Covid-19 Inquiry Response Costs

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Written Statements

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

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

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

The independent UK covid-19 inquiry publishes its own running costs quarterly. The chair is under a statutory obligation to avoid unnecessary costs in the inquiry’s work—and she has been clear as to her intention to complete her work as quickly and efficiently as possible.

I would like to update the House on the costs to the UK Government associated with responding to the UK covid-19 inquiry.

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

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

Breakdown of staff and costs

The Government’s response to the UK covid-19 inquiry is led by inquiry response units across Departments. These associated staff costs for Q4 are below, and include retrospective adjustments for Q1 to Q3.

Q4 number of UK covid-19 inquiry response unit staff: 286 full-time equivalents

Q4 cost of UK covid-19 inquiry response unit staff: £5,575,000 (including contingent labour costs)

Financial year 2024-25 (Q1-4), total cost of UK covid-19 inquiry response unit staff: £21,591,000 (including contingent labour costs, and retrospective adjustments from Q1-3).

EU-UK Summit

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate, and pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) and the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) for securing it.

We are here at the end of three weeks in which the post-Brexit independent trade policy that Conservative Members spent so long arguing for has been exercised. We have been exercising our sovereignty. We have agreed a trade deal with India; hon. Members may recall that a previous Prime Minister promised a UK-India deal by Diwali—to be fair, he did not say which Diwali, but none the less, we know he did not deliver it. This Government did. What about an economic deal with the United States? The Brexiteers promised it year after year. Did they ever deliver one? No, they did not. This Government did. Now, for the hat-trick, we have the improved deal with the European Union.

After all their years of arguing for an independent trade policy, one would think that, when a Government successfully exercised one, Conservative Members would have something positive to say about it—but sadly not.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Will the Minister give way?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I will certainly give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I want to make some progress first.

I did enjoy the shadow Minister’s speech. After hearing his comments in the middle about both the youth experience scheme and working in Europe, if he wants me to go and see his leader and put in a word for him to keep him in his job, I am more than happy to do so. I am not sure that the Back Benchers here got the memo about the line he was going to take, but I am sure they will become a bit more coherent in due course. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow quoted the “Frozen” song “Let It Go”, but I am afraid, looking at the Conservative party, it is more a case of “Let the storm rage on”—that is clearly what they are doing today.

The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness said what a significant week it was in parliamentary history, and I entirely agree with him. Whenever we have these debates on UK-EU relations, people with a real interest in and passion for it turn up. My sparring partners are here: my good friend, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), whom I frequently spar with on these matters, and the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), who I will give way to in a moment once I have made some progress. He often intervenes on me, and he is always here making the case—but, in this significant week, where is the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage)? In a supreme irony, he is in the European Union.

The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness also spoke about youth mobility. For me, what makes the difference are the experiences that I hear about from people whose lives have been transformed by having a year or two overseas. I want hon. Members to listen to the story of a young man and what he went on to do, because he spoke about two exciting and challenging years he had spent in France. He had really engaged while there. He said this:

“Living in Paris and working in Paris, taught me a lot”.

That young man became the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness. Given the amount of time that both he and the hon. Member for Clacton spend abroad, I am astonished that they want to deny the same opportunity to everybody else.

I know that the shadow Minister is at heart a sensible, pragmatic man. The Conservatives and Reform have made a decisive choice in the last week. We have secured a deal that will lower household bills—hon. Members need not take my word for it; they can take the word of most major supermarkets and retailers. I do not hear their voices in support of the position of the Conservatives or Reform. Energy bills are coming down—here hon. Members can take the word of Octopus Energy, which is saying just that, and the support of the major energy firms for the Government’s position.

The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings is right about the Five Eyes relationship. Nobody could deny the additional tools and information that we will get from this deal to tackle the boats in the channel and to deal with serious and organised crime. That is the deal this Government have secured—good for jobs, borders and bills. Both those parties will go into the next general election promising to reverse it, and they will have to tell each and every one of their constituents why they want to erect trade barriers, put prices up and make our borders less secure.

[Mike Wood]

I very much admire the Minister’s confidence. The Government have already guaranteed that energy prices will be £300 lower by 2029. Given his confidence that this deal will further lower energy bills, how much lower can we expect household electricity and gas bills to be in 2029 than the £300 reduction they have already promised?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I look forward to that debate in 2028 or 2029 with the hon. Gentleman, and indeed with the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness.

Let me come to the other speeches. My right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), who also benefited from a year abroad, quite rightly spoke about the importance of the automotive sector.

The hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) talked about scrutiny, an issue also raised by the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex. On that, the SPS agreement will require primary legislation; I am sure I will have a continuing debate with Opposition Members during its passage.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) spoke about the wide business support for the Government’s position. When the Conservative party used to win general elections, it used to claim to be the party of business; it most definitely is not any more.

Now let me come to the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex. I should start by saying that I am getting slightly concerned about him, because not once in his speech did he talk about increasing Conservative votes. He talked about increasing Reform votes. He referred to the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (James McMurdock) as his hon. Friend rather than the hon. Member. Are we to see this as a new political direction for the hon. Gentleman? I do not know—but his speech certainly leaned in that direction.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about a democratic mandate. The democratic mandate for what has been agreed with the EU comes from the Labour manifesto. It respects the result of the 2016 referendum: no return to the single market, no return to the customs union and no return to freedom of movement. That is the basis on which this Government have negotiated. People said, “You need to have a Norway deal. You need to have a Swiss deal. You can’t negotiate a bespoke deal for the United Kingdom.” But that is precisely what this Government have delivered within 10 months.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Where in the Labour manifesto did it say that we would start contributing to the EU budget once again? How much are we going to have to pay and when will we know?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

We will not be contributing to the general EU budget. We will be contributing on a value-for-money basis in specific areas, just as the last Government did when they started contributing to the Horizon research programme. I supported that when I was in opposition. I do not know whether that was one of the bitter things the Government did that the hon. Gentleman could not stomach in all those years. Where there is a value-for-money case and it is in Britain's interest, that is precisely what Britain would do. It is not about ideology; it is about a ruthlessly pragmatic approach, and that is what we will pursue.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) spoke about the deal working for the whole of the United Kingdom. She is absolutely right. The Government have secured, for example, the removal of steel tariffs, which is just one example of how different parts of the country will benefit. The SPS agreement on agricultural products, food and drink will benefit constituents up and down the land, as will the work on energy bills.

[Richard Tice]

To prove that he is so confident the agreement will not mean a return to freedom of movement—given that the vast majority of those who moved under freedom of movement were under the age of 30 and could therefore qualify for a youth experience scheme—will the Minister give us an indication of the sort of number the cap is likely to be set at? Is it 30,000, 50,000 or 200,000 per annum?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The scheme will be time-limited and capped. I will make two points on that. First, it will be introduced in the context of the Government’s pledge to reduce net migration over the course of this Parliament. Secondly, I see it in the same way as the 13 schemes that already exist and are working perfectly well. I do not detect from Conservative Members—although one or two Back Benchers might have a different view—any particular desire to undo those agreements. Nobody is remotely suggesting that because we have a youth mobility arrangement with Uruguay, for example, we have freedom of movement with Uruguay. That would be absurd.

The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings knows I respect him. We often spar across the Dispatch Box in the House. As ever, he put his finger on a fine historical parallel when he quoted Joseph Chamberlain at the start of his speech. Over a century ago, at the start of the 20th century, Joseph Chamberlain began a debate about trading arrangements that the British public thought would increase the cost of food. That led to a landslide Conservative defeat in 1906 and no pure Conservative Government for 16 years afterwards. Joseph Chamberlain’s campaign on trade caused absolute havoc on the right of British politics. Does that sound familiar?

[Sir John Hayes]

Let us save Joseph Chamberlain’s reputation, if we can. Joe Chamberlain was an almost legendary figure in the city of Birmingham. In the first half of his life, he gave that city slum clearance, clean water and unparalleled welfare standards. Later, when he came into Parliament, he began as a radical and ended up as a supporter of the Tory Government. In his age, Chamberlain represented was the defence of what he saw as the national interest. I cited him because, as I said, I believe that the national interest should be supreme. May I say to the right hon. Gentleman that I suspect that is what the vast majority of his constituents and mine think, too?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I would not disagree at all when it comes to Joseph Chamberlain’s record in Birmingham. The right hon. Gentleman knows that I do not doubt for a moment the sincerity of his belief in the national interest, but I am sure that he respects the sincerity of my belief as well. We take a different view as to what actually constitutes the national interest.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) talked about the huge benefits of the deal for the farming community. I am sure that the reduction in trade barriers will be welcomed.

I have been passed a note written by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is no longer in his place. I will make two quick observations. First, the SPS agreement will be of great benefit in reducing the level of checks across the Irish sea. Secondly, I will happily write to the hon. Gentleman on the other method issues he raised.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) raised the issue of fish. First, we have stability; and secondly, 70% of our catch is exported to the EU market, and that will be able to be done far more easily. To make sure that our fishers have the opportunity to take advantage of that greater market access, £360 million will be made available to upgrade the fishing fleet.

I give credit to the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) for his candid assessment of the previous Government as having made a lot of mistakes. On that, he and I agree 100%. But as I said to the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex, the red lines—not rejoining the single market or customs union, and on freedom of movement—have very much been observed.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) that this should not be about nostalgia. It is about making a forward-looking, hard-headed and ruthlessly pragmatic assessment of what is in our national interest now.

[Greg Smith]

Will the Minister give way?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I will, but as we are running out of time it will be the last time.

[Greg Smith]

As the Minister is talking about pragmatism and the national interest, perhaps I can set him a very brief maths test. On dynamic alignment on carbon trading, the EU’s carbon price today is £58.84 per metric tonne, while the UK’s price is £38.13. Does that increase or decrease costs on British business?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

If we are not part of the emissions trading system, we will not be able to get an exemption from the carbon border adjustment mechanism, which would cost British business £800 million. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that he wants British businesses to pay those taxes, he should be honest with the electorate about it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) spoke about bringing down costs. Things such as the export health certificate—£200 per consignment —were meaning that we were talking about thousands of pounds to get some lorries to move. Those are the kinds of things that we can sweep away.

It must be said that the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), speaking for the Liberal Democrats, provided a measure of balance to what was said by those sitting to her right. Nevertheless, I have to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset that if the Conservatives and Reform are in one position, and the Liberal Democrats are in another, it suggests that we have got the balance absolutely right.

