Oral Answers to Questions
Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts(1 week, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
I wish a happy Warwickshire day to my Warwickshire friends and a happy St George’s day to all my English friends. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
We are prioritising paying compensation to those impacted, and the Infected Blood Compensation Authority has reached the significant milestone of paying out over £2 billion, including the first payment to all eligible groups. I am sure that the right hon. Gentlemen will be aware that I recently announced substantive changes in all seven areas on which we have recently consulted.
David Davis
I thank the Minister and I welcome what he has just said, but the infected blood scandal left thousands of people with severe lifelong injuries. Many of them have waited decades—some nearly half a century—for justice, and with every week that passes the likelihood that any of them will die goes up. As I am sure he is aware, IBCA announced last week that it will contact 100 people a week to begin claims, but that is not quick enough for the 18,000 people involved. It has dealt with roughly 3,000, who have been paid already, but 15,000 of the 18,000 are still waiting. Victims and families deserve compensation, and quickly, so what can he do to speed up that process?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The right hon. Gentleman quite correctly raises not only the fact that people have waited decades for compensation, but the urgency with which we want to drive this forward. To be precise, 3,304 infected people had received an offer by 23 April, totalling over £2.6 billion. We have started paying the affected cohort, and the milestone of paying out in the first case by the end of last year was met. It is quite right that IBCA is operationally independent, but I nevertheless stand ready to do all I can to support it to speed up payments.
Damian Hinds
I thank the Paymaster General for his personal work in this area. The increase in the unethical research award is a material improvement, and I am particularly thinking of the former pupils at Treloar’s. However, there is still some uncertainty in the community about the evidence that will be required to qualify for the severe psychological harm element under the special category mechanism. Could he confirm how that will work, and will IBCA have discretion and flexibility about what evidence will be required?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman’s work in providing a voice for the pupils who suffered such heinous medical experimentation at Treloar’s. On the issue of the evidence, generally speaking I have always said to IBCA that there needs to be a very sympathetic approach, because we are talking about not only events of a long time ago, but deliberate document destruction. On the specific issue of severe psychological harm under the special category mechanism, I will write to him very precisely about the position.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
First, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for the way he has handled this issue and for the way he has moved it on in the short time he has been in office. Everyone is very grateful for that. None the less, he knows that there are still widespread concerns among the community about the compensation process. Will he guarantee that those people will continue to be listened to and that their voices will not be dismissed, so we can adapt the process as it goes forward to address some of their concerns? I am grateful to him for coming to the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood to discuss this directly with the community. I would be grateful if he would do so again before the summer recess, so that people can talk to him directly about their concerns.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I look forward to an invitation from my hon. Friend and I pay tribute to his work as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group. What he says about the voice of the community going forward is absolutely right. That is why I have created, and announced to the House, a mechanism by which concerns that are expressed are appropriately elevated to where decisions need to be made. I was determined not to have some sort of glorified post box that people sent correspondence into. If concerns are raised, they must be dealt with at the appropriate level, whether that is the Infected Blood Compensation Authority board, or escalated to the Cabinet Office.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for the sterling work he has done on this scandal. As mentioned by those on the Opposition Benches, there are still real issues that need to be worked on. The infected blood community have huge concerns about the stringent evidence required for severe psychological harm compensation. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that IBCA is permissive, flexible and compassionate when setting the special category mechanism criteria for psychological harm and, at the same time, when assessing the claims?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I thank my hon. Friend and pay tribute to him for the work he has done campaigning for victims. On IBCA and the culture, and on how it treats evidence, as I said, there needs to be a sympathetic and compassionate approach to evidence. In that regard, when I have visited IBCA I have been very impressed with the general ethos that people have been trained in. Specifically on severe psychological harm, I have made very significant changes to the special category mechanism. On the precise issue of the evidence, I will write to my hon. Friend, as I promised to do to the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds).
Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
Just this week and last, I have been across the channel to speak to EU counterparts and counterparts in member states. We are making good progress with the EU in our strategic partnership in a changing world. It is a strategic partnership that is good for bills, good for borders and good for jobs.
Yuan Yang
Mr Speaker, I wish you and the Minister a happy St George’s day. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on rejoining the EU Erasmus+ scheme. It is very exciting for students across the UK, including at the University of Reading.
On energy prices, we are all paying the price of Trump’s war in Iran. It is vital for us to work with our European allies to lower energy prices, including reducing the trade costs brought up by the Tories’ bad Brexit deal. Will the Minister give us an update on his negotiations for the UK to participate in EU internal electricity markets?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Erasmus+ will indeed provide tens of thousands of opportunities, particularly for young people. On energy, we are committed to strengthening our energy partnership with the EU to lower bills for households and businesses. On the negotiations my hon. Friend is talking about, I think everybody would see that strengthening this international co-operation is vital to bolster energy resilience against the kind of global shocks we have seen in recent weeks.
Steve Race
Mr Speaker, Happy St George’s day to you and to the House.
From pandemics and health emergencies to the impact of climate change and Russian aggression on our border, residents in Exeter know that the EU and the UK have shared challenges and opportunities. What discussions has the Minister had on forming a UK-EU resilience partnership, as suggested by UK in a Changing Europe, so we can effectively manage those shared challenges together?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the UK and EU share many challenges. That is why the Government have agreed a new strategic partnership with the EU to bolster our shared resilience through deeper co-operation between the UK and the EU across defence, industry, politics and the wider economy—the foundations upon which our collective European security and prosperity will rest.
Bradley Thomas
The European Union currently allows for food production methods that are either banned or being phased out in the UK, which is undercutting British farmers. Will the Minister outline what discussions have taken place with the European Union to ensure parity of welfare standards so that British farmers are not priced out of the market?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The common understanding that we agreed with the EU last year allowed for particular carve-outs, which the Government are negotiating. I will say to the hon. Gentleman, though, that the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement—the food and drink agreement—will mean that we will be able to export to the EU products that we are currently unable to export, and will take away costs and fees that businesses have to pay. I used to think that the Conservatives were the pro-business party—they might want to actually approve of that.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Is the House right to understand that the Government believe that the economy has grown significantly less—measurably less—as a result of leaving the EU, and that this is one of the purposes behind the reset? [Hon. Members: “Yes!”] I hear Government Members saying yes. Could the Government then set that out, with all the evidence and arguments proving the case? Looking at the evidence, the British economy grew at about the same rate as France and Germany when we were in the EU and, since we left, we have been growing at about the same rate as France and Germany; in fact, this year, the British economy is growing faster than Germany’s. Where is the evidence that Brexit was economically damaging? Will the Minister publish a proper statement on that?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The hon. Gentleman and I work very well on other issues; I suspect that over the next 12 months, this is an issue on which we are going to disagree. If he is genuinely asking me at the Dispatch Box to provide evidence to the country about the lamentable performance of the economy in the latter years of the previous Conservative Government, then what a pleasure it will be!
Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)
I thank the Government for the grown-up approach they have taken to improving our relations with our friends and neighbours in the EU. In contrast—as we can see today—the Conservative party is still playing politics with our closest allies, and my generation has paid the price. With that in mind, will the Minister set out what steps are being taken to ensure that young people in Kettering and across the country take up the opportunity to study in the EU, now that we have rejoined the Erasmus scheme?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The new UK-EU strategic partnership will bear down on household bills, provide opportunities for young people and create jobs. The Opposition, for reasons best known to them, have decided to oppose all that.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
I wish the House and you, Mr Speaker, a happy St George’s day. I welcome the fact that the Government are taking steps to improve and deepen our trading relationship with Europe, which is absolutely crucial to businesses right across my constituency, which have told me again and again of the challenges they face as a direct result of this flawed Brexit process. Could the Minister set out what plans he has to ensure that proper parliamentary scrutiny is given to anything relating to improving relations with the EU, given that we no longer have a Select Committee that deals directly with those issues?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
There will be a Bill—a piece of primary legislation—going through Parliament this year, which will of course have appropriate scrutiny, as will our relationship with the EU going forward. I very much look forward to those debates. I will just give one example of how we are helping businesses. Businesses in the UK have had to pay up to £200 for export health certificates—more than 1 million of them—since 2023. I say that they should not have to pay those fees any more; the Conservatives and Reform say that they should.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
The UK has become a global leader in agri-tech and particularly selective breeding, largely because of our flexible regulatory framework, including the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023. That would not have happened if we were still members of the European Union. The BioIndustry Association says that dynamic alignment would threaten UK leadership in biotech innovation. Will the Minister commit to securing a carve-out for precision breeding so that our success in this vital sector is not threatened by new or future EU legislation?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The common understanding agreed between the UK and the EU last May provides for carve-outs, subject to negotiation. But if the hon. Gentleman seriously thinks that all the export costs and fees that businesses are currently paying, which the SPS agreement will take away, should continue, he should say so.
Mike Wood
I think the House and the public outside will have heard that the Minister is refusing to give that commitment to the representatives of this vital sector. However, he will know that the high cost of fertilisers is one of the biggest pressures on British farming and food prices. Raising carbon prices to the level of the EU’s carbon border adjustment mechanism is projected to add around £100 a tonne to that cost. At a time of high food costs and squeezed food security, does he really think that now is a sensible time to hammer British farming yet again?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
That is an absolutely absurd question. The hon. Gentleman is asking that question when his party’s position is to keep in place all the fees that we currently have to pay on exports to the EU. He also talks about the emissions trading system linkage. Without mutual exemptions from the carbon border adjustment mechanism, businesses will have to pay around £700 million in carbon taxes. The consequence of his party’s position is that they would have to pay them.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, is doing great work to ensure that public procurement is on the side of working people. Outsourcing by default has not delivered, so a new public interest test would ensure that outsourcing decisions are based on value for money, social value, market and economic impact, and capability and capacity.
Lorraine Beavers
Despite Capita’s horrendous administration of the civil service pension scheme, it was still awarded the Synergy shared services contract. We still do not have a reason why—and I am not the first person in this House to ask. Will the Minister finally confirm who was responsible for the decision and whether the Cabinet Office signed it off?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend’s assessment of Capita’s lamentable performance on the civil service pension scheme. We have to take individual decisions on contracts. For example, yesterday I cancelled Capita’s contract for the Royal Mail statutory pension scheme. I am robustly holding Capita to account, including by withholding milestone payments on the civil service pension scheme. With regard to the Synergy contract, that was led by the Department for Work and Pensions through the normal process, and it too will be managed robustly.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
We are taking forward negotiations with the EU to drive investment, jobs and growth for the UK pragmatically. On ideological grounds, the Conservatives and Reform would undo it all, and Green party foreign policy—let us be frank—is a dangerous fantasy.
Rachel Blake
I wish you a very happy St George’s day, Mr Speaker. The Cities of London and Westminster hold many celebrations for St George’s day.
We heard significant movement earlier today regarding energy. What economic assessment has been made beyond food and drink, the youth experience scheme, Erasmus and the emissions trading system to make sure that, at the forthcoming summit, we deliver on our commitments?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend can be assured that we will continue to drive forward to deliver on our commitment. The electricity trading negotiations are absolutely vital, not only for energy security but to bear down on household bills.
Steve Race
I am sure that the Minister will join me in welcoming the result of the Hungarian election where, in part, anti-LGBT policies were roundly rejected at the ballot box. As LGBT rights suffer from backsliding around the world, will the Minister commit to working with our EU partners to promote LGBT human rights across the world, including by putting the topic on the agenda at the next EU-UK summit?
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
The Government are absolutely committed to promoting and protecting the human rights of LGBT people worldwide. Our UK-EU security and defence partnership is underpinned by shared values, and I absolutely give that commitment. We will continue to work closely with EU partners to uphold those values.
Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend talks powerfully about the impact of long covid, and it has had that impact on many people following the pandemic. The most recent module 3 report from the covid inquiry covered this issue in detail. Of course, the Government will carefully consider the inquiry’s work on this in our full response—it absolutely should.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
A happy St George’s day to you, Mr Speaker. Global turbulence has driven up the cost of living for my constituents. Can the Minister set out how closening trading ties with our closest allies through the EU reset will help bring down prices for my constituents?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
That is why the EU-UK reset is so important, as it will help us in bearing down on fuel bills and energy bills, which will help my hon. Friend’s constituents.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
In February, Capita said to Eastbourne resident Keith that his civil service pension would be paid by March. By March, it said his pension would be paid in April. Now it says that it will not be paid before May. How will the Minister intervene to hold this cowboy corporate to account?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The Cabinet Office has been withholding milestone payments from Capita. We have a robust recovery plan, which says that full contractual service has to be restored by the end of June. I have been absolutely clear that I will consider all options at that moment, but I would be grateful if the hon. Member could write to me with the details of his constituent’s case.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
Happy St George’s day to you, Mr Speaker. Can the Minister set out what progress the Government have made in cracking down on fraudsters who seek to defraud the public sector and what success they have had in clawing back money on behalf of hard-working taxpayers?
Pension Schemes
Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts(1 week, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
I wish to provide the House with an important update on key pension, contractual and commercial decisions.
The security and dignity of those who have dedicated their careers to our public services are not negotiable, and they deserve a pension service that is reliable, efficient and secure. For those principles to be more than just words, they need to be underpinned by rigorous accountability and a refusal to accept second best. We recognise that for our public servants, these services are the foundation of their financial security. When the standards they deserve are not upheld, the Government will not hesitate to act decisively to protect their interests. It is in that context that I want to give the first update to the House on the Royal Mail statutory pension scheme.
Following a failure to meet critical transition milestones and a lack of confidence in Capita’s ability to implement and transition to the new operating model in a timely fashion, I am announcing today that I have terminated the new Royal Mail statutory pension scheme contract with Capita. Capita had an 18-month planning window to prepare for the transition. It failed to deliver numerous milestones, including a failure to implement the required IT automation. The Cabinet Office repeatedly flagged delays in transition milestones and that IT automation, ultimately issuing formal correspondence to reaffirm the mandatory requirements. To ensure members are protected, we will ensure continuity of the existing contract, but let the message be clear: I will not and we will not tolerate delivery failure from contracted partners. Public services require high-quality delivery, and public money should not be used to fund performance that falls short of the standards we expect.
