

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

The covid-19 pandemic impacted each and every person in the UK. The work of the UK covid-19 inquiry is crucial in examining the UK’s response to and impact of the covid-19 pandemic. There are evidently lessons to be learned from the pandemic and the Government are committed to closely considering the covid-19 inquiry’s findings and recommendations, which will play a key role in informing the Government’s planning and preparations for the future.

The Government recognise the unprecedented and wholly exceptional circumstances of the pandemic, and the importance of examining as rigorously as possible the actions the state took in response, in order to learn lessons for the future. The inquiry is therefore unprecedented in its scope, complexity and profile, looking at recent events that have profoundly impacted everyone’s lives.

The independent UK covid-19 inquiry publishes its own running costs quarterly. Following the publication of the inquiry’s financial report for quarter 1 2024-25 on 29 July 2024, I would like to update colleagues on the costs to the UK Government associated with responding to the UK covid-19 inquiry.

Figures provided are based upon a selection of the most relevant Departments and are not based on a complete set of departmental figures and are not precise for accounting purposes. Ensuring a comprehensive and timely response to the inquiry requires significant input from a number of key Government Departments, including, but not limited to, the Cabinet Office, the Department for Health and Social Care, the UK Health Security Agency, the Home Office and HM Treasury, many of which are supported by the Government Legal Department. While every effort has been made to ensure a robust methodology, complexities remain in trying to quantify the time and costs dedicated to the inquiry alone.

It should be noted that alongside full time resource within Departments, inquiry response teams draw on expertise from across their organisations. The staff costs associated with appearing as witnesses, preparing witnesses and associated policy development work on the covid-19 inquiry are not included in the costs below.

Breakdown of staff & costs

The Government’s response to the UK covid-19 inquiry is led by inquiry response units across Departments.

Number of UK covid-19 inquiry response unit staff: 280 full time equivalents (Q1).

Cost of UK covid-19 inquiry response unit staff: £5,049,000 (including contingent labour costs) (Q1).

Total inquiry response unit legal costs

Inquiry response units across Government Departments are supported by the Government Legal Department, co-partnering firms of solicitors, and legal counsel. These associated legal costs (excluding internal departmental advisory legal costs) for April-June 2024 are below.

Q1 legal costs: £4,236,000.

[HCWS53]

Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Monday 2nd September 2024 Commons Chamber

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

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I think this is the first time that I have spoken with you in the Chair, so I congratulate you on your election.

I am grateful for the opportunity to update the House on the Government’s work on the infected blood compensation scheme, following my letter to Mr Speaker during the recess.

The infected blood scandal is a shameful mark on the British state, and those who have been impacted have waited far too long to receive financial redress and true recognition of their suffering. The inquiry’s report shed light on the trauma inflicted on thousands of people across the country. The voices of people who are infected and have been affected have gone unheard for far too long, which has compounded the trauma. The devastating findings of the report bear repeating: victims were used as objects of unethical research, and people were misled about the treatments they needed and received. As Sir Brian Langstaff KC put it, there was a “cover-up” that was

“more subtle, more pervasive and more chilling”

than an “orchestrated conspiracy to mislead”. It is a shameful part of our state’s recent history.

On 26 July, I updated this House on the engagement exercise being undertaken by Sir Robert Francis KC, interim chair of the new Infected Blood Compensation Authority, with the infected blood community on the compensation proposals that were published on 21 May. As I told the House, the Government were carefully considering Sir Robert’s feedback with a view to publishing his report and the Government’s position on it in advance of 24 August, which was the statutory deadline imposed by the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 for establishing the infected blood compensation scheme in regulations. I assure the House that this Government upheld that commitment, and I thank all the officials who worked in the Cabinet Office to ensure that that deadline was met.

On 16 August, the Government published on gov.uk an update on the infected blood compensation scheme, Sir Robert Francis’s report on his engagement exercise, and the infected blood inquiry response expert group’s final report. I met with some representatives of the community and with Health Ministers from the devolved Administrations, and I made calls to parliamentarians on both sides of the House so that they were informed of the Government’s progress prior to publication.