I will conclude because I am conscious of the time. I know that we have gone over the allotted time, Mr Vickers, and my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow needs to sum up the debate. We have made our choice—a ruthlessly pragmatic choice in negotiation. Our choice is that we are going to lower bills and have a situation that is great for jobs. We are getting more tools and information to secure our borders. If Opposition Members wish to be against that, good luck to them.

[Martin Vickers (in the Chair)]

Before I call Stella Creasy, I point out to the Minister that he referred to the Member for Clacton by name.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Forgive me, Mr Vickers. I will forever reference the hon. Member for Clacton.

[Martin Vickers (in the Chair)]

I am sure he will not take offence.

Infected Blood Inquiry: Government Response

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the Government’s work to respond to the recommendations made in the infected blood inquiry’s 20 May 2024 report. I am grateful for the opportunity to update the House on this work.

On 20 May 2024, the then Prime Minister issued an apology on behalf of the state for the devastating impact that the use of infected blood and infected blood products has had on countless lives. That was echoed by the current Prime Minister, who was then on the Opposition Front Bench. I once again reiterate that apology wholeheartedly. No Member of this House will be in any doubt of the harm resulting from the infected blood scandal. This Government are firm that we must listen to the infected blood community and the inquiry and make tangible changes to the way that our institutions conduct themselves. As the inquiry’s report made clear, however, an apology is meaningful only if it is accompanied by action, and I am here today to set out the actions we are taking to respond to the inquiry’s recommendations.

Last week, the inquiry held further hearings on the timeliness and adequacy of the Government’s response on compensation. I attended to give evidence, along with members of the community who have been impacted by this scandal; I encourage all Members to listen to the incredibly moving testimonies of those impacted. The inquiry has set out its intention to publish a further report, and the Government remain committed to co-operating with the inquiry and acting on its recommendations.

On 17 December 2024, the Government published our initial response to the inquiry’s recommendations. I laid before the House an accompanying written statement, in which I committed to come before the House with a comprehensive update on our response to each of the inquiry’s recommendations within a year of the inquiry’s report. This statement fulfils that commitment. I am grateful for the engagement of all Members across the House, and am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the Government’s progress today. Once again, I thank Sir Brian Langstaff and his team for their work. The recommendations he made are wide-ranging, well considered and necessarily detailed.

The Government have worked closely with the devolved Governments to make progress on the implementation of the recommendations, which we hope will lead to meaningful change. I am grateful to my ministerial colleagues for their co-operation, and in particular the Under-Secretary of State for Public Health and Prevention, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), for her leadership on the recommendations for which her Department is responsible. I also thank Health Ministers in the devolved Governments: the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health in Scotland, Jenni Minto; the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care in Wales, Jeremy Miles; and the Minister of Health in Northern Ireland, Mike Nesbitt. Their engagement has been invaluable in ensuring that our approach is as unified as possible across the whole United Kingdom. The Government will continue to engage closely with the devolved Governments on issues such as support for advocacy charities and implementation by the national health service.

I recognise that for many in the community, the Government’s actions come after decades have passed. There is nothing that can put right the damage done by inaction on the part of multiple previous Governments, and it is not my intention for this statement to diminish that. My priority now is focusing on delivering meaningful change to ensure that the scandal of infected blood, among many other scandals, is never allowed to happen again.

I turn now to the recommendations. Alongside this statement, I have published an accompanying paper on gov.uk setting out in detail the Government’s response to each of the recommendations, and I will place a copy in the Libraries of the Houses. Equally, I am firm on the importance of these recommendations to the infected blood community, and I am writing today to community representatives to inform them of the publication of the Government’s response.

The UK and devolved Governments have accepted the inquiry’s recommendations either in full or in principle, and implementation is under way across Government, arm’s length bodies and healthcare settings. Where recommendations are accepted in principle, we have sought to explain the rationale for doing so, balancing agreement with the spirit of the recommendations and their implementation. Some are subject to future spending decisions by the Department of Health and Social Care.

I have noted the recommendations that have, quite rightly, drawn attention from across this House in previous debates, so I will take a moment to touch on those today. I turn first to the recommendation on compensation. I am grateful to those who have attended previous debates on this matter in the House; indeed, many are present today. The Infected Blood Compensation Authority delivered on the Government’s commitment to provide the first full compensation payments by the end of last year. IBCA publishes its data on compensation on a monthly basis; as of 6 May, payments totalling more than £96 million have been made. IBCA continues to scale up its operations to deliver compensation as quickly as possible and has confirmed plans to contact an average of 100 people every week to begin their claims. I am pleased to announce today that the interim chair, Sir Robert Francis KC, who developed vital work to inform the design of the compensation scheme and has overseen its delivery to this point, will continue in his role for a further 18 months.

Another recommendation of particular interest to right hon. and hon. Members is recommendation 10, relating to funding for charities providing patient advocacy services. I am pleased that last week, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), wrote to the charities confirming that £500,000 of funding has been made available for this financial year to ensure that the vital patient advocacy work they do for the infected blood community is sustained. Officials are now meeting the charities to begin the grant process to finalise the awards.

The Government recognise the importance of recommendation 5 on ending the defensive culture in the civil service. It is imperative we get this right so that the public can put their trust in institutions that have let down not just the infected blood community, but victims of other scandals that have taken place over decades. The Prime Minister has committed to legislation on a duty of candour, which he has confirmed will apply to public authorities and public servants, and include criminal sanctions. We are consulting on the issue and working to draft the best, most effective version of a Hillsborough law as part of our wider efforts to create a politics of public service.

The inquiry’s final recommendation relates to giving effect to the recommendations it has made. I am only too aware of the strength of feeling here and the need to ensure that the infected blood scandal does not fade from the public consciousness. A lot more needs to be done, and, as I made clear to the inquiry in my evidence last week, I am open to considering how we can improve the Government’s actions to ensure that we deliver justice for the victims of this devastating scandal. As progress continues to be made, my colleagues and I will report on the recommendations for which we are responsible. We are committed to transparency and accountability, and will be publishing the Government’s progress via a publicly accessible dashboard in due course, which will be regularly updated as progress is made.

The victims of this scandal have suffered immeasurably. I pay tribute once again to the infected blood community for their courage, perseverance and determination to demand justice for the wrongs that have been done to them. I hope that this update provides them with some reassurance that we are learning from and acting on the mistakes of the past, and that where there is more to do, this Government will do it. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Points of order come after the statement.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I think I can anticipate the hon. Gentleman’s point order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have been reassured by the Department that the statement has been sent and is on its way; I hope that deals with that issue.

Let me say to the shadow Minister that the cross-party approach that we have taken has been very important. It was the approach, as he knows, that I took with my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen), to whom I have often paid tribute in this House for the diligent way in which he pursued this matter.

The shadow Minister asked me about the current pace of delivery. I am restless for progress, and will not be satisfied with the pace of delivery until everyone who is eligible for compensation has received it. He asked me about what we will do about the pace of compensation going forward. IBCA has adopted a test-and-learn approach, which has now been completed, and I expect to see a significant increase in the pace of the payments. While respecting IBCA’s operational independence, I will be holding it to account, and quite rightly I will be held to account by this House over the pace of payments. I also stand ready to assist IBCA in whatever way I can to speed up the payments.

On the monitoring of liver damage, a new surveillance registry will be set up. The shadow Minister asked about the blood test prior to 1996; I will ask the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire, who is beside me on the Front Bench, to write to the shadow Minister with the precise figures.

Overall, the whole House is united on this matter. We all want to see the pace of payments speed up, and that is exactly what I am seeking to do.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Before I call any Member to speak, I would like to say that we have looked into Gregory Stafford’s point regarding the lack of copies of the statement. I understand that the Department has now sent the statement to the Vote Office, and it is currently being printed and will be with us shortly. I know that the Minister will be looking into this problem and I am sure that he is as dissatisfied with the situation as the House is.

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

I met two of my constituents who have been tragically affected by this scandal and attended the hearings last week. They told me what an emotional day it had been—almost like a family reunion in some ways—but they also spoke of their immense frustration at still having to fight through the long wait for justice that remains. They told me again that the pace of payments to victims and families is far too slow, and it is still unclear what evidence they need to provide to support their claim.

I welcome the fact that the Government have identified £11.8 billion to pay compensation, and that, for the first time, this has been properly budgeted for, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that the challenge now is to ensure that trust is built and maintained as we complete this process. Will he tell the House what he can do to ensure that the evidential requirements are clear to families to allow them to prepare for being contacted, that payments are accelerated, and that justice is delivered to everybody affected by this appalling scandal?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The hearing last week was an extremely moving experience. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be aware of the evidence that I gave to the inquiry. His point about evidence is important. First, so much happened a long time ago, which makes evidence difficult to source. Secondly, Sir Brian Langstaff’s inquiry also identified evidence of deliberate document destruction. For those two reasons in particular, it is essential that IBCA takes a sympathetic, enabling view to the evidence that is required and has caseworkers assisting victims in finding the evidence that they need.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I thank the Paymaster General for advance sight of his statement. The infected blood scandal is a harrowing story of people being failed not only by the medical professionals who treated them, but by the NHS, which should have been responsible for the safety of their treatment, and by a series of Governments who should have prevented such horror from ever taking place. As the Minister knows, I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues welcome the introduction of the infected blood compensation scheme. The Government were right to introduce the scheme at the start of the Parliament, and I am glad to hear the Minister say that the Infected Blood Compensation Authority is scaling up its operation. However, we are alarmed that the roll-out of the scheme has been far too slow, leaving victims without the justice that they deserve.

Victims and their families have been waiting for decades for answers and recognition of the suffering they endured. So far, only 106 people have received payments from IBCA, and 54 others have received offers. Compensation payouts are not due to conclude until 2029, and that date would rely on a rapid increase in the rate of payments. We are deeply concerned by the speed at which victims are receiving their long-overdue compensation, and I am glad that last week’s hearings looked into the adequacy and timeliness of the Government’s response. To echo the words of Sir Brian Langstaff,

“People infected and affected do not have time on their side.”

To that end, and to provide confidence to victims and their families, can the Paymaster General clarify what deadline he has for the implementation of the inquiry’s recommendations? Moreover, what further steps is he taking to increase the speed at which payments are being made, and can he confirm when all victims can expect to have received their long-overdue compensation? What more can be done to help those who need to provide proof of infection but whose medical records have been destroyed?

