Draft Infected Blood Compensation Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2025
Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts(1 week, 2 days ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Infected Blood Compensation Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under you for the first time in your new elevated capacity as Chair, Dr Murrison.
Since the publication of the infected blood inquiry’s detailed report in May 2024, the Government have worked to establish a compensation scheme and to set up the Infected Blood Compensation Authority, known as IBCA, to deliver it. I can tell the Committee that since the compensation scheme opened last year, IBCA has contacted all infected people registered with a support scheme to start their claim and made offers of more than £2 billion. It has now opened the service to the first claims from living infected people who have never been compensated. I am pleased with this progress, which is a significant step in the right direction towards delivering justice to those impacted, with IBCA now moving towards opening the service for those affected and for the estates of deceased infected people.
Colleagues may be aware that I, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and the shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), among others, spoke at the World AIDS Day event hosted by the Terrence Higgins Trust in Speaker’s House on Monday. It was important that the Government marked that important day. I am proud to say that IBCA has made offers to over 90% of those infected with HIV who are registered with a support scheme, and it hopes to have made offers to the remaining eligible living HIV claimants by the end of this year.
In July, the infected blood inquiry published its additional report, which made 15 recommendations to the Government on the design of the scheme. I immediately accepted seven of those recommendations, and the regulations we are considering today will implement the five that require legislation to achieve. The remaining eight recommendations are subject to an ongoing public consultation, as per Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendation, and the Government expect to bring in further legislation next year to implement the changes we will need following that consultation.
Listening to the voices of the community is essential. That is why, in the Budget last week, the Chancellor announced changes that will ensure that infected blood compensation payments are relieved from inheritance tax in cases where the original infected or affected person eligible for compensation has died before the compensation is paid. I am pleased that we have been able to make that change; it is something that was raised with me by Members across the House when I last made a statement, and it is really important that justice is not only delivered, but reflected in the way the compensation is treated.
Turning to the regulations at hand, I will set out the changes we are proposing to the scheme in direct response to the inquiry’s recommendations. Regulation 3 responds to the inquiry’s recommendation 3(a) by removing the 1982 start date for eligible HIV infections, meaning that anyone who was infected with HIV via infected blood or infected blood products before 1 November 1985 will be eligible for the scheme.
Regulation 4 makes changes in line with the inquiry’s recommendation 8(b) on affected estates. Its additional report sets out that the time being taken to deliver compensation is disadvantageous to affected people who are older or are in ill health. The inquiry recommended that where an affected person has sadly passed away during a specified date range, their compensation should become part of their estate. The Government have not only accepted this recommendation but gone beyond it, extending the recommended date range by two additional years, to be between 21 May 2024 and 31 March 2031.
Regulation 6 actions the inquiry’s recommendation 4(e), which recommends that the Government remove the need for applicants with hepatitis C or B to evidence their date of diagnosis. The date of diagnosis does not have a bearing on the calculation of an individual’s compensation. Therefore, making this change removes an unnecessary burden and will allow swifter processing of claims by IBCA.
Regulation 7 implements the inquiry’s recommend-ation 4(d), which relates to how the scheme deems the level of severity of someone’s hepatitis infection. Where somebody shows a level 4 diagnosis of hepatitis, but no level 3 diagnosis, we are amending the scheme so that they are deemed to have spent six years at level 3 prior to the level 4 diagnosis. That will uplift the overall compensation package; it is also a recognition that the burden of evidence shall not fall on the claimant, which is of crucial importance, particularly in light of Sir Brian Langstaff’s original finding about lost medical records.
We have heard from the community and the inquiry that the use of effective treatment dates under the scheme does not reflect the lived experience of many victims as not all infected people were able to resume work after treatment for various reasons, including continued illness or stigma, and that some people received effective treatment much later than it was introduced. In line with the inquiry’s recommendation 4(c), regulation 9 rectifies that by removing the earnings floor on the exceptional loss award for financial loss supplementary route. There is therefore a route available for infected people to present evidence on their actual earning loss.
The Government also recognise that concerns have been raised about bereaved partners’ access to support scheme payments following the tragic loss of their spouse. In response to that and to the inquiry’s recommendation 9(a), the Government reopened bereaved partner applications to the infected blood support scheme on 22 October. I should place on record my thanks to colleagues in the devolved Administrations for working with us to ensure that we could achieve this quickly.
One of the key themes of the inquiry’s additional report was the need for IBCA to increase the speed at which it delivers compensation. In order to achieve that, regulation 10 delays by one calendar year the transfer of responsibility to make support scheme payments from IBSS to IBCA. That has been done to allow IBCA to focus its resources on continuing to build an effective compensation scheme. Again, I am very grateful to the devolved Administrations for their collaborative work on making that happen.
Outside the inquiry’s report, regulation 14 makes a number of technical changes to ensure that the compensation scheme functions correctly and that its administration is improved. They are minor corrections that do not impact overall policy.
This compensation scheme is for people who have had their lives changed by unimaginable pain and suffering. These regulations are a direct response to those people’s calls for change that meets their expectations of this Government and carry forward a sense of justice. As Members of the House of Commons, we all share the sentiment that the victims of this scandal should be at the heart of this work. I believe that the regulations are a significant step in ensuring that the compensation scheme delivers for those impacted and I commend them to the Committee.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I thank both the shadow Minister and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for their tone and their constructive approach. They quite rightly hold me to account on the compensation scheme, but, just as it was when I was shadow to the Paymaster General, it is important that we maintain cross-party consensus on this issue; I know it is very important to the victims that this does not descend into being some sort of political football. It never has done so, to be fair, and that is extremely helpful.
On the shadow Minister’s specific questions, I expect the first payment to be made to an affected person by the end of the calendar year, which is what I have consistently said over the past 18 months. On the issue of the start date, when giving evidence before Sir Brian back in May, I promised to go back and look at it again. The Government of the day was from 1979 a Conservative one, though that does not really matter; there was an argument as to the date after which liability should fall, but I decided that such a debate was not becoming, and that we should just remove the start date altogether, which is precisely what I have done.
I also entirely agree with the shadow Minister’s point about record keeping. It is not just that these events happened a long time ago, which they did; Sir Brian found evidence of deliberate document destruction. In those circumstances, while Members will realise that IBCA is operationally independent, I have always insisted that there should be a sympathetic and facilitating approach to evidence when dealing with claimants. Rather than simply saying that particular evidence is not available, it should be constructively looking for alternative ways to find that evidence. When I visited IBCA to see the training and work of its caseworkers, both the chair and the chief executive of the organisation very much shared that approach.
The heinous medical experimentation that happened, including at times on children, is also part of the consultation, and we are currently in the 12-week consultation period. Finally, I entirely agree with the shadow Minister that there must be regular communication from both the Government, through the consultation, and IBCA. There must also be plain English in official documents—that is one my passions and I repeatedly asking for it.
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson raised the special category mechanism, the changes to which are in the public consultation at the moment. After the 12-week consultation period, the Government will have 12 weeks to respond. My plan is then to introduce what will be the full set of regulations, so another Committee will be reconvening as soon as possible to make the necessary changes to the scheme on the basis of that consultation.
Tessa Munt
Is it possible to have some vague timeframe? The Minister is saying that there is a 12-week consultation, which I absolutely understand, but so many of these people are desperately ill. Can he give me any idea of when that might come into action?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
It has already started; we are in the first 12-week period. After that, the Government then have another 12 weeks to respond, at which point I will bring forward a set of regulations. I have already committed to Sir Brian Langstaff, and on the Floor of the House, to changing the special category mechanism. I am fully aware of the issue the hon. Lady has highlighted, and we will certainly move as quickly as we can to introduce the regulations. There is the 12-week consultation period that we are in, there will be 12 weeks for the Government to respond, and then there will be the time that it takes to draft and introduce regulations, but I want to do that as quickly as possible.
Finally, while we are here debating Sir Brian Langstaff’s important recommendations on compensation, he also made a range of other recommendations on trying to prevent something as awful as this from happening again. While this work is hugely important, the work on implementing the other recommendations continues.
Question put and agreed to.
UK-EU Relations
Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
At the first ever UK-EU summit on 19 May, the Government agreed a new strategic partnership with the EU—a partnership to boost the prosperity, safety and security of both our peoples, and to help strengthen Europe-wide defences.
We have made good progress since May, with negotiations ongoing to implement these commitments, including on energy co-operation, youth experience, education, judicial co-operation and law enforcement. In the past fortnight, we also launched negotiations on a food and drink deal and the linking of our carbon markets. Whether it is slashing red tape for business, helping to bring down bills, or deepening co-operation on challenges posed by illegal migration, including action to tackle people smuggling and deepen information sharing, these deals are good for bills, good for our borders and good for jobs.
A key outcome from the summit was the adoption of a new security and defence partnership with the EU, filling a critical gap left in the trade and co-operation agreement between the UK and EU, and enabling us to strengthen our co-operation on a wide range of areas critical to European security. We are working quickly with the EU to implement the partnership and have stepped up our co-operation on key issues such as support to Ukraine, tackling hybrid threats and supporting stability in the western Balkans.
