Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Written Statements

[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

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[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

Thursday 26th March 2026 Written Statements

[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 Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[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.

[The First Deputy Chairman]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 17th March 2026 Commons Chamber

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

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

I am pleased to open the debate on this 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.

[Sir Oliver Dowden]

And on the substance of my question?

[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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

1. If he will commission new works under the Official History Programme.

[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)]

2. What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the delivery of the civil service pension scheme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)]

20. What recent discussions he has had with EU counterparts on topics of mutual interest

[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.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[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)]

4. What steps he is taking to uphold standards in Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

9. What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the procurement of the business process services element of the Synergy programme in the context of shared services across Government.

[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)]

10. What steps he plans to take to consult the public on the design of the digital ID scheme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

11. What estimate he has made of the cost of the civil service pensions recovery plan.

[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)]

12. What steps his Department is taking to encourage the adoption of the inclusive personal protective equipment standard BS 30417 in Government procurement contracts.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

T2.   Thousands of former public sector workers are facing delays to their pension payments. Both MyCSP and Capita have catastrophically failed as the administrators of these pension funds, but the real failure is the Cabinet Office’s inability to negotiate contracts that include financial sanctions, in order to drive up performance. What will the Minister do to sort this out?

[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)]

T5.  Will the Minister join me in congratulating Ryan Cornish and Elliott Prentice, who are the Members of Youth Parliament for Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole, and their deputies, Ruth Simpkins and Lilee Bedwell, on a fantastic year? They have not just participated in our democracy; they have strengthened it locally. I know that the Government would support that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)]

T6. This week, we have seen volatility in the global energy markets, following the escalation of conflict across the middle east. Will the Minister set out how, in the face of global turbulence, he will deepen co-operation and trade with the EU, as well as our allies across the world? My constituents are very keen to see that happen.

[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)]

T7.  There should be no issue about our civil service being paid their pensions, but 56,000 people are not receiving their pension from Capita. My constituent, Erral McDonald, is due to retire at the end of the month, and despite countless messages to the Department, he has not yet even received his pension quote. My team has no way to escalate this matter. What reassurance can the Minister provide that the backlog will be cleared, and that my constituent, and all our constituents, will receive their pensions in full and on time in the coming weeks?

[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)]

T8.   Over the past few months, I have been involved in the new Long Eaton Business Partnership, which is bringing together business owners, private investors, health investors and local politicians. The goal is to shape the future of our town and revive Long Eaton’s town centre. Will the Minister tell us more about her work, through the new Office for the Impact Economy, to collaborate with social investors and philanthropists to bring funding to local communities?

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[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

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[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.

[Dr Luke Evans]

rose—

[Sir Oliver Dowden]

rose—

[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.

[Simon Hoare]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[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.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[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—]

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I will take one intervention—

[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.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I completely accept that, Mr Speaker.

[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.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[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.

[Dr Murrison]

Will the Minister give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Dr Murrison]

Will the Minister give way?

[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.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Membership of the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Written Statements

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

Lord Stirrup KG GCB AFC has been appointed as a full representative and vice-chair of the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly in place of Lord Ricketts GCMG GCVO.

The hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) has been appointed as a full representative of the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly in place of the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam).

The hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) has been appointed as a full representative of the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly in place of the hon. Member for Leicester East (Shivani Raja).

[HCWS1299]

Windsor Framework Decision: Northern Ireland Act 1998, Schedule 6B

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Written Statements

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

On 2 February, I will be meeting with the European Commissioner for Trade and Economic Security, Maroš Šefčovič, for this Government’s second meeting of the Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee. As part of this important meeting, the UK and the EU will take decisions to support our commitment to the Windsor framework.

At that meeting, the Government will agree to add one new act to the Windsor framework. The Government are committed to tackling barriers to trade for businesses across the UK. Northern Ireland obviously has a special trading relationship with the EU under the Windsor framework and it is therefore only right that the Government review all elements of Northern Ireland’s regulatory arrangements to ensure it can make the most of its unique dual market access, with data from 2024 showing that NI exports to the EU of goods in scope of the regulation totalled £247 million.

In accordance with paragraph 18(3) of schedule 6B to the Northern Ireland Act 1998, I am setting out in this statement why I am of the opinion that the conditions are met for this particular measure to be agreed on the basis that it would not create a new regulatory border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The condition in paragraph 18(2)(b) of that schedule is therefore met.