I have come to the House today to provide the Government’s update on next steps, but I would like to acknowledge the work and the valued contributions of Sir Robert Francis and the expert group appointed by the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) at the start of the year. It is the Government’s intention to deliver a comprehensive compensation scheme at the earliest possible opportunity, in order to provide justice and closure to the infected blood community, which has historically been neglected and mistreated.

I put on record my thanks to Sir Robert Francis. Through both his compensation framework study in 2022—which was taken into account in the inquiry—and his recent engagement exercise in June with key representatives of the community, he has contributed greatly to the development of the infected blood compensation scheme. He listened to the concerns of the community, and his most recent report took on board both those concerns and other feedback from a diverse group of representatives.

Sir Robert made 74 recommendations to the Government, covering a wide range of areas, including the future of the current infected blood compensation schemes, additional supplementary awards for those who were subjected to unethical medical research, and amendments to the five key heads of loss that inform the total compensation package for victims. The Government accepted the vast majority of those recommendations: 69 of the 74 were accepted. For the five that the Government have not accepted, it is because we believe that a different solution will be more practical and better for the victims.

The Government heard the infected blood community’s concerns about the 21 May proposal to phase out the regular infected blood support scheme payments upon delivery of compensation payments. I know that that proposal was causing great anxiety to those in receipt of, and reliant upon, those payments. The Government have listened, and we have changed the compensation proposal accordingly. Regular support scheme payments for those registered before 1 April 2025 will continue for life as part of the compensation package.

Support scheme payments are not the only thing to change. In the next set of regulations we will enhance the total compensation package to introduce a supplementary additional autonomy award of £10,000 for those who were subject to unethical medical research, as a specific acknowledgement of the impact on their personal freedom. That award will be uplifted to £15,000 for those who were subjected to research at Treloar’s college as children, as recommended by Sir Robert. I want to make it clear to the House that those payments will be on top of the comprehensive compensation package currently set out in the regulations that a person will receive.

Another of the community’s concerns about the 21 May proposal was the social impact award for affected individuals. Again, following feedback, we are increasing that award for individuals who are assumed to have lived in the same household as an infected person for two years or more.

The scheme has been designed in line with the principles of the inquiry, having regard for

“speed of provision, simplicity of process, accessibility, involvement, proactive support, fairness and efficiency.”

We recognise that this means that the scheme will not cover every circumstance in the way an individual assessment would, so in order to ensure that every applicant is justly compensated, we have introduced a health impact supplementary route for additional compensation.

Sir Robert produced a wide-ranging report following the engagement exercise and some of his recommendations relate specifically to the delivery of the scheme. Although it is for the Government to deliver the design of the scheme and to ensure that the legal framework to deliver it is in place via new regulations—and we remain committed to doing that—it is of course the case that the Infected Blood Compensation Authority will be administering the scheme.

We welcome the recommendations and we are confident that the authority, of which Sir Robert is the interim chair, will work tirelessly to operationalise and implement the compensation scheme as soon as possible, so that money can be passed to victims at the earliest opportunity. I would also like to thank the infected blood inquiry response expert group, which has informed the Government’s development of the infected blood compensation scheme.

As Sir Robert recommended, we have published the expert group’s final report, which provides more detail on the rationale for decisions taken on the scheme design. The expert group report includes detailed descriptions of each of the heads of loss that make up the total compensation package, the clinical markers used to determine severity bandings, and the formulae for the care award and financial loss award.

As I have referenced, the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 required the Government to establish the infected blood compensation scheme by 24 August. I am pleased to confirm to the House that on 23 August we laid the regulations that will give the Infected Blood Compensation Authority the powers necessary to pay compensation through the core route to the infected, both living and deceased. This will allow individuals who were infected with HIV, hepatitis C or hepatitis B through the use of contaminated blood or blood products to receive the compensation they so wholly deserve. Personal representatives of those who have tragically passed away as a result of their infection will be able to apply for compensation on behalf of their loved ones.