The SDP also unlocked the possibility for enhanced UK participation in the Security Action for Europe instrument. Earlier this autumn, the UK and the EU commenced formal negotiations on a bilateral agreement to facilitate UK participation. The UK entered these negotiations in good faith, recognising our mutual strategic interest and commitment to work with the EU on defence. However, we have not been able to conclude these negotiations with an agreement.
This Government have always been clear that we will only sign agreements that are in the national interest. In this case, we were unable to reach an agreement that passed that test.
While it is disappointing that we have not been able to positively conclude discussions on UK participation in the first round of SAFE, the UK’s defence industry continues to have access to SAFE under standard third country terms. UK companies will be able to participate and benefit from SAFE contracts to provide up to 35% of their content.
International partnerships, including with our European allies, will remain key to delivering our defence industrial strategy. The UK and EU member states are already working closely to strengthen the European defence industrial base. Since this Government took office, we have struck defence agreements across Europe, including the landmark Trinity House agreement with Germany, and the historic Northwood declaration to deepen nuclear co-operation and co-ordination with France, and we will continue this close co-operation.
The UK is already at the heart of European co-operation in the face of rising threats—through one of the largest defence budgets in Europe; unmatched alliances, including through NATO; a world-leading defence industrial base; and iron-clad military and training support to Ukraine.
And we continue to step up on European security, from leading the coalition of the willing for Ukraine to strengthening our relationships with allies.
We will continue to pursue export deals that benefit Britain, and to provide these systems and weaponry and the innovation that helps make Europe safe. In the last year alone we have struck a £10 billion deal with Norway and secured an £8 billion Typhoon agreement with Türkiye.
Yesterday I spoke with EU Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič, where I underlined that the UK remains fully committed to continuing our close co-operation with the EU and our European partners, including to strengthen European security and maintain our unwavering support for Ukraine.
We will continue working together in good faith to implement the wider package agreed at the UK-EU summit.
[HCWS1114]
UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly
Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts(1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
The hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) has been appointed as a full representative of the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly in place of the hon. Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes).
The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) has been appointed as a full representative of the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly in place of the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary).
[HCWS1036]
Infected Blood Compensation Scheme
Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will update the House on the Government’s progress in establishing an infected blood compensation scheme.
In July the infected blood inquiry published its additional report, which made a number of recommendations on ways that the compensation scheme could be amended to achieve a scheme that works better for all infected and affected people. I updated the House then to confirm that the Government were responding positively and that we would bring forward legislation as soon as we could to address the recommendations that we could implement immediately.
The regulations that I am laying before the House today will achieve a number of those changes and demonstrate this Government’s commitment to responding swiftly and constructively to the inquiry’s recommendations. Specifically, the regulations respond to five of the inquiry’s recommendations by removing the HIV eligibility start date; removing the minimum earnings threshold for a person to claim the exceptional financial loss award; removing the requirement for evidence of the date of diagnosis of hepatitis B or C; making changes to the deeming provisions for the severity of hepatitis C; and expanding eligibility to include estates of all affected people who have died between 21 May 2024 and 31 March 2031, which actually goes further than the inquiry’s recommended date range.
The regulations also put back the transfer of responsibility to make support scheme payments from the infected blood support schemes to the Infected Blood Compensation Authority—IBCA—by one calendar year. That means that IBCA will begin making phased support scheme payments from January to March 2027. IBCA requested that change to allow it to concentrate on accelerating the delivery of compensation and expanding the service to all eligible groups this year, while ensuring—this is essential—that there is no disruption to those receiving support scheme payments. There will of course be a separate opportunity for the House to debate these regulations in fuller detail before they are approved, and I look forward to that debate.
I would also like to inform the House that we have implemented the inquiry’s recommendation to reinstate support scheme payments to partners bereaved after 31 March this year until they have received compensation. Applications for those individuals reopened on 22 October, and I am grateful to colleagues across the devolved Administrations and the support schemes for the collaborative approach to making that happen.
Today I am launching a public consultation on proposed changes to the infected blood compensation scheme, as recommended by the inquiry. I encourage responses from the infected blood community and from all those with an interest in the infected blood inquiry. I assure hon. Members that every response will be considered carefully.
The consultation sets out questions across seven specific issues: harm caused by interferon treatment; the special category mechanism and its equivalents; severe psychological harm; past financial loss and past care; evidence requirements for exceptional loss; supplementary awards for affected people; and unethical research. The Government have sought initial advice from an infected blood compensation scheme technical expert group to develop proposals on those topics in response to the inquiry’s additional report for this public consultation. The feedback we receive through that consultation will inform the decisions that the Government take. The technical expert group will also take part in targeted engagement with the community.
I previously gave the House an undertaking that transparency would be at the heart of any expert group going forward. That is why the five additional members who have been appointed to the technical expert group were appointed following valuable feedback from infected blood community stakeholders, and it is why I am today publishing the minutes of the group’s meetings that have taken place so far. I look forward to hearing the views of the community within the consultation process and beyond as we work together to ensure that the Government’s response meets expectations. We will publish a response to the consultation on gov.uk within 12 weeks of it closing. As I set out in July, we will also need to bring forward further regulations next year to implement changes following the outcome of the consultation. Listening to and working with the infected blood community is essential to ensure a compensation scheme that works for everyone, and I am hopeful that this consultation will allow us to do just that.
I now turn to the delivery of the compensation scheme as it currently stands. IBCA has made significant progress in the delivery of compensation. As of 21 October, 2,476 people have received an offer of compensation, and over £1.35 billion has been paid. IBCA reached the significant milestone of having paid out over £1 billion in compensation last month, which I am sure the House will agree is welcome and notable progress in the delivery of compensation. I can also tell the House that offers totalling over £1.8 billion have now been made.
As of the end of September, all infected people registered with a support scheme have been contacted to begin their claim, and IBCA has set out its intention to open to unregistered infected people in November. In order to open, IBCA must build a service that allows it to confirm an infection before a claim begins, check the identity of each person claiming, and ensure that all the necessary legal and financial support is in place for anyone who wishes to use it. This approach, which IBCA also took with the first group of people making a claim, means that the numbers will initially be lower. However, I expect that—as with the first group—those numbers will rise exponentially as progress is made.
Earlier this month, IBCA also launched a registration service for people who intend to make a claim to register their details. As of 21 October, it has received 10,573 registrations of intent to make a compensation claim. To be clear, that figure represents all registrations, not unique people or claims. Those registrations will be particularly helpful in identifying the unregistered infected people for the next group, and indeed more as the service grows.
As Members of the House are aware from my previous statements on this matter, IBCA is an independent arm’s length body, and it is vital that we respect that independence while also ensuring that I do what I can to drive progress forward. That is why in July I asked for an independent review of IBCA’s delivery of the scheme. That review, led by Sir Tyrone Urch, began in August and concluded earlier this month. I am today publishing that review and have deposited a copy in the Libraries of both Houses. The report notes that IBCA has made “substantial early progress” towards delivering compensation to victims of infected blood, but it also makes recommendations to aid the scaling-up of operations and the delivery of compensation to complex cohorts. I will, of course, consider all of those recommendations carefully.
Alongside IBCA’s delivery of the compensation scheme, the Government have continued to make progress on interim payments. In July I informed the House that we would make a further interim payment of £210,000 to the estates of infected persons who were registered with an infected blood support scheme or predecessor scheme and have sadly passed away, in addition to the interim payments of £100,000 that opened for applications in October 2024. I am pleased that applications for those payments opened last week, meaning that some estates could now be eligible for up to £310,000 in interim payments.
Since applications for the initial interim payments opened last year, over 600 estates have received payments, totalling over £60 million. That is in addition to the £1.2 billion that the Government have paid in interim compensation more widely. I hope that this additional interim payment brings some temporary relief to the families impacted, and I also hope that IBCA’s intention to begin the first claims on behalf of estates of deceased infected people by the end of this year provides some reassurance.
I am resolute that we get this right, and I hope the progress I have set out today shows that we are taking positive action and, crucially, listening to and making progress alongside the community. After all, those who have been so impacted by this horrendous scandal must be at the core of every decision we make, in Government and across this House—they deserve no less. I commend this statement to the House.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his statement and for advance sight of it—although just under an hour is not a lot of time to digest 75 pages of documentation, so I will do my best. I join the Minister in acknowledging the work done by Sir Brian Langstaff and his inquiries, as well as the serious improvement in the pace of payments that IBCA has made in recent months. We thank Sir Robert Francis, David Foley, and all their team at IBCA. On behalf of the Opposition, I welcome the measures that the Minister has announced that implement some of Sir Brian’s recommendations from the additional report, particularly those dealing with HIV eligibility start dates, the deeming of severity bands, evidence of the date of diagnosis, affected estates, and bereaved partner support scheme payments.