Type-approval framework for non-road mobile machinery used on roads—Regulation (EU) 2025/14

Regulation (EU) 2025/14 establishes a harmonised framework for road safety type-approval of mobile machinery that is occasionally used on public roads, complementing the current individual national rules. This regulation will not create a new regulatory border. This is based on the fact that most affected products in Northern Ireland are likely to be traded on a pan-European basis and manufacturers have indicated that they intend to continue to do so. The regulation is designed to ease access to the EU single market for this equipment and has been supported by industry. As such, manufacturers and traders are unlikely to face additional barriers to placing products on the Northern Ireland market or an incentive to cease doing so. This conclusion is based on a detailed assessment of existing vehicle registration data and detailed engagement with industry.

In order to provide additional confidence that manufacturers and traders will not face new regulatory barriers to placing goods on the Northern Ireland market, the Government commit to taking any necessary steps to protect the UK’s internal market, including considering equivalent measures in Great Britain where necessary.

In line with the Government presumption of alignment with EU vehicle regulations, the Government recognise the value to industry of maintaining equivalent standards in the UK and the EU, and will follow this principle in respect of non-road mobile machinery. This will have the added effect of avoiding barriers between Great Britain and Northern Ireland and delivering on the Government manifesto commitment to protect the internal market. We will continue to engage with industry throughout the remainder of the year, before consulting on how best to achieve these objectives once further technical details are published.

Next steps

The Government will shortly publish an explanatory memorandum on gov.uk pertaining to the decision referred to here. It will set out in further detail the Government view on any impacts that the above mentioned regulation would have on Northern Ireland, as well as additional evidence I considered when reaching my conclusion that it would not lead to a new regulatory border.

[HCWS1280]

Oral Answers to Questions

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

20. What steps he is taking to help strengthen the UK’s relations with the EU.

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

The Government agreed a new strategic partnership with the EU in May last year, delivering for UK jobs, easing the burden on bill payers and strengthening our borders. Whereas we are making significant progress, it seems the Conservative party and Reform would rip it up. Given that Reform has just recruited that well-known remainer, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), who knows what its latest position is.

[Yuan Yang]

The inflation figures out yesterday show that despite the Government’s good progress on energy prices, food inflation remains stubbornly high. Even the price of a Tesco meal deal is stuck at £4.25. The Government need to make food and life more affordable, so will the Minister update us on his negotiations over agrifood trade with the EU?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The sanitary and phytosanitary agreement removes export health certificates and routine border checks, slashing costs and red tape for agrifood trade. For example, businesses will save up to £200 per shipment, making trade cheaper and easier. The Conservative party wants to put those costs back.

[Callum Anderson]

My right hon. Friend will know that the UK and EU financial systems are closely linked by cross-border capital flows that support jobs on both sides of the channel. Regulatory co-operation is beneficial for financial stability, but our ability to diverge from some of those regulations can also support our competitiveness. Will the Minister set out a bit more about how he is working with the Treasury to ensure that the UK’s engagement with the EU on financial issues balances our strategic sovereignty and autonomy with our economic prosperity?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

That is precisely why the Government take a pragmatic approach. We choose to align in areas where it makes sense to do so. Where it makes sense to diverge, we will also continue to do so. We are always driven by our national interest.

[Victoria Collins]

Given the strength of power shown by the EU to the US, not only is the relationship with Europe more strategically important than ever, but it matters because of the £90 billion black hole in our economy and to people such as Hazel from Tring, whose medical devices family business has been cut by costs and bureaucracy since Brexit. When will the Government finally start taking seriously negotiations on a new EU-UK customs deal?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

On the hon. Lady’s first point, we agreed the new strategic security and defence partnership with the European Union in May last year, which is absolutely crucial. On the point about the food and drink agreement, we agreed just before Christmas that that will be completed by the time of the next summit.