The Government are clear that although laying the regulations relating to infected individuals taking the core route is an essential step to delivering justice, the work is not finished. A second set of regulations will provide for other elements of the compensation scheme, including compensation payments to affected individuals and for claims under the supplementary route. We are committed to delivering this second set of regulations when parliamentary time allows, to ensure that those applying under these routes can start receiving payments in 2025. The Government’s plans regarding that second set of regulations are in the documents available on gov.uk.

It is an important step to have the compensation scheme enshrined in law, but I know that many people will want to know exactly when they can expect to receive their compensation. The Infected Blood Compensation Authority will deliver the compensation scheme and I know the interim chief executive and his team are working hard to put the operational systems in place with the aim of beginning payments by the end of this year. That will involve user testing with members of the community who have volunteered to help the authority to ensure that it is designed to address the specific needs of applicants.

Those who are registered with the infected blood compensation schemes will have their details shared with the Infected Blood Compensation Authority, to deliver on the promise that the Government will endeavour to make the process as user-friendly and free of distress as possible. Beneficiaries of the infected blood compensation schemes will be contacted in due course regarding the sharing of their data with the Infected Blood Compensation Authority.

I am grateful for the opportunity to update the House today on this important work. The victims of the infected blood scandal have waited far too long for justice, and I am encouraged that we are now beginning to deliver this long-awaited compensation. I undertake to continue to update the House as this work progresses. I commend this statement to the House.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

I thank the Paymaster General not only for early sight of the statement, but for his communications with me over the recess, when he kindly updated me and gave me advance notice of his intention to make a statement to the House today.

The Paymaster General rightly reminds the House of the gruesome nature of this part of our state’s recent history with respect to the infected blood scandal. He points to the fact that people were misled over treatments they needed and received, and Members on both sides of the House will need to take ownership of the enormous delay in bringing justice to those who have suffered so much over several decades.

I am grateful for the Paymaster General’s update on the work that the previous Government commissioned. After the infected blood inquiry’s final report was published on 20 May, we took swift action to establish the Infected Blood Compensation Authority on 21 May, when we also appointed Sir Robert Francis as interim chair of the authority and asked him to work with Sir Jonathan Montgomery as chair of the expert group to undertake an engagement exercise with the infected and affected communities. The right hon. Gentleman kindly updated the House on 26 July, when he confirmed that he was considering the outputs of that engagement exercise.

Those conversations were always intended to be a critical step in ensuring that the Government—whichever Government—delivered a final scheme that brought justice to the deserving victims, and was seen by them to do so. I welcome the Government’s determination to continue listening to the concerns of the infected and affected communities.

Could the Paymaster General confirm whether thought has been given as to how representatives of the infected and affected communities will be embedded in the organisational structures of the compensation authority? In my 18 meetings across the UK in May, it was very clear to me that their levels of trust in any Government would likely remain low, so determining exactly how their voices will be heard in future is critical.

In essence, the statement acknowledges that the Government have met their obligation under the statutory deadline imposed by the Victims and Prisoners Act to lay regulations to enable the scheme to be operationalised by 24 August. I warmly welcome that. The statement makes it clear that the Government will accept 69 of the 74 recommendations of Sir Robert’s June engagement exercise, and they offer a better practical solution for the five that they do not accept. Having read them, that seems sensible.

As the Paymaster General will know, however—I recognise the pressure that he will feel—what victims want to hear from him is when all the regulations will be laid, when the claims will be processed, and when the deserved payments will be transferred into victims’ bank accounts. The statement does not offer anything specific in that regard. I would welcome any further details on the timetable for the laying of further regulations pertaining to the infected communities core route for compensation delivery.

As the Paymaster General knows, those communities have suffered the most and the urgency of their need for the final balancing payment remains acute. Today’s statement does not give them clarity on the timetable they can expect. It was my understanding that the Infected Blood Compensation Authority was aiming to make the final balancing payments on the core route by the end of 2024. I think he committed to that, and it would be good if he reconfirmed that in his response.

I will move on to the supplementary route outlined in the statement, which involves a commitment to provide a supplementary additional autonomy award of up to £15,000 to those subjected to unethical medical research. Further, a recommendation to increase the social impact award for affected individuals has been accepted. We on the Opposition side of the House support these new developments, but I have a few questions about the implications for delivery.