Turning to the recommendations relating to hepatitis, we of course welcome confirmation that the Government will remove the earnings floor on the supplementary route exceptional loss award. However, I did not hear any specific reference in the Minister’s statement to measures to address recommendation 4(c) of the original report, which deals with effective treatment. Perhaps the Minister could set out how the Government intend to give effect to that recommendation. Similarly, could he set out what measures the Government are taking—beyond the appointment of the new members of the technical expert group that he has announced—in response to recommendation 2(e), which deals with the transparency of scheme design? That is particularly important in light of the inquiry’s worrying finding that victims did not feel that they were being listened to.
I now turn to the recommendations that the Government did not feel able to accept immediately. I welcome the fact that the Minister is consulting on a way forward on those issues; clearly, as I have said, there is a need for transparency and proper consultation. The consultation period will last until the end of January next year. We recognise that there is little that the Minister can do about that clearly defined period, but given the need to address these measures without undue delay, will he ensure that once that consultation period closes, the Government respond swiftly to the consultation paper and introduce any necessary further regulations with maximum speed, so that this House can consider any further measures that are necessary?
More broadly, how are the Government applying the lessons learned from the implementation of payment schemes for people infected to better inform the operation of payments to people affected and to their estates, as he referred to in his statement? What action is the Minister taking with the independent IBCA to ensure that the pace of payments, which has seen welcome progress, continues to accelerate and is not jeopardised by changes to rules and processes?
As I said, Sir Brian’s inquiries have done incredible and invaluable work to give a voice to those who have battled so courageously against decades of injustice, and to ensure that victims and their families have some remedy, although clearly no amount of money can ever reverse the terrible harm done by this scandal over many years. The recommendations in the additional report that Sir Brian published shortly before the summer are an invaluable contribution. Looking forward, there will need to be a degree of policy certainty as we move from a period of review to one of rectification and delivery. That is one reason that the cross-party work, both before and since the election, has been so important to give confidence and certainty. Looking ahead, does the Minister have any indication as to when we might expect the inquiry to draw to a close, and what might the mechanism be for doing so?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for the tone of his remarks. I note what he said about the time he received the statement and other documents, and he knows me well enough by now to know that I have great respect for this House and will always facilitate shadow Ministers having material with plenty of time. I will certainly take that issue away and look at why that happened.
I join the shadow Minister in paying tribute to the work of the inquiry and to Sir Robert Francis and David Foley, IBCA’s chief executive. This House rightly has held me to account for the number of payments. IBCA was running a test-and-learn approach, and I always said to the House that there would be a smaller number that was a representative sample of cases, which would then allow IBCA to scale up exponentially. We are now in that exponential phase—that steep curve. I look every single week at the number of payments, and it is starting to increase significantly. I know that Members across the House will welcome that.
The shadow Minister made a point about treatment for hepatitis. One of the things we are looking at in the consultation is the impact of interferon, which had such a detrimental impact on so many people.
The shadow Minister is right to raise the transparency mechanism. While I do not need a piece of legislation for that, I am looking at that mechanism and want to get it into place as soon as possible.
The shadow Minister asked about the 12-week consultation. The Government will respond to that within 12 weeks, and I will then want to bring forward a fourth set of regulations with the greatest possible speed.
The shadow Minister’s final point was about learning lessons, and that is precisely why I asked Sir Tyrone Urch to carry out his work. First, it was about learning the lessons from what has happened so far and how we can best take things forward. Secondly, it is about the practical steps I can take to assist IBCA with scaling up and making payments to affected people, which will clearly be a far larger number of people for IBCA to deal with.
To finish on a consensual point, the cross-party support on this issue has been important. The continuity between the work I have done and the work of my predecessor as Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) has been hugely important in the delivery of this scheme.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
I welcome the statement from my right hon. Friend. This issue has its origins back in the 1940s, and it has been going on for an extraordinarily long time. The state has not been responding to or providing information to the people it should have been there to serve. We find ourselves in a situation where people have lived almost all their lives waiting for compensation, and now this issue is arising that they may pass away, having just received compensation, and their estate will then be subject to inheritance tax. The state is giving with one hand and taking back with the other. I realise that my right hon. Friend is not in the Treasury, but we need to take that issue forward.
There is also this outstanding issue of support to the campaigning groups that support the applications of people who are infected and affected. Part of one of Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendations was that they need extra support from the Department of Health and Social Care. On both these issues, what can my right hon. Friend do to assist the people making these applications and to get them the response to Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendations that they deserve?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s work with the all-party parliamentary group. On the first question, the compensation that has been received clearly is exempt from tax. I understand exactly the point he is making about someone, such as a widow, who inherits or has the compensation on behalf of a deceased partner. That money will be received tax-free, but I appreciate his point about the speed that is needed, because of the age of so many of the victims of this scandal. That is through no fault of their own, but is the fault of the state. The tax exemption is in line with the policy that is pursued consistently across Government. On his second point about the campaigning groups, I am conscious that we are approaching the end of another tax year. I pay tribute to the work that the charities do, and I undertake to him that I will take up that matter with the Department of Health and Social Care.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I thank the hon. Lady for the tone of her comments. On her final point, that number is just the number of registrations, not the totality of the number of victims. On the point that she raises, I entirely share her concern. As I said when I gave evidence to the inquiry in May, the test that I always have at the forefront of my mind when making changes is about not causing additional undue delay to the payment of compensation.
The hon. Lady asked me about 2029; that is a backstop, not a target date. I said that to the inquiry in May as well. The target is to get the payments out as quickly as possible. As I said in response to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), the test-and-learn approach was always taken because we felt—and IBCA felt—that that would ultimately be the way to get the money out to the largest number of people as quickly as possible. I think we are now in an exponential phase where the number of payments is going up quickly.
The hon. Lady is entirely right to draw attention to the number of people who have died before actually securing justice. That is again a reason why I have been pushing for payments to be made as quickly as possible.
Finally, the special category mechanism is one of the seven issues mentioned in the consultation. I know this has been asked before, but I would urge her and her constituents to respond to that.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for the content, clarification and tone of his statement. It is clearly an awful situation. I would like to speak up for my constituents in Easington and to seek some clarification regarding those people who contracted hepatitis C. Will the Minister confirm that all in the infected blood community, including those suffering with hepatitis C, will have access to the consultation, as recommended by Sir Brian Langstaff? I understand that the consultation closes in January, and he mentioned that there would be a 12-week period in which the Government would consider that.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The straight answer is yes. My hon. Friend is a powerful advocate for the victims in his constituency of Easington. Whether for hepatitis C victims or the other victims of this scandal, I want the consultation to be as accessible as possible, and I very much hope that he will encourage his constituents to respond to it.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The Minister is clearly totally committed to this subject, and I thank him for the way in which he reaches out to the MPs he knows have an interest in it. Will he join me in commending IBCA for the quality of its communications? Both the website and the MPs’ toolkit recently sent out could not be more free of jargon, which sets an excellent example.
Going back to the point raised by the chair of the APPG, the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford), as I understand it, if a compensation grant is made to the family of someone who has already died, those relatives will receive it tax-free, but if the grant is made to the individual shortly before their death, the very same family members might have to pay inheritance tax on it. That is clearly an anomaly, so will the Minister speak to the Treasury about it?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman, who has campaigned on this issue for many years. On his first point, I agree; whether the documents and communications are from the Government or the IBCA, I am constantly pressing for plain English. To be fair to those tasked with producing those documents, some of the content is complicated, but trying to communicate in accessible ways is hugely important.
On the right hon. Gentleman’s second point regarding the tax exemption, he is correct, I think, in his interpretation that there is a single tax exemption. The compensation is received free of tax in the first instance, but there is no subsequent tax exemption. That is in line with general Government policy on tax exemptions across the board.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for his statement. On lessons learned, I hope he has looked at the National Audit Office’s work on different compensation schemes so that we can learn from that. I also hope that he supports the national campaign to encourage people who received a blood transfusion to get tested for hepatitis C, as two people a month are contacting the helpline to say that they were infected during the relevant period.
To press the Minister further on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) and the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), under this scheme people get compensation because they are dying due to infected blood; it is not random, coincidental or due to something else. If they happen to receive the compensation just before they die, their family will pay inheritance tax on it. The victims want to ensure that their families are properly supported, because they are no longer able to do that, so will the Minister renew his efforts to talk to the Treasury about this issue? This is a small, defined group of people, which does not need to set a more general precedent, but for this particular scheme—where the state failed people so much—the issue is an important one to resolve.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend does on this. I entirely agree with her about learning lessons from the different compensation schemes across several Governments in recent decades. On her second point, regarding tax exemptions, I have set out the Government’s position, but I hear very strongly what Members are saying.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his meticulous and thorough analysis of all the different strands of this challenging problem, and for the work he has done to deal with the complexity of different groups’ concerns over delivery of the compensation. I also thank Sir Brian Langstaff for what he has done.