[Alison Bennett]

A close and strong relationship with our European partners is vital to our interests. Mid Sussex is home to high-tech life sciences companies such as CSL Behring and Roche Diagnostics. The regulatory and trade barriers put up after Brexit have made business harder for them. With a mercurial Administration in the White House, as evidenced this week, surely it is time for the Minister to get behind Liberal Democrat calls for a bespoke customs union with the EU.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Our democratic mandate from the general election is clear: we will not rejoin the single market or the customs union, or go back to freedom of movement. However, what we do, and what I do every single week, is negotiate that closer UK-EU relationship, which is in our national interest. The hon. Lady and her colleagues should support that.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

This week the Prime Minister hit the phones again to protect our interests; meanwhile, the Leader of the Opposition risked undermining those efforts, acting almost like a Trump Trojan horse in this Chamber. Diplomacy is paying off: tariff threats are receding and Greenland solutions may be emerging. Does the Minister agree that we must always put country before party and work with the US and our European allies, and that our efforts should command cross-party support?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Leader of the Opposition should have risen to the occasion yesterday in a profound moment for the nation. She chose not to do so.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for travelling to Belfast later today for the East-West Council. As he knows, the council was created to strengthen ties within the United Kingdom, and one of the impediments to those economic ties is the Windsor framework. Knowing that punitive measures are still to be implemented, including customs required on parcels moving from one part of our country to another for ordinary consumers, does the Minister recognise that in building a better relationship with the European Union more pragmatism is required when it comes to Northern Ireland?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I look forward to visiting Belfast later today. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the East-West Council is an important part of our “Safeguarding the Union” arrangements. I certainly take a pragmatic and proportionate approach to the Windsor framework, which is one of the reasons I am so keen to get the food and drink agreement with the EU implemented as soon as possible, which, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, will mean we can reduce the levels of checks in the Irish sea.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

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

Since the Paymaster General was last in the Commons, the Health Secretary has said that Britain should rejoin the customs union, the Deputy Prime Minister has suggested rejoining the customs union, 13 Labour MPs have gone against the Whip and voted with the Liberal Democrats in favour of a customs union, 80% of Labour voters at the last election have said they want to rejoin the customs union, and the Business and Trade Secretary has said that it would be “crazy” not to join the customs union. It would seem that the only people in Labour opposed to the customs union are the Prime Minister and the Paymaster General. The right hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that in this one regard, I do not think he is crazy at all—I think he is doing the right thing. Will he tell the House why he thinks all the other members of the Labour party are so wrong?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

There is a real issue of democracy here, in the sense that we won a general election with a mandate to negotiate a closer UK-EU relationship. It is in our national interest to do so, and we have set out the red lines within which those negotiations are taking place. Listening to what the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is saying, it seems he has suddenly pivoted to supporting my approach—how welcome that would be.

[Alex Burghart]

I certainly support the right hon. Gentleman in telling the rest of the Labour party that they are wrong, although, given the success of the Labour Back Benchers in forcing U-turns on the Prime Minister recently, I wonder how long that position will hold.

Earlier this month, the Prime Minister told the BBC that he wants “closer alignment” with the single market—a serious policy development on which we have had no statement in the Commons. I hope that will be addressed very soon. Closer alignment will, of course, mean dynamic alignment, which will mean Britain following rules over which we have had no say. The Opposition will respectfully oppose such a move. In November, Downing Street sources told journalists that it was accepted that the UK would have to pay billions of pounds for closer alignment and market access. Will the Paymaster General confirm to the House that that is his understanding?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

To clarify, there are no access fees in regard to either the emissions trading system linkage or the food and drink agreement that is being negotiated. That is absolutely clear. In terms of moving forward, we take pragmatic decisions in the national interest in various sectors, which is why we opened negotiations on electricity trading before Christmas. The hon. Gentleman has crystalised the choice at the next general election: this Government are negotiating a deal that will bear down on food and energy bills, give law enforcement more tools to keep our country safe and create jobs; the Conservatives, for ideological reasons, are setting their face against those things. I would welcome that debate with them.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

We expect an EU reset Bill in the coming months to update the arrangements around our relationship with our European neighbours. Following the terrible Brexit deal delivered by the Conservatives and cheered on by the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), which trashed our economy and our international standing, a reset is essential, and we welcome it. Does the Minister agree that Parliament should have the ability to fully scrutinise the legislation to ensure that the Government deliver the change that we need and that we can hold Ministers’ feet to the fire as they set up new structures or committees as needed? To that end, will he assure the House that the Bill will contain enough detail to allow meaningful democratic accountability and that the specifics will not be kicked into secondary legislation?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Well, on the basis of my exchange with the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, I thoroughly look forward to bringing the Bill to the Commons and debating it fully. I can assure the hon. Lady that what we will be debating is why the Government’s approach is good for jobs and how it will bear down on bills for consumers. Members should not just believe what I say, but look at what the supermarkets said about the deal that was struck last year. I will also welcome a debate about how we will reduce trade barriers and costs for businesses. It is the Conservatives who want to put red tape and costs back on businesses. Good luck to them with that argument.