I also want to address problems in the administration of the civil service pension scheme. The transition process from the previous provider, MyCSP, was not satisfactory. We are investigating the respective liabilities for those failures as between Capita and MyCSP. Given the criticality of these services, the Cabinet Office permanent secretary and I discussed transition with the chief executive officer of Capita. We sought and were given explicit personal assurances that the transition would be handled with the utmost care and that any backlogs would be managed effectively. I am sorry to say that those assurances have not been met.
It is clear in any event that the delivery of the service to civil servants since the transfer on 1 December last year has fallen far short of the required standard. The delays that civil servants have faced in accessing their civil service pensions are unacceptable, especially in view of their many years of dedicated public service. That is why I established a specialist pensions recovery taskforce, led by the second permanent secretary at His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, Angela MacDonald, to take strategic oversight of the scheme’s management. That intervention, which includes a circa 140-person Government surge team to bolster operational capacity, is delivering results, including helping Capita to clear 15,000 inherited unread emails. Telephony wait times that averaged more than 90 minutes earlier this year have been successfully brought down to an average of under two minutes.
The stories we have heard of members missing mortgage payments and falling into hardship are distressing and entirely unacceptable. No one should have to face such financial anxiety after a lifetime of dedicated public service. That is why I took immediate action to ensure that no member was left to face these challenges alone while these service issues are being resolved. To mitigate the impact on those most affected, we have already provided more than £7.2 million in interest-free transitional support loans to more than 1,300 members. We are proactively driving the uptake of those loans to ensure that no member in need of support is missed, and I encourage all hon. and right hon. Members to ask their eligible constituents to reach out to their civil service employers for these loans, so that we can provide the vital support they deserve.
I can tell the House that Capita was explicitly instructed in July 2025 to prepare for the volumes it is now seeing. It knew the scale of the challenge, but failed to deliver the IT automation and portal functionality required when the service went live. The result, I am afraid to say, is a backlog of around 24,000 outstanding pension quotations. There is also a backlog of more than 1,500 open MP complaints. That is totally unacceptable. I have instructed officials to speak to Capita about how we can ensure that MP correspondence is dealt with quickly and efficiently, noting the importance of the fact that Members across the House were speaking up for their constituents. These are not just numbers on a spreadsheet; they represent thousands of individuals who are unable to plan for their futures or retire with dignity.
Service delivery is about more than just speed; it is also about the absolute security of member data. The breach we saw on 30 March, which saw personal information compromised on the pension portal, represents a fundamental failure in data protection. To be clear with the House, I will not tolerate these lapses. The Cabinet Office has formally notified the Information Commissioner’s Office of this breach, and we have written formally to the chief executive officer of Capita to demand a full technical account of this failure and a guarantee that it will not happen again.
Across the civil service pension scheme, we have taken direct action on all commercial levers. We are withholding milestone payments where deliverables have not been met, and we reserve every right to take further formal action. The Cabinet Office has mandated a clear recovery target on service levels. Capita must clear all inherited arrears by the end of this month and restore service levels to standard, contractually required levels by the end of June this year. We will continue to use every commercial lever at our disposal to ensure that these standards are met.
The security and dignity of all those who have dedicated their careers to our civil service and the Royal Mail are not negotiable. They deserve a pension service that is reliable, efficient and secure. We will continue to use every lever at our disposal to ensure that those standards are met and that members receive the service they have earned. I commend this statement to the House.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
I begin by paying tribute to our fantastic public servants, civil servants and postal workers. The vast majority give so much in service of our country and the general public. This week, perhaps more than any other, is a reminder that it is Ministers’ responsibility to provide the political leadership so that those workers can deliver. The Minister’s decision to terminate the Royal Mail statutory pension scheme is enormously consequential and will be welcomed by many in this House, but more so by our many retired postal workers.
While I appreciate being given advance sight of today’s statement, it does seem that the Minister, particularly in regard to the civil service pension scheme, has come to the House with more of a plan than a statement. It is clear that the current situation, as the Minister said, is the culmination of a series of entirely unforced errors by Capita. Its failure to adequately administer the CSPS has caused significant financial distress to thousands of former public servants, such as my constituent Chris. He has found himself without the pension he was relying on at just the time that his wife has had to step back from work after a cancer diagnosis.
These people worked hard and planned responsibly for retirement, on the basis that the CSPS would be there for them when they needed it. Capita’s failures have left them anxious, frustrated and, in many cases, desperately out of pocket, but in all too many cases that I am aware of, Capita has been utterly unresponsive. Sadly, the constituents and others from around the country who have contacted me about Capita simply would not recognise the Minister’s claim of answer times being down to two minutes. This is not the way to reward a career of dedicated public service.
Last year, the National Audit Office highlighted that Capita had failed to meet three of the six key transition milestones that had been due by March 2025. All those milestones related to scheme design and operational readiness. In October last year—two months before Ministers had to make a final decision on the transition to Capita—the Public Accounts Committee noted that Capita had missed milestones to deliver its IT systems. The Committee called on the Cabinet Office to fully develop contingency plans before making a final decision about whether Capita should take over administration on 1 December last year.
The Minister’s Department confirmed that—four months after the transition was completed—Capita had still not met three transition milestones, while one was only partially met It is only at this point that the Minister has brought forward the contingency plans—the same contingency plans that the Public Accounts Committee recommended months before—but the warning signs were there, and they should have been clear and obvious. Despite that, last November, a full year and a half after the Government took office, they wrote to trade unions, confirming that Ministers were pressing ahead with Capita’s contract..
We all agree that it is in everyone’s interests that the operational stability of the CSPS be restored as quickly as possible. After all, Capita won the contract because of the failure of the previous MyCSP contract, and clearly a further change would mean more disruption, causing further harm to those who have already been so badly impacted. Ministers must ensure that Capita meets its contractual obligations consistently, and that any penalty clauses in the contract that can be enforced are enforced, to allow compensation to be paid.
The Minister has some questions to answer. For those who are missing out because of Capita’s failings, will the Minister unequivocally commit to delivering a functioning service in the timeframe that he has set himself? Will he confirm that his Department has delivered the standardised mitigation letter that CSPS members can share with lenders to explain their temporary financial difficulties? That was promised last month; has it been delivered? I understand that there will be a commercial session on 28 April to discuss the penalties that Capita is facing, and what officials have called the “wider commercial position”. Will the Minister be attending in person? Will he commit to updating the House at the earliest opportunity, following that meeting? Will he elaborate on exactly what his officials mean by Capita’s “wider commercial position”?
Finally, and most importantly, what contingency plans has the Minister put in place in case it becomes necessary to terminate Capita’s contract for the CSPS, just as he has today terminated its contract for the Royal Mail scheme?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
First of all, I echo the shadow Minister’s tribute to public servants, including his constituent Chris; I am very sorry to hear about his wife’s cancer diagnosis. I welcome what I think was his support for my decision to terminate the Royal Mail statutory pension scheme contract. On the civil service pension scheme, he asked about a plan; I have been implementing a plan, and I have come here to update the House on its implementation. He also talked about the contract. The Capita pension scheme contract was awarded by the previous Government in November 2023 on a long-term basis. That is what I inherited and have been trying to deal with. He talked about the point of transition; what I did at the point of transition was get in the Capita chief executive and the Cabinet Office permanent secretary to go through these matters, and to seek assurances. I am afraid to say that the assurances given have not been met.
The shadow Minister talked about not meeting milestones; I can assure him that milestone payments have been withheld, and I will not hesitate to use the commercial levers in the contract to drive performance. I am absolutely clear about the restoration of service by the end of June; that is what I am holding Capita to. He also talked about MyCSP. I have said that we are reserving rights under both these contracts, with regard to the backlog that was left by MyCSP and how Capita has dealt with it since. In relation to MyCSP, there is also an option to pursue a parent company guarantee, and he can be assured that I will explore all possible legal options to ensure that the service that public servants rightly deserve—not just in retirement, but in very difficult circumstances, such as death in service—is being provided sensitively.
The shadow Minister asked about forthcoming meetings and updates. I will consider the appropriate steps to take, and will update the House, and Members from across the House when they write to me.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
The Public Accounts Committee has had a number of hearings on this issue, and I am sure the Chair, the hon. Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), will want to ask some questions. First of all, there is a shared responsibility here. MyCSP has responsibilities, but I have to say that the Cabinet Office oversaw this, and there are real questions that the Minister should be asking officials in the Cabinet Office about their degree of responsibility.
We have had so many assurances on this. Are the June assurances really going to be kept to? This is not a one-off issue, is it? The civil service pension scheme has had at least three different problems with three different providers in the past. We have had the teachers’ pension scheme, the Royal Mail pension scheme—an awful lot of them. We asked the Cabinet Office permanent secretary whether she would go away and look at having an in-house team built up to administer public sector pensions in a way that might prevent these recurring problems with a variety of private sector providers, whose arrangements always seem to go wrong.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend can rest assured that I have interrogated officials on the situation that I inherited. On the point about assurances and promises not being met, I think the House can say today that when assurances are not met, I take decisive action, including commercial action. My hon. Friend will have seen that with regard to the Royal Mail statutory pension scheme, but also in our withholding milestone payments from Capita. He talked about whether we are looking at insourcing more things. That clearly is the Government’s pledge, and our policy going forward. With regard to the Royal Mail statutory pension scheme, we will look at a range of options in both those categories to ensure that we get the very best possible service for those who deserve it and rely on it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
I thank the Minister for his statement. We have learned today that this contract was awarded two and a half years ago. Capita had two and a half years to prepare for taking on the administration of the civil service scheme. As has been mentioned, the Public Accounts Committee warned in October that Capita was not ready, yet it took on the contract regardless on 1 December. Today we learned also that the Government have terminated another Capita contract, for the Royal Mail pension scheme.
My constituents would like answers to the following questions. How many people on the civil service pension scheme, as of now, have not received payments that they should have had? Why should taxpayers be paying for the surge in His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs staff? A hundred and forty staff have come in to sort this out. Surely Capita should be paying for its incompetence. What is the timeline for Capita to clear up all inherited arrears, and is it prioritising hardship and bereavement cases? With regard to the Royal Mail pension scheme, now that Capita has been terminated, what is the plan?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
As I said in my statement, there is a backlog of around 24,000 outstanding pension quotations. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the taxpayer not having to pick up the tab for Capita’s failures. There has been an offer from Capita to cover the costs of the surge team, which I will consider in my broad consideration of all the commercial issues in respect of this contract. My priority is for taxpayers not to have to foot the bill for issues that have been caused by the provider and are not the fault of the scheme beneficiaries.
With regard to the Royal Mail statutory scheme, as I have said, we will now ensure continuity of service, because that is very important. I think the hon. Gentleman will see that I have been very decisive on the future of that contract today. We will look at a range of options for that, but continuity of service is obviously a priority in the short term.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I declare an interest as the chair of the PCS trade union parliamentary group. The Minister just said that there was an offer from Capita. It should not be an offer; it should be a requirement that it covers the recovery costs.
It was outrageous that the civil service scheme was given to Capita after its failure on the teachers’ pension scheme, its failure with regard to the NHS data releases, and the failure on the military contract. This failure has affected so many civil service pensioners. It has caused real harm, suffering and stress. It is equally outrageous, I have to say, that its performance has not warranted the removal of the contract altogether. The Minister has today terminated the contract with Royal Mail. Why has he not terminated this contract?
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) raised the issue of the preparation of in-house provision of the civil service pension scheme. The Minister did not refer to those preparations. Will he meet the trade unions and discuss how we bring the administration of the civil service pension scheme in house, because as sure as night follows day, Capita will fail on this contract, as it has done on every other?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I certainly echo what my right hon. Friend says about it being imperative that taxpayers do not foot the bill for what has gone wrong. On the different contracts, each obviously has to be considered on its own merits, but the House can be assured that on each of the contracts for which the Cabinet Office is responsible, I keep all contractual options open. With regard to his point about optionality and going in-house in future, I will certainly ensure that the PCS trade union gets the appropriate ministerial meeting.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his statement, and for meeting me to discuss this issue. As he is aware, the Public Accounts Committee has held multiple sessions with Capita on the broader civil service pension scheme and the problems that scheme members are having accessing their pensions. As numerous colleagues from across the House will have experienced, some of these cases are tragic and deeply distressing. People have not been able to get statements, or even payments, at the most important points of their life. Does the Minister have confidence that his team will be able to manage Capita and rapidly provide civil service pensioners with the scheme that they deserve? Secondly, what reassurance can he give Royal Mail pensioners that their pension scheme will be managed properly during the transition and afterwards, either in-house or by an external provider?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I can certainly give an assurance to Royal Mail pensioners, who may be worried about the uncertainty, that we will do all we can to ensure continuity of service. I certainly have confidence in my team, and the surge of about 140 officials into Capita has made a significant difference. Equally, I will clearly have to consider very carefully what the position is at the end of June 2026, and how important that team’s remaining in place, for whatever length of time, is to the level of service.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
I should declare that I have preserved benefits in the CSPS, and that I am a member of the PCS trade union.