It is crucial that there are mechanisms in place to ensure that the concerns of charities, organisations and the affected individuals are heard. Supporting the work of those vital organisations and engaging with them to understand exactly the needs of those affected is crucial.

The Liberal Democrats are backing the survivors’ call for a duty of candour on all public officials. As such, I am glad to hear the sentiment behind the Government’s response to recommendation 5, but when will the Government bring forward proposals to that effect so that such a scandal is never repeated? Can the Paymaster General clarify why there has been a delay, given that relevant legislation was originally meant to be published in April?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

First, with regard to the current position on payments, just over £96 million has been paid, and IBCA has invited 677 claimants to begin the process. I want to be clear about the 2029 date to which the hon. Lady referred. It is correct to say that there are, as I regard them, backstop dates of 2027 for the infected and 2029 for the affected, but that is what they are—backstops. They are not targets. The target is to make the payments as soon as possible.

The hon. Lady asked about evidence, which I dealt with in response to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper). She refers to a situation where someone’s medical evidence has for whatever reason been destroyed, and that is precisely the kind of situation where we expect IBCA to take a sympathetic approach.

On the duty of candour, the Government remain committed to bringing in duty of candour legislation, but it is important that we get it right and ensure that the legislation will actually achieve the shared objective that I am sure the whole House has of trying to prevent this type of scandal from happening again. We must ensure that there are no unintended consequences, so it is because we want to get the legislation right that we are taking a bit more time.

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

I thank the Paymaster General for his statement. I am in constant contact with the contaminated blood community, and they are furious and frustrated in equal measure at the lack of progress with the claims being processed. I was speaking to a haemophiliac, who as a child was unknowingly used for research all those years ago. He asked why it is that he is likely to get less in compensation after being used in an experiment than a drunken driver who crashed his car and needed a blood transfusion. I think that is a fair question. He also asked whether Members of this House understand the stress and mental torment that individuals are going through, when they are waiting on a Tuesday night for close of play to see whether they are one of the lucky hundred to have their claims processed the following week. I thank my right hon. Friend very much for everything he has done, but I think those are fair points. Does he think they are fair?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is and has been throughout this process a powerful advocate for the victims. While this is a broad tariff-based scheme, it is vital that individuals’ suffering and circumstances are reflected in the awards that are made. To his latter point, I know the agony that victims are still going through in having to wait, and I know that he shares my desire to push forward with the payments as quickly as possible.

[Sir Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)]

Can I start by commending the approach that the Paymaster General is taking? I know that he is totally sincere about getting justice and is trying his best. However, I think he knows in his heart of hearts that the system that has been put in place is not working. I have constituents, such as Sue Collins, who are asking why in March IBCA had processed the claims of only 250-odd people out of 4,000 people, when they are known to us and have been on previous payment schemes. Even more worrying is the fact that IBCA is saying that it is aiming to process a majority—that could be just 51%—by the end of 2027. Does he not agree that the right target for IBCA would be to process the vast majority—more than 90%, let us say—by the end of this year, and that it should commit to that? That is what needs to happen, because two people are dying every single week, and justice delayed really is justice denied.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for the work he did in government on this matter when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. He asks about infected people who are known already because they are registered to schemes, and he is clearly right to identify that particular group in terms of prioritisation and what is known. I said last week to the inquiry that I am open to changes to the scheme that do not in themselves cause further delay. That is the open approach that I took last week at the inquiry, and it is the open approach I repeat to the House today.

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

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and update. I know the sincerity with which he wants to deliver this culture change—this being one of many examples of failures by the state that we absolutely have to correct. As has been said by Members on both sides of the House and by constituents to me, speed in the delivery of compensation to infected and affected individuals is of paramount importance. Will my right hon. Friend say more about the conversations he is having with the devolved nations, in particular Wales, to bring efficacy to the recommendations?

Could my right hon. Friend offer any advice to my constituent Suzanne Morgan, who very recently visited my surgery? Her mother Marie Jupe died due to infected blood, but as her mother was not registered with an existing infected blood scheme or the Alliance House organisations scheme, Suzanne is not eligible for any compensation. Will he meet me to discuss that case?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

To my hon. Friend’s latter point, my thoughts are with Suzanne. In respect of Suzanne’s mother, although the registration deadline for the infected blood support scheme has passed, it does not mean she is not entitled to compensation. There would be an entitlement to compensation.

With regard to the point about the whole United Kingdom, one of the issues, which I am sure right hon. and hon. Members will appreciate, is that the awful days when the infected blood products were being imported were in the pre-devolution age. Many of the recommendations require measures to be implemented across the NHS, but health is of course devolved. The undertaking I give to the House is that I will continue to work closely with Ministers in the devolved Administrations to get the equity that my hon. Friend talks about regarding the recommendations across the UK.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

Clearly, getting to a good and timely operation of the compensation scheme will take the Paymaster General’s personal attention, and I know that he will give it that attention because of his dedication to getting this right. Could he give an update to the House on the anticipated memorial dedicated specifically to the children who were infected at Treloar’s?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

It is absolutely right that we have both a national memorial and a memorial dedicated specifically to the children who suffered so much at Treloar’s, and it is right that the memorials both recognise what has happened and ensure that it will be remembered by future generations. The Government are following the inquiry’s recommendation that a steering committee be formed to decide what memorials are provided and where, with consideration being given as well to memorials in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. The membership of the steering committee will reflect the experiences of all routes of transmission, those infected and those affected, and crucially it will contain representatives of all the UK’s Administrations.

[Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)]

I fully agree with the need for urgency that has been reiterated on both sides of the House. I have spoken to constituents who are frustrated, and the turmoil and distress they are in is immense. Will the Minister provide more detail on how individuals are being kept updated on the progress of their claims? What support is provided to address those cases, in terms of dedicated caseworkers?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

On the first point, IBCA publishes a regular monthly newsletter with data of the payments being made. On support, the money that the Government have announced for the charities that provide such vital patient advocacy is hugely important. In respect of those who are making claims, I have signed off money for both legal support and financial advice, which is hugely important too.

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

The Minister referred briefly to something called a duty of candour, which will try to avoid a repetition of what was described as a

“defensive culture in the civil service”.

Will he expand on that phenomenon? It is quite extraordinary, is it not, that when people in all innocence were infected with lethal diseases by the NHS, civil servants should have gathered round to deny them the help and compensation they needed? Surely some sort of sanction ought to be involved. Will anyone be held to account for this, because otherwise, it will happen again, won’t it?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

To the right hon. Gentleman’s point about potential criminal sanctions, I have always said that I stand ready to provide whatever evidence might be requested of the Cabinet Office and across Government to any investigation. To his point about a duty of candour, Sir Brian Langstaff said that there was not an explicit conspiracy; rather, there was a culture of institutional defensiveness whereby individual public servants put personal and institutional reputation above the public good. As I said earlier in response to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), the Government will bring forward legislation on a duty of candour. However, it is not just about legislation, landmark though it is; it is about leadership across public service to change culture, which will be important in the years ahead.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

I thank the Paymaster General for his statement and for his correspondence on this issue on behalf of my constituent Alex Robinson. Alex lost her father in 2006 to this scandal, having already lost her mother as a child. She was her father’s carer from the age of 13. She is concerned that when a deceased victim leaves no spouse or partner, the estate is not entitled to the same compensation, irrespective of the role any member of that estate may have played in the victim’s life. Does the Minister agree that there are exceptional and unique cases, such as Alex’s, and that they need to be looked at differently? Will he meet me to explore how we can ensure that that happens?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I think the thoughts of the whole House are with my hon. Friend’s constituent, Alex, regarding the loss of her parents. On the point about carers, they are eligible for compensation under the scheme. If my hon. Friend is willing to write to me, I will be more than happy to have an individual discussion and correspondence on that case.

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

Last week’s hearings were both fascinating and disturbing. One discrepancy was pointed out to me, however, about bereaved partners and whether their loved one died before 31 March. Partners of those who died before 31 March could receive up to 75% of their support payment, whereas newly bereaved partners are no longer able to register for those payments. These people were often forced to give up their career to care for their loved ones and were totally dependent upon those payments. Will the Minister commit to reviewing and rectifying that unfairness, so that no bereaved partner is left behind simply because of the date of their loved one’s death?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

To be absolutely clear, the cut-off date is about registration for the support schemes; it is not a cut-off date for entitlement to compensation. When issues around this were raised with me at the inquiry last week, I said that if there was a particular issue around a gap between cessation of payment and when compensation might be received, I was willing to go away and look at it, and I will do that. The test that I apply is whether we are pushing this scheme forward. We have to ensure that I, and collectively we, do not do things that would cause even further delay.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

One of the first pieces of correspondence that I received as a new MP on 10 July last year was from my constituent Robert Dickie, who passionately told me about his brother, who died aged 31 from AIDS and hepatitis C after being infected with contaminated blood products. I therefore welcome today’s update. The Government recently announced that they have allocated funding for charities, which is a recommendation from the inquiry. Will the Minister outline what steps he has taken with the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that the funding gets to those charities?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. The charities have done a remarkable job in supporting victims and in patient advocacy. I know that there have been meetings already with officials, and he can be assured that I am working with the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), who is here on the Front Bench, to ensure that that money gets to the charities as quickly as possible.

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

As the Minister is aware, my constituent Gary Webster has had to live with HIV and hepatitis C since being given infected blood as a pupil at Treloar’s. Gary’s health is failing fast and he fears that he will not live to see compensation. Will the Minister give Gary and the other surviving Treloar’s boys any reassurance that they will be invited to claim for compensation this year?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

IBCA has been set up in such a way that it is operationally independent, and I respect that independence. As I indicated in a previous answer—indeed, the hon. Lady has raised Gary’s case with me on a number of occasions—I stand ready, first, to hold IBCA to account; and secondly, to give support as required by IBCA to ensure that we are moving forward and quickening the pace after the test-and-learn approach that it has used.