I ask the Paymaster General to clarify the additional autonomy awards for unethical medical research, especially for the nearly 100 haemophiliac children from Treloar’s, who the Government have now stated will be paid a higher £15,000 award. Comments have been reported from some in the Treloar’s community who appear unhappy with these relatively modest supplementary amounts. It would be helpful if he reiterated and explained how unethical research can be quantified, graded and added to the heads of loss that already take account of loss of autonomy and social impact.

Furthermore, it continues to trouble me that those who determined that this research should take place in the first place appear unaccountable for those decisions. I recognise that is not the Paymaster General’s personal responsibility, but we need to keep that in focus in the broader response to Sir Brian Langstaff’s report. May I also ask when the estates of the infected who have died will be paid? Many thousands of individuals who have lost family, friends and loved ones will be entitled under the terms of the scheme, and they now need to know a realistic timeline for those payments to be made. Equally, when will the work to evaluate the affected communities’ individual entitlements begin, and what is the timeframe for when payments will be made to those qualifying individuals?

Finally, I would like to address the decision of the Government to continue the existing payments of the infected blood support scheme beyond the final payment from the Infected Blood Compensation Authority. There is now surely a risk of administrative complexity whereby victims continue to interact with existing support schemes and the newly enabled authority. I urge the Minister to consider the trade-offs between efficient speedy delivery of final compensation packages with administrative overlaps and the confusion arising amid a very troubled and vulnerable group of distinct communities that can often disagree with each other.

I conclude by thanking the right hon. Gentleman sincerely for his openness and clarity about what he is intending to do. However, I urge him to bring more specificity on the timelines for different communities to this House as quickly as he is able. I note he acknowledges that the victims have waited too long for justice, and I am encouraged that the Government are beginning to deliver, but as he used to urge me, speed is of the essence, and granular timetables that some of his officials will be reticent for him to specifically commit to are now required if good will is to be generated from the combined efforts of all parties in this House in 2024.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman not only for his work in Government in seeking to deliver this compensation package, but for the constructive tone he has taken in responding to the statement. I will try to deal with the issues that he raised. First, he is right to raise the continuing importance of engagement with the infected and the affected, which I know is a priority for Sir Robert Francis in how he conducts the business of the Infected Blood Compensation Authority.

The right hon. Gentleman asked me about some of the timelines. In respect of the estates of deceased infected persons, there will be a further interim payment of £100,000, and applications for that will be open from this October—next month. I can confirm, as he asked me to, that the timetable for payments to the infected on the core route should start to be made by the end of this year. In relation to the affected, which he also asked me about, I would expect those payments to start to be made next year.

The right hon. Gentleman also asked about the payments for unethical medical research. I should say to the House that no amount of money is ever going to make up for the horrors we have seen as part of this scheme, but the recommendations made to us by Sir Robert Francis were in the sum of £10,000 for unethical medical research generally, and because of the very specific breach of trust at Treloar’s, that those payments should be £15,000. The Government have accepted those figures, and these amounts of compensation serve as a marker of those appalling unethical medical practices. However, it should be pointed out that, given the other heads of loss, that will form but a small part of the overall amounts I would expect to be paid out under this scheme.

On accountability, the shadow Paymaster General will be only too aware that individual prosecutorial decisions are quite rightly independent decisions for the prosecuting authorities. However, I can confirm that on 9 August I wrote to the National Police Chiefs’ Council—I think he has had sight of that letter—to make it clear that the Cabinet Office and, indeed, the Government will co-operate fully and make any evidence within our control and possession available, as appropriate, so that decisions can be made about people being held to account.

The final point the shadow Paymaster General made about complexity is a sound one, and I think one of the priorities—and I know it is a priority for Sir Robert Francis —is to ensure that the Infected Blood Compensation Authority operates in a way that does give those making claims to it the most appropriate possible experience with appropriate support from caseworkers. I think it is absolutely essential that it does that.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call Clive Efford.

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

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate you on your new position.