However, after six years, £140 million has been spent on this inquiry—and we do not yet have the accounts for the current year. In Sir Tyrone Urch’s review, which the Minister mentioned, the first recommendation is regarding policy stability. Can the Minister say something about how we will achieve that policy stability? Respectfully, is it not time to thank Sir Brian and Sir Robert for their work and then focus on the delivery of IBCA, rather than have more iterations of recommendations, which do not achieve much for the individuals who need this accelerated?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the painstaking, significant work he did when he was Paymaster General. The reference to Sir Tyrone Urch and his report is apposite, because I asked Sir Tyrone to look at the workings of IBCA—to look, practically, at what barriers are still there to delivering compensation quickly. Of course, Sir Tyrone’s first recommendation was around policy stability. As I said when I was before the inquiry in May, we would not want to be making changes to the scheme that were detrimental to the ability to deliver the compensation quickly. That is something that I think is really important going forward.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate and thank the Minister for his work on this; I know how much of his time it is taking. Further to the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) and for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), and the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), there is a perversity in the people who were failed by the state potentially being asked to repay 40% of their compensation to the same state that failed them.
The Minister has clearly set out that that is in line with policy; is he willing to stand at that Dispatch Box and state, categorically, that that is fair? If he cannot say that it is fair, will he at least undertake to again raise this issue with the Treasury, so that those people who were failed by the state are not then penalised by the state?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend and a number of Members have made that case powerfully. I will say to the House that they can be assured that I look at all aspects of this scheme and test whether they are fair, and I think we can see, across parties, the strength of feeling on this today.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
I congratulate the Minister on making real progress on this matter, after many years of delays. I recently met Jean Hill and her daughters. She has been campaigning on this issue for 30 years. Sadly, her husband died in 2004 at the age of 48; his brother died at 25; and a nephew died in more recent years. What assurance can the Minister give me—and Jean—that payments to deceased estates will be expedited as a matter of urgency, and what additional resources will be put in place to achieve that?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his work; I know that he has raised this issue on previous occasions. With regard to deceased estates, he will have heard what I said in my statement about the interim payments. Additional interim payments have just opened, which shows the urgency of the situation to the Government and the importance of the money getting to where it is needed. That is why I made sure that those payments were opened in recent weeks.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement today, and for the work that he has done. One issue raised by a constituent is that when she applied for the interim payment, she filled out lots of forms and gave information, as she has been doing for many years, because her husband died some time ago, having contracted infection back in the 1970s. She now has to apply again, and the same information will be asked for. There must be a way of expediting the process to make life slightly simpler for people like her. She, too, is in a situation in which, at the age of 88 and having not received all the payments that she is likely to get, she is worried about inheritance tax—not on her own behalf, but on behalf of her children. I am sorry to belabour the point, but may I add my voice to those around the Chamber? Perhaps those voices will help the Minister to have the ammunition to take to the Treasury to say, “We’re not happy with this.”
Nick Thomas-Symonds
With regard to my hon. Friend’s first point, on the interim payments, there is an expedited process if the details are unchanged from the first interim application. If my hon. Friend writes to me with the particular details of her constituent, I am happy to look at that. On her second point, I think the strength of feeling in the House is very clear.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
On previous occasions, I have paid tribute to the Minister for his sincerity and hard work in this matter, and I add to that the collegiate and consensual way that he approaches all of this, particularly in his work with the devolved Administrations, including the Scottish Government. I previously asked for the work of voluntary organisations—third-sector organisations—to be placed on a statutory footing. The Minister will understand that despite the system being fairly straightforward and simple, as has been acknowledged, claimants still need support, particularly those who are unwell. Can the Minister advise whether that work has now been placed on a statutory footing?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, I have worked with the devolved Administrations throughout. We have to take into account that this is a pre-devolution scandal, so it is UK-wide, and a number of Sir Brian’s recommendations from his initial report are UK-wide. They are now within devolved competence, so this is hugely important. I have always been conscious of that, and I work with the devolved Administrations in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.
With regard to the hon. Gentleman’s second point, on the issue of voluntary bodies, a couple of different issues are mixed up on that question. If he writes to me precisely about putting work on a statutory footing, I will give him an answer. More generally, the work of voluntary bodies and charities in supporting victims has been absolutely invaluable, and I am very conscious of the financial pressures they are facing.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
So many lives have been scarred or ended by this betrayal of trust, cover-ups, denials and delays, and my constituents have waited for up to decades for justice. Many are concerned that they will not see it in their lifetime. Can the Minister outline how he will ensure that my constituents and the infected blood community find the consultation accessible, and can he say when the third set of regulations that have been published will become law?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
On my hon. Friend’s second question, and subject to the will of the House, I would really like the third set of regulations to become law by the end of the year. His advocacy for his constituents has never been anything short of impressive, and I am more than happy to look at any specific case that he brings to me.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his commitment to finding solutions, and for his incredibly compassionate demeanour in handling these issues. I think we all thank him for that. The streamlined scheme for compensation opened just three weeks ago; can the Minister confirm that it is indeed now easier for people to access the money that they deserve? I hope that the scheme is not adding more worry and stress to those who live their life under a burden not of their making. Are the Government truly sharing the load with them, and what more can the Minister do to make the process smoother?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
As ever, the hon. Gentleman makes a very useful point, building on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) a moment or two ago. I am very keen to ensure that the consultation is as accessible as possible, and some of Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendations—for example, about how we calculate past and future loss—are quite technical. I always say to both the Department and IBCA that it is really important that we do everything we can to make the system simpler, but we also need ready explainers. The hon. Gentleman can be assured that I will continue to push for them.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his continued compassion and commitment to the cause, and for the communications that we have had about affected constituents in my constituency. As he will recall, their concerns are about bureaucracy and delays. Given what he said in his statement, can he assure me that this Government remain committed to ensuring that all affected and infected individuals will see their compensation as quickly as possible? What assurances can he give me and my constituents about when they will be invited to start their claims?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend; as ever, he makes a powerful case on behalf of his constituents. At the moment, offers have been made that are worth over £1.8 billion, but I remain restless about the speed of progress; I want it to continue to increase. I am very conscious that IBCA will be moving from dealing with those who have been infected to the much larger number of people who have been affected. I appointed Sir Tyrone Urch to look at the lessons that we can learn, and at how IBCA can best scale up to deal with a much larger number of claims. Indeed, over 10,000 claims have been registered. I stand ready to assist and support IBCA as we move forward into a new phase.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement and for his very clear personal commitment on this issue. He will be aware that building and maintaining trust between the affected families and the Government is essential. I am sure he will agree that the Hillsborough law, which comes before the House next week, is one example of how we can continue to repay that trust and demonstrate that we are determined to see recommendations, such as the duty of candour, put in statute. My constituents who are affected by the scandal still continually ask me for reassurance on transparency, so will he consider publishing regular data on claims received, assessed and paid, so that the public can clearly see the progress that is being made—exponential or otherwise?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is entirely correct about transparency. IBCA continues to publish statistics, which are very important. I have today published the technical expert group’s minutes, which are very important, too. My hon. Friend puts his finger on another really important aspect of the response to Sir Brian Langstaff’s report from last year: the duty of candour, which will be hugely important in driving cultural change across public service. I am proud that we will have the Second Reading of the relevant Bill on Monday.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s statement, and the opening of further interim payments last week. The families of infected people in Falkirk have in the past told me that systems could be better streamlined to improve the pace of delivery. I know the pace of delivery will continue to be imperative for families, so what assurances can the Minister provide that the actions set out in his statement, and actions taken following the consultation, will continue to reflect the feedback of infected people and affected families?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is entirely correct. We will have a consultation and introduce a transparency mechanism, but we will also look very seriously at the recommendations that Tyrone Urch has made. We need to ensure that the speed of payments continues to increase, but also, as my hon. Friend says, that feedback from victims is at the heart of the process.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
In one of the first contributions I had the privilege of making in the House, I raised the case of the Blake family. Their son Stuart was infected aged six, and he died at the age of 27, back in 2006. I have been in regular contact with the family, and it was my privilege to show them around this place just a few weeks ago. I am sure the Minister and the House will understand that this has consumed their family for four decades, and they are still seeking reassurance about the urgency with which the Government are bringing forward payments, and about whether they will be made as quickly as possible. I am really encouraged by the statement. The family are eligible for the second interim payment, but I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed his personal commitment to bringing such cases to resolution as soon as possible.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend has previously spoken to me movingly about the experience of the Blake family, and it is exactly families with such experiences who are at the forefront of all our minds across the House as we drive this forward. I can of course give him a personal commitment that I will continue to do all I can to quicken even further the pace of the compensation payments.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for the update, especially on behalf of my constituent Robert, who lost his brother aged 31, and who has been in regular contact with me on this issue. The Government previously announced that they were allocating funding to charities; that was a recommendation of the inquiry. Will the Minister confirm the steps that he has been taking with the Department of Health and Social Care to make sure that money gets to those charities, so they are funded to process applications as quickly as possible?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend raises a really important issue, because charities have played an absolutely vital role in supporting and advocating for the victims of this scandal. Money was already allocated in this financial year. I know that there are concerns going forward. He can be assured that I will work closely with Health and Social Care Ministers on that.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I am very grateful to the Minister for his update. I am pleased to report that one of my constituents, the one whom I have been most in contact with the Minister about, has finally been fully compensated, which is a huge relief to him and his family. I spoke with him this morning, and he is watching now. Although he welcomes the improved service from IBCA, and I find it reassuring that the intention is to begin paying the first claims on behalf of estates of deceased infected people by the end of this year, my constituent asks if there is anything we can do to prioritise those close to the end of their life, so that they can get the justice they deserve in life, bearing in mind the valid inheritance tax concerns raised by Members from across the House.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am pleased to hear that my hon. Friend’s constituent has had his compensation payment. My hon. Friend speaks very powerfully on his constituent’s behalf. On his point about those nearing the end of their life, IBCA has published how it prioritises claims. He and his constituent should be assured that it is exactly those who are at an advanced age, and who are dealing with this matter at this moment in their life for no other reason than the state’s failure to deal with it over past decades, who are at the forefront of my mind as I try to drive progress even faster.