[Tom Collins (Worcester) (Lab)]

Families in Worcester have spent years in limbo, grieving the loss of loved ones while navigating decades of delays and bureaucratic mazes that were handed down by the very systems intended to support them. I therefore welcome this statement of ambition in urgently delivering compensation and justice to those both infected and affected. The changes outlined at the end of March relating to people who lose their spouses as a result of infected blood are causing anxiety in my constituency. My constituents are concerned that the injustice of delay will be extended to them more severely than to others. Will the Paymaster General reassure widows and widowers whose spouses die from April this year that they will not be waiting years and years for support payments?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. As I indicated to the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart), who is no longer in his place, this is not a deadline to claim compensation; it is a deadline for applying for the support schemes. As I also indicated in my previous answer, if injustice arises from a gap in time, I will look at that.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

As a number of Members have said to the Minister, speed is obviously of the essence. I have two questions. First, even though I hear him say that there is a backstop date by which he wants everything to be completed, would it be possible for individual applicants to have a target landing date on which IBCA will contact them? That way, their expectations are managed and people can think about their affairs in due course. Secondly, can the Minister say, hand on heart, that IBCA has enough resources? If it had twice as many people, could it move twice as fast?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

In answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s first question, I am sure that he, as a former Minister, will understand that I respect IBCA’s operational independence in terms of the payments that are being made, but as I have indicated, I stand ready to help to push this forward. Secondly, absolutely there are adequate resources here. We have allocated £11.8 billion to this scheme. He used the example of the number of caseworkers, and I stand ready to assist with that in order to push things forward with IBCA.

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

I thank the Minister for his statement, which fulfils his earlier promise to make one, and for his correspondence with me on a specific case. I also welcome the fact that the Government are committed, in principle or in full, to all the recommendations made by the inquiry. Last week at the inquiry I met my constituent Martin Threadgold, one of the victims of this scandal. Martin has expressed to me several concerns about the pace at which victims are being compensated, and those concerns have been echoed across the House today. May I ask two questions on Martin’s behalf? First, £11.8 billion was allocated in the Budget to this scheme, so can the Minister confirm how much has been paid out so far? Secondly, will he use his good offices to ensure that IBCA pays out as many claims as possible and as fast as it possibly can?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this—he speaks powerfully on behalf of his constituent. As I indicated in an earlier answer, just over £96 million has been paid out, but I will continue to use my ministerial office, as well as working to hold IBCA to account, to move from what has been IBCA’s test-and-learn phase into a different phase and start to really speed up these payments.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)]

I thank the Minister for all the work he is doing to lead on this matter and bring justice to all the victims, and indeed for his statement today. Is it his understanding that victims of the infected blood scandal should not be worse off in the transition from the interim payments to the new compensation scheme? I have spoken to one victim, a constituent, who seems to have been offered a compensation offer that is much, much reduced compared with the offer he previously received under the special category mechanism.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The issue of how the special category mechanism is translated across into what is known as the health supplemental route in relation to infected people is something I discussed before the inquiry last week. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, I do not know the facts of the specific case he is talking about, but if he is willing to write to me with the two different figures and the way in which his constituent feels that he is worse off, I will be more than happy to look at it.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

The partner of Helen, my constituent from Farnham, died in 1994 from infected blood. Unfortunately, Helen now has stage 4B ovarian cancer, so she is not in a great state. She wrote to the Chief Secretary in August and, despite chasing this up numerous times, it took months for a rather unsympathetic response from the Chief Secretary to come back. I know that the Paymaster General is keen to speed this up for those infected, but there are also plenty of people who were affected and whose time is short, so can he commit to speeding up the process for them, too?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point: we have people who are infected and people who are affected in a terrible way by this scandal, and he speaks powerfully about Helen and the particular circumstances she finds herself in. I am sure the thoughts of the whole House will be with Helen. I have not, to my knowledge, seen the piece of correspondence that he is talking about, but if he wants to write to me directly at the Cabinet Office about Helen’s circumstances, I am happy to look at that. I should add that I expect payments to the affected to begin by the end of this year.

[Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for today’s update. Although I welcome the progress that has been made on the compensation scheme, as he has highlighted, I once again have to highlight the case of my constituent who was infected with hepatitis C during a transplant operation when she was 15. She has suffered terrible physical and mental illness throughout most of her life. The fact that she was infected in 1993, after the cut-off date for the support scheme, means that she has had no formal acknowledgment of her suffering from the Infected Blood Compensation Authority, and no support payments or interim payments. Can the Minister formally address the concerns of unregistered infected people from that period from 1991 to 1996, when we know people were still being infected, and commit to urgently recognising their suffering and the urgency of their compensation claims?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Again, I am sure that the thoughts of the whole House will be with the hon. Gentleman’s constituent, given the terrible experience that she has clearly had. With regard to the category of victims he is talking about—unregistered, living, infected people—he is absolutely right to raise their position. The objective of this compensation scheme is to ensure that every victim, whatever their circumstances, receives the compensation they are due, and that obviously includes his constituent.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

I will be forever indebted to my constituent Clive Smith, who is also the president of the Haemophilia Society. He has been a long-standing advocate and a voice for those victims seeking justice for being affected and infected. Of course, time is of the essence and many victims still feel disillusioned and that the Government are dragging their heels. While the Government have accepted publicly that victims will die before they get the compensation they are owed, as has been referenced in this Chamber, surely this just illustrates that the system is not going fast enough. What reassurance can the Minister provide that compensation will be delivered at speed and that the system will be as simple as possible for those affected and infected to apply for compensation? Also, what reassurance can he provide that they will be kept informed and updated as part of that process?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I have met Clive Smith and I pay tribute to the campaigning work that he has done over many years. On updating, I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important—that is why IBCA publishes regular newsletters with updates on the statistics—but he also identifies a statistic that should give us all pause for thought, which is that a victim of this scandal is still dying every few days. That shows the impetus and the imperative to speed these compensation payments up, and that is absolutely what I am committed to do.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

A constituent of mine infected with hepatitis C and under the special category mechanism has written to express their distress that earlier this year supplementary regulations removed the provisions, which they had previously been promised, to bring their compensation in line with those with cirrhosis. The group were assured that there would not need to go through another round of evidence gathering, yet they have been left without recourse through this mechanism. Will the Minister explain why these provisions were changed, what redress is available to this cohort of approximately 915 people, and what steps will be brought forward to ensure that further reassurances are not breached?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The issue that the hon. Gentleman raises about the special category mechanism is one that I was asked about in front of the inquiry last week. It relates to conditions that qualified under the special category mechanism, some of which go into the core route for infected people and some of which go into the supplemental route. I gave an undertaking to the inquiry last week that I would look at whether there were particular issues, and I think that is what he is identifying in relation to his constituent. As I said quite openly to the inquiry last week, the test that I use around changes to the scheme is to ensure that it does not cause even further delay.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

I am grateful for the Minister’s statement, but I too would like to identify the gaping hole in the compensation scheme that relates to the special category mechanism. I point out that some of my constituents are in very poor health and their lives may be limited time-wise, yet they will end up with less compensation than someone who is in stage one and is healthy. At every point throughout the process, the compensation scheme has said that the SCM infected should be compensated. The infected blood inquiry said the same thing. The Government’s own expert group also said in August 2024, until they were hauled back into the Cabinet Office and then they changed their mind, that they must have compensation. I invite the Paymaster General to meet me and my affected constituent—it would have to be online, and it would be with his carer because this gentleman is very ill and suffering dreadfully, and yet he seems to have been excluded from getting fair compensation.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Again, the hon. Lady quite reasonably raises the issue of the special category mechanism, which I answered a question about from her hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon). On the specific case she talks about, I would be grateful if she wrote to me with all the details, and then I would be more than happy to ensure she gets a reply as soon as possible.

UK-EU Summit

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Burghart]

I would say that if the terms of the deal are that the UK must pay to have access to that fund, we must ask very serious questions of our European allies about why we should have to contribute when we are already committed to their security. If the Government choose to go down that route, it is for the Government to explain why that should be the case.

The truth is that NATO must continue to be the cornerstone of our defence, but over the weekend there were reports in The Sunday Times that the EU might be inserted into our chain of command, which would be a very significant change.

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

Absolute nonsense.

[Alex Burghart]

From a sedentary position, the Paymaster General says that that is absolute nonsense. I am pleased to hear it, but the right hon. Gentleman has not yet had an opportunity to tell the House that. It was clear that someone in the Government, or within the EU, was briefing journalists over the weekend that this might be true. [Interruption.] I think the right hon. Gentleman needs to take responsibility for his special advisers. If there is to be a defence pact, it is for the Government to explain why it would make us safer.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to end and insert:

“notes the overwhelming mandate on which the Government was elected, which included resetting the United Kingdom’s relationship with the European Union to deepen ties with its European friends, neighbours and allies; welcomes the Government’s commitment only to agree a deal that is in the UK’s national interest and is in line with the manifesto on which the Government was elected; supports the Government’s commitment to agree a new and ambitious security agreement between the UK and the EU to help tackle common threats, whilst noting that NATO is the cornerstone of the UK’s defence; recognises the Government’s ambition to negotiate a sanitary and phytosanitary and veterinary agreement to address the cost of food and to tackle a range of other issues to reduce barriers to trade; and further supports improvements to the UK-EU relationship that are aimed at making the UK safer, more secure and more prosperous, in line with the Prime Minister’s Plan for Change.”

First of all, I should say what a pleasure it always is to debate with the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), who is across the Dispatch Box from me. Discussions with the EU are ongoing, and I am sure that Members from across the House will understand that I cannot, this afternoon, pre-empt what will be unveiled at next week’s summit. We will not provide a running commentary on negotiations, nor would this House expect us to. However, after the summit has concluded, we will take the earliest possible opportunity to update Parliament on what has been delivered, and on the impact that any measures will have.

I will focus my remarks on how this Government are improving the lives of working people and making the people of the UK safer, more secure and more prosperous, and I am grateful to the Opposition for giving us the opportunity to talk about that. We have heard from the Opposition today, and from the Leader of the Opposition in recent days, that the only thing that has been surrendered is the credibility of the Conservative party as a party of opposition, let alone a party of government. The only quantum leap made is by the Conservative party, which has gone from government to irrelevance.

2025 started so well, didn’t it? The Leader of the Opposition was turning over a new leaf and taking responsibility for her mistakes. She said of the previous Government:

“We were making announcements without proper plans. We announced that we would leave the European Union before we had a plan for growth outside the EU.”

However, with negotiations ongoing, today the Conservatives are rehashing the arguments of the past. There is no analysis of where the United Kingdom’s interest lies in the mid-2020s. The Conservatives simply do not believe in Britain’s ability to win. Perhaps that is no surprise, given the 14 years of failure that they delivered for our country.