I am grateful to the Minister for keeping in contact and keeping me informed of progress on this matter. I have two constituents who are directly affected—one affected and one infected. My constituent’s husband, who died 30 years ago, was a former Treloar’s pupil, and she has recently received a payment, but there is no written explanation of what she has received. She does not know if it is for her, her son, her husband, or all three of them, and she does not know how it is going to be delivered, including whether it will be through her husband’s estate and if that will plunge her back into probate. Some affected people are still experiencing issues.

My other constituent is a former Treloar’s pupil, and he is upset about the £15,000 payment and does not think it is anywhere near enough. I think this shows that those people who have been campaigning for 40 years want to be more involved in the decisions being made about them. I hear what the Minister has said, but I certainly think that they want to hear how they are going to be engaged so that they can make their voices heard about the issues. While generally welcoming what has been proposed, they want to be able to influence things as they go forwards, and I would like to hear from him how he thinks that can be achieved.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. On the first point he makes about his constituent who has received a payment but without any clear explanation, one of the things the Government are committed to do is to try to make this whole process as clear as we possibly can. If he wants to write to me about that particular case, I can ensure that the explanation and, indeed, the correspondence is looked at appropriately.

On my hon. Friend’s second point, he is absolutely right that the voice of victims must continue to be heard. I think the consultation exercise that took place during the general election campaign was hugely important. It is important that the Government listened and made the substantial changes to the scheme we have made on that basis. It is hugely important, too, that the voice of victims continues to be heard as the infected blood compensation scheme continues its work, and I know that is a shared priority for Sir Robert Francis. On the £15,000, can I also say that we accepted that recommendation in full from Sir Robert Francis? It is a marker of the appalling unethical medical research, but as I said in my response to the shadow Paymaster General, the overall awards, which appear under five different heads of loss, will of course be substantially larger, and that is a very small part of them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I thank the Paymaster General for his statement, for his update and for confirmation that the establishment of the infected blood compensation scheme has been achieved in regulation on deadline. That is a significant step forward, which I think we should all recognise. It is a significant step forward for the families who feel they have waited far too long, and many of us have such constituents. I do, and I also have a constituent whose family were very close family friends, so we witnessed what they went through for four decades.

An important thing to bear in mind is the trust that was broken with those families over what they went through, and we need to continue to work to re-establish that. So I would ask the Paymaster General if he will continue to update this House, but also to recognise that, in setting out the timeline, phrases such as “when parliamentary time allows” and “in due course” put doubt in people’s minds. People have been let down too often before, and they need more reassurance. Can he tell us more about the timeline, can he reassure them and can he reassure all of us that he will continue to come to this House regularly with updates, when possible?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the constructive tone of that contribution and her recognition of the importance of meeting that deadline. She is entirely right to raise the issue of trust and I am very conscious of that in all the work I carry out in this area. She is also entirely correct to raise the issue of timetabling because it is hugely important to the victims and there are three things I would say. On the estates of deceased infected people, there will be the opening next month, in October, of interim payments of £100,000. The final payments to infected people that go down the core route of this scheme will start by the end of this year. And payments to affected people will start next year. The timetabling of appropriate regulations is done with that timetable in mind, to ensure we get those payments to people as quickly as possible.

[Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, but will he outline the categories of loss that victims can claim against the scheme, and how will this inform the size of the compensation award that they can claim?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The report sets out the five different areas of loss: those from injury and the social impact, then the autonomy award for the real effect on people’s freedom and family life, and also the loss from the care people have received, and financial loss as well. Those are the major heads of loss under the scheme and it is important to reflect the very different ways in which people were affected. It is also important to accept, as Sir Brian Langstaff set out, that a tariff-based scheme is crucial as well. That is to try to make this process as simple as the Government possibly can and to ensure people receive the justice they deserve.