I thank the Minister for his decisive action in terminating the contract for the Royal Mail pension scheme, and for the ongoing work that he is doing with regard to the civil service pension scheme. He has flagged that there are hard-working public servants who have given their service to the state for many years, and who have been failed when they have looked to retire and to get their pension benefits. I hope that he will hold Capita’s feet to the fire; many of us will be keeping our eyes on the Minister as he does. Will he prioritise those who are entitled to bereavement payments under the death-in-service part of the CSPS? This is a very difficult time for them, and they may not have actually been employed; it is dependants, and sometimes children, who are entitled to these payments.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend on the importance of bereavement payments, because they are made at such a vulnerable time in people’s lives. The House should be fully aware that I will hold Capita robustly to account on its various contracts. As I am sure that the House will appreciate, in the case of the civil service pension scheme, I have inherited quite a long-term contract, but I will continue to make sure that I reserve all contractual rights on the contracts that we oversee at the Cabinet Office.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Like other MPs here, I have constituents who have dedicated years to public service. One, a prison officer, was stabbed and assaulted in his work, and then had the privilege of being at Camp Zeist to supervise the imprisonment of the Lockerbie bomber while they were on trial. I have another constituent who is caring for her mother, who is the beneficiary of a pension and is having palliative care for stage 4 cancer. The Minister has given a very good overview of what is happening, and he talked about the changes that have been made to call times, but one of the themes coming through is about accessing the portal. That issue is leading to a real erosion of trust. If people cannot even get access to the system, it is a real problem. Could he give us an update on that?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The hon. Lady speaks powerfully about the very vulnerable situations in which her constituents find themselves, and I entirely share her concerns about the portal. I referred to the statistics on call times in my response to the shadow Minister, and to the average call time. I regularly monitor performance. Where there are particularly egregious examples of poor service, Members should write to me and draw them to my attention. I have mentioned the June 2026 deadline for the resumption of normal service, which includes having a functioning portal. There are people who may not have reached the end of their career, but want to access their updated benefits, and they should be able to do so.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
A few weeks ago, I raised in this Chamber an issue affecting my constituent, Andrew Mackay, whose wife Katy passed away at the end of September. Both Andrew and Katy worked for Border Force for 40 years, and Andrew has been in contact with Capita numerous times, but with no luck. I have written to the Minister, and I thank him and his team for their engagement with me. After making numerous attempts over several months, my constituent Andrew is still waiting for Katy’s pension. We hear about the prioritisation of bereavement cases, but this has not happened in my constituent’s case. What would the Minister say to my constituent, and to Capita, to get this case resolved?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
First of all, I say to my hon. Friend’s constituent, Andrew, that I am very sorry to hear about the loss of Katy, and I thank them for their decades of important service to Border Force. In order to take this case forward, it would probably be sensible for my hon. Friend to share the details in a meeting with the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Test (Satvir Kaur). We would be delighted to facilitate that.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
Like colleagues from across the House, I have constituents—veterans and former public servants—who have been treated appallingly by Capita, and who have been unable to access the money that they paid in. The Minister previously promised a standardised mitigation letter that those individuals could take to lenders, so that they did not necessarily have to lend at a commercial rate. I appreciate that there is £7.2 million in interest-free loans as well. Has the Minister delivered on his promise of a standardised mitigation letter, and will he go further, if required, on the £7.2 million in interest-free loans?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Yes, more than £7.2 million is available. I think the standardised mitigation letter was raised previously by another Member. I will certainly take that away and see what progress has been made.
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for his statement, for his engagement with me, and for the extensive work that has been done to recover from the mess that MyCSP and Capita have made of the CSPS. Civil servants have dedicated their lives to public service, only to be let down in their retirement, and Members from across the House all have absolutely appalling examples of the real-world impact. First, what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that nothing like this can ever happen again? Secondly, is there any scope for extending the compensation arrangements to individuals who have been unable to retire, through no fault of their own?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I, too, am grateful for the engagement with my hon. Friend, and we are certainly looking at how we learn the lessons of this matter. On her second point about the specific issue of compensation, a complaints procedure is available, as I think I have discussed with her previously, but there is also a very broad point here: I am determined that we will pursue every contractual lever to ensure that the taxpayer does not pick up the tab for the failure of MyCSP or Capita.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
I have constituents in Boston and Skegness who have suffered because of the ridiculous and appalling failures of Capita under these two contracts, and they are not the only contracts on which it is failing. To what extent has the Minister looked at the bigger financial picture at Capita? Last year, it earned revenue of almost £1.5 billion from the Government. It has contracts worth over £7 billion, yet it has just disclosed in its results that it has lost over £150 million. It has debts of £140 million, and its market cap is only £350 million. Given how much outsourcing work it does for so many British citizens, to what extent are the Government preparing for plan B in case of a financial crisis at Capita?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
To be fair to the hon. Gentleman, he raises a reasonable point, and we are certainly monitoring Capita’s general position. Capita holds a total of 85 contracts across the public sector—39 with central Government and 46 with the wider public sector. He and the House can be assured that we monitor performance across the whole portfolio, and we obviously consider each contract individually. As he says, it is hugely important always to be looking at providers’ financial position, because continuity of service is so important for those who, in the case of the civil service pension scheme, have paid in their own money over decades and deserve dignity in retirement.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
I have been contacted by several constituents who have experienced challenges and delays in accessing their pensions via the scheme that Capita has managed, or should I say mismanaged, for some time, including Bindu, Duncan and Ann-Marie. Tony, a civil servant for 40 years, should be looking forward to a well-earned retirement this year, but he has not been able to access his information on the portal. He cannot get through on the phone, and one occasion spent four hours trying to speak to an adviser before giving up.
I am sure the Minister agrees that people find it extremely worrying not to be able to plan for their retirement and understand what is ahead of them. Does he agree that this situation is completely unacceptable? Can he outline what quick action will take place to hold Capita to account, bring about improvements and ensure my constituents can look forward to their well-earned retirement?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is right that this is totally unacceptable, and that is why I have put in place the recovery plan and why the Cabinet Office is withholding milestone payments. On the four-hour wait, I would be very grateful if, with his constituent’s permission, he gave me the details, including the date, because I would like to take that up.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I am delighted to hear the determination with which the Minister intends to approach this and the messages he is sending to Capita, because like many others, I have a mailbox full of civil service pensioners unable to access their funds, many of them in hardship. One woman at the moment fears she may lose her home simply because she cannot get a response from Capita—I have asked for a meeting. Is the Minister aware of any plans to prioritise those in severe hardship, or has he asked Capita to do so, because there seems to be no attempt on its behalf to do that?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The surge team of about 140 officials who have gone into Capita are certainly looking at prioritising the most urgent and vulnerable cases. On the hon. Member’s specific case, I would be very grateful if she wrote directly to me about it, and I will certainly look at it.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
I welcome the statement from the Minister. The way that Capita has treated my constituents, such as Jill and the many others who have contacted my office, who have dedicated their lives to public service is nothing short of shameful. This is yet another example of how this Government are sorting out the mess created by the last Government. Can the Minister update the House on the number of hardship loans that have been issued by the Government and the number of civil service pension scheme members who have already received the maximum amount, and how the Government will continue to help them?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the contract we inherited. On the hardship loans, we have already provided over £7.2 million in interest-free transitional support loans to more than 1,300 members, but that is in no sense a cap. We continue to proactively drive uptake, and I encourage all Members across the House to do the same.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
I thank the Minister for his statement. Teresa and Alistair cannot get information or statements on their pension, while Nicola’s payments keep being delayed, damaging her finances. Can the Minister reassure my constituents that no civil servant will be left without timely pension payments? How will the Government restore civil servants’ confidence that the pensions they earn are secure and will be managed fairly?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The situations that the hon. Gentleman’s constituents have faced is exactly why the dedicated recovery team was put in place. I will be holding Capita to account on the timetable in the recovery plan for restoring service by the end of June this year. On the cases he has raised, I would be very interested if he could write to me with the details and dates of exactly what happened.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s statement, especially the news of the termination of the Royal Mail pension scheme contract to Capita. As he knows, Capita’s management of the civil service pension scheme has been an absolute shambles. I have constituents who cannot meet their mortgage payments, are having to defer their retirements and are not receiving the compensation they deserve. This is one in a very long list of failures, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) outlined. Can the Minister explain why we keep awarding contracts to Capita, how it represents value for money for the taxpayer and how we are meeting our manifesto commitment of the biggest wave of insourcing in a generation?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
We are very committed to delivering that manifesto commitment, and the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister will be setting out more about that in due course, following his speech earlier in the year.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the poor performance under this contract. I have taken a decision to terminate the contract for the Royal Mail statutory pension scheme, and she and Members across the House can be assured that, under this contract, we will robustly be holding Capita to account. As she rightly says, when people have missed mortgage payments or other things have happened to them through no fault of their own, that is completely unacceptable.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
Capita has failed time and again, yet it is constantly awarded more contracts. Sally, one of my constituents, had been told multiple times that her lump sum payment was coming or had already been paid, but it was not paid. She and other civil servants would have been worried to hear in March that Capita is to be awarded a £700 million contract for the civil service payroll. Is that not just another example of how when Capita fails, the Government award it yet more of our money?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
It is absolutely essential that I make the point that each individual contract has to be considered on its own merits, which is exactly what I have been doing. On procurement by other Departments, one thing I am certainly doing is ensuring that the Cabinet Office shares the lessons learned from the recent transition of the civil service pension scheme, and I will be ensuring that those lessons are certainly made available right across Government.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
I thank the Minister not only for the statement, but for his engagement with us over the last six months. A constituent of mine applied for her MyCSP pension quote back in August and finally got the quote last week, but she is still a considerable distance away from actually getting money into her bank account. Will the Minister consider ensuring that the recovery team is in place until all the people caught up in this backlog have money in the bank?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Yes, I agree. I will clearly have to make a judgment, but I do not intend to withdraw the team if that would result in a deterioration in service. I will obviously make that judgment very carefully, but having said that, I have been very clear about the June 2026 deadline for the restoration of the proper service under this contract, and I will be holding Capita to it.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his answers on the statement—no one doubts his commitment to try to find a solution. The statement outlined some 1,500 complaints from MPs about their constituents’ pensions being withheld, and a number of those complaints are mine. He highlighted the availability, for people awaiting their pensions, of an interest-free loan of £5,000, or more in exceptional circumstances. Those who have been waiting 16 months for their pensions and are more than £5,000 behind on their mortgage are in a precarious situation, so will the Minister uplift the amount of the interest-free loans and make payments available immediately?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
On that final point, if the hon. Member could write to me about precisely what that situation is, I would be more than happy to look at it. Performance on MP correspondence is appalling, and I am not willing to tolerate it. Members across this House are speaking for their constituents who are in very vulnerable situations. I have given very clear instructions about this being dealt with, and in my view it must be dealt with out of respect for this House and the people who work here.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
Before I ask my question, I would just like to welcome back Andy. He gives us a great deal of service in this Chamber. It is good to see him back. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
I welcome the action the Government have taken and the Minister’s statement today. I thank him for his engagement with me over the past six months. It is clear that Capita has shamefully failed many Portsmouth North civil servants. Kirsty is still waiting for ill health compensation. Christine is waiting months for her widow’s pension payments. Louise submitted request forms and, since November, has heard nothing. Anne, after 48 years of public service and following the sad death of her husband, has been unable to get any clarity on her pension forecast. These are not numbers on a spreadsheet, but real people and real lives. On behalf of these women, I ask the Minister: when will the civil service pension scheme finally be stabilised?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I, too, welcome back Andy and thank him for his service.
I say to my hon. Friend and those four constituents that what I have said in the recovery plan and what is part of the recovery plan is for the contractual level of service to be back by June. If that is not delivered, I reserve all rights under this contract with Capita.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) in welcoming Andy back to the Speaker’s Office. He is a shoulder to cry on after Harlow Town’s recent results.
I thank the Paymaster General for his statement, which is hugely important to residents of Harlow, including veterans and those who have worked tirelessly over the years in the postal service and the civil service. In one of my previous roles working for a homelessness charity, I have seen the devastating effect that late pension payments can have on people’s lives. We should not forget the human impact of these issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) recognised the issues with teachers’ pensions. My constituent, Carol, constantly comes to speak to me about the issues she is having with her teacher pension. I recommend that the Minister looks at that as well. What will the Paymaster General do to ensure we get these pensions right and to hold Capita to account, and will he consider insourcing these pensions if necessary, to show that this Labour Government are on the side of hard-working pensioners?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
We are absolutely on the side of those pensioners. The important thing in the immediate term is the stabilisation of the service. That is why I will be holding Capita robustly to account on the recovery plan.
I am afraid to say to my hon. Friend that I cannot help him with the results of Harlow Town!
Queen Elizabeth Memorial Committee Report
Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
The Government have accepted three recommendations from the Queen Elizabeth Memorial Committee to honour the extraordinary life and legacy of the late Queen. Queen Elizabeth dedicated 70 years of service to the nation, providing a sense of continuity through times of great change and forming a part of our national identity. Her ability to connect with those from all walks of life was strongly felt by the millions she met, and her contribution persists today in our memories, as well as the ongoing work of the many charities she supported. It is fitting that her legacy is commemorated in a way that reflects her exceptional contribution to public life. I am pleased to update the House on these plans on the centenary of Queen Elizabeth’s birth.
The committee’s recommendations include:
The proposed national memorial in St James’s Park, which commemorates Queen Elizabeth and her lifelong commitment to public service. It features a new standing statue of the late Queen overlooking the Mall at Marlborough gate, showing her at an early stage of her reign. This memorial will honour Britain’s longest-serving monarch in a way that will serve the nation for generations. It will be a place where people can come together to celebrate and honour Queen Elizabeth’s remarkable 70 years of service; a place where her values of public service continue to live on in public life.
Nearby will be a statue of Prince Philip, in recognition of the support he gave her during her reign as our longest-serving consort —both by sculptor Martin Jennings. The memorial will also include a new cast-glass bridge inspired by Queen Mary’s fringe tiara, which was worn by Queen Elizabeth on her wedding day; a bust of Her Majesty in her later years by sculptor Karen Newman; and the Commonwealth Wind Sculpture, a new abstract work by Yinka Shonibare. The design also includes gardens dedicated to the Commonwealth and to the nations of the United Kingdom, creating spaces for relaxation and reflection. This memorial will enhance St James’s Park as an inspiring public space.
A new UK-wide charity, Queen Elizabeth Trust, set up to administer a legacy programme in the late Queen’s name, which will be independent from the Government. Inspired by the words “everyone is our neighbour”, shared by Queen Elizabeth in a speech to mark her 21st birthday, the trust will work hand in hand with communities, providing funding and targeted support to restore and sustain spaces that will thrive long into the future. This charity will put the late Queen’s values to work, actively strengthening communities and empowering local people. The trust will be funded by an agreed £40 million endowment from the Government, creating a catalyst for the trust to raise further funds to maximise its impact over years to come. This is a unique opportunity to harness the legacy of the Queen to create positive and innovative change in communities across the UK.
The Queen Elizabeth digital memorial, a new website showcasing the late Queen’s life and legacy through a range of archive content and public memories. The site brings together newly digitised materials from archives and media collections, underpinned by listings from a newly digitised version of the Court Circular which maps every official engagement the Queen undertook during her reign. At the heart of the digital site is a public memory portal, inviting people from around the UK, the Commonwealth and the world to share their own memories of Queen Elizabeth. The Queen Elizabeth digital memorial is a living archive—one that will grow and develop over time, serving as both a place of commemoration and an enduring resource that carries her values forward, inspiring future generations to engage with her life and legacy.