This Government were elected in July 2024 on a mandate to deliver change for working people, and we are delivering on the promises of our manifesto. If the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar does not know about the objectives of the negotiation, I suggest that he read the manifesto—a manifesto that delivered 411 Labour Members of Parliament, as the public overwhelmingly rejected the Conservative party.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

May I point out that the Conservative motion says that the Conservatives stand by the result of the 2016 referendum, but the Labour amendment does not say the same of the Labour party? Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that a one-term mandate in one election trumps a referendum result, or does he respect the referendum result of 2016?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I absolutely respect the referendum result. If the hon. Gentleman bothered to read our manifesto, he would discover that there are red lines: we will not go back to the single market, the customs union, or freedom of movement. Let me say to the Conservative party that delivering on our manifesto promises will unlock huge benefits for the United Kingdom, reduce barriers to trade and accelerate economic growth. In an uncertain world, it will keep us safer, more secure and more prosperous. That is what this Government are working towards.

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

The Minister has referred to the Labour manifesto several times in a few minutes. Did it say anything at all about accepting dynamic alignment or becoming a rule taker—yes or no?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The objective of negotiating a sanitary and phytosanitary veterinary agreement, so that agricultural products, food and drink can be traded more cheaply between the UK and the EU, is in the Labour manifesto, and we have a mandate for that. The Government will put more money in the pockets of working people and create greater long-term stability and security for the British people. Apparently, the Opposition are against that, and so, I hear, is Reform. To be fair, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) says that he thinks the current deal with the EU can be improved, but he has never told us exactly how, and we wait to find out.

Since last July, this Government have been getting on with the job of resetting our relationship with the European Union in a number of important areas.

[Pete Wishart]

Right now, the young people of this country are confined to this island, and cannot live, work or move freely across the continent. There are discussions about a youth mobility scheme. Will the Minister commit himself to securing a mobility scheme for the young people of this country?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I would not describe the hon. Gentleman as being confined to any island. I have already spoken about smart, controlled youth mobility schemes; the previous Government agreed a number of them.

This Government are exercising diplomacy in our national interest. We need only take one look at the trade deals that we have signed with the United States —[Hon. Members: “Terrible!”]—and India in the last fortnight to see that we are delivering for the British people. Conservative Front Benchers shout from a sedentaryposition about the US deal, but they can tell that to the workers at Jaguar Land Rover whose jobs have been saved by the deal.

I can tell the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) that I was in Scotland yesterday to talk to the Scotch Whisky Association about the enormous benefits for Scotland of the India deal. He should welcome that deal, not criticise the Government. Britain is back on the world stage, no thanks to the carping from the Opposition

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

Will the Minister give way?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

On the point about carping from the Opposition, I will.

[Harriet Cross]

The Minister mentioned that he was in Scotland yesterday, which is wonderful. As a Scottish MP, I am in Scotland every week, and I quite often meet people from distilleries, who have recently said that they are suffering because of the family farm tax that the Government have brought in. Their farmers are downsizing and not investing, which is reducing their supply of grain. Are the Minister and the Government proud of that legacy, and that contribution to the Scotch Whisky Association?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am very proud of the extra £25 billion that we have put into the national health service. Apparently, the ludicrous position of the Opposition is that they are in favour of the investment, but they will not tell us exactly how they would raise the money.

I put it to the Opposition: is there any country they actually want a British business to trade with? In government, the Conservatives promised a trade deal with India by Diwali—to be fair, they did not say which Diwali—but they delivered absolutely nothing for the British people. We secure an India trade deal, and they complain about it. We secure an economic deal with the United States—long promised by the last Government, but never delivered—and they do not like that. I like to be constructive, so can I make a suggestion to the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith)? Maybe he should change his title to shadow Secretary of State for no business and no trade, because when it comes to the trade deals that we have negotiated, that is the Opposition’s position.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

He has run a business, unlike you.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I was self-employed, actually. I would be careful about making remarks without knowing the facts.

While the Opposition continue to turn inwards on themselves, this Government will focus on delivery. Our priority is translating that strengthened relationship with the European Union into a long-term UK-EU strategic partnership that improves the lives of working people and puts more money in their pockets.

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

The Minister will have heard what the shadow Minister said about the Conservatives’ pride in Brexit. It seems to me that they are proud of the terrible Brexit deal that they delivered and completely unable to bring forward any constructive ideas. They have managed to set out five red lines, but does the Minister agree that the Opposition have nothing to be proud of when it comes to the botched Brexit deal that they brought forward, nothing to be proud of in making Britons poorer, and nothing to be proud of in making trade harder? Will he share with us some of the framework that he will be discussing?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Conservative Members sit there defending the status quo, but if they bothered to speak to any businesses trading internationally, they would know that the status quo is not working for Britain.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

The Minister has spoken about UK deals with India and the United States, and next Tuesday there will be a UK deal, or a reset, with the European Union. Where is Northern Ireland’s place in that? When the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) and I have asked where the benefit is for Northern Ireland from the UK-India and UK-US trade deals, we have had no answers from the Government.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I have visited Belfast as a Minister more than once, and I have listened very carefully to businesses in Northern Ireland about their priorities. Northern Ireland has dual-market access, and I am absolutely supportive of Northern Ireland taking the greatest possible economic advantage of that. On the Windsor framework and the checks at the border on the Irish sea, if we are able to secure a sanitary and phytosanitary deal, that will obviously reduce the necessity for checks at that border, which I hope the hon. Gentleman would be able to support.

On safety, the trade and co-operation agreement agreed by the Conservatives left a gap in our ability to tackle crime and criminality, and stopped opportunities to work with European countries on closing the loopholes allowing illegal migration. We have to improve on that. On security, which was raised by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar, we are responding to a once-in-a-generation moment for the collective security of our continent through an ambitious UK-EU security and defence relationship. In the shadow of the 80th anniversary of VE Day, which gave us all powerful historical reminders in our constituencies up and down the country, securing our collective future is paramount.

I remind the House that NATO was the creation of that great post-war Labour Government of Clement Attlee and Ernest Bevin. It has been the bedrock of our security over three quarters of a century after the treaty was signed, and that will not change. In fact, a new defence and security pact strengthens European security and strengthens NATO, and to suggest otherwise is irresponsible. The United Kingdom is rapidly increasing defence spending, and it is playing a leadership role on Ukraine. The only person who would benefit from talk of division across Europe is Vladimir Putin.

On growth, the Government’s central mission is to slash red tape at the border, making it easier for UK businesses to trade with the EU and to cut costs for businesses and consumers.

[Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)]

I am so pleased that the Minister is trying to negotiate a new SPS deal and working to remove the red tape. Would he agree with me that businesses in my constituency, such as Tri-Wall in Monmouthshire, are absolutely desperate to remove that red tape, so they can increase exports again, as they did before the botched Brexit deal?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and businesses up and down the country will benefit from a reduction in trade barriers.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

The Minister is making a good case. Would he agree with me that closer UK-EU defence ties do not diminish our role in NATO, but complement it, especially at a time when transatlantic security simply cannot be taken for granted? Would he also agree that securing access to programmes such as the Security Action for Europe fund would be a win for British manufacturers and for our strategic capability?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right that that is in the UK’s interests, and this would be the worst possible moment to start fragmenting defence across Europe.

Let me just say that on the three pillars of this negotiation—safety, security and growth—this Government will deliver for our country’s future, reducing the cost of living and creating jobs. The Opposition motion is stuck in the past. Everybody else has moved on and, frankly, it is time for them to move on, too.

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

The Minister raises the important issue of the cost of living. Given the dire economic impacts of Brexit, including food inflation being eight times higher than it would otherwise have been, and the costs of leaving the European Union amounting to £1 million an hour in 2022, according to data from the Office for National Statistics, does he agree with me that it makes total economic sense for the UK and the people in it to use next week’s summit to start discussions with the EU on what the process of rejoining might be, and the timings for that?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

We respect the result of the 2016 referendum. What the hon. Lady is saying on the cost of food is precisely what an SPS agreement on agricultural products, food and drink would seek to deal with—I would hope to see her party supporting that.

The Conservatives now seem to be the defenders of the current status quo. If they bothered to speak to traders these days, they would know that that status quo is not working in the interests of UK businesses, big or small. One Member said that the existing trade deal is

“not a very good one”.

That was actually the hon. Member for Clacton; it is not often that I agree with him, but there we are. As a result of the previous Government’s failure, companies have been enduring significant delays at our borders, and having to fill out hundreds of pieces of paper just to be able to import or export to our nearest neighbours.

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way; he is making an excellent speech. Like me, I am sure he is concerned about small businesses that could particularly benefit from an agrifood deal. Would he like to say a little bit more about the benefits for our small businesses?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There will be a particular benefit to small and medium-sized businesses, which simply have not had the capacity to deal with the additional red tape we have seen in recent years.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

rose—

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

rose—

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I will give way once more: to the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes).

[Sir John Hayes]

I am immensely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. The last time we exchanged comments in the Chamber, I think they were about Asquith, but I cannot match that today.

The right hon. Gentleman is making some sensible points about trusted traders and easing barriers at the border, but he will know, when he speaks of safety and security, that our key security relationship is the Five Eyes relationship: with America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Of course we co-operate with Europe, but any changes to our relationship around security with Europe would endanger the security of this country, if we compromised that core relationship. In particular, given that those Euro-enthusiasts on the continent have always wanted a pan-European army and a pan-European security policy, will he talk a bit about defence and defence procurement?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

First of all, there is absolutely no compromise on the core principles of our defence, which we have had since NATO was founded in 1949. Far from any weakening, we are producing the opposite. This would be the worst possible moment to fragment European defence. That is not what this Government are doing. I dismiss any suggestion of a European army in the way that I think the right hon. Gentleman means it. This is a crucial moment for our continent. It is about leadership and peace on our continent, and strengthening and complementing NATO—absolutely not weakening it in any sense. I hope he will take that reassurance.

I have to go back to the point about businesses, because businesses themselves are speaking out. Businesses such as Marks and Spencer have been up front about how real the challenges are. Its head of food said recently:

“paperwork takes hours to complete and demands detail as niche as the Latin name for the chicken used in our chicken tikka masala.”

It is not just M&S. All supermarkets have said the same, as recently reported in the Financial Times. Just yesterday, I was in Edinburgh hearing from businesses about the difficulties they face—difficulties that we could resolve with some ruthless pragmatism and a better deal.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

Will the Minister give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am going to make some progress.