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

The infected blood scandal is the health service equivalent of the Post Office Horizon disaster, with the added torture that it has gone on much longer. It took 40 years—over 40 years—before my constituent Lesley Hughes even discovered that the blood transfusion she had been given in 1970 had given her hepatitis C and subsequently cirrhosis of the liver and liver cancer. So although the end now appears in sight, I first raised her case in 2015 and I did not think we would still be waiting for a resolution nine years later; I hope the finishing tape really is at last about to be breached.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The thoughts of the whole House will be with the right hon. Gentleman’s constituent, and I know from my own service in this House in previous Parliaments that he has raised this issue on a number of occasions before. I would say to him, and indeed to this House, that there is no dispute that decades have passed when people should have achieved justice and did not. We had this scandal of infected blood and infected blood products in the 1970s and 1980s, but it was compounded by the failure since to recognise what had gone wrong and to try to make recompense for it; there is no doubt about that. The undertaking I give him is that the Government will push this forward as quickly as we possibly can, and I hope finally we will get to where he wants, which is the position where compensation has finally been paid to those who so richly deserve it.

[Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)]

What progress been made in establishing the Infected Blood Compensation Authority?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Now that the regulations have been laid, as I indicated, it is operationalised, and I know Sir Robert Francis will now be moving as swiftly as he can to be in a position to deliver that final compensation to the infected down the core route and to start those payments by the end of the year.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I thank the Paymaster General for his statement, which is testament to the long-fought campaign for victims, including the campaigning done by my constituents Judith Thomas and Ruth Jenkins, whose husband and brother Christopher Thomas died in 1990. The UK Government have announced that the Infected Blood Compensation Authority will work closely with the devolved Administrations to deliver payments in Wales, and the statement outlined meetings that were held with the devolved Health Ministers. In May, the Senedd heard that the UK Government will bear the costs of the scheme in full. Will the Paymaster General today reaffirm that commitment, and assure victims in Wales that they will not face any delays in compensation?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I can reassure the right hon. Lady that in advance of the action I took in the summer, I spoke to the Health Ministers in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I am very committed to working with the devolved Administrations. I repeat the commitment that this will be funded by the UK Government. I am also happy to give the commitment that there will not be undue delays, whether in England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.

[Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)]

For constituents like Justine Gordon-Smith in Edinburgh North and Leith, of whom my right hon. Friend will be aware, the resolution to this scandal can be achieved only when Governments work together, so I appreciate those reassurances. What actions have my right hon. Friend and his colleagues taken to drive forward the results with the Scottish Government?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I entirely agree on the importance of the Governments across the United Kingdom working together on this issue, and that is exactly the approach that I took in doing this work over the summer, and as I indicated to the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), I repeat my commitment. I spoke to Health Ministers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland before taking this action.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I welcome the fact that the Minister has come to the House so quickly to give the assurances that he has given, but reading the statement, I see quite frequently such phrases as “at the earliest opportunity” and “if the parliamentary timetable allows.” Those who are suspicious will wonder if this will be dragged out. May I ask two questions on the details? The Paymaster General has indicated that those on regular payments can keep them if they so desire, but will that be on top of the compensation package, or will the compensation be adjusted to take that into consideration? Secondly, if people go down the health impact supplementary route for additional compensation, will it delay the payment that they are entitled to, or will the comprehensive package be available to them, with the additional compensation added on after more information is given?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

On the first point, the Government are saying that people can have both a continuation of the support schemes and the lump-sum compensation as well. Awards are made under five heads of loss: injury, social impact, autonomy, care and financial loss. The continuation of the support schemes is taken into account for only two of those: the future care element and the future earnings element. The other elements stand alone. That is one of the big changes the Government have made to allow these support schemes to continue.

On the health impact supplementary route, the regulations have set up the core route. That health impact special route has been set up because there will be circumstances in which the health impact and condition is not quite captured by the core tariffs under the scheme. This route has been put in place to make the package more individualised. Again, I undertake to the House that action will be taken as swiftly as possible.