[Lisa Smart]

Yesterday, the Trade Secretary was the latest senior Government figure to break ranks by saying that it would be “crazy” not to look at a customs union with the EU. That position is already supported by the Prime Minister’s economic adviser, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Health Secretary. Since leaving the EU, many businesses including those in my constituency have found it harder to trade with our neighbours, which is having an obvious impact on the economy. The Government have changed their mind on many things since the last election, having said that they definitely were not going to. Does the Minister accept that it would save us all a lot of time, be the single biggest lever that the Government could pull to generate growth, and give those on his own Benches something that they are crying out for if he just agreed to crack on and start negotiations for a bespoke customs union with the EU?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

No, and the situation is not as the hon. Lady has described. The work that the Government are doing in building a closer EU-UK relationship is crucial, and we can do it alongside a trade deal with India and an economic deal with the United States that is saving jobs at Jaguar Land Rover. The Government’s position is in the national interest, and we will continue to pursue it.

[Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

4. What recent steps he has taken to establish a digital identity system.

--- Later in debate ---

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

5. What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to improve transparency in Government decision making.

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

The Prime Minister has given the independent ethics adviser the independence to initiate his own investigations, which is just one of the measures the Government have taken to improve transparency and standards. The high standards the Prime Minister expects of all of us who have the privilege of serving in high office are set out in the ministerial code.

[Ian Lavery]

With public trust in politics at an all-time low, I am grateful that the Government are implementing the Hillsborough law, and clearly the duty of candour should be extended to all public servants. Speaking truth to power is central to our democracy and to global democracy. Does the Minister agree that when the so-called leader of the free world stands up in public and lies with impunity about our great country and our allies at every opportunity he gets, there is no law or legislation that will ever restore public trust?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

On the first point, I met the families of the victims of the Manchester Arena bombings and the Hillsborough families only last week. It is critical that we get the balance right between allowing our intelligence services the secrecy that is essential to their work and having proper oversight. That is exactly the work the Government will engage in. On the wider point, the Prime Minister made it absolutely clear yesterday that he would not yield on the question of Greenland’s sovereignty. While I was proud to see our Prime Minister take that position, what a shame it was that the Leader of the Opposition could not rise to the moment, too.

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

In the interests of improving Government transparency, will the Cabinet Office now publish the details of how the Government reached the decision that allowed Lord Mandelson, the man who described the convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein as his “best pal” and who then urged him to fight for his early release following his conviction, not just to retain his place in the House of Lords but to keep the Labour Whip and his Labour party membership card?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The Prime Minister made his position clear with regard to Lord Mandelson’s position when that additional information came to light. With regard to the House of Lords, Lord Mandelson is currently on a leave of absence. The revocation of a title requires a bespoke piece of primary legislation and is separate from the rules related to suspension and expulsion. Frankly, there is no alternative formal mechanism for a title to be revoked.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)]

8. What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to help tackle cyber-crime.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeff Smith (Manchester Withington) (Lab)]

11. What recent progress he has made on the delivery of the infected blood compensation scheme.

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

The consultation on the compensation scheme closes today. I am grateful to all who have shared their views. The Government will consider the consultation carefully and respond within 12 weeks. I am pleased to tell the House that, as promised, the first payments to affected people were made by the end of 2025, and that as of 13 January, the Infected Blood Compensation Authority has made over £2.4 billion in compensation offers.