Meanwhile, a few weeks ago more than 50 energy companies and organisations highlighted the need for closer energy co-operation with the EU to drive down costs and drive up investment. All those were voices that a Conservative party of the past might have listened to, but not, it seems, this lot on the Opposition Front Bench. There is an opportunity in front of us that the Opposition do not even want to try to understand. It will make a difference to growing our economy, boosting our living standards and eradicating the barriers that limit trade with our single biggest trading partner today.

The consequence of the Conservatives’ position today is that they are defending a status quo that is failing businesses and failing working people. Their view—let us be clear about this—is that the trade barriers holding businesses back should stay in place. That impacts on the cost of living and on the number of jobs.

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that at the heart of this debate is that this Government are taking proactive engagement with our nearest and largest trading and security partner, which is a quantum leap from the failed position of sneering resentment from the Conservative party?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The situation now is a quantum leap of improvement after what we saw from the Conservative Government.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Will the SPS and energy deals that the Minister has in mind be on the basis of a mutual recognition of standards, or does he envisage the United Kingdom accepting EU standards now, being dynamically aligned and placing ourselves under the jurisdiction of the European Court?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Just to be clear, whether on energy, an SPS agreement or employment rights, this Government are interested in a race to the top, not a race to the bottom. [Interruption.] Opposition Members feign interest in the details of the deal next Monday. The Leader of the Opposition did not even want to look at it before she went out at the weekend and made her mind up about it. That is not the behaviour of a serious Opposition party, let alone a party of government. But that is where the Conservatives are now: very happy to carp on about what they are against, not caring about reducing bills, not caring about people’s pay checks, not caring about people’s jobs, and forever trying not to spell out an alternative. They have not listened, and they certainly have not learned.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

rose—

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

On the issue of learning and listening, I give way to the right hon. Member.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I just wanted to check on something. We can debate whether a trade deal can be improved—I am sure that all trade deals can be improved, whether it is the American one or what is an extensive one with Europe, and probably the greatest one negotiated in the past—but one area, as the Government go back into this discussion, needs to be very clear. I was looking at a paper produced by the Centre for European Reform, which makes one point very clear, as the Government go into the negotiation. It states:

“Labour’s red lines do not extend to ruling out dynamic alignment or a role for the ECJ in dispute settlement.”

Is that correct? Is that the position of the present Labour Government?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I have to say, having been for some years in this House with the right hon. Gentleman, that I never thought I would find him quoting the Centre for European Reform in a parliamentary debate, but clearly someone on the Opposition Benches is moving on, even if those on the Opposition Front Bench are not.

Driven by our ruthlessly pragmatic approach, next Monday’s UK-EU summit will be the first annual summit between the UK and the EU. It will be a day of delivery. We are delivering on our manifesto—not returning to the customs union, single market or freedom of movement, or revisiting the arguments of 2016.

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

rose—

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

On the subject of revisiting the arguments of 2016, I give way to the hon. Member.

[Richard Tice]

I can understand why the right hon. Member did not want to answer the two questions from the Opposition on dynamic alignment, but surely, given a third opportunity, he will commit the Government not to have dynamic alignment in any way, so that we can benefit from trade deals around the world—a great Brexit benefit.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

In the past few weeks, we have absolutely been benefiting from trade deals around the world. Nothing we are doing with the European Union is stopping that. If the hon. Gentleman wants evidence of that, he can see the UK-India trade deal that this Government agreed in recent weeks, or look at the deal with the United States that we agreed in recent weeks. Nothing we are doing with the European Union cuts across that. Our position has been that we will not choose between our allies. The UK’s national interest lies in deepening—[Interruption.] No, there is nothing dynamic about the Conservative party. The UK’s national interest lies in deepening our trade relationships with all our partners.

[Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I have given way a number of times now.

Trade, security, defence and other areas of our relationship should never be treated as a zero-sum game. It is possible to deliver on all fronts, and that is exactly what this Government are doing.

I look forward to turning the page next week, as we forge a new strategic partnership with our European friends and make Brexit work in the interests of the British people. We are stepping up and meeting the moment, making people safer and more secure, delivering growth and delivering in our national interest—that is what this Government will do.

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

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Thursday 24th April 2025 Written Statements

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

On 29 April, I will be meeting with the European Commissioner for Trade and Economic Security, Maroš Šefčovič for this Government’s first meeting of the Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee. As part of this important meeting, the UK and the EU will take decisions to support our commitment to the Windsor framework.

We are moving to implement the next phase of the UK internal market system. This phase will deliver simplified processes for freight and parcels arrangements between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and reflects the substantial work undertaken on the delivery of those commitments to date. We will continue to implement the UK internal market system in good faith in line with the commitments set out in “Safeguarding the Union”.

These changes will replace the burdensome requirements in the old protocol for international customs paperwork with internal market movement information—a much shorter, simpler dataset containing ordinary commercial information. They will further simplify processes for businesses and have been taken forward following considerable engagement with sector stakeholders to ensure full readiness for the new arrangements and, subject to the relevant procedures, will take effect from 1 May 2025. I will make a declaration for the UK at the meeting and expect that my EU counterpart will make a corresponding declaration.

The Government are pleased to be bringing these arrangements into effect, which demonstrate our commitment to the UK internal market and breaking down barriers to trade for businesses and traders. The effect of these new, beneficial arrangements for freight and parcels will continue to be monitored by the Independent Monitoring Panel on the Windsor Framework, whose first six-month reporting period will conclude on 30 June 2025. Marking this progress will be part of a productive Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee meeting, reflecting the closer, more co-operative relationship that the UK now has with the EU.

At that meeting, the Government will also agree specifically to three decisions that will add four Acts to the Windsor framework. This Government are committed to tackling barriers to trade for businesses across the UK. Northern Ireland obviously has a special trading relationship with the EU under the Windsor framework and it is therefore only right that the Government review all elements of Northern Ireland’s regulatory arrangements to ensure it can make the most of its unique dual market-access.

In accordance with paragraph 18(3) of schedule 6B to the Northern Ireland Act 1998, I am setting out in this statement why I am of the opinion that the conditions are met for these particular measures to be agreed on the basis that none of those Acts would create a new regulatory border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The condition in paragraph 18(2)(b) of that schedule is therefore met.

Ukraine/Moldova tariff liberalisation—Regulations 2024/1392 and 2024/1501

These regulations will not create a new regulatory border. This is because the EU regulations reduce the EU tariff on goods coming from Ukraine and Moldova and because of the low volume of relevant trade flows. We expect that no goods moving to Northern Ireland will incur additional financial cost. These regulations follow on from similar previous measures which were added to the framework in 2023.

Critical Raw Materials—Regulation 2024/1252

This regulation will not create a new regulatory border. This is based on the fact that most affected products in Northern Ireland are likely to be traded on a pan-European basis. As such, manufacturers and traders are unlikely to face additional barriers to placing products on the Northern Ireland market or an incentive to cease doing so.

The objectives of the regulation are broadly in line with those of the Government. This is with regard to both the UK’s upcoming critical minerals strategy aimed at securing stable supplies of critical raw materials, and the forthcoming circular economy strategy. This regulation would not create a new regulatory border as it would not lead to a material diversion of trade or materially impair the free flow of goods.

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

Non-Agricultural Geographical Indications—Regulation 2023/2411

This regulation will not create a new regulatory border. The regulation concerns geographical indications, which are intellectual property rights to indicate that a product has a specific geographical origin and possesses a certain quality or reputation due to that origin. The UK already enforces strong trade mark and consumer protection laws and GIs are another way of protecting products against infringement.

The Government have considered carefully the views expressed by Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly last March. Since that point, the Government have undertaken extensive assessment of the regulation, including detailed technical exchanges with the European Commission and conversations with stakeholders. They have also considered the relevant equivalent protections in Great Britain. This has been with the clear aim of understanding the impacts which would arise from its application in Northern Ireland and the points made by Assembly Members.

From that work, it is clear to me that the regulation would not materially impair the free flow of goods or divert trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and that it could indeed offer new opportunities. The regulation would only affect a small number of businesses due to the specific nature of the products. Additionally, even where companies are selling such products, only minimal adjustments are likely required, such as updating packaging or marketing materials. Companies that are selling genuine products, as registered and protected, will not need to make any adjustments. Where businesses are using protected names when selling a product that does not meet the GI specification, they might be able to use exemptions (such as continued use of the product name if the product is already covered by a UK trade mark) or apply for transition periods of up to 15 years, as applicable, to change marketing materials. And many of these businesses will already trade with the EU market and make those adjustments regardless.

Businesses in Northern Ireland may also benefit by accessing this alternative way of protecting their products, as GIs may allow them to charge higher prices or improve sales. Agrifood products can already benefit from GIs and businesses have hugely valued the protection of products such as Irish whiskey.

I understand that for those who took part in the original debate in the Assembly, as well as others, concerns may still remain about the potential impact of this regulation. The Government will take any steps necessary for the protection of the UK’s internal market and are also committing to reviewing the GB domestic regime in respect of non-agricultural geographical indications in light of this decision.

Next steps

The Government will shortly lay explanatory memorandums before Parliament pertaining to each of the three decisions that we will make. These will set out in further detail the Government’s view on any impacts that the above mentioned regulations would have on Northern Ireland, as well as additional evidence I considered when reaching my conclusion that none of them would lead to a new regulatory border.

While the Government note that the EU has recently issued proposals to add regulations 2024/1689 (on artificial intelligence) and 2024/2847 (on cyber resilience), we are clear that both regulations are complex and will require further dialogue and consideration as to their interaction with the framework. At this Joint Committee, the Government will ask the EU to hold an exchange of views on these two files within six weeks. Therefore, at present no decision has been made and therefore the regulations will not be added to the Windsor framework at this Joint Committee meeting. I also note that Members of both Houses and the Northern Ireland Assembly have expressed interest in these issues in light of our domestic strategy and that they too will want to consider the issues when the Government have further clarity to share on them.

The Government are steadfastly committed to protecting the UK internal market and to implementing the Windsor framework. Our diligent approach to the Joint Committee, to assessing the potential impacts of these decisions, and to delivering the UK internal market system reflects the sincerity with which the Government treat those commitments. The full package of decisions and declarations for the Joint Committee are intended to achieve both of these objectives. Beyond these matters, the Government will continue to engage closely with stakeholders and the European Commission on a broad range of regulatory issues of mutual interest in line with the outcomes of the Joint Committee.