A recommendations report, setting out the recommendations in detail, has been published today and I have deposited a copy of that report in the Libraries of both Houses in Parliament.
[HCWS1531]
Infected Blood Compensation Scheme
Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
Today, I have laid the Government response to the public consultation on proposed changes to the infected blood compensation scheme. I have also published the accompanying report by the technical expert group.
We consulted on seven specific areas of the compensation scheme and gave respondents an opportunity to tell us what else they thought should be changed. I am pleased that we are now making substantial changes in all seven areas, and making an additional change based on feedback we heard. These changes will increase the levels of compensation available for infected and affected people.
I am grateful to the infected blood inquiry, and would like to pay tribute to Sir Brian Langstaff and his team for the sensitivity and care with which they carried out their work. The Government have now fully responded to all of the inquiry’s additional report recommendations on the design of the compensation scheme.
[HCWS1510]
Infected Blood Compensation Scheme
Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
With permission, I will update the House on the Government’s response to the recommendations of the infected blood inquiry’s additional report.
I will start by updating the House on the delivery of compensation by the Infected Blood Compensation Authority—or IBCA, as we refer to it. As of 7 April, 3,273 people have received an offer and over £2 billion has now been paid out. That includes the first payments to all eligible groups. I am sure that Members across the whole House will welcome that progress.
In July last year, the infected blood inquiry published its additional report, which made recommendations for both the Government and IBCA. Part of our response to that report was a public consultation on changes to the infected blood compensation scheme. I am here today to update the House on the outcome of that consultation. First, I should say that I am deeply grateful to everyone who responded and provided deeply personal stories. They must be at the heart of the decisions that the Government make, just as they were throughout the work of the inquiry.
The consultation was vital for engaging the community on our proposals. The Government have also sought advice from the infected blood compensation scheme technical expert group. Alongside the consultation response, today I am publishing the group’s final report, which sets out its advice to the Government and amendments to the compensation scheme. To inform that advice, the technical expert group conducted roundtable discussions with community representatives on specific aspects of the scheme, and that was separate to the consultation. For transparency, I am also publishing the minutes of the roundtable discussions, the group’s own meetings and a summary of written responses to the roundtables.
Let me turn to the changes to the scheme. Today the Government have published our full response to the consultation, and that sets out how the scheme will now change. Before I lay out each change in detail, let me explain the overall package. The community was clear that the scheme must do more to recognise people’s individual experiences and compensate them fairly in a way that minimises the administrative burden placed on those who have been harmed, minimises the demand for evidence and maintains the delivery of tariff-based compensation. Those requirements underpin the changes.
For infected people, the changes will increase the amount of core compensation available and increase the options available for supplementary compensation awards. For affected people, additional core compensation will be available to those eligible. We consulted on seven specific areas, and we are making substantive changes in all seven. In four areas, we are actually going further than our original proposal.
Let me turn first to the special category mechanism. We will introduce a new supplementary award to give additional compensation to people who have been assessed as eligible for the SCM or who can now demonstrate to IBCA that they meet the criteria. After considering the community’s views, we will ensure that every eligible person has this award backdated to 2017, because that is when the special category mechanism was first introduced.
Many of those infected suffered from terrible mental health issues as a result of their infection, as we heard in their testimonies. We will amend the scheme so that the new SCM supplementary award gives people additional compensation where the psychological harm that they experienced means that the core route compensation simply does not go far enough. We believe that this will result in more comprehensive recognition of the mental health issues caused by infected blood and the resulting years of harm.
The inquiry recommended that we change the core route’s severity bandings to recognise the harms caused to infected people by interferon treatment, and proposed a new “level 2B” severity banding for those who receive this treatment. We accept that change is necessary, and we will introduce this new severity band to increase people’s injury, financial loss and care awards. In addition, if someone has had multiple rounds of interferon treatment, they will be compensated for each round.
The inquiry recommended changes to the calculation of past financial loss and past care awards for those who choose to continue receiving support scheme payments. We will remove the 25% deduction applied to past care compensation, as was recommended by the inquiry. The consultation also set out two options for how financial loss could be calculated for those who continue to receive support scheme payments: the way the scheme currently does it, and an alternative. Because of the range of views on which was best, we will ensure that people receive past financial loss compensation based on whichever of the two calculations presented is most financially beneficial for them.
The inquiry asked the Government to look at the evidence requirements for the exceptional loss award. We were keen to hear the community’s views on that in order to develop a way forward that avoided lengthy, individualised assessments of people’s circumstances. We will ensure that all forms of evidence of actual earnings can be considered by IBCA. We will also make additional compensation available to infected people who lack evidence of earnings but who had clear potential to earn more than average. We will offer a £60,000 lump sum on top of people’s core awards to those who can show they either had a job offer or recently started a job where the salary was higher than the median salary but had their progress impeded by their infection.
Through the consultation, we also heard about the experiences of affected people and the particular harms they suffered. We will increase the core injury award for several groups of affected people, including bereaved parents whose child sadly died before they turned 18, bereaved partners, and children and siblings affected under the age of 18. Those changes will give more compensation to affected people whose particular experience of the scandal was undoubtedly profound and deeply harmful. The awards will form part of the core award, and they will not require additional evidence from applicants.
I know that the matter of unethical research is of particular concern to Members across the House. It is one of the most shocking aspects of the scandal. We heard that the existing approach may not have compensated everyone who suffered that wrongdoing. We have therefore changed the scope of the award so that anyone treated in the UK for a bleeding disorder in 1985 or earlier will receive further compensation.
It was also clear from the consultation responses that the amount offered does not reflect the harm done. I say today to the House that we will increase the unethical research awards. That includes increasing the £25,000 for those who attended Treloar’s school to £60,000 as well as introducing a new unethical research award for those treated elsewhere for a bleeding disorder during childhood at a rate of £45,000. We are also tripling the award for those treated for a bleeding disorder in adulthood to £30,000. I have touched on all seven of the areas we directly addressed in the consultation; of course, I encourage hon. Members across the House to read the full response that is being published.
The consultation also invited respondents to raise any other concerns they had about the design of the scheme. One of the most compelling things we heard was that the scheme does not sufficiently recognise the profound impact of infection during childhood. We have heard the community clearly on that, so we will make a further change to the compensation scheme to address it: we will introduce a 50% increase to the core autonomy award for people who were infected at age 18 or under.
I hope those changes go some way to showing our commitment to listening to the community and making decisions, with those impacted at the forefront of our minds. In order to make those substantial changes to the scheme, we will bring forward further legislation in due course.
While the consultation provided one way for the community to offer feedback, the inquiry recommended there be an identified way for concerns to be considered. Today, I am pleased to launch a new mechanism that builds on existing engagement and feedback channels through which people can raise concerns about the function of the infected blood compensation scheme with the Cabinet Office and with IBCA. Both organisations will then publish quarterly summaries of feedback received on the scheme’s design and delivery, and any action being taken as a result. I expect the first of those summaries to be published in early July.
The findings of the inquiry must be met with tangible, systemic change. I hope that what I have set out goes some way towards showing our commitment to enacting this change. I pay tribute to Sir Brian Langstaff, his team and everyone who gave testimony to the inquiry for ensuring that that human element of this tragedy remains a focal point of the inquiry’s work.
The compensation scheme’s most basic purpose is to provide financial recognition of the losses and harms faced by victims, both infected and affected. Beyond that, it must reflect and embody their stories if it is to truly deliver justice, not just for those we tragically lost, but for those who continue to fight. I commend this statement to the House.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his statement and for providing an advance copy. We naturally welcome the progress reported today. The fact that 3,273 people have received offers totalling more than £2 billion is a significant milestone in a decades-long struggle for justice. I thank the Infected Blood Compensation Authority for its work to speed up the payments.
As Baroness Finn said in the other place,
“what we call the scandal was, in truth, the infliction, collectively, of grievous harm upon thousands of people by the state.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 November 2025; Vol. 849, c. 1821.]
Nowhere was that more egregious or more shocking than in those cases where victims were infected as a result of deliberate experimentation in the name of science. We therefore commend the Minister for the specific increases to the unethical research awards, and in particular the uplift to £60,000 for the survivors of Treloar’s school and the expansion of the scheme to include those treated as adults. Those are necessary recognitions of a truly outrageous chapter of the scandal.
However, while the Minister spoke of tangible, systemic change, many victims and their families will be looking at the fine print with a degree of trepidation. I therefore have a number of questions regarding the delivery and scope of these announcements. The Minister noted that further legislation will be required later this year to enact these substantial changes. Given that the infected blood inquiry’s additional report was published back in July last year, will he reassure the House that the legislative timetable will not lead to further agonising delays for those in declining health? Will the first quarterly feedback summaries, which he has promised will come in July, provide a hard deadline for when those new level 2B severity awards and backdated supply chain management payments will actually reach bank accounts? If not, does he have an expectation of when those payments will be made?
I think the Minister mentioned increased core injury awards for bereaved parents whose children died before the age of 18. Can he provide greater clarity on the justification for excluding parents whose children were infected when they were young children but turned 18 before the time of their death? Regarding the 50% increase to the core autonomy award for those infected at age 18 or under, will he confirm that that will also apply to those infected through their mothers in utero?
The Government rightly aim to minimise the administrative burden and the demand for evidence. We welcome the £60,000 lump sum for those with clear potential to earn but who lack evidence of earnings, but how will the Infected Blood Compensation Authority define “clear potential” without falling back into the lengthy, individualised assessments that the Minister says he wants to avoid?
Finally on the compensation scheme, the Minister announced that for past financial loss, the Government will use whichever calculation is “most financially beneficial” for the recipient. We welcome that pragmatic step, but can he clarify whether the removal of the 25% deduction for past care will be applied automatically to all existing offers, or will those people who have already received offers need to reapply to have their awards adjusted? As the Minister said, the compensation scheme must “embody their stories”. Justice delayed is justice denied, and we must ensure that the new supplementary awards do not become a secondary bureaucratic hurdle for a community that has already given so much testimony and waited so long.
Before I close, I turn to a matter that seems to be missing from the Minister’s statement: the inquiry. When he last updated the House before Christmas, I raised the need to
“move from a period of review to one of rectification and delivery.”—[Official Report, 30 October 2025; Vol. 774, c. 516.]
I also asked him how and when the inquiry might be drawn to a close so there could be a degree of policy certainty. I did not hear him refer to that in his statement, so will he confirm that, with the implementation of the key recommendations from the additional report and Sir Brian’s letters, the public inquiry has now drawn to a close?
Once again, I thank Sir Brian Langstaff and his team for their diligent and comprehensive work over the past eight years to help deliver some justice after decades of scandal and suffering. Most of all, I again pay tribute to the tireless campaigning of the many victims and their families who were infected or affected by the infected blood scandal. They have suffered for far too long in ways that we can barely begin to imagine, and no compensation scheme can ever reverse the horrific harms needlessly done to them. I hope, however, that the universal acceptance of the conclusion of the reports and the determination of us all to do what we can to make changes that will stop others suffering in future will bring them some comfort.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I thank the shadow Minister for the tone that he took in that response and for the supportive tone that he has taken throughout. I will pick up on some of his earlier points. I agree with him entirely when he talks of the heinous nature of the medical experimentation on children that happened during this scandal. Although I have increased the specific amounts, it should be pointed out that those amounts do not stand in isolation; they are specific amounts for the particularly egregious nature of what happened, which are within much higher settlements, and that is exactly as it should be.
On the point about the inquiry, yes, there has now been the formal exchange of letters between me as the responsible Minister and Sir Brian Langstaff. Also, I entirely agree with the shadow Minister about the need for policy certainty going forward. He asked some very reasonable, detailed questions, and I will come back to him properly in writing on those, but let me just deal with a few of them.
I want to bring forward further legislation as soon as possible. When I have brought forward legislation in the past, parties across the House have always worked in a collaborative way throughout to get it through as quickly as possible. Obviously, positions are a matter for the Opposition parties, but continuing that constructive spirit is helpful in getting these things through as quickly as possible.
On the issue of exceptional loss, again, that £60,000, as referred to by the shadow Minister, is not designed to be a very detailed, individualised assessment. That is not what a tariff-based scheme is meant to do. Rather, it is meant to look at the situation of loss of a chance—the situation where somebody, but for their infection or how they were affected by the infection, would have had the opportunity to have gone on and perhaps been a higher-than-average earner but were denied that—and is designed specifically to look at that. On the other very reasonable and detailed matters that the hon. Gentleman raises, I will ensure he gets a full written response.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
Does the Minister accept that although people co-infected with HIV and hepatitis C represent only around 7% of those on infected blood support schemes, they make up roughly 14% of those receiving special category support, because of the disproportionate harm caused by early hepatitis C treatments? Does he believe that today’s announcement properly recognises their suffering?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Whether it is in relation to the co-infected, to whom my hon. Friend so movingly refers, or other people who are both infected and affected by this scandal, the compensation scheme seeks to recognise everything—all the harms that have happened to them and how they have suffered. I will just say, though, that this was always meant to be a tariff-based scheme—it is meant to produce broad justice—and part of the reason for that is to try to prevent those highly individualised searches for evidence which, frankly, with this distance of time, would simply not be possible.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. I especially welcome in his remarks the recognition of people’s individual experiences and the commitment to compensating them fairly in a way that minimises the administrative burden placed upon those who have been harmed.
The infected blood scandal is one of the greatest failures in our national health service, which was unacknowledged for far too long. Over 30,000 people were infected across the country and faced the devastating consequences of that systematic failure. Yet there are people who continue to feel that the scheme has not gone far enough, including one of my constituents, from Marple, who feels the scheme should investigate more potential conditions.
Thousands of victims and their families have waited decades for the justice they deserve. Sir Brian Langstaff was straightforward in his findings: victims have been ignored and frozen out of the process they fought for decades to secure, while payments have proceeded at an infuriatingly glacial pace. The Liberal Democrats have long stood with the victims. The Government are right to seek to answer the needs of those infected and affected by setting out a clear timeline for how compensation can be delivered to them. My colleagues and I will continue to hold this Government to account until every eligible person receives the justice they are owed.