[Jeff Smith]

I have a number of constituents affected by the infected blood scandal. Justice for them and for the other victims is long overdue, so I am pleased that the Government are making progress on this issue. May I ask how many interim £100,000 payments have been made to date to the estates of people who have sadly passed away?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am more than happy to write to my hon. Friend with an up-to-date, precise figure for interim payments. I should also mention that, as was raised with me in the House on a number of occasions in the autumn, inheritance tax bit on secondary beneficiaries, and I was pleased that this Government dealt with that issue at the Budget.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

13. What recent progress he has made with Cabinet colleagues on improving the use of technology to implement Government priorities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

T6. May I please push for a clearer answer to the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart)? Will the Cabinet Office set up a European relations Select Committee?

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

That is a matter for Parliament, not for Government. There is certainly a European Union relations secretariat in the Cabinet Office, with some absolutely excellent civil servants, and I am very proud to work with them on leading the negotiations.

[Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)]

T4. It was great to be at the headquarters of what3words for the speech by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster about moving fast and fixing things. Three words to describe the previous Government are: total utter shambles. Does my right hon. Friend agree that public services must be not only value for money, but delivered quickly, and must have Labour values at their very heart?

--- Later in debate ---

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

Last year, in their UK-EU trade deal, the Government sold out British fishermen, giving away 12 years of access to our fishing waters, and we have seen that the Government have form in using our fishermen as pawns in negotiations. Will a Cabinet Office Minister please confirm that, in any trade negotiation or sanitary and phytosanitary agreement, no part of our fishing industry will be returned to the common fisheries policy?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

We are not returning to the common fisheries policy, and the hon. Lady is completely wrong in what she just said. The medium-term stability that we have delivered for our fishing industry will mean a £360 million investment in upgrading our fleet and in our coastal communities. If she opposes that money going into our fishing communities, she should say so. Secondly—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Will the Minister update the House on the delay to the pension payment of civil servants who left employment under the voluntary exit scheme? A number of constituents have complained to me that they have been left without any income, due to the delay by the pension administrator Capita. Will the Minister take personal control of the situation, and will he update the House at some point on contingencies and a new escalation process for people who are affected?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The right hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. If he writes to me on those specific points, I will be happy to look at them. I have seen the chief executive of Capita and have made clear the standards that I expect. Capita should be in no doubt about the contractual tools available to me, which I will employ to drive performance.

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)]

As chair of the Labour rural research group, I continually hear about the challenges facing rural communities, including access to education and transport infrastructure. Will the Minister set out the specific steps that the Cabinet Office is taking to ensure that rural voices and rural communities are meaningfully represented throughout Government decision making?

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

The Paymaster General has told the House this morning, on more than one occasion, just how wonderful his new EU deal will be for British food and drink manufacturers, so why is he refusing to appear in front of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee to discuss the matter in more detail?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

To be frank, when we have the final negotiation and the legal text I will of course be willing to appear before the Select Committee at the appropriate moment. If the hon. Gentleman looks at how many Select Committees I have appeared before, in this place and in the Lords, he will find that it is a very high number.

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

The 10-year bus pipeline is yet to be published, and a media report about the investigation by the National Cyber Security Centre and the Department for Transport into kill switches suggests that 700-plus Chinese buses on British roads have remote disabling technology. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government are delaying the publication of the 10-year bus pipeline until the report on Chinese kill switches is concluded?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. These are topicals, David—you have had your go. Come on.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Government take a neutral position in relation to that Bill. It is also important, both recently and going forward, that we work sensitively with all the devolved Administrations.

[Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)]

On Tuesday, the Chief Secretary set out plans to “promote the doers” across the civil service by establishing the new national School for Government and Public Services. Will he tell the House what steps he plans to take to ensure that Whitehall is focused on delivering services that actually work really well for my residents in Exeter?

--- Later in debate ---

[Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)]

North West Leicestershire is home to East Midlands airport, which carries the highest volume of small parcel air freight in the UK. In the light of the new trading agreements with the EU, can the Minister update me on how we will ensure that small businesses can make the most of these additional trading benefits, for current and future agreements?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The deal that we struck at the UK-EU summit will cut costs and red tape for businesses that import and export to the EU. This Government are committed to removing barriers to trade; it is a shame that the Conservative party is not.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

I thank the Chief Secretary for meeting me to discuss the £20 million Pride in Place money awarded to Portsmouth. To boost and expand those funds in my city and make investment lasting, will the Chief Secretary tell me and my constituents more about his work with the new Office for the Impact Economy, collaborating with social investors and philanthropists so that we can boost funding and create much-needed change in local communities?