I can confirm that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is writing to the Speaker of the Assembly to update him on these next steps, alongside the specific forward-facing commitments that the Government are making in respect of domestic policy to avoid trade barriers in future. These commitments are sincere and further demonstrate our commitment to ensuring the smooth flow of trade across the United Kingdom in its territorial entirety. I will place a copy of the Secretary of State’s letter to the Assembly Speaker in the Library of the House for future reference.

[HCWS601]

Oral Answers to Questions

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Thursday 24th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)]

12. What recent progress he has made on establishing an infected blood compensation scheme.

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

The infected blood scandal is the worst medical scandal in the history of our NHS, and the infected blood compensation scheme was set up to provide some small measure of justice to victims and their families. We have set aside £11.8 billion for victims, and since the scheme became law on 31 March, the Infected Blood Compensation Authority has the powers it needs to press ahead and make payments to those eligible for compensation. The compensation payments began last December, and 69 people have accepted their offers, totalling more than £71 million.

[Kate Osamor]

My constituent, who is 77 years old, is a victim of the infected blood scandal. He is worried that haemophilia patients infected with hepatitis are being sidelined by the compensation scheme. He tells me that he was told those on the special category mechanism with hepatitis C would be upgraded to the same level as those with cirrhosis, but that position has now been reversed. Will the Minister look into my constituent’s concerns about disparities for haemophiliacs infected with hepatitis?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I will certainly write to my hon. Friend on the issue of the special category mechanism. I reassure her that the Government’s objective is for all victims of the infected blood scandal to be able to achieve the compensation that they deserve.

[Alice Macdonald]

My constituent, Mr Alan Kirkham, has been badly affected by the infected blood scandal. He was infected with hepatitis C from a blood transfusion in 1983. I met Alan recently, and he has been campaigning for justice for years. Will the Minister welcome and pay tribute to the work of campaigners like Alan? Can he provide assurances that we are working at pace to deliver compensation? Will he consider fast-tracking older and more vulnerable people?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I will certainly pay tribute to Alan and to the work of all campaigners over decades. I am restless for progress, and I will support the Infected Blood Compensation Authority to deliver compensation as quickly as possible. On fast-tracking for specific claimants, last week IBCA set out details of how it is prioritising claims from infected people nearing the end of their life.

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

What direct discussions has the Minister had with people in Scotland who have been impacted by the infected blood scandal about the slow pace of compensation payments?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

In the course of the work I have done, I have not only spoken to groups in Scotland, but engaged with the Scottish Government’s Health Minister on this matter. On the pace of the payments, IBCA has taken a test-and-learn approach, which allows it to deal with a sample of the cases and then subsequently to scale up. IBCA is operationally independent, but I stand ready to provide all the support I can to speed up the payments.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

My constituent Hazel, from Street, was infected with hepatitis C in the 1970s after receiving blood products following the birth of her child. She suffered years of ill health and related problems, and is still waiting for the infected blood compensation scheme. Her case is truly heart- breaking, so what assurance can the Minister provide to people like Hazel that they will soon be supported?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

First, I express my sympathy and, I am sure, that of the whole House to Hazel in respect of what she has been through. The assurance I give is that this Government will act at pace. That is what we did in putting the first set of regulations in place by 24 August last year and by putting the second set of regulations in place by 31 March this year. I continue to stand ready to help and support IBCA, which is operationally independent, in any way that I can to speed up the payments.

[Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

Will the Paymaster General give us an update on his negotiations with the European Union? He has not updated the House since the beginning of February, and there has been much speculation in the press. Will he take this opportunity to rule out dropping the right to annual quota negotiations on fishing?

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

We will negotiate in the interests of our fishers and understand and implement our marine protection rights. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will understand, I will not give a running commentary on the negotiations, but we are clear that we will negotiate in the national interest and in line with the manifesto that the Government, with 411 Members of Parliament, were elected on.

[Alex Burghart]

The whole House will have heard the Minister fail to rule that out.

It was good to hear the Prime Minister recently praise the Brexit freedom to regulate as we wish on artificial intelligence; will the Minister assure the House that EU AI rules will not be applied to Northern Ireland?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Again the hon. Gentleman comes with his questions on the reset. We have had an atmosphere of collegiality, and I want to join in by agreeing with the Leader of the Opposition that the previous Conservative Government left the EU without any plan for growth. That is absolutely true. The hon. Gentleman should follow the public debate on this issue. Major retailers including M&S, Sainsbury’s, Morrisons and Lidl all support this Government’s approach in the reset to get a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement. The hon. Gentleman should back that approach; otherwise, people will rightly conclude that he and his party have learned nothing.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

Warm words about a reset in UK-EU relations are no longer enough. The summit that will take place in London on 19 May is an opportunity for real action. Will the Minister take the opportunity that the summit presents to commit to bringing in a UK-EU youth mobility scheme that will boost economic growth and enhance chances for young people in our country and across the EU?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

A youth mobility scheme is not part of our plans. We have always said that we will listen to sensible EU proposals, but we will not go back to freedom of movement. Where I do agree with the hon. Lady is on concrete proposals and concrete progress on 19 May. We are looking to secure a new partnership with the EU that will make our country safer, more secure and more prosperous.

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

T3. Teesside has enormous potential for AI investment. What progress are the Government making on AI growth zones, AI adoption and investment for Teesside?

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)]

T4. As we approach the eighth anniversary of Grenfell, there is still no justice for the bereaved and survivors, but we do now have a Government response to the national inquiry. Grenfell campaigners have been clear with me that they want to see the promised changes implemented, but they are sceptical, given previous failures of the state to learn the lessons from past disasters. Does the Minister agree that as part of, or alongside, the very welcome commitment to a Hillsborough law, there should be a national oversight mechanism to ensure that when inquiries are set up, they lead to meaningful change?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is a powerful advocate on this issue. It is incredibly important that the Government are held to account for the implementation of inquiry recommendations. It is why the Government have already committed to establishing a publicly accessible record of recommendations made by public inquiries since 2024. We will ensure that becomes standard practice in the future. We are also considering wider reform of the inquiries landscape.

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

T6. Press reports earlier this week indicated that negotiations with the EU around security and defence were to be linked to the review of the trade and co-operation agreement, in particular in relation to access to fisheries. May I invite the Paymaster General to confirm to the House that those reports are not true and that there will be no linkage between those two important negotiations?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

There is no such link, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that the current arrangements will come to an end in 2026. We will negotiate in the interests of our fishers and are looking at our responsibilities to the marine environment.

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

T7. It is right that the Government have ensured that funding is in place to compensate victims of the infected blood scandal, but many of them, particularly those in my constituency, are still concerned that the process is taking too long. Will my right hon. Friend say a little more about what we are doing to speed up getting compensation to those victims?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is a powerful advocate for her constituents. The Infected Blood Compensation Authority is of course operationally independent, but I stand ready to take all the steps I can to ensure that compensation is made as soon as possible. Payments to the infected started at the end of last year; payments to the affected will start by the end of this year.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

It is every British citizen’s right to vote, and voter turnout is one demonstration of public engagement with politics. Will the Minister consider scrapping photo voter ID, so that the 777,000 people who said that was the reason they did not vote at the last general election will be able to exercise their right to vote at the next general election?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Under the Windsor framework, the Government, through the Cabinet Office, regularly supply data to the European Union about the number and type of checks conducted at the Irish sea border, but they refuse to provide that data to Members of this House. When I was a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the oversight of those checks lay with the local Department, I was able to acquire that, but now that it is under the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Members who ask those questions get a refusal of an answer. Why is that?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am perfectly happy to look into the matter that the hon. and learned Gentleman raises. On the UK-EU reset, I very much hope that if the Government are able to secure a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement that they will reduce the number of checks on the Irish sea.

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

The 36th anniversary of the Hillsborough disaster came and went over the recess, when we also saw in the media rumours that the Government are considering watering down their proposed Hillsborough law. Can the Minister explain the Government’s thinking?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I pay tribute to the Hillsborough families and those who have campaigned over so many years. The Government are committed to bringing in a Hillsborough law, but it is also important that we work closely with the families to ensure that we get it right, and that is precisely what we will do.

Infected Blood Compensation Scheme: User-friendly Explainer

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2025 Written Statements

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

In August 2024 we established the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme. Since then, we have enshrined the scheme in law and published the Government’s compensation scheme summary. I have been intent on producing a simple and user friendly explainer document. This was driven in part by feedback from the infected blood community and parliamentarians that a shorter, more digestible document which sets out the key relevant information was necessary.

I am pleased to announce that today this has been published on www.gov.uk to coincide with the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Regulations 2025 coming into force. This document has been developed with key representatives from the infected blood community.

[HCWS565]

Infected Blood Compensation Authority Contingency Fund Advance: Correction

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2025 Written Statements

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

Further to my statement of 17 December, I hereby give notice that the Cabinet Office has received a Contingencies Fund advance to make compensation payments to victims of the infected blood scandal.

The Cabinet Office’s capital annually managed expenditure (AME) budget in its main estimate 2024-25 did not provide funding for compensation payments already approved by Parliament through the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024. This advance was used to quickly compensate victims of the infected blood scandal. This has been received through the supplementary estimate. This advance enabled compensation to be made ahead of Parliament formally approving the ambit and the associated expenditure.

Parliamentary approval for additional capital of £272,000,000 for this new expenditure was sought in a supplementary estimate for the Cabinet Office. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £272,000,000 was met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.

[HCWS557]

Draft Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Regulations 2025

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2025 General Committees

[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 Regulations 2025.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. Let me first address the reason we are here today. The infected blood scandal was a profound failure of the state. It is hard to conceive the scale of the damage done and the incredible suffering of all those impacted. It is important that those people remain at the forefront of our minds. It is for them that we must do everything in our power to rectify this injustice, restore trust in the state and demonstrate that we will not allow such failures to happen again.

This scandal was allowed to go unaddressed for generations, and the onus is on us to rebuild relationships and support those impacted as they progress through the next chapter of their journey. That is why in the autumn Budget, we set aside £11.8 billion to compensate people who are infected and affected by the infected blood scandal. It is, rightly, one of the largest compensation schemes in our country’s history. 