China Spying Case
Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
I will do my best, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart). First, I want to reinforce, not just as a Minister, but as a parliamentarian, the Government’s deep regret about the collapse of the criminal case concerning the two individuals charged under the Official Secrets Act 1911. Everyone in the Government was hoping that the trial would go ahead and planning on the basis that it would.
As a reminder, following the arrests of Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry in March 2023 as part of a counter-espionage operation, counter-terrorism police requested that the deputy National Security Adviser act as a witness in the case. [Interruption.] Let me go through this, because it is important to the challenges made by the hon. Gentleman. The DNSA made it clear that he would provide evidence on the basis of the Government’s position at the time of the offences, and that is crucial to the judgment that has been made in this case. The first statement was drafted—
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I will make some progress, and then I will give way to the shadow Home Secretary.
The first statement was drafted between August and December 2023. During that time, Counter Terrorism Policing was updated on progress, including the information that the deputy National Security Adviser would not be able to call China an enemy, as that was not the position of the Government at the time of the offences.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Okay, I will let the shadow Home Secretary intervene on that point.
Chris Philp
The Minister has said twice in the last minute that the question was the policy of the last Government. Let me take him to page 4 of the letter from the Director of Public Prosecutions, dated Thursday of last week. In that letter, the DPP said—
Chris Philp
The DPP said the opposite of what the Minister has said. He said that the issue was a question of fact, and not—categorically not—the policy of the last Government.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear! The right hon. Gentleman has just quoted page 4 of the DPP’s letter. Let me quote page 5 to him:
“The information that we required related to the period between 31 December 2021 and 3 February 2023. The position of the current Government was not relevant to the case.”
I suggest that the shadow Home Secretary look at the next page.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
No, it is not misleading. Will the right hon. Gentleman give me a moment? It was the position at the relevant time. What is even worse, however, is that the word “enemy” was not the position at the time. It came out of the statement, and that happened under the previous Government, I am afraid.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I took interventions from the shadow Home Secretary, and I must now make some progress.
Before finalising his statement in December 2023, the deputy National Security Adviser sighted the then National Security Adviser and the then Cabinet Office permanent secretary. On 18 December—this was all under the previous Government—the permanent secretary came back with three comments for the DNSA to consider. The DNSA then finalised the statement, and his private office sent a final version of the draft to the then Prime Minister through the No. 10 private office and No. 10 special advisers. Once the statements were submitted they were not shared, and in April 2024, formal charges were laid. That was the position under the previous Government.
Two supplementary witness statements from the DNSA were submitted in February and August 2025, following requests from Counter Terrorism Policing for further detail on the nature and extent of the threat to the UK from China. For the second statement, CTP specifically asked the DNSA to comment on whether China as a state, during the period from 31 December 2021 to 3 February 2023, posed an active threat; and whether that remained the case. For the third statement, CTP requested that the DNSA provide further points of detail regarding the UK Government’s assessment of the nature and extent of the threat, with examples. The DNSA faithfully and with full integrity—I noted that the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster implied that somehow he was not compliant with part 35 of the civil procedure rules—set out the various threats posed by the Chinese state in line with the UK Government’s position at the material time, in order to try to support a successful prosecution. We then come, obviously, to the meeting on 1 September to which the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster referred, and with which I shall deal in a moment.
I was fascinated by the opening speech of the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in which he talked of the “clarity” of the last Government’s position.
“The government’s approach to China is guided by three pillars: strengthening our national security protections, aligning and cooperating with our partners, and engaging where it is consistent with our interest.”
Who said that? The shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster did in 2023, and here he is now trying to talk about the clarity of the position in 2023.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Not for a moment.
On 1 September, the National Security Adviser convened a routine meeting to discuss the UK’s relationship with China in the context of this case and several other upcoming moments. That is entirely what we would expect the National Security Adviser to do. We have learned that entirely separately, and entirely independent of Government, the CPS was deliberating on not offering evidence in this case. On 3 September, the DPP told the Cabinet Secretary and the DNSA of his intention, subject to confirmation, not to put forward evidence, and unfortunately that decision was confirmed on 9 September. I must say to the Opposition that that is a matter of regret. It is quite rightly an independent decision, but it is a matter of regret. On 15 September 2025, the CPS officially confirmed the decision to discontinue the case against Cash and Berry.
I actually welcome scrutiny of that decision. That is why I welcome the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy’s inquiry into espionage cases and the Official Secrets Act and the Intelligence and Security Committee’s investigations into how classified intelligence was used. Since we last discussed the matter in this House, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, the Attorney General, the Cabinet Secretary, the National Security Adviser and the deputy National Security Adviser have all submitted evidence to the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy.
Yesterday, the Joint Committee heard evidence from the Director of Public Prosecutions and the First Treasury Counsel, and from the Cabinet Secretary and the deputy National Security Adviser at a later session. Tomorrow, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister and the Attorney General will give more evidence. A question has been raised about the National Security Adviser; he will also be giving evidence soon, and certainly before the end of the year.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
The Minister expresses deep regret that this case has not gone to trial. I want to believe him on that, but the case did not go to trial. With the power of hindsight, if he was to go back and do this all again, what would the Minister have done differently to ensure that this case did go to trial?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I will tell the hon. Gentleman exactly what would have made a massive difference: if we could have updated the Official Secrets Act far sooner than 2023. That would have made a material difference. This case was being prosecuted under a 1911 Act. The National Security Act was passed in 2023. If only the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had been in the Cabinet Office to be close to what was going on; perhaps the legislation could have been changed at an earlier stage and we would not be in this position.
Let me be clear with the House: the allegations of political interference in this case are absolutely baseless. The CPS decision to discontinue the case was independent of Government. Indeed, the Opposition should ask what the Director of Public Prosecutions himself said about that; he reiterated it again yesterday when he gave evidence, sitting alongside Tom Little KC.
Sir Julian Lewis
Can the Minister explain to the House, once and for all, how it is possible for a Government to believe that China is responsible for posing a wide range of threats, but is not a threat itself? He would clear matters up, and allay suspicions that the Government are holding back for economic reasons, if he would simply say that China is a threat to our national security. Will he say that?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
China poses a multiplicity of threats; it poses a threat in terms of espionage, in terms of cyber, and in terms of economic security. However, with the greatest respect to the right hon. Gentleman, the issue is whether it was considered a threat at the material time, and I cannot go back and change that.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
I am listening carefully to what the Minister is saying, but can we be informed how MPs today are to be further protected from foreign intelligence services?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is 100% correct, and that is a huge priority for the Government; it is a very serious issue. As I said when I opened this debate, it is not just about the position of the Government; I say as a parliamentarian that we in this place have to be protected from foreign interference.
The shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster asked about the meeting on 1 September. We heard about that yesterday from the Cabinet Secretary and the deputy National Security Adviser, who both attended that meeting: it was a discussion about the bilateral relationship between the UK and China in the context of the case. The Cabinet Secretary made it clear yesterday that the meeting was entirely appropriate; no discussion of evidence took place, and everyone involved was participating on the assumption that the case was going to go ahead.
It was only on 3 September—as was confirmed by him in his evidence to the JCNSS yesterday—that the Director of Public Prosecutions informed the Cabinet Secretary and the DNSA of his intention, subject to confirmation, that the CPS would not be putting forward evidence at trial. The Attorney General was informed on the same day.
It is important that I finish this point, because I have been challenged on the chronology and I am only too delighted to enlighten the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The DPP confirmed to the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy that the position was agreed after a period of internal decision making within the CPS in the run-up to the meeting on 3 September. At that meeting, the DPP made it clear that the facts must not be briefed out further, with the exception of informing the NSA and the permanent secretary at the FCDO. The Cabinet Secretary and the DNSA therefore did not inform anyone else until shortly before the case became public. On 9 September, the CPS confirmed the decision to offer no evidence to the DNSA. That is the chronology.