Sir Brian Langstaff rightly highlighted how victims have not been listened to by successive Ministers, and we welcome the new feedback mechanism that the Minister has set out today. Will he expand a little on his remarks and confirm that that will be a formal advisory body of victims to IBCA, as recommended by the Langstaff inquiry?
After so many years of secrecy, deceit and delay, the Government should ensure full transparency over the progress of the scheme and open ongoing communication with all those affected. Enshrining a statutory duty of candour is a long-overdue reform championed by those infected and affected by the scandal, and the continued delays to passing the Hillsborough law are shameful. Victims and campaigners should not be made to wait any longer, so will the Minister say when the Government will get that vital piece of legislation moving again and finally get the Hillsborough law on the statute book?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
First, in respect of the feedback mechanism, I wanted it to be not simply somewhere that would receive correspondence, but a proper mechanism to sift the various queries coming in. Some might be administrative things to do with the scheme that might be dealt with relatively quickly and some might be more serious things that need to be elevated either to IBCA’s board or to the Cabinet Office.
Secondly, with regard to IBCA and the voice of victims, I have been on more than one occasion to IBCA’s offices in Newcastle. It already has what are known as the user consultants, who provide the voice of the community on the premises and who have been encouraged by Sir Robert Francis to do that. I think they make a very important contribution. Thirdly, on transparency, I could not agree more. That is why, on the technical expert group for example, I take the view of publishing everything. I think we have to continue to do that. Fourthly, on the issue of the Hillsborough law, work is ongoing. I have been very involved in that in recent months and, certainly, we are committed to delivering it.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I really welcome the statement from the Minister, along with the changes and improvements that the Government are making to the scheme, but for many people infected by HIV in the 1980s, fear, stigma and poor health meant that the role of parents, as in the case of my constituents, did not meaningfully change after their child turned 18. Will the Minister please consider adding an enhanced core injury payment for parents whose children died over the age of 18 but who had no partner or children of their own?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to speak of those people who were infected with HIV in the period that she talks about and the terrible social stigma, alongside everything else that they suffered. Indeed, I sincerely hope that the scheme reflects that. On the second, very specific question that she raises, if she could send me the details of her constituents, I will come back to her on that particular case.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
Over the past 21 months, the Minister has worked tirelessly to try to build on the consensus across the House on the legislation that I put through on 21 May 2024 in order to make the scheme work, and I pay tribute to the work he has done. He has listened carefully to a whole range of inputs on an extremely complicated problem from a heterogeneous group of individuals, and he has done his level best to respond to the advice and best judgment of professionals, to attend to the range of needs and oversights, and to create pathways. I pay tribute to the work that he has done. He assured the House repeatedly that the money would get out as quickly as possible, and it did get out quickly and move swiftly after that initial process had been resolved. However, given that it cost over £150 million for the public inquiry, let alone the several billions of pounds for the compensation, will he ensure that the proper lessons are learned by the British state, so that not only can such a scandal never happen again but the conduct of public inquiries is as efficient as possible and we can reduce the delays that may have occurred in this situation?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his generous tribute. I have built on the work that he did as a Minister, and I think that the consensus between us, when I was in opposition and now as I am in government, has helped the victims and speeded up the process. I am very grateful for all the work that he did. His second point was very well made. We have to look at the public inquiries landscape. We all recognise that public inquiries provide a real public sense of justice when people have suffered either from a scandal or, frankly, from a cover-up by the state, but we want public inquiries to provide value for money for the taxpayer and to report in a timely fashion. We also need them to make relevant, timely policy recommendations. I am determined to look at that.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for the contents of his statement and for the diligence of his work with Sir Brian Langstaff and the victims to ensure that the inquiry’s recommendations have been delivered. Noting the incredible damage that has been done to many of our constituents’ lives as they try to return to normality, may I ask the Minister to outline further how we will ensure that the community’s voice will continue to be heard, bearing in mind that the challenges caused by this injustice will not suddenly stop, even if those people are awarded compensation?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend highlights a really important point. This is why the feedback mechanism is so important in ensuring that, where there are issues, they are treated sensitively and with the seriousness they deserve, and that they are elevated to the appropriate place, whether that is IBCA’s board or the Cabinet Office, to be dealt with.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
I pay tribute to the Minister and his team for the great work that they have done. I agree with the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) that this work is really cross-party, and the Minister will continue to enjoy our support in the future. I would like to raise two matters of detail. One relates to the Hepatitis C Trust, which has welcomed the funding that it has received, but it is only for one year. Owing to the nature of its work and the fact that these cases are likely to go on for several years, will the Minister confirm that organisations such as the Hepatitis C Trust can expect to enjoy funding in future years to enable them to continue to provide support?
I also welcome the Minister’s comments on the new level 2B severity banding for people who received interferon treatment, but I would like to raise a couple of points of detail on that. The Minister might not be able to answer them today, but if he could answer them in writing, that would be helpful. Do these new measures remove the 2017 reduction in rates for compensation, and will they ensure that people are fairly compensated for health harms caused by interferon treatment from the date those harms occurred?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and his party for the tone that they have taken throughout this process, and I welcome the opportunity to continue to work on a cross-party basis, because that is important. Like him, I have had that discussion with the charities—including the Hepatitis C Trust, as it happens—and I very much understand the case they make about multi-year funding as opposed to single-year funding. The funding comes from the Department of Health and Social Care, rather than from me, but I will certainly write to the relevant Minister to raise that point. The introduction of level 2B banding for interferon treatment is important, because of the specific, awful effects of multiple rounds of interferon treatment. On the two points that the hon. Gentleman has specifically raised, I will ensure that he gets a detailed answer in writing.
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
I commend the bravery of the constituents I have met who have endured decades of anguish as a result of this harrowing chapter in our country’s medical history. The Minister will know that there are those across the country with legitimate claims under this scheme, but because some NHS trusts are claiming that their loved ones’ medical records have been destroyed, those affected are still having to fight for recognition and compensation. Will he address how we can overcome this seemingly insurmountable obstacle and give my constituents the closure and compassion that they deserve?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend raises a really important point. An issue with this scandal is that, due to the passage of time, evidence will simply not be available. Also, the inquiry found evidence of deliberate document destruction. That is why, while of course I entirely respect IBCA’s independence, I have always said that a sympathetic approach needs to be taken to evidence in that particular context. Indeed, from conversations I have had with Sir Robert Francis and others at IBCA, I know that that is precisely the approach they are seeking to take.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I, too, want to recognise the Minister’s commitment to this cause, which has impacted on so many of us across the House. I have a number of technical questions. First, he says that he wants to bring legislation forward this year. As he knows, delay matters, and the estimate is that one affected person is dying every four days. Can he confirm that the legislation will happen this side of the summer? Secondly, if the legislation is required to change the claim amounts, from when will they be dated? Thirdly, can he confirm that if the small number of claims that have been concluded already were eligible for the increased awards, they could be reopened so that more money may flow to those victims?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
On the right hon. Gentleman’s third question, the answer is yes. His second question related to dates. There are some specific dates that exist in the scheme. For example, assessment for the special category mechanism started in 2017, so that is the date that exists in relevant cases. Finally, I want to bring forward the regulations—this will be the fourth set of regulations—as soon as I possibly can. When I do so, I very much hope that we can collectively deal with them as quickly as possible.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I want to join Members across the House in commending the Minister for his steadfast commitment to this issue and, in particular, for the way in which he has consistently listened to members of the community and acted on what they have said. My constituent, Alex Robinson, lost her father to the scandal in 2006. I spoke to her just a few moments ago on the phone, and she remains concerned by the speed at which applications are being processed. Can the Minister outline what steps he is taking to speed up the process and deliver the justice that Alex and so many others deserve?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend’s constituent is entirely right to continue to hold the Government to account on the speed of delivery of the compensation. Particular targets were put in place, including paying the first affected person by the end of last year, and we met that target. On infected people, we have now paid out over £2 billion in compensation. To answer his specific point on how we will continue to ensure that we process the payments at speed, while IBCA is of course operationally independent, I always stand ready as the responsible Minister to assist IBCA in any way that it sees fit. I can assure my hon. Friend that my dialogue with IBCA on this point will continue.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
I, too, acknowledge the work the Minister has done on this issue. Last year, I asked him about a constituent who fell under the special category mechanism, so it is welcome news that there will be an additional award for that group, but those affected are frustrated that it has taken this long to get here. The scheme so far, for the vast majority of victims, has been a failure, and only a fraction of those affected have yet received compensation. Is the Minister confident that all those eligible, including those eligible for additional awards from the special category mechanism, will have received payment by the end of 2029?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I should say that 2029 is a backstop not a target, so it is not a question of my being confident about that date; I want the payments to have been made before 2029. On the hon. Member’s more general point about speeding up payments, IBCA has used a “test and learn” approach for infected people. The reason for that was to have a small number of representative cases, so that there could be an accelerating point at which the number of cases being paid would increase sharply. That did happen and I would say, as the Minister, that we are now up to over £2 billion having been paid, but he is absolutely right to continue to hold me to account on the speed of payments.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
I join my right hon. Friend in paying tribute to Sir Brian Langstaff who leads the inquiry and the people who gave evidence to it, which made his report so powerful, as my right hon. Friend said. I thank my right hon. Friend for the way he has engaged with this process in the short time he was been in office. It has moved things on immeasurably from where we were before, albeit building on the work that was done before.
My right hon. Friend knows how complex this issue is, so the devil will be in the detail of the statement, but I welcome the news that the requirements for evidence will be reduced where people have already produced evidence and gone through previous thresholds, and are then required to provide it again when it is not available. Mistrust inevitably exists for people who have had to campaign for so long for justice from the state, so I welcome the fact that he is creating a new mechanism to listen to the community continuously as the process goes on. Does he agree that taking that way forward will help to avoid the disagreements we have had in the past?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I thank my hon. Friend and pay tribute to his work with the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood, which I was pleased to attend and speak to in recent weeks. He is absolutely right about the new feedback mechanism. It is so important not only that victims feel that their voice can be heard, but that they have a specific process whereby they can raise those concerns and then be elevated to the appropriate person to respond to them. That will be hugely important going forward.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
I, too, welcome the statement from the Minister. I pay tribute once again to my constituent Clive Smith, who is the president of the Haemophilia Society, on all the work he has done to press previous Governments and this Government on behalf of those affected and infected.
I am pleased to hear the Minister make specific reference to Treloar’s school in Hampshire, where at least 72 children died after being given a drug contaminated with HIV and viral hepatitis. I know that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, have a particular interest because your constituent Mike Webster’s son, Gary Webster, was infected. Can the Minister update the House on what progress is being made in pursuing criminal charges against those involved in experimenting on children?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to Clive Smith for his excellent and continuing work on memorialisation in particular, for which I am very grateful.
The hon. Gentleman rightly raises the heinous activities that happened at Treloar’s school, which was a place that parents sent their children—vulnerable children—for protection, and then had this truly chilling medical experimentation that happened. We will ensure that things move as quickly as possible, but I also say to the hon. Gentleman that we must ensure that we learn the lessons of what happened there to ensure that something like that never happens again.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
I join others in paying tribute to the Minister for his work on this matter and on the Government’s response to Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendations. I also thank him for his intention to ensure that the administrative burden placed on those infected and affected is limited as much as possible. With that in mind, can I ask him for clarification on the level 2B severity category and the increase for those who were infected when they were younger than 18? Will those new mechanisms be adjusted automatically for existing claims, or will claimants need to apply or work in another way to get those mechanisms applied to their cases?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks and for his support and that of his party, which has been helpful throughout this process. On existing claims where there has been a change, the objective is to make the process as easy as possible, because I do not want to go back to the situation where people are being asked repeatedly to produce different pieces of evidence. Where there is an impact on an existing claim, the intention is absolutely to make it as easy as it can be.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I, too, welcome the Minister’s statement and his commitment to updating the House regularly on this issue. However, my constituent was infected with hepatitis C in 1993 and is still yet to receive any support because of the scheme’s original cut-off date. I know that the strict cut-off dates have been relaxed, but her cohort of the infected but never compensated—and, in some cases, never registered—still seem to be at the back of the queue. That compounds the harm and the feeling that they have been shut out for so long. Can he reassure my constituent that there will be renewed urgency on that particular cohort?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
First, IBCA has published a prioritisation list. It published the rationale for that and is obviously moving through that list on the basis of that prioritisation. Given that this scandal happened over decades, there is obviously an urgency—it is shared by IBCA, me and the Government more widely—to get those payments to people as quickly as possible, including the hon. Gentleman’s constituent.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I join Members across the House in paying tribute to the Minister for his work and the previous Government who started the compensation scheme. My constituent met me at a surgery last year and spoke to me about her late brother, who tragically died in 1988 after being infected with contaminated blood as a haemophiliac. Her family applied to the compensation scheme in June 2024, yet they feel that they are being treated as a lower priority because he is no longer alive. Can the Minister explain why bereaved families like hers are effectively being asked to wait longer? How can this two-tier form of justice be justified to those who have already waited for decades? Will he meet me to discuss this particular case and how the delays to compensation for my constituent can be alleviated?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
First, the intention is certainly not to produce any form of two-tier scheme; it is to compensate everybody for the harm they have suffered. On the hon. Gentleman’s constituent, I would greatly appreciate it if he would write to me with the particular individual circumstances and then I can look specifically at what has happened in that case.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
I join others in thanking the Minister for his update. I met a constituent in Wokingham last year who was one of the 30,000 people affected by this scandal. The Infected Blood Compensation Authority should have been life-changing for them and others affected by the scandal, but when an offer of compensation was made, my constituent felt that they had to accept it, although they felt it was not good enough, and that they were under duress. Will the Minister meet me and my constituent to discuss this case and the fact that my constituent felt pressurised to accept the offer?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
One of the reasons I signed off funding for both financial advice and legal advice was precisely to ensure that, in a situation where an offer of compensation was received, people could access it. Obviously, I do not know whether that opportunity was taken in that particular case, but if the hon. Gentleman would write to me with the circumstances, I can certainly look into it.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Minister is indeed a bearer of good news, and I thank him for his diligence, energy and commitment to delivery. His and his team’s hard work is much valued by my constituents and by all Members present. He has made a full statement on the changes that will be implemented. I note the greater support for children under 18 years of age and for bereaved families in particular. Can he confirm that those people will be able to make claims under the mental health support section, as the loss of a parent can be devastating in the long term?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am grateful to the hon. Member for his generous comments. On that particular issue, I would be grateful if he wrote to me with the very specific details. I would be more than happy to see whether the claim is eligible.