The compensation scheme was first established in August last year by regulations approved by the House. The scheme is a tariff-based compensation scheme that provides compensation under both a core and a supplementary route. Under the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Regulations 2024, the Infected Blood Compensation Authority, or IBCA, has already made progress in paying infected people. As of 14 March, 255 people have been invited to start their compensation claim and 40 people have accepted their offers, totalling over £44 million. We recognise the scale of what needs to be done, and the Cabinet Office continues to work closely with IBCA to ensure that it works as quickly as possible to deliver compensation to people for whom it is long overdue.

The draft regulations will consolidate the 2024 regulations and establish the compensation scheme in full, including for people who are affected: those loved ones of people who are infected, defined in the draft regulations as partners, parents, children, siblings and, in some instances, carers. The draft regulations will allow IBCA to begin making payments to people who are affected by the end of this year.

The draft regulations will also establish the supplementary route, for exceptional cases in which compensation under the core route was not considered sufficient. The supplementary awards for infected people include an additional autonomy award, where someone was subjected to unethical research; a severe health condition award for financial loss and care, where someone suffered from a specific rare health condition that is likely to result in greater care needs or impact an infected person’s ability to work; and an exceptional loss award for financial loss and care, where someone can evidence additional financial loss, most likely as a result of being a higher earner or having higher care costs due to their infection.

There is also a supplementary financial loss award for affected people. This will provide compensation where an affected person was financially dependent on an infected person at the time of their death and that dependency has not already been recognised through the core route. The supplementary route has a higher evidential requirement; people who are claiming will need to demonstrate that their circumstances necessitate a higher compensation award. Importantly, the draft regulations will also allow for people to return to the scheme should their condition worsen as a result of their infection, and for people to claim multiple awards in the devastating circumstances that they are both infected and affected, or affected multiple times over.

I should acknowledge that the draft regulations also amend a small mathematical error that was present in the 2024 regulations. I apologise for this, and reassure the Committee that anyone affected by the issue will receive all the compensation they are due, and resolving the issue should not cause any delays in the roll-out of compensation. The error is a result of the mathematical formula used to calculate some people’s financial loss and care award in the 2024 regulations. To be clear, that means that some people who have been made an offer were offered slightly less than was intended. It will impact only a relatively small number of around 50 people who have received their offer of compensation from IBCA, and the discrepancy represents less than 1% of the claim amount. However, it is important that I draw this to the attention of Members.

Once the problem was identified, we worked quickly to identify a solution to ensure no one was negatively impacted. IBCA has reached out to claimants today to inform them of the error. In addition to IBCA ensuring that everyone receives the correct amount of compensation, the people who were impacted by this will also receive a small ex gratia payment. I want to reassure Members that steps were taken quickly and the draft regulations have been reviewed thoroughly to ensure that the error has been properly addressed. I also highlight that a small amendment was made to today’s draft statutory instrument after it was laid to correct a very minor typographical mistake. Just to reassure Members, I note that the sub-paragraphs were (a) (b) (b) instead of (a) (b) (c), and there was an unnecessary comma. I reassure everyone that those errors have been corrected.

I recently visited the IBCA team, led by Sir Robert Francis, and I know how determined they are for compensation to be paid out to victims as soon as possible. Nothing can ever undo the decades of injustice, pain and suffering, but the draft regulations are another step towards providing full and fair compensation to the people impacted by the infected blood scandal, who have already waited too long for justice. We, as a Government, and more widely as a party and as parliamentarians, should not rest until we see this delivered. We will work closely with IBCA to ensure that it prioritises providing payments quickly, efficiently and in a way that puts the people it is delivering for at the heart of its work. I look forward to hearing Members’ contributions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am grateful for both those contributions. I repeat on record my tribute to my predecessor as Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for Salisbury. When I was in opposition, I always sought to work on a constructive, cross-party basis. I say to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire, that I am pleased to see that continuing today. That does not mean that the Opposition do not ask appropriate and searching questions—of course they do—but that cross-party support is really important for the signal we send to the infected blood victims and for the delivery of this scheme, as we stand behind IBCA.

On the questions posed by the former Paymaster General, he will know that, during the general election campaign, when he and I were on various doorsteps around the country, Sir Robert Francis carefully conducted a consultation exercise with the victims. The first thing I found on my desk when I went into Whitehall was a report with 74 recommendations about changes to the scheme. Had the previous Government been re-elected, the document would have been waiting for the right hon. Gentleman. I accepted 69 of the 74 recommendations, including on the continuation of the regular payments and the payment of a lump sum. A significant set of changes were made to the scheme.

I am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman has visited IBCA and seen the work that is going on. I encourage the shadow Minister and other Members of Parliament with an interest in this matter to visit it to see that work. In the other place, Baroness Anderson undertook to place the “Infected Blood Compensation— Getting it Right” document that the right hon. Gentleman referenced in the House Library so that everybody can see it. I support her undertaking.

The right hon. Gentleman is entirely correct that IBCA is an operationally independent arm’s length body. That is what it is set up to be. That is how it will conduct its day-to-day business. As the Minister, I stand ready to help and assist in any way I can to speed up the payments. I am restless for the speed of delivery to increase, but I respect that operational independence going forward, as it is important that I do.

To the point made by the right hon. Gentleman around myths and misinformation, which I am afraid are just a fact of life in the age of social media, it is important for hon. and right hon. Members to go to IBCA’s website and see the newsletters and updates that it publishes on payments. We must also ensure that that is on the Government website, and I take the view that publishing things and putting them in the public domain is by far the better way to go. I will come to the issue the shadow Minister raised about tariffs in a minute, but the explanations for the decisions the Government have made are there in the documents on the website. I say to hon. and right hon. Members that they should go to them so that they can best assist constituents who raise questions.

The point about speed is important. IBCA is adopting a “test and learn” approach. In other words, it has a set of cases that are representative of the general body of cases for which it is paying out. That means that there should be—the right hon. Member for Salisbury referred to it as a hockey stick, which is essentially what it is—an exponential growth in payments. I am as restless as anybody in this room to get to that vertical part of the hockey stick as soon as possible.

To the shadow Minister’s point about money, we will make available the money that is required. We have already made that £11.8 billion available. He also asked a really good question about the level of evidence, and we recognise two things in that respect. First, so much of this happened a very long time ago now—particularly the importation of infected blood, which obviously ceased a long time ago. Secondly, we know from Sir Brian Langstaff’s report that there was deliberate document destruction. Those two things have to be taken into account in terms of evidence.

What I found at IBCA was that there will be that caseworker—that person—for each of these cases. What I also saw was the culture that Sir Brian Langstaff is insisting staff adopt, which is an enabling culture—a helpful culture. Many factors in particular cases are important, including whether someone was a carer or where people lived at the relevant point. People will have that sympathetic, enabling approach of asking what types of evidence might be helpful and where it could be obtained from.

Let me deal with the points about the framework document and about hepatitis C and hepatitis B versus HIV. First, the framework document sets out the timelines agreed between IBCA and the Cabinet Office. The bulk of infected people are to be paid by the end of 2027, and the bulk of affected people are to be paid by the end of 2029, but let me just make it clear that those are not targets: it is as soon as possible and not later than those dates.

[John Glen]

I can say this now: it is quite frustrating when, as a Minister, you are given those dates and you know that the significant likelihood and probability is that it will be faster than that, but you are not permitted to say so, because you cannot give false hope. I know the Paymaster General is seeking to move those to the left at every opportunity, but his wonderful officials will be constraining him and giving him some concerns around doing so.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The right hon. Gentleman has particular insight into the workings of the Cabinet Office. Like everyone in the room, he and I are restless for progress. We want these payments out of the door as soon as possible.

The shadow Minister raised the issue of HIV, on the one hand, and hepatitis B and C, on the other. In terms of our tariff rates for hepatitis C, the impact of a hepatitis infection can obviously range from very mild to very severe, through to liver failure and death, as a direct result of the infection. The expert group—appointed by the right hon. Member for Salisbury—provided the Government with clinical advice on the distinctions between those impacts. That meant that we could set severity bands for hepatitis based on clear clinical markers. Therefore, where someone’s experience of hepatitis—whether historical or now—has been more severe, they will get more compensation.

The expert group also recommended a single severity band for those infected with HIV. Sadly, most people infected with HIV due to infected blood have already died, and in most cases the death was as a result of that HIV infection. Those who survived will continue to be severely impacted by their infection. The view of the expert group, which the Government accepted, is that it is disproportionately complex to break down the HIV category into different severity bands. That is why there is a distinction in the bands.

The shadow Minister rightly asked about affected estates. As he indicated, the Government are following Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendation about how widely we draw the circle. Where an affected estate will have a claim is where there is a claim on a debt. What that means is that an offer was accepted while the affected person was alive. If there has been the offer and the acceptance, then the affected estate has a claim on the debt. We think that that is a reasonable place to draw the line, and it is in line with Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendation.

I am grateful for both contributions to the debate. There is huge importance to getting this right. It is about achieving fair and comprehensive compensation that is simple enough to deliver quickly without diminishing the individual harm that people have faced. That is the purpose of a tariff-based scheme: it is to get that balance right between swiftness of delivery and not diminishing individual harm. As the shadow Minister will know, if we look at an infected person, there is the injury award, the social impact award, the autonomy award, the financial loss award and the care award, and indeed the core route and the supplementary route. It is a scheme that is trying to strike that balance.

No one is suggesting that this is a straightforward task, but if we look at the recommendations of the infected blood inquiry, at the work of Sir Robert Francis, the advice of the infected blood inquiry response expert group that was led so well by Sir Jonathan Montgomery— appointed by the right hon. Member for Salisbury—they have all made a significant contribution to where we are today. No amount of compensation will make up for the pain and suffering that the victims have faced, and the Government recognise that. Now, however, we need to focus on supporting the Infected Blood Compensation Authority, so I hope we get support for the draft regulations in a few moments; they will enable IBCA to provide that compensation swiftly and compassionately.

I welcome and thank all Members who are interested in this topic. I appreciate the cross-party work on seeking justice, but I also say to all Members present—just as the right hon. Member for Salisbury did—that the door is open for them to raise individual cases and issues with me. Members should please raise them with the Cabinet Office, and I will do my best to ensure that they get a swift response. I hope all colleagues will join me in supporting the draft regulations, and I commend them to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Regulations 2025.

UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly Membership

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Friday 14th March 2025 Written Statements

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

Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate has been appointed as a full representative of the Parliamentary Partnership Assembly in the place of Lord Lamont of Lerwick.

[HCWS524]