Let me now directly address what the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said, because I am conscious of the time. There is already an established mechanism for Parliament to address this issue. The Government are fully co-operating with the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy inquiry and the ISC, and will provide evidence and appear before the Committee in the usual way.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
In one moment.
In the motion, the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is seeking a wide range of documents. He was a Cabinet Office Minister himself, and he knows the sensitivity of those documents. He knows the legal professional privilege—
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I will give the hon. Gentleman one more chance before I conclude. I say to him that highly classified material is subject to legal professional privilege and includes advice to the Prime Minister, which successive Governments have not released to the public. Why? Because it is in our interests to protect such material. The hon. Gentleman knows that in his heart of hearts.
Alex Burghart
I have always admired the shine on the Minister’s brass neck, and never so much as at this moment. I remember the Brexit debates, when he and many of the other gentlemen and ladies on the Labour Benches overrode legal privilege and asked for classified documents week after week. Members of this House may have been spied on, and the Government have a duty to be transparent. They cannot hide behind anything, given that they have previously asked for similar documents. Make them available!
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am looking at the hon. Gentleman and remembering the debates we had. Let me tell him the difference between what I was doing then and what is happening now. First, I was applying at the time, via a Humble Address mechanism, for a single document. By the way, his rather shambolic motion, which seems to be a fishing expedition, is totally imprecise. Secondly, that was not security material at this level, which is in our national interest.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Yes, I did.
Let me emphasise that I support parliamentary scrutiny. I support and welcome the ongoing process with the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy. I support the Government’s continuing to engage with the ISC. What we will not do, though, is accede to the hon. Gentleman’s demand. He knows in his heart of hearts that it would be totally inappropriate for the long list of material he has stuck in the motion to be put in the public domain. Asking for open publication is completely different from the appropriate parliamentary scrutiny which, quite rightly, will go on.
Let me conclude by saying this. The Government and I are gravely disappointed that the trial did not proceed. In response to the point that was put to me by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), the DNSA’s evidence articulated clearly the range of threats that China posed to the UK’s national security and, indeed, our economic security at the material time. In the light of the threats that have been identified—I agree with the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—this is a very grave matter. The Government are resolute in our determination to work across all parties and in partnership with the parliamentary security authorities, as was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley), to ensure that espionage and interference by China or any other country is not successful in the UK.
Several hon. Members rose—
Infected Blood Victims: Interim Compensation Payments
Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
On 9 July 2025, the infected blood inquiry published its additional report on compensation. The inquiry made a number of recommendations to the Cabinet Office and to the Infected Blood Compensation Authority to ensure that fair compensation is provided to every person that is eligible without delay.
As of 21 October, IBCA has contacted over 3,614 people to start their compensation claim; 3,371 have started the claim process; 2,476 people have received an offer, totalling over £1.8 billion; and so far 2,033 people have had their compensation paid, with more than £1.35 billion paid in compensation by IBCA. IBCA has now contacted all registered infected people to begin a claim, and the Government expect IBCA to open the service for those who are infected and unregistered, deceased infected and affected this year.
I am pleased that progress is being made, but I acknowledge the calls from the community highlighting the need for faster payment. That is why, on 21 July 2025, I informed the House that the Government would make a further interim payment of £210,000 to the estates of infected persons who were registered with an infected blood support scheme or predecessor scheme on or before 17 April 2024 and who have sadly passed away.
This is in addition to the interim payment of £100,000, which opened for applications in October 2024, meaning an estate could be eligible for up to £310,000 in interim payments. Since applications opened, over 600 estates have received payment, totalling over £60 million.
Today, I can announce that the process under which estates can apply for a further interim compensation payment has now opened. I hope this payment goes some way in recognising the hurt of those who have been impacted by losing their loved ones due to infected blood and blood products.
These payments will be delivered through the existing infected blood support schemes. They will be made to the estates of deceased infected persons As with all compensation payments related to infected blood, it will be exempt from income tax, capital gains tax and inheritance tax, and disregarded from means-tested benefit assessments.
Only the personal representative of the estate is able to make the application. Applicants will need a grant of probate, letters of administration, or—specific to Scotland —a grant of confirmation to evidence entitlement to claim interim compensation on behalf of the estate. To assist the legal process of obtaining this evidence as quickly as possible for those that do not already have it, applicants can claim back their exact legal costs up to £1,500. The application form is available to download online at gov.uk, together with full guidance on how to apply.
For those estates that have already received £100,000, an expedited application form is available. This requires much less information from the applicant than provided previously. Estate representatives can access this directly by contacting the UK infected blood support schemes.
I hope this additional interim payment brings some relief to the families impacted by a scandal that is a shameful mark on our national history. Please rest assured that delivering compensation for every eligible person remains an utmost priority for this Government.
[HCWS984]
Oral Answers to Questions
Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
I will answer on behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven (Chris Ward), who, with your permission, Mr Speaker, is at an event with the Prime Minister in his constituency today. This Government’s new social value model includes fair working skills criteria, so that authorities can reward suppliers providing good-quality jobs, supporting people into work and providing their employees with additional development opportunities. We are consulting on further reforms to public procurement and will update the House in due course.
Andy McDonald
With the Government’s welcome commitment to improving terms, conditions and career progression in adult social care, as demonstrated through the planned fair pay agreement and the care workforce pathway, will the Minister confirm that the Government’s response to the public procurement consultation will deliver a public interest test that accelerates insourcing and requires providers to recognise trades unions, as well as more sustainable careers and long-term employment opportunities?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
As always, my hon. Friend makes a powerful case. The Government want public bodies to examine carefully how best to deliver public services. That is why we are consulting on proposals to introduce a public interest test, allowing for the evaluation of services being more effectively delivered in-house before they are contracted out, covering value for money, service quality and wider social and economic benefit. We will consider the range of responses, including those from trades unions.
Euan Stainbank
I declare an interest as the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for British buses. Alexander Dennis and Wrightbus create 13 jobs for every four directly hired in bus manufacturing, and for decades Alexander Dennis has been an invaluable piece of the Scottish economy. After the business almost left Scotland following the Scottish National party’s disastrous Chinese bus-buying strategy, to its credit it spent nearly £4 million fixing the near fatal error. Will the Minister set out what the Cabinet Office is doing through public procurement so that my constituents’ taxpayer money is maximising Falkirk, Scottish and British-based businesses?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Unlike the SNP Government, evidently, this Labour Government believe that where things are made and who makes them matters. That is why we are consulting on further procurement reforms to boost domestic supply chains and create more opportunities for businesses of all sizes, whether that be in Falkirk or across the United Kingdom.
Kenneth Stevenson (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
Some 2,476 people have now received offers totalling over £1.8 billion. Alongside the work I am doing to prepare further secondary legislation and a public consultation, I am pleased to announce that applications are opening today for further interim payments of £210,000 to the estates of infected people who have sadly passed away. In addition, the Infected Blood Compensation Authority has now asked every living infected person registered with a support scheme to come forward and start their claim, and has also opened a service for people to register their intent to claim.
Liz Jarvis
Many survivors of the infected blood scandal and bereaved families are still waiting far too long for compensation. They include my constituents, the family of Kevin Newman, who was infected with HIV and hepatitis C while a pupil at Treloar’s college and tragically died in 2018. The family received their first payment last December, but have been waiting for another ever since, and now have to fill in yet another form with a time limit. Will the Minister ensure that these payments are speeded up?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Absolutely, and that has been my objective throughout. IBCA took a test and learn approach, and this House quite rightly held me to account at the start of that process when the numbers were lower. Those numbers are rising exponentially at the moment—that is why there are offers totalling over £1.8 billion—but the hon. Lady should be reassured that I am 100% not complacent, and will continue to drive progress.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
I declare that I am a member of the Unite union and refer to my relevant entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests on support in general election campaigns. The Office for National Statistics estimates that 36,000 working days were lost because of labour disputes in the public administration and defence sector, which includes the majority of the civil service, between July 2024 and August 2025. That is down from the 95,000 days lost between May 2023 and June 2024.