In an earlier question, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) asked about the potential for criminal prosecutions relating to this matter. Of course, prosecutions are a matter for the independent Crown Prosecution Service, but I have made it absolutely clear that the Government stand ready to provide any evidence required by the authorities.
Government Delivery: Simplifying Processes and Reducing Bureaucracy
Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts(1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
My noble and learned Friend the Attorney General, the right hon. Lord Hermer KC, has today jointly laid this statement in the House of Lords:
Further to the written ministerial statement made by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister on 20 January, which can be found at https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2026-01-20/hcws1260 I am writing to provide an update on some of our next steps to accelerate delivery. Working closely with the new Cabinet Secretary, we are launching a programme of work to simplify the state, removing unnecessary bureaucracy and speeding up the timeline from ministerial decision to delivery for citizens. Together with wider reforms to “re-wire” public services, the civil service and regulatory duties, we are creating a faster and better model for government that will have a real impact on people’s lives.
Our state does not work in the way intended, hindering our ability to deliver real change for British people. This is the result of overcomplicated bureaucratic processes that we have lived with for too long. Individual elements of the bureaucracy were, mostly, designed for good reasons, but they have now become layers built upon layers without any proper assessment of the overall effect. Despite the good intentions, the cumulative result has been a stifling effect on Government. The need for change is urgent. We are developing a plan to free Ministers, officials and the British public from the bureaucratic mire that prevents innovation and improvements to people’s lives.
Our agenda is simple: strip back the burdensome, disproportionate processes to speed up decision making and delivery across Government. Instigating this work is essential to reach the desire for radical reform across Government. It directly supports the Prime Minister’s ambition to “re-wire the state” to make it work for working people.
Immediate first steps include aiming to:
End the introduction of unnecessary reporting and consultation requirements through introducing a higher bar to their inclusion in legislation.
Use AI to identify existing disproportionate reporting and consultation duties that are slowing down delivery.
Take action on the use of equalities impact assessments to ensure they are proportionate and actually improve policy and outcomes.
Replace environmental impact assessments with environmental outcomes reports as part of a significant step in reducing bureaucracy around new infrastructure projects.
Simplify and improve Government controls—a reformed controls framework goes live from the start of the 2026-27 financial year, reducing bureaucracy in projects and programmes, empowering those closest to delivery.
Continue to deliver the Government’s commitments on arm’s length body reform, ensuring that decisions are taken at the right level. All Departments have been asked to set out their plans to reform their ALB landscape, with a view to confirming mergers, closures and repatriations ahead of the next spending review.
Working alongside the new Cabinet Secretary, Dame Antonia Romeo DCB, to deliver the Prime Minister’s priorities, Ministers will also implement a number of changes to:
Continue exploring new ways to reduce administrative burdens and speed up Government decision making, building on existing progress to digitise processes and improve efficiency.
Introduce a new accountability framework, working with permanent secretaries, to set clear expectations and measurable targets to drive delivery of the Prime Minister’s priorities, and innovation within their Departments, and hold people to account for doing so.
This is far from the limit of the Government’s ambition. We are scoping the significant longer-term opportunities for simplifying Government processes, to “ungum” the system and ultimately drive growth and deliver faster outcomes for people. Reforming these fundamentals will increase our capacity to get on with the business of government: delivering for the British public.
[HCWS1467]
Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill
Nick Thomas-Symonds ExcerptsTuesday 17th March 2026
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Act 2026 View all Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Act 2026 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I am pleased to open the debate on this short Bill that has a straightforward, singular aim. It seeks to amend the statutory limits on the number of ministerial salaries available, currently capped at 109, to 120. That reflects the average size of Government since 2010 and largely ends the practice of unpaid Ministers. It will ensure that the Prime Minister of the day has the flexibility needed to appoint enough paid Ministers to meet the demands of modern government.
It may be helpful to explain the context of the Bill before us. Under the constitution, the monarch appoints the Prime Minister as the person most able to command the confidence of the House of Commons. All ministerial appointments thereafter are made by the monarch on the sole advice of the Prime Minister. There is a statutory limit on how many ministerial salaries are available, as set out in the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975. The current limit of 109 salaries has not been changed since then. There is a separate statutory limit on the number of Ministers who can sit and vote in the House of Commons, whether paid or unpaid, under the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975. This limit is 95, and the Bill before us does not change that. There is no equivalent limit on the number of peers able to serve as Ministers.
The Ministerial and other Salaries Act also sets out the salaries that should be paid to eight other officeholders: the Speakers of both Houses, the Leaders of the Opposition in both Houses, the Chief Opposition Whips in both Houses and two assistant Opposition Whips in the House of Commons. The Bill does not seek to amend the number of salaries allocated to those roles. Within that limit of 109, 83 salaries can be allocated at Secretary of State, Minister of State and Parliamentary Under-Secretary ranks; a further four salaries are allocated to the Lord Chancellor, the Attorney General, the Solicitor General and the Advocate General for Scotland; and 22 salaries are allocated to Government Whips.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Given the economic situation, the public expect restraint at the moment. They also expect leadership—and that means ministerial leadership. Does the Paymaster General seriously believe that the public will welcome this? The explanatory notes tell us that it will involve a payroll hike of between 13% and 19% for that group of people, plus superannuation and severance payments, which is not an insignificant sum. Has he considered perhaps reducing, rather than increasing, the number of Ministers?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am genuinely surprised by that intervention, because when I was taking the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill through the House, the fact that Ministers in the Lords are unpaid was raised not only by Conservative Front Benchers in this House, but by the Conservative leader in the Lords. The right hon. Gentleman is very much out of step with his own Front Benchers. On the substance of his point, I give the reassurance that the freeze on ministerial salaries absolutely remains. This is not about the level of salary for individuals; it is about the number of salaries available for the Prime Minister to allocate.
Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
I may be at risk of making myself fantastically unpopular, but I think I can do so having no prospect whatsoever of reaching ministerial office again. Although I am perfectly willing to admit that the previous Government did not do this, does the Paymaster General agree that a Government will at some point have to reconsider the constant freezing of the ministerial salary? It has to increase, or we will get to the point of there being no meaningful reward for ministerial office, which I think could have a detrimental impact on the calibre of people we can attract over the long term. He is being very bold on this, so why not be bold with ministerial salaries?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I remind the House that what we are discussing—and what is in scope—is the number of ministerial appointments, not the salaries of Ministers.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
If ever Ministers were looking for a trade union leader, we have found one in the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden). Having already held very high office and been Deputy Prime Minister, he should perhaps worry less about future ambitions.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The freeze remains in place.
The 1975 Act sets cumulative limits on the salaries allocated to Secretaries of State, Ministers of State and Parliamentary Under-Secretaries. Within the overall limit of 83, the cumulative limits are 21 Secretary of State rank salaries; 50 Secretary of State and Minister of State rank salaries; and 83 Secretary of State, Minister of State and Parliamentary Under-Secretary rank salaries. The salary limits were set in 1975, which is over half a century ago. As a result of the demands of modern government, all Governments since 2010 have consistently featured larger ministerial teams than the existing Act’s provisions permit to be paid. Team numbers ranged from an average of 118 in the Cameron and May Governments to 123 in the Sunak Government. There are 122 personnel in the current Government.
That has led to an unsatisfactory position in which Governments of all parties have become dependent on Ministers being willing and able to work unpaid. To be fair, historically that has predominantly fallen on Ministers in the other place. I do not think that is right. Lords Ministers work incredibly hard, and they often manage some of the broadest and most demanding portfolios across Government. I am sure that the whole House can support the notion that Ministers should be paid for what they do. This is a Government of service. We have more state-educated Cabinet Ministers than ever before, and it is right for Ministers to be paid for the job they do, and to focus on that job rather than relying on external funding.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for his typical courtesy. I am sure that there will be wide agreement with his proposition that someone who is doing a ministerial job ought to be paid for it, and such jobs should not be reserved for the people who can afford not to be paid. However, on the principle that a bigger Government is not necessarily a better Government, can he guarantee that if there is an increase in the number of paid ministerial posts, there will not be a commensurate increase in the number of unpaid ministerial posts?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I have every sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman’s point, but the number 120 is not an objective for the Government to become bigger; it is the average size of the Governments we have had since 2010 in any event. We are not trying to expand the number of unpaid Ministers—far from it. We are trying to ensure that all Ministers in the Government are paid rather than expanding the number, which he quite rightly draws attention to.
To summarise, the Bill increases the cap on ministerial salaries from 109 to 120. All additional salaries will be allocated at either Secretary of State, Minister of State or Parliamentary Secretary rank, at the discretion of the Prime Minister. The salaries operate cumulatively, which means that salaries not allocated at a senior rank can be used to pay a Minister at a more junior rank within the limits. The Bill will therefore make provision for: one additional salary at Secretary of State rank, increasing the limit to 22; four additional salaries at either Secretary of State or Minister of State rank, increasing the overall limit from 50 to 54; and 11 additional salaries at either Secretary of State, Minister of State or Parliamentary Secretary rank, increasing the overall limit from 83 to 94.
Given that cumulative structure, if the Prime Minister of the day chose to allocate the salaries to the most senior Minister possible, that would result in one extra salary for a Secretary of State, three for Ministers of State and seven for Parliamentary Secretaries. The limits on the Lord Chancellor, Attorney General, Solicitor General, Advocate General for Scotland and Government Whips salaries will remain unchanged. The limits on the other office-holder salaries will also remain unchanged.
Sir Julian Lewis
I am sorry to come in again. One of the things that I have never quite understood, given that the workload is broadly the same, is why there is a differential in salary between the different levels of Minister—particularly in the Lords, where their jobs are effectively the same. Why are some Ministers of State or Under-Secretaries paid a different amount? After all, whatever our seniority, we are all paid exactly the same as Members of this House. Why would they not all be paid the same?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The right hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. If we go back to the debates from 1975, we will see some of the reasons why that is the case. We have always differentiated not just in the ranks but in salaries. That is also how we have done it historically for Law Officers. It does not necessarily mean that there is a logic behind it, but it is the historical system we have inherited. The Bill is meant to correct just one of the anomalies. That is not to say that there are not others, as the right hon. Gentleman sets out.
The increase to 120 salaries reflects the average number of Ministers since 2010, as set out in clause 1. Set against the existing limit of 95 Ministers who can be Members of this place under the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, 25 salaries will effectively be reserved for Lords Ministers. As I indicated when responding to the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Hertsmere, the Bill does not increase the pay of individual Ministers—I take a different view from him on that. With the exception of Lords pay in 2019, the salaries of Ministers have not increased since 2008 and the Prime Minister maintained the salary freeze upon entering office. The Bill does not change that position.
Sir Oliver Dowden
The Minister has made frequent reference to the figure of 120 Ministers. Further to the intervention by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), why not legislate to make that a fixed cap on the number of Ministers? In my experience of advising many Ministers and being involved in many reshuffles, there is always an enormous temptation just to squeeze one more in, and then another. So although there may be a cap of 120 Ministers, there could be some new brief and, before we know it, we will have 125 Ministers in total, with 120 salaried and five unpaid, and we will be back where we started. If the Minister wishes to gain the consent of the House of Commons for increasing the number of salaried posts—and he makes a convincing argument for doing so—why not guard against that risk by introducing an absolute cap on the number of Ministers?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I can reassure the former Deputy Prime Minister that that is absolutely not the objective of the Bill. He will have been involved in more reshuffles than me over the many years that he was either in No. 10 or subsequently as a Minister, but the objective is that we do not have the situation where there are unpaid Minister. That is the very clear objective of the Bill. The purpose of the legislation is that the Prime Minister has the flexibility to appoint enough paid Ministers to meet the demands of modern Government.
There is general acceptance, which I agree with, that anyone in the country should aspire to be a Minister, no matter their background, without having to rely on personal wealth in lieu of a salary. On that basis, I hope that this short piece of legislation will command the support of Members across the House. I commend the Bill to the House.
Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill
Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins, as I open the proceedings in the Committee of the whole House. I set out the core arguments for this Bill in my Second Reading speech, so I will not rehearse them again, although I have not matched the Teddy Taylor standard from 1975. However, for the benefit of the Committee, I will outline the two clauses and why they should stand part of the Bill.
Clause 1 amends paragraph 2 of part V of schedule 1 to the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975, which determines the maximum number of salaries that may be paid to certain ministerial office holders. Sub-paragraph (a) replaces the previous provision for 21 salaries at Secretary of State rank with a new provision for 22 salaries, sub-paragraph (b) replaces the previous provision for 50 salaries at Secretary of State rank and Minister of State rank with a new provision for 54 salaries, and sub-paragraph (c) replaces the previous provision for 83 salaries at Secretary of State rank, Minister of State rank and Parliamentary Secretary rank with a new provision of 94 salaries. This increases the total number of ministerial salaries available by 11. As I have said, the new limits are cumulative, meaning that the Prime Minister has the discretion to allocate salaries to a large number of Ministers at more junior ranks within those limits, if so desired.
Clause 2 sets out the extent, commencement and short title of the Bill. The Bill extends to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Of course, the Bill comes into force on Royal Assent. I very much look forward to the rest of the debate and seeing the Bill on the statute book soon.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I will try to be brief on those two questions. It was the usual precise contribution, as ever, from the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. First, why those totals? Because they reflect the average practice since 2010. Perhaps to reassure the hon. Gentleman, we are trying to look at the existing practice rather than looking at additional totals in the future. Secondly, on whether we are ending the practice of having unpaid Ministers, which has largely been ended, that is exactly the intention of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
Bill reported, without amendment.