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

My right hon. Friend will appreciate that injustice is often compounded by a brutal, faceless and unnecessarily complicated bureaucracy; ostensibly established to right the wrongs, it quite often fails to do that. That is certainly what I have heard from my constituents affected by this scandal. What support in getting compensation will be available to victims of this huge injustice, and will the Infected Blood Compensation Authority have dedicated caseworkers to help people navigate the process?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend raises valid points on behalf of her constituents. Yes, the Infected Blood Compensation Authority will have dedicated trained caseworkers available. Their purpose is to make this process distress-free and as accessible as possible. That is hugely important for the work of the scheme.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I welcome broadly what the Paymaster General has outlined, but I have a couple of points to make. One is around those children and adults who were infected. The £10,000 and £15,000 seem relatively small sums, compared with the overall package, particularly given what those people were subjected to. Secondly, and more broadly, the Paymaster General has outlined the start dates of the process. Is there an end date that he can point to, so that we will know when all the financial compensation is delivered to the victims of the infected blood scandal?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

On the first point, the Government have accepted the figures suggested by Sir Robert Francis in full, and I re-emphasise, because it is so important, that these awards are a small part of the overall awards. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will look at the tariffs for the core route to see the amounts of money that will be paid out. I am not suggesting for a moment that they can make up for what has happened, but that will give a sense of how much £10,000 or £15,000 is in the totality of the award. He asks for a bit more information about completion. Clearly it is for the Infected Blood Compensation Authority to work as speedily as it can. As I have said, I would expect the infected core route final payments to be made by the end of the year, and payments to the affected to start next year.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

The communication with representatives of the Scottish Government is welcome, but can the Minister reassure us that representatives of the infected and affected in Scotland will be listened to as well? Can all payments be excluded, as far as possible, from income when it comes to benefits eligibility? On the administrative point, if people do not respond quickly enough to the data protection query—this is a very big, overwhelming thing to deal with—will they be given support? Can the Minister confirm that they will not be sent just one letter, and will not be left out and not given compensation if they do not respond? They should be given every encouragement and support in making their application, particularly if they find that difficult.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The hon. Lady makes a valid point. What she says about encouragement, support, proactive communication and clarity is hugely important. She is entirely right to raise the issue of victims in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and indeed England. I am sure that she will appreciate that it was crucial for me, in working with the devolved Administrations, to speak to the Health Ministers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but she is entirely right to raise the matter of the voice of victims, too.

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

At least four of my constituents still live with the consequences of this scandal. Among them is a resident of Kendal who lost her daughter due to infected blood products. She has since raised her grandson, who has of course grown up without his mother. The lack of urgency, clarity and commitment shown by a series of officials and Governments over the past 30 years and more has robbed everyone’s constituents, including mine, of justice. As a result, so many victims tragically lost their life before compensation became available, as we know. Will the Secretary of State commit to ensuring that this year we will see compensation not just for those who were infected, but for those who were affected by the devastating loss of loved ones? Many cases, including that of the constituent I referred to, are deeply complex. Will he personally look at the details I will send him, and ensure that my constituents are aware of what is available, so that they can get support as soon as possible?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The thoughts of the whole House will be with the hon. Gentleman’s constituent on the unimaginable loss of her daughter. If he wants to write to me, I am more than happy to look at those details. I would expect compensation payments to the infected to start by the end of the year, and payments to the affected to start next year.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I put on record my thanks to the Paymaster General for a most positive statement, and for the clear commitment to getting the contaminated blood compensation paid. If I may say so humbly and graciously to the Paymaster General, he has shown the compassion and understanding that the people out there want to hear. The words he has put forward are much appreciated by us as elected representatives, but also by our constituents, so I thank him for that.

The Paymaster General will know my long-held position on this issue. Indeed, in years past, we have both stood up from the Opposition Benches at all times to speak on this issue, so I know he will be in absolute agreement that compensation must be prioritised. He has stated that, but realistically when does he believe that the roll-out will be completed? Will Members have access to the route to compensation, so we can help ensure that our constituents receive what they have needed for far too long from Government—that is, not from the Paymaster General specifically, but from this Government and the Governments that came before?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks and, as ever, his constructive tone. He raises an important point about how Members of Parliament can continue to raise concerns for their constituents once the Infected Blood Compensation Authority is fully up and running. I am holding a drop-in for Members from across the House tomorrow, and I will endeavour to continue to ensure that as much information as possible is made available to Members, so that they can continue to speak up for their constituents effectively.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the Minister for that statement, particularly perhaps on behalf of all those who have not spoken, but have affected constituents.