Jerome Mayhew
I am grateful for that answer, albeit partial, from the Minister, because he is quite right: he relies on the Office for National Statistics for the compilation of these figures. Now, even its staff have a strike mandate. They are refusing to attend work even for two days a week. What are the Government doing to enforce attendance levels at work? When does he think the ONS will find time to report on it?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Attendance levels are certainly important, but the hon. Gentleman has got some chutzpah, because under the previous Prime Minister—I note he is no longer in his place, although he was earlier in the questions—the UK lost more days due to strike action than France did, and the hon. Gentleman is here trying to lecture us about it. We will work in partnership with trade unions to avoid unnecessary disruption and not end up in the situation that the last Government did.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
My hon. Friend is a powerful advocate for infected blood victims, and he can rest assured that I will continue to drive progress as quickly as I possibly can. That is how we have got to the stage where over £1.8 billion-worth of offers have been made, and I will continue to drive that progress quickly.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
Nick Thomas-Symonds
We are going even further than that, because the Government are looking to negotiate a youth experience scheme with the European Union. It will of course be capped, but it will give significant opportunities not just for young Brits to travel, work and study abroad, but to welcome young Europeans here.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I thank my hon. Friend for again raising this issue. Any scheme would give young Brits, including her young constituents in Aylesbury, the opportunity to travel and experience other countries’ cultures, as well as to work and study abroad. Of course, the exact parameters will be subject to discussion, and negotiations are under way, but we certainly hope to stand up these opportunities for young Brits as soon as possible.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I welcome the Paymaster General’s remarks on the acceleration of the delivery of payments in relation to infected blood. It is very welcome for one of my constituents who has had it. I also welcome his response to the additional report by Sir Brian Langstaff in July. Given that, can he update the House on the lifetime of the public inquiry and any conversations he has had about ending the inquiry, which seems to be going on rather a long time given that the legislation was passed in May last year?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, and I again pay tribute to him for his hugely important work in this area when he was the Paymaster General. On the public inquiry and the recent report, I hope to update the House in due course—subject, of course, to your permission, Mr Speaker—about action on the recommendations. On the public inquiry remaining open, that is of course a matter for the chair, Sir Brian Langstaff.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is a powerful advocate for her constituents, and the common understanding will of course benefit the businesses she mentions. Our deals on emissions, energy trading, food and agricultural trade will all reduce costs for businesses. Astonishingly, the Conservatives and the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) want to reverse that and reimpose those costs on businesses.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
Given that the Cabinet Office advises the Government on establishing public inquiries, will the Minister meet the families of the senior military and intelligence personnel who were killed when an RAF Chinook helicopter crashed on the Mull of Kintyre in 1994? The families have gathered compelling evidence suggesting that the Ministry of Defence was aware that the Mk 2 Chinook in which they were travelling was not airworthy. They are petitioning the Government to establish an independent, judge-led public inquiry. Will the Minister meet the families or at least advise a relevant Cabinet colleague so to do?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who raises a very serious case. If he were able to write to me directly about it, I will certainly look at what would be the most suitable ministerial meeting.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has just come to the Dispatch Box and said that we have done a new trade deal with the European Union, which I think is news to both the Prime Minister and Brussels. The only thing this Government have done so far in terms of EU relations is to sell out our fishing industry for the next 12 years. With that in mind, will the Minister actually stand up for British interests in future negotiations with Brussels?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I stand up for British interests in every negotiation with Brussels. I will tell the hon. Gentleman what is not standing up for British interests. We negotiated, within 10 months of coming into government, the new common understanding that will be good for jobs, bear down on bills and give us the tools to secure our borders. The leader of the Conservative party opposed it before even reading it.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
I have been thinking about the cost of software licensing in the public sector, because North West Anglia NHS foundation trust is trying to move to an electronic patient record and one of the biggest ongoing costs of that is third-party payments for software. Other trusts are in the same position, as are many schools paying for pupil management software. Will the procurement Minister commit to looking into whether we can instead deliver some of that in-house and save significant sums?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Cases of the kind my hon. Friend is talking about are the reason we have been consulting on a public interest test. On the specific case he raises, if he writes to me I will ensure that the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven (Chris Ward) provides him with a response.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
My constituent Phil is in the special category mechanism for the 916 people who were inexplicably excluded from the infected blood compensation scheme in February, even though the Government’s expert group said in August last year that they should be compensated. On 5 June, the Paymaster General said he would consider the compensation arrangements. I may have missed it—forgive me if I have—but I also asked for a list of conditions that might be included within that. Does he have an update for me, please?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am certainly looking at the issue of the special category mechanism, as I undertook to do. If the hon. Lady writes to me I can look at the specific list, but I am also hoping, with Mr Speaker’s permission, to update the House on this and other infected blood issues very shortly.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
Residents in a housing development in my constituency are facing a number of issues after yet another developer has gone bust. Parts of the shared communal land have reverted back to the ownership of the Duchy of Cornwall, rather than to the residents themselves, who have to purchase the land back and cover the duchy’s legal costs. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, quite rightly, has Cabinet oversight, but who does the Duchy of Cornwall answer to and what recourse do my constituents now have in this case?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
On the infected blood compensation scheme in Northern Ireland, as of 21 February, 149 people had started the process, with 38 offers made totalling some £48 million. What assessment has been made of the time taken from when an application is made to when a payment actually arrives through the door?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The Infected Blood Compensation Authority is operationally independent, but I am accountable to this House. It is important that I have regular conversations and provide challenge on the kind of timescales the hon. Gentleman is talking about. The infected blood scandal predates modern-day devolution and he can rest assured that all four corners of the United Kingdom are at the forefront of my mind in respect of the speed of delivery.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
The Minister was earlier asked about the ever-growing size of the civil service and the Cabinet Office under this Government and whether we would see those numbers coming down, not going up, next year. Instead of answering the question about the future, they talked about the past. Let me ask the question again, but from a different angle: when are this Government going to take ownership of the fact that they are in government now, and these are their problems that they need to resolve?
Public Service: Ethics and Integrity
Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
On 21 July 2025 the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster laid out the Government’s plans to put ethics and integrity at the heart of the Government’s approach to public service. Today, we are delivering on those plans.
Ethics and Integrity Commission
The Ethics and Integrity Commission has been launched today. The Prime Minister has written to the EIC’s independent chair, Doug Chalmers CB DSO OBE, to issue the commission’s terms of reference. A copy of the terms of reference have also been deposited in the Library of the House.
The commission will play a leading role in supporting public bodies as they implement the planned forthcoming obligation in the Public Office (Accountability) Bill for all public bodies to have a code of ethical conduct. The Prime Minister has commissioned the EIC to report on how public bodies can develop, distribute and enforce codes so that they effect meaningful cultural change, ensuring public officials act with honesty, integrity and candour at all times. On the publication of its report, and on the Hillsborough law receiving Royal Assent, the EIC will act as a centre of excellence on public sector codes of conduct, providing guidance and best practice to help all public bodies put ethics and integrity at the heart of public service delivery.
As previously announced, the commission will have a responsibility to engage and inform the wider public on the values, rules and oversight mechanisms that govern standards in public life, and to convene the leaders of ethics and standards bodies in central Government and Parliament to identify and address areas of common concern. The commission will also report annually to the Prime Minister on the overall health of our standards system. The commission will not have the ability to launch investigations or field complaints.
The Government are launching today a recruitment campaign for three new independent members to join the commission, to ensure a strong independent majority. The commission otherwise takes on the existing members and governance structure of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. The commission also inherits CSPL’s mandate to be the custodians of the seven principles of public life, and to report to Government on how arrangements to uphold standards in public life can be strengthened in specific areas.
An updated ministerial code and terms of reference for the Independent Adviser
The Prime Minister has today reissued the ministerial code to implement reforms in relation to ministerial severance payments and changes to the operation of the business appointment rules.
The ministerial code makes it clear that Ministers will be expected to forgo their severance if they leave office having served less than six months, or if they leave office following a serious breach of the ministerial code. Similarly, the new code states that if a former Minister is reappointed to a ministerial office within three months of leaving, they will be expected to waive their salary for the period that overlaps with their severance payment.
The updated code and terms of reference for the independent adviser on ministerial standards also reflect changes to the operation of the business appointment rules for former Ministers. From today, advice under the rules will be provided by the independent adviser, and the Prime Minister may ask former Ministers to repay their severance payment if they are found to have seriously breached the business appointment rules.
One further change to the ministerial code is that the Cabinet Office will advise the Prime Minister before any decision to establish a public inquiry is taken, and before the terms of reference are agreed. This is to ensure decisions are well judged and proportionate, and that inquiries focus on finding the right answers and help effect change.
The closure of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments
The Advisory Committee on Business Appointments has now closed. From today, its function to provide independent advice on the application of the business appointment rules in respect of the most senior civil servants and special advisers is transferred to the Civil Service Commission. Similarly, ACOBA’s function to provide independent advice in respect of former Ministers is from today transferred to the Prime Minister’s independent adviser on ministerial standards, Sir Laurie Magnus, who already provides independent advice to the Prime Minister on adherence to the ministerial code, and to individual Ministers on the appropriate management of their private interests while in office.
This structural change is accompanied by wider reforms to strengthen and streamline the system and enhance compliance. As set out above, in the event of a serious breach of the business appointment rules, Ministers will now be expected to repay any severance payment they have received. To improve the consistency of the application of the rules in Departments, the Civil Service Commission, which already audits Departments for compliance with the civil service recruitment principles, will undertake regular audits of departmental decisions on business appointment applications for grades below the level currently administered by ACOBA. This enhanced sanction and oversight will be underpinned by a more efficient and responsive system, focused on ensuring applicants understand their obligations under the rules. New guidance on the system has been published on www.gov.uk today to reflect these changes.