Third Reading
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I will keep my remarks brief. I just want to thank Members across the House for their contributions to the debate. I am sure there are issues of House of Lords reform that are far wider than this Bill, and that we will continue the debate on that in due course. If I may say a word to the officials and the team who put the Bill together, Members across the House are grateful for their work. I commend this Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Oral Answers to Questions
Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
I should start by referring to my entries in the Members’ Register of Financial Interests about my books and to my background as a historian. I thank my hon. Friend for such an excellent opening question. He will be pleased to hear that the Government are to consider the resumption of the Official History Programme, which I know is of particular interest to him. Indeed, work is continuing on two previously commissioned studies: one on the history of the Joint Intelligence Committee and one on the history of the UK’s nuclear deterrent.
Laurence Turner
I draw the House’s attention to my vice-chairship of the all-party parliamentary group for archives and history. I strongly welcome the statement that my right hon. Friend has just made to the House. For more than 100 years, the Official History Programme provided valuable insight on matters such as war, peace and social policy. The Pilling review concluded that it should continue, so it is a welcome update that new works will be commissioned. Will the House be further updated on progress on the commissioning of those new works?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Yes, absolutely. Historical perspective improves the work of Government—100%. The programme began in 1908. It was concentrated then on naval and military matters. It was expanded by Harold Wilson in 1966 to look at peacetime matters as well. I certainly will update the House on the commissioning of new works.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
When we go to get tickets on a Wednesday for PMQs, we see the story of the suffragette movement on the walls. What assessment has the Minister made of the importance of teaching the women’s suffrage movement as a compulsory component of the Official History Programme, particularly given its role in advancing democratic participation and strengthening pupils’ understanding of civic rights and responsibilities, such as voting?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman on the importance of teaching the campaign for women’s suffrage. I should also update him, seeing as he has asked the question, that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is overseeing a significant history project akin to the Official History Programme covering the period of the troubles.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
Since leaving the European Union, it has never been more important to work alongside the EU in the global context that we face. It is in our country’s interest to have a stronger trading and security relationship. Our new strategic partnership with the EU is good for bills, good for jobs and good for borders. We continue our negotiations ahead of the next summit.
Dr Sandher
Reform Members promised us that torching our relationship with Europe would make us richer and stronger. They were wrong on both counts. Higher import barriers have driven up costs by £200, and a continent with wider divisions makes us weaker. How the Government will show the courage needed to build our relationship with Europe, make us stronger and make life here more affordable?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
We are building a stronger relationship every week to improve our economic operation and drive growth in this country. The EU is our biggest market, and the deals that we are negotiating on emissions, energy trading and food and agriculture trade will reduce costs for businesses and offer better prices and more choice to consumers.
Mr Charters
As my constituents head off to beaches in Benidorm, open-top buses in Barça and city breaks in Copenhagen over Easter, they will be sending holiday snaps and making calls home to their families. Will the Minister update the House on what discussions he has had with his European counterparts on cutting roaming charges for UK travellers, which came back to bite Brits thanks to the Tories’ botched Brexit?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Those trips sound wonderful, and my hon. Friend is right to raise the issue, which impacts many families travelling to Europe. The Government work to strengthen the UK’s relationship with the EU on a number of fronts, and I will ensure that that issue is considered as well.
Steve Race
I welcome the Government’s changed approach to our vital relationship with the EU. As a member of the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly, I know how much it has been welcomed by our partners in Europe, as well as by my residents in Exeter. Ahead of the next session of the PPA later in March, will the Minister set out the agenda for deepening co-operation and trust beyond the agenda agreed at last May’s EU-UK summit?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
At this year’s summit, the EU and the UK agreed commitments over a wide range of areas, from trade and youth opportunities to security and defence co-operation. We are making good progress on all those areas, but as my hon. Friend says, there is now a forward programme. This Government will not be restricted by ideology. We take a ruthlessly pragmatic approach across different sectors to what is in our national economic interest.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
After at least 15 major U-turns, it is helpful to check which promises the Government still intend to keep. On 22 July 2024, when I asked the Prime Minister whether he could promise that he would not accept the automatic application of EU rules unless they had been specifically approved by this Parliament, he answered simply, “Yes.” Can the Minister say that it is still the Government’s position that we will not be required to adopt new European Union legislation?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Of course there will still be a role for Parliament in the mechanism, as set out in last May’s common understanding. The Conservatives have to own the choice they are making here. Through our food and drink agreement, we will take away costs from businesses, take away red tape and have a downward pressure on food prices. The Conservatives will want at the next election to put that red tape back and put those costs up. That is their choice, and I welcome the debate with them.
Mike Wood
The Minister knows very well that the choice was that of the biggest democratic exercise in UK history. His party promised to respect the result of that referendum but is instead seeking to row back on it. Members of the House and the wider public will have heard that the Minister clearly did not rule out the UK having to adopt new European Union legislation. The Minister will know from his time as shadow International Trade Secretary that we would never accept a trade agreement where the arbiter is an institution on one side, so can he at least rule out having the European Court of Justice as a body adjudicating in any disputes that follow from his reset?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The shadow Minister has not read the common understanding and the mechanism that is set out. There is an independent arbitration panel, with the role of the European Court of Justice restricted to the interpretation of EU law but not binding on the overall decision of the panel. He ought to read the detail in the agreement. We were talking about history earlier. My best piece of advice to him is to do his research before he asks his questions.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
The Cabinet Office provided support to the Department for Work and Pensions on this matter, including by sharing the lessons learned from the recent transition of the civil service pension scheme, which hon. Members were discussing a moment or two ago.
Lorraine Beavers
Last week, I heard that the Government have made Capita the preferred bidder for a £700 million contract for shared services across Departments. Are they having a laugh? Given Capita’s appalling performance in administrating the civil service pension scheme, which has affected hundreds of my constituents, will the Minister urgently review the procurement process for this contract? Will he commit to bringing this work back in-house to ensure that Capita does not mess this contract up as well?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has sought and received specific assurances from Capita regarding the Synergy contract. Members across the House should be in no doubt about this Government’s desire to hold Capita robustly to account for its responsibilities under its contracts.
Jeff Smith (Manchester Withington) (Lab)
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
On the recovery plan, the Government have ensured that hardship loans are in place. The Government are monitoring Capita and holding it to account on the recovery plan. The priority is to stabilise the service; there will then be a commercial discussion on cost.
Susan Murray
On 23 February, the Cabinet Office confirmed that hardship loans would not be available to dependants or surviving spouses of civil service pension scheme members. That left one of my constituents alone, with two children and just one income after sadly losing their partner. Can the Minister explain how much it would have cost to provide support to dependants? Can he tell me how many people have been left without support as a result of this decision?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I would be grateful if the hon. Member wrote to me about that worrying case; I am more than happy to look in to it. The objective is, first, to try to ensure that people are not left without support, but I should also tell the House that the Cabinet Office has already withheld moneys from Capita for not meeting milestones, and our contractual rights are reserved in respect of Capita and the previous provider, MyCSP.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
Both contracts that the hon. Gentleman refers to were negotiated by the previous Government; he might want to reflect on that. In both those contracts, we are reserving our contractual rights. The Cabinet Office has already withheld payments from Capita for not meeting particular milestones, so the hon. Gentleman can rest assured that we will use every lever in these contracts to enforce them.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend makes a really important point. We have agreed an ambitious security and defence partnership with the EU. We are negotiating a deal on carbon emissions trading. We are in exploratory talks about an electricity agreement. All those things assist with our economic and energy security, and the Conservative party is opposed to them.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Nick Thomas-Symonds
There is a robust recovery plan in place. On the specific case that the hon. Gentleman raises, if he could please ask his staff to escalate it up to me, I will look at it.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
Given the progress made by the Infected Blood Compensation Authority, will the Paymaster General update the House? Over £140 million has been spent by the inquiry. Has he had any conversations with Sir Brian Langstaff on when will be the right time to close down that inquiry, and whether he has wider lessons about the way that public inquiries function?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, and I again pay tribute to him for his work, over some time, on this matter. He is right to highlight the significant progress that has been made on the speed of payments. He also highlights a really important point about how we will learn lessons. It is really important to learn lessons about public inquiries, their length, and providing value for money going forward.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
We are looking forward to welcoming the Paymaster General at a meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood in the near future. He knows my constituent Mary Grindley, who has been a prominent campaigner. She lost her husband, and since then has campaigned for over half her life for compensation. She has recently been in touch with me to say that those making claims for the loss of loved ones are concerned about the lack of speed with which payments are being made. Will he update the House in future, if not now, on progress in paying those who were affected, rather than infected?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The milestones that were set out for paying infected people were met by the end of 2025. The first payment to an affected person was also on time, and was made before the end of last year. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we are now moving into a new phase of paying affected people, which will clearly be a larger number. I will, of course, happily write to him with the precise figures on that.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
In the light of the arrest of three individuals yesterday for Chinese espionage, can the Minister confirm that security vetting for all special advisers is up to date?
Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)
Earlier this week, those of us on the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee took evidence from the Cabinet Office on the significant issues with the administration of the civil service pension scheme—issues that are plaguing many of our constituents. It was quite clear that poor contract management played a role, particularly in building up a significant backlog of cases ahead of the problematic transfer to Capita. What steps are being taken in the Cabinet Office to improve the management of contracts with private suppliers, so that this does not happen again?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and to PACAC for the work they are doing on this. As I indicated, our first priority is to deal with the immediate situation through hardship loans, and then through a robust recovery plan. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that management of these contracts and robust enforcement of contractual terms will be vital going forward.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
A few moments ago, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster indicated to me that the appointment of the head of the propriety and ethics team was done by an external recruitment process. Will he tell me how many other people were interviewed?
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
There are still serious questions to answer on the administration of the civil service pension scheme. When my constituent Campell tragically died in April last year, his wife, Gaynor, waited months to receive the death in service payment; in December, they found out that MyCSP had paid it into the wrong bank account. I have written to the Minister about this case. Will he intervene to ensure that Capita pay Gaynor without further delay?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am happy to look into the individual case, but I repeat that the Government reserve their right under both of these contracts, whether it is the existing Capita contract or MyCSP’s previous responsibilities, to take these matters up.
Alex Burghart
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to return to this subject. It is very clear that the Government do not wish to have an investigation into what happened at the meeting between Lord Mandelson, the Prime Minister and Palantir, and everything that occurred between that meeting and the direct award given to Palantir later in the year. This is clearly a possible conflict of interest. Given that the Government do not wish to investigate the matter, what options are at the disposal of the House to force such an investigation?
Lord Mandelson
Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts(2 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
I beg to move amendment (a), at the end to add
“except papers prejudicial to UK national security or international relations.”
Members will be aware that the Government came to the House on Monday for an update following the release of 3 million pages of documents by the United States Department of Justice regarding Jeffrey Epstein. As the Government said on Monday, and as I reiterate now, Jeffrey Epstein was a convicted paedophile and a despicable individual who revelled in abusing the vulnerable and destroyed the lives of countless women and girls.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I will complete my introductory remarks, and then I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman.
What Jeffrey Epstein did was unforgivable, and every time his crimes are in the public eye, victims must relive their trauma. His victims are at the forefront of my mind, as I am sure they are for all right hon. and hon. Members in this debate. The Prime Minister has said that anyone with relevant information must come forward and co-operate with investigations, so that Jeffrey Epstein’s victims get the justice that they have been denied for so long. As for Peter Mandelson, his decision to maintain a close relationship with a convicted paedophile, including discussing private Government business, is not just wrong, it is abhorrent.
Stephen Flynn
I thank the Minister for giving way. I am curious. Earlier we heard the Prime Minister state that he knew that Peter Mandelson had maintained a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Did the Minister also know, and if so, did he express any concerns to the Prime Minister at that time about his decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States of America?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
On the second point, I played no personal role in the appointment process, but as the Prime Minister said, the depth and extent of Peter Mandelson’s relationship was not known at the time of his appointment. As soon as that came to light, the Prime Minister acted decisively and sacked Peter Mandelson.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
Given the public disgust, the sickening behaviour of Peter Mandelson, and the importance of transparency, in 2022 I proposed a Humble Address, seeking information about personal protective equipment, which the Conservative party resisted—my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) mentioned that earlier. Should the ISC not have the same role now, keeping public confidence in the process?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Let me pick up this point, which I know a number of right hon. and hon. Members have raised. In the first instance, the process will be conducted and led by the Cabinet Secretary, with unimpeachable integrity—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) shouts “cover-up” about the Cabinet Secretary, and he really should consider that remark, I think. Secondly, this will be conducted by Cabinet Office lawyers.
The House is asking, fairly, a broader question about scrutiny, as is my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), and there is a role, as the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee said, for Select Committees in how they scrutinise this, as well as existing powers for the ISC in terms of scrutinising this—[Interruption.] I am hearing what the House is saying, and I will take that point away.
Several hon. Members rose—
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I will take one more intervention, and then I have to make some progress.
Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)
It is disappointing that neither the Opposition nor the Government have referenced the important role that the ISC could have here. As a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee—I have spoken to its Chair, the Lord Beamish, and we heard earlier from its deputy Chair—we feel that the Committee should be involved to help this process on behalf of Parliament, and I urge my right hon. Friend to speak to No.10 to ensure we get that, and that it happens quickly.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
As I think I have already said, I will take the point away. My hon. Friend knows from our personal details on a different matter my respect for the Intelligence and Security Committee and its work.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I will give way to the former Deputy Prime Minister, then I have to make some progress.
Sir Oliver Dowden
The point here is not about impugning the integrity of the Cabinet Secretary; the point is about confidence in this House. The temperature in the House seems to be that most people feel that involving the ISC will give both this House and, more importantly, the public confidence in the process. It sounds as if the Minister is sympathetic to that point, so will he confirm that he is sympathetic to it, and that he will be making the case to Downing Street for that tweak?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I was not accusing the hon. Member for South Suffolk of impugning the Cabinet Secretary; my point was that the process is official-led and decided on by Cabinet Office lawyers. On the broader point that the House is making, I can do no more than say I hear what Members are saying, and I will take that point away.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I will give way once more to the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, but I must make some progress.
Simon Hoare
I am grateful to the Minister—he knows that the House knows that he is an honourable gentleman in every sense of that term. The mood of the House is clear, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) has set out, as have others, the role of the ISC, and the expectation that it discharges these serious and sensitive matters on behalf of the House, and that the Government have confidence. During the course of the debate may I invite him to go back to No.10, take advice, and not press his amendment this afternoon? I think that would reflect the will of the House and allow people to start moving these issues forward. To press the amendment today would, I suggest, be a retrograde step for the Government and their reputation.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
As I said to the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden), I will take the first point away. I disagree with the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) on the importance of the amendment, which I will come back to in moment. There are really important public policy issues that I want to deal with in that respect.
Let me return to the thrust of my speech.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I will give way in a moment.
Let us be clear: no Government Minister of any political party should have behaved in the way that Peter Mandelson did, and it was absolutely disgraceful. The alleged leaking of crucial documents to help millionaires to profit in the middle of the global crash and lying to contemporaries, the Prime Minister and the public are both shameful and shameless.
Several hon. Members rose—
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Let me finish this point; I will take some more interventions in a moment.
Peter Mandelson will now account for his actions and conduct. That is why the Cabinet Office has referred this matter to the police. The Metropolitan police has released a statement confirming that it has
“received a number of reports into alleged misconduct in public office including a referral from the UK Government.”
The statement also confirmed that the Metropolitan police has started a criminal investigation in relation to potential misconduct in public office offences and that it will
“continue to assess all relevant information brought to our attention as part of this investigation and won’t be commenting any further at this time.”
The House will understand that it would not be appropriate for me to comment further on that particular development.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. We are getting very carried away with the way in which the work of the Metropolitan police is being thrown around. I am meant to have been contacted, but neither I nor the House has been contacted. The House will understand that I am not responsible for the ministerial answers—let me put that on the record and see if we can tidy this up a little.
For the avoidance of doubt, I understand that there is an ongoing police investigation into this case. However, no charges have been brought. The House sub judice resolution does not apply. In that context, it is up to the Ministers how they reply, but the House rules do not prevent them from answering fully. Please do not hide behind the possibility that something is not factual—let us get this on the record. I have still not had a phone call on this matter.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I hear precisely what you say, Mr Speaker, and I entirely accept that interpretation of the sub judice rule. I am certainly not hiding behind that; indeed, I will come on to some remarks about this issue in a moment.
Mr Speaker
Order. Maybe I can help a little. I think the answer was, “We can’t do this, because there is a police investigation.” We have to recognise that that is not a reason, so do not let us play off each other. I have made my point from the Chair.
Several hon. Members rose—
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I will take one intervention from a Member on the Government Benches, then I will take one from a Member on the Opposition Benches.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I made this point on Monday, but it is really important to make it again. The vast majority of Members in this House come here to represent our constituencies, and people across this House will recognise that I do my best to represent Harlow as much as I possibly can. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Does the Minister agree that the reason why the case of Peter Mandelson is so damning and upsets so many people across this House is because when that individual was in the other place—potentially when he was in this place—he was not representing the people he was supposed to represent? Instead, he was representing a vile paedophile. Does the Minister also agree that the reason for the strength of feeling across the House is that Peter Mandelson is letting down all of us?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Yes. The public rightly demand the highest standards from those in office and from Ministers. We should be held to the highest standards, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right. Peter Mandelson fell far, far short of those standards, and his behaviour has been revealed to be appalling. As the Prime Minister has said—
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. The Minister has been giving way and will give way, but you cannot all stay on your feet shouting, “Will he give way?” Let us give the Minister some time; he will take your interventions when he feels he is in the mood to take them.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will take an intervention from the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas), then I will take another intervention.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
At the point immediately prior to Peter Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador, the UK had a respected ambassador to the United States already in Dame Karen Pierce. Given that fact, the known abhorrence of Jeffrey Epstein and the appalling previous judgment of Peter Mandelson, why did the Government still decide that, on balance, it was a risk worth taking to appoint paedophile-adjacent Peter Mandelson to the post of ambassador?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
May I pay tribute to Dame Karen Pierce? She represents the finest of our foreign service.
Governments do make political appointments to these posts; that has happened, and it is a long-standing practice for a small number of posts. The Prime Minister has already said that if he knew then what he knows now, Peter Mandelson would not have been anywhere near the Government.
Several hon. Members rose—
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I will give way to the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee and then my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen).
Dame Meg Hillier
I am no longer the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee.
It seems that we are in something of a muddle here. Had the Opposition named the ISC in the Humble Address, as has happened in the past, there would have been no debate in this House. Putting all the information openly in the public domain could have risks, but there are well-worn filters through Parliament, such as through Committee corridor—various Committees could have locus in this space—to properly and sensitively handle information that, in my time, has never leaked from a Committee. Does the Minister agree? That would ensure that we on Committee corridor are holding the Government to account on behalf of Parliament. There is consensus that everybody wants as much information as possible in the public domain so that we can get to the bottom of what has happened in this egregious situation.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the existing mechanisms of scrutiny, and I give her great credit for her work. As I have said in response to Opposition Members, I will take that point away.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
On the point about Peter Mandelson letting people down, let me say that the people let down the most are the victims of Jeffrey Epstein. Does the Minister agree that we would not be discussing this disgraceful situation if it had not been that people listened not to the women—the victims—who came forward in the first place, but to men in power, men with deep pockets and men advising those in power? Do we not need to put the victims at the heart of this, not just ourselves?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is the victims—the women and girls who were victims of the trafficking and the appalling, abhorrent behaviour of Jeffrey Epstein—who should be at the forefront of our minds.
Several hon. Members rose—
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I will make a bit of progress, then I will give way a few more times.
Not only has the Cabinet Office referred the evidence about Peter Mandelson’s time as a Minister to the police, but we are taking action going forward, in the Hillsborough law before this House, to introduce a duty of candour for all public servants that will make it an offence to lie to the public. We will make it a criminal offence to do anything but act with openness and integrity when things go wrong. That is the action that this Government are taking to prevent future cover-ups and injustices. It is a statement of intention that we want to enshrine that capacity to speak truth to power. As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North said, the voices of victims should be at the forefront, not, as in this case, a group of powerful men. We are putting an end to the situation in which powerful people are able to avoid justice.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman in one moment.
The Government should rightly be tested and questioned by this House, but the action that is taken by this Government is crucial now. Earlier this week, the Prime Minister asked the Cabinet Secretary to review all available information regarding Peter Mandelson’s contacts with Jeffrey Epstein during his period as a Minister and to report back as a matter of urgency. After an initial review of some documents, the Cabinet Secretary made the decision to refer the matter to the police, with the Prime Minister’s support. I should say that the Government stand ready to provide any support that the police require as part of their investigation.
On that note, I will give way to the Father of the House.
Sir Edward Leigh
We are all agreed on the character of Lord Mandelson, but I am not sure that we will make much progress if we are just repeating ourselves on that, because we all agree. The reputation of the House is at stake, and what the Opposition have to do is hold the Prime Minister to account. I have listened very carefully to the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Minister. He and the Prime Minister have been asked on repeated occasions whether, when this appointment was made, the Prime Minister knew that Mandelson had continued his relationship with Epstein after the first conviction. That is a very direct question. The reputation of the House is at stake, so will the Minister now answer that question?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The Prime Minister answered that question at Prime Minister’s questions. He was lied to about the depth and extent of the relationship.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I stand here acutely aware that I am the Member of Parliament for Hartlepool, and I think today I speak for Hartlepudlians when I look at the evidence before us and say: undoubtedly, Peter Mandelson is a traitor. On that basis, it is important that the public have confidence in this process. Does the Minister agree?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I absolutely agree; my hon. Friend expresses the anger felt by many across the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I will make some more progress, before giving way a few more times.
Members will recall that back in September—in the light of the additional information contained in emails written by Peter Mandelson that were released at the time—the Prime Minister asked the Foreign Secretary to withdraw him as ambassador with immediate effect. The emails released showed that the nature and extent of Peter Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein was materially different from that which was known at the time of his appointment.
The issue over which Peter Mandelson was withdrawn from Washington was information not available at the time that the due diligence was done. A due diligence process was conducted by the Cabinet Office, and a security vetting process—they are different—was also carried out. Since entering government, we have already taken action to strengthen the process for making direct appointments for ambassadors specifically, and for direct ministerial appointments more generally.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
There is clearly concern about Government amendment (a)—that it does not go far enough to enable scrutiny of those documents that might be withheld. Across the House, there is a growing consensus that the Intelligence and Security Committee could provide a way forward for the independent scrutiny of those documents. Could a manuscript amendment be tabled to that effect—something we can all join together and vote for, so that we can take this serious matter forward?
Mr Speaker
A manuscript amendment would be a matter for the Chair. As the Chair, I would be sympathetic to what the House needs to ensure that we get the best.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Well, I hope that the House always takes me at my word when I say that I will take these matters away with me.
The Cabinet Secretary will be taking independent advice on the decisions he takes through this process, and he intends for that advice to take two forms. First, he will have the advice of an independent KC throughout the process, and secondly, there will be scrutiny of his approach by the ISC. I hope that gives the House the necessary reassurance.
I have some past experience of drafting Humble Addresses on different matters in this House myself. The Opposition motion is clearly extensive—I think the House recognises that—but it is imperative that the Government protect sensitive information that could damage national security or relations with our international partners.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I remember the Humble Addresses that were tabled in this place during the Brexit years. The Minister will know that, in opposition, we never felt the need to put national security or international relations on the face of a motion itself, because that was an implied protection.
Can I ask the Minister two things? First, he helpfully said that the ISC will be involved in scrutiny of the process. Does he mean the process by which the Cabinet Secretary looks at documents, or will the ISC itself be able to see documents? Secondly, I think we all understand what the Minister means by “national security”, but could he tell us what he means by “international relations”? It is quite a broad term, so I would welcome some clarity.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I think my hon. Friend and I have similar memories of that particular Parliament. To give an example, in the motion relating to Lebedev, we included the words,
“in a form which may contain redactions, but such redactions shall be solely for the purposes of national security.”
When I was involved in drafting Humble Addresses, I was very precise about that.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
I am really grateful to the Minister for giving way. I know that he takes the role of the ISC very seriously, and I appreciate that he is trying to help the House with what he has just said. However, he will appreciate that the difficulty for the House is that it needs to decide what to do in relation to the motion before it today; Members on both sides will have to decide how they should cast their vote. Although there is some reassurance in the fact that the Intelligence and Security Committee will be involved in the Cabinet Secretary’s process, that will not be possible before we have to reach a decision on this motion.
The principle here is surely this: the whole House cannot see everything. I have sympathy with the Minister in relation to national security material and, I am bound to say, rather more sympathy than my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) with regard to potentially sensitive material on international relations. Following the comments made by Government Members, including the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), is not the answer today that those on the Opposition Front would accept their motion including the concept that, if material is sensitive, it would be supplied only to the ISC, not to the whole House, but that everything should be disclosed to the House either via that route or via a route to the whole House?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Beyond the deadline to amend the motion—a familiar situation that the right hon. and learned Member and I have found ourselves in before—I want to say something very clearly. I hope the House takes my previous answer on this as having been given in good faith—
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister just said that the deadline has passed to table an amendment. Can you confirm, Mr Speaker, that you just told the House that you would be sympathetic to a manuscript amendment, which would not be subject to that deadline?
Mr Speaker
The Chair is able to select a manuscript amendment, for which there is a high bar. There is a lot to clear up and I am sure that things can move forward, but in a nutshell, the answer is yes.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I hope the House takes in good faith what I have sought to do in the course of my speech, let alone in the course of the debate. I think that scrutiny of the process is very important.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
No.
The scope of the motion could also include thousands of documents. It is obviously in the national interest to protect national security, and to be transparent and act with urgency—I completely accept that—but it is important that we now take time and care to balance those elements.
Several hon. Members rose—
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Let me make some progress, and I might come back to interventions.
The Government have tabled amendment (a), so that documents are published unless they prejudice national security or international relations—I know I was asked a specific question about international relations—because of course such documents might contain information about our relationship with our international allies and how we have approached them. It is obviously important for Governments to keep that information confidential, because it is in the national interest. I am also very conscious of another issue: I am definitely not seeking to hide behind the cloak of the Met police investigation, but of course we will also have to bear in mind the fact that documents might prejudice that investigation. That is something that we will continue to speak to the Met about.
We will of course do all we can to comply with the motion, as amended, and we will update the House accordingly. I also want to say to the House that, while the process of going through a significant number of documents might take a little time, it is important that the Government start the disclosure process—to the extent we can—today. That is what the Government will do in response to the debate and to the very reasonable questions that are being asked.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am someone who rewards effort, so as the right hon. Gentleman has put in such effort, I will give way.
Dr Murrison
May I return the compliment by telling the Minister how much I admire his ability and generosity in giving way? I think he is doing an exceptional job.
I understand where the Minister is coming from in relation to Government amendment (a). Perhaps I can describe an example of something that he may wish to see passed through the ISC that cannot be made publicly available—that is, which of our foreign allies had something to say about the appointment of Peter Mandelson to Washington. I appreciate that the Minister is never going to say precisely who that ally might be, but the nature of that correspondence is surely a matter of public interest, and therefore is of interest to this House, but it is not something that can be bruited abroad. The ISC provides the very obvious solution to discovering what representations were made, and what material was passed between our allies and the Cabinet Office, before this appointment was made. Can the Minister make that commitment?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I hope the House has seen, even over the course of this debate, the constructive approach I have tried to take on the role of the ISC in this process. That is precisely what I have done.
I want to turn now to another aspect of this matter, which is the peerage. Another action the Government are determined to take is to strip Peter Mandelson of his title, as the Prime Minister has set out. Frankly, I think people watching this debate will be bemused, because there is no other walk of life in which a person is unsackable unless a law is passed. We will therefore introduce primary legislation. The Government have written to the Chair of the Lords Conduct Committee to ask the Lords to consider what changes are required to modernise the process of the House in order to remove Lords quickly when they have brought either House into disrepute. The Government stand ready to support the House in whatever way is necessary to put any changes into effect.
Being in office is a privilege—every day is a privilege. That is why there is anger across this House about Peter Mandelson and his actions. The test for the Government in these circumstances is the action we take to respond. As I think has also come through in this debate, our utmost thoughts are with the victims: the women and girls who suffered at the hands of Jeffrey Epstein. Behind the emails, the photographs and the documents are many victims who were exposed to this network of abuse. They should be our priority in this matter, and I am sure they will be for the rest of this debate.