[HCWS939]
Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Technical Expert Group
Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
On 21 July, I updated the House that the Government would be bringing forward further regulations to respond to the recommendations of the Infected Blood Inquiry’s additional report. I also informed the House that to make the proposed changes to the infected blood compensation scheme would require further technical clinical and legal advice. I can now confirm that this advice will be provided by a new Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Technical Expert Group.
The technical expert group will assist the Government in developing proposals, in response to the inquiry’s additional report, for public consultation. Following that consultation, the Government will be in a position to finalise any changes to the infected blood compensation scheme, informed by the consultation findings and the technical expert group’s advice.
I have published the terms of reference for the technical expert group, including full membership, as well as its work programme. To ensure the necessary changes to the compensation scheme can be implemented with the minimum possible delay to the Infected Blood Compensation Authority’s ongoing delivery of compensation, I am appointing all members of the previous expert group to the new group. In addition, I am pleased to have personally appointed five further experts to broaden the group’s expertise and ensure any changes to the scheme are thoroughly assessed and validated. The new additional members to the technical expert group are as follows:
Dr Lise Estcourt, Transfusion Medicine specialist
Dr Susie Shapiro, Haematology Specialist
Dr Chloe Beale, Psychological medicine—psychiatrist
Professor Deborah Christie, Psychological medicine—psychologist
Professor John Weinman, Psychological medicine—psychologist
The appointments I have made reflect feedback from infected blood community stakeholders and I thank the community representatives for their valuable input into this process.
While the previous expert group, appointed by my predecessor, provided advice which enabled the Government to take critical decisions on the design of the infected blood compensation scheme, I acknowledge the inquiry’s and community’s criticisms about the transparency of its work.
After reflecting on the inquiry’s report, I gave the House an undertaking that transparency will be at the heart of any expert group going forward. Today I published an open letter to Professor Sir Jonathan Montgomery, who I have asked to chair the new technical expert group, setting out my expectations on how it will operate. This includes an expectation that the group will undertake targeted engagement with the infected blood community on issues raised in the inquiry’s additional report, to inform its work and help it answer the questions set out in its work programme.
[HCWS922]
Windsor Framework: Internal Market Guarantee
Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts(3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, I think for the first time, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) on securing this debate, and I thank the other Members for their interventions. He has also asked me questions in the main Chamber a number of times, and he always makes his case powerfully. He and I share a background in law—we were barristers before becoming Members of Parliament—so I recognise how he structures his argument effectively.
I begin with the things on which we agree, and I will leave it to the hon. and learned Gentleman to judge at the end of the debate whether my language is “dressing up”. We agree on the importance of protecting Northern Ireland’s integral place in the UK’s internal market, and I repeat my commitment to that endeavour today. That is every bit as sincere as the commitment I made to stakeholders across Northern Ireland when I visited. I have great affection for Northern Ireland. When I came into this job, an early priority of mine was to visit Belfast to speak to politicians, visit the Assembly and speak to businesses and people across Northern Ireland.
Yes, of course I speak today as a Minister in the Government, but it is also my great privilege to serve as Member of Parliament for Torfaen. Serving as a Welsh Member of Parliament only adds to my conviction that our nations of this United Kingdom stand to achieve far more economically, socially and culturally by working together than we would ever achieve alone.
I say directly to the hon. and learned Member, and indeed to all those who have intervened today, that this Government’s commitment to the UK internal market is not a vague concept or an aspiration; it is real.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I thank the right hon. Member for giving way and for his engagement on this issue. I wrote to him at the beginning of the year, asking him to come to hear directly from businesses in Upper Bann. The offer was declined, but he kindly sent officials along.
The impact was laid bare at the meeting with those officials last week by used agricultural machinery folks, by small retailers who are impacted by the parcels border, and by agrifood businesses. Each business around the table noted the diversion of trade. Today, we are alerting the Minister to the diversion of trade. What is he doing about it? There is anecdotal evidence from each of those businesses, but there is also evidence from the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency that the proportion of GB manufacturing selling to Northern Ireland has reduced from 20.1% to 12.9%. We need action, and we need it now.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I will certainly be visiting Northern Ireland again. However, on the diversion of trade, that is precisely what the independent monitoring panel is currently looking at. The panel is looking at it for the earlier part of this year, and I expect it to report shortly. Of course, when the panel makes recommendations, where there are issues, the Government will consider them very carefully.
The Government’s commitment to the UK internal market is in our manifesto. It is set out in law, in section 46 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, which, to respond to the point made by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim, also explicitly provides that Northern Ireland is part of the UK’s customs territory. As I say, this issue is not just about the guarantee, important though that is; it is also important that the independent monitoring panel does its work.
I also have to say that the position of Northern Ireland has always been at the forefront of my mind when I have negotiated with the European Union. The hon. and learned Member talks about checks on the Irish sea. Of course, it is the case that this Government will implement the Windsor framework in good faith. Indeed, I give credit to the previous Government for negotiating the Windsor framework. We supported it in opposition, and we have implemented it.
Of course, the purpose of what I have been doing is, far from increasing checks on the Irish sea, to reduce them. That is what a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement will do, once we are able to implement it. In a speech I made in recent weeks, I said that I want to see the SPS agreement in place by early 2027. That will have the effect of reducing precisely the kind of checks that the hon. and learned Member has been referring to.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I have only about seven minutes left. I will give way to both Members, but I will have to do so quickly.
Mr Campbell
I thank the Minister for giving way. Things have improved only marginally, and not at sufficient speed. I suppose that those of us who live in the real world will say that things would have been much worse if Stormont had not been back up and running. However, I will give an example of the issues.
A constituent who visited me just this week said that they had ordered a product from the Natural History Museum, here in the centre of London, but they got this reply:
“Unfortunately, we are currently unable to ship to any EU countries.”
That is a reply from the Natural History Museum in London to a resident of Northern Ireland who was trying to order a product. Is that not an example of how much distance we have yet to travel?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I would certainly be interested in learning more about that specific case. If the hon. Gentleman wants to write to me about it, I will happily look into it.
Sammy Wilson
I thank the Minister for giving way. Having issued that invitation to my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), Members in this Chamber will probably raise a whole lot more cases.
The Minister has indicated that, as a result of the SPS agreement and so on, checks will be reduced even further. Could he explain why a £140 million border post is being erected in my constituency, with work being frantically carried out to make sure it is operational by October this year? If fewer checks will be needed, why are we spending all this money on building state-of-the-art border posts?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Quite simply it is because, to secure further agreements, the United Kingdom has to show good faith with the agreements it has already signed. The Windsor framework had cross-party support. We voted for it in opposition, so we have to show good faith in implementing it. However, there will come a point when we can reduce the checks—and it is not a point in the distant future, as we will be implementing the SPS agreement by 2027. At that stage, I will be more than happy to visit the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency to see the reduction of checks.
The internal market guarantee mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim is hugely important to the Government. Alongside independent scrutiny, it is there to deal with precisely the concern about trade flows. He talks about “Safeguarding the Union”, which is on my desk as I am looking at this issue.
An exercise has been carried out to see whether the guarantee was being met in the first scrutiny period during the first part of the year—from January to June 2025. As I have indicated, that will report shortly. If the report recommends further action that the Government need to take, we will look at that.
More generally, and the hon. and learned Gentleman referred to this, I have a role not only to supervise the Windsor framework in the Cabinet Office, but to negotiate with the EU. In that endeavour, which I have led and will continue to lead in the months ahead, I have always had Northern Ireland at the forefront of my mind.
There have been a lot of references to businesses, as well as to a number of businesses benefiting from dual market access, such as PRM group, which is investing £15 million in new premises and jobs distributing chilled and frozen foods. The chief executive of Denroy, a manufacturer, said it really has
“the best of both worlds.”
Manufacturing supplier Crushing Screening Parts has described dual market access as giving it
“a huge potential customer basis”
and enabling it to
“fulfil orders quicker than competitors.”
Food supplier Deli-Lites Ireland has described Northern Ireland’s trading arrangement as “very positive” for its businesses, and as having enhanced its competitiveness.
Jim Allister
The spin was that dual market access would make Northern Ireland the Singapore of the west, but the fact is that Invest Northern Ireland has had to say that there has not been a single inward investment because of dual market access. The reason for that is very simple: it is all very well to have access to the EU, but there is no advantage whatsoever if access to raw materials from GB is fettered. Inward investment is not happening because they do not want to have to bring their goods through an international border.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The four businesses I have just quoted evidently do not agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman. He and I both want to see an economically successful and prosperous Northern Ireland, and I have no doubt that dual market access will provide that.
I am conscious of the time, but I repeat not just this Government’s commitment, but my personal commitment to the UK internal market. As I negotiate with the European Union, Northern Ireland will be at the forefront of my mind.
Question put and agreed to.