Infected Blood Inquiry: Additional Report

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Commons Chamber

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

The infected blood inquiry’s additional report was published on 9 July, and today I would like to provide the House with an initial response. I am grateful to Sir Brian Langstaff for seeking justice for victims and for the inquiry’s constructive additional report. His ambition was to ensure that fair compensation is provided without delay to every person who is eligible, and that resonates across the country.

Before considering the detail of the report, I want to share the latest delivery figures from the Infected Blood Compensation Authority. As of 15 July, IBCA has contacted 2,215 people to begin their claim, and 1,934 have started the claim process; 808 offers have been made, to a total value of over £602 million; and 587 people have accepted their offer, and over £411 million has been paid in compensation. That means approximately 60% of infected people registered with a support scheme have been contacted to begin their claim.

I am pleased that progress is being made, but I acknowledge the calls from the community for faster payment. That is why the Government wrote to the Public Accounts Committee and the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee last month outlining the steps we are taking to remove administrative barriers to IBCA speeding up payments. I am also pleased to announce further interim payments of £210,000 to the estates of infected people who were registered to an infected blood support scheme and who have sadly passed away. That is in addition to the more than 500 interim payments that have already been paid, on which I will provide further information as soon as I am able to do so.

The Government are committed to providing fair compensation to victims of the infected blood scandal and in the autumn Budget we set aside £11.8 billion to do that. The inquiry has recognised the Government’s commitment, saying:

“There can be no doubt that the Government has done right in ways which powerfully signal its intent.”

However, I agree with Sir Brian’s statement that

“there is still more to be done to ensure that the detail and operation of the scheme matches up to its intent.”

Sir Brian has made a number of recommendations on ways the compensation scheme could be amended to achieve a scheme that works for everyone. We will publish an update on gov.uk today setting out the Government’s approach to the inquiry’s further recommendations. I will deposit a copy of that update in the Libraries of both Houses. We will also provide a comprehensive response to all the recommendations in due course.

The report includes several recommendations for IBCA on speed and transparency. I reiterate that the Government still expect IBCA to contact all registered infected people to begin a claim, and to open the service for affected people, by the end of this year. The announcements I am about to make do not change that position.

On Friday, Sir Robert Francis and David Foley confirmed that they will accept the recommendations that the inquiry made to IBCA. They have committed to working with the community to develop plans for designing and implementing those recommendations. IBCA will design and introduce a process for registration. It will also update its sequencing in line with the inquiry’s recommendation, noting that that will inform the order in which it opens up to cohorts this year. IBCA will introduce a process for prioritisation, recognising that community involvement is needed in tackling any uncertainty that may be introduced.

Alongside that, I have asked for a review of IBCA’s delivery of the scheme to ensure that it progresses as quickly as possible. That will be supported by the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority and led by an independent reviewer. I expect the review to begin in August.

The inquiry has made recommendations across nine key areas to ensure that infected and affected people feel that they have overall been compensated fairly by a scheme that is designed and delivered with their input. Separate to the delivery of compensation by IBCA, the inquiry has made recommendations relating to the design and structure of the scheme. The Government will accept, and implement as soon as we can, seven of those sub-recommendations, so that IBCA can get on with paying compensation. Others will require engagement with the community before changes are made, in line with the spirit of the inquiry’s report.

When I gave evidence to the inquiry in May, I said that I would take a constructive approach and look at the issues that had been put to me. The inquiry has made eight sub-recommendations in those areas, and I am pleased to confirm to the House that I will either accept them or agree with the inquiry that the community should be consulted on next steps. I can confirm that we will remove the 1982 start date for HIV infection to ensure that anyone infected because of infected blood or infected blood products with HIV is eligible for the scheme regardless of the infection date.

We accept the inquiry’s recommendation on affected estates; in fact, I will go further than the recommendation. The inquiry recommended that if an eligible affected person has sadly died or dies between 21 May 2024 and 31 December 2029, their claim does not die with them but becomes part of the estate. I will extend that by a further two years until 31 December 2031.

The special category mechanism has been a concern for members of the community and for this House. Again, I promised the House that I would consider it, and I am pleased to say that we accept that change is needed to acknowledge the special category mechanism as part of the supplementary route severe health condition award. We will engage with the community on how best to realise those changes.

Another area that I committed to considering was the reinstatement of support payments to partners bereaved after 31 March 2025 until they have received compensation. Again, I accept that recommendation. I will ensure that those impacted will also be able to continue receiving those payments as part of their compensation package.

Unethical research is one of the most shocking aspects of this scandal. I can also confirm to the House that we will consult on revising the approach for the additional autonomy award on unethical research, including the scope and value of the award. A number of hon. Members have raised that with me.

The final area that I said I would consider was whether further supplementary routes for affected people could be introduced. The inquiry recommended that we consult to understand the feasibility of their implementation, alongside changes in the exceptional financial loss award. I agree with the inquiry that consideration should be given to those issues, and consideration rightly involves those impacted.

In addition, we are accepting further inquiry recommendations to remove the requirement for evidence of the date of diagnosis for hepatitis B or C, which we hope may allow claims for those mono-infected with hepatitis to be processed more quickly. By accepting those recommendations, we can start to implement the necessary changes as soon as possible.

There are several recommendations on areas in which changes to the scheme are needed. We intend to engage with the community on how best to achieve them. The inquiry is clear: people impacted by decisions need to be involved in them, and that is what we will seek to do before implementing the changes in the scheme. That includes acting on recommendations regarding compensation for the impacts of Interferon. We will introduce a new core route infection severity band for those who received Interferon treatment, and consult on the evidence requirements and threshold for a supplementary route award for severe psychological harm. Additionally, we will work with IBCA to introduce a mechanism that individuals can use to raise concerns to aid continuous improvement of the scheme.

As I am sure hon. Members understand, to do that the Government will need to make further regulations. Our top priority is to move quickly, so to make some of the simpler changes, we will bring forward a set of regulations as soon as parliamentary time allows. Those regulations will not implement all the policy changes recommended by the inquiry. In evidence to the inquiry in May, I said that I was open to changes that do not lead to further delays. I believe that making these changes recommended by the inquiry will not delay the speed at which offers are currently being made.

A further set of regulations will be needed to implement the more substantial changes, particularly those for which we are taking time to engage the community on how those updates can be realised. I therefore expect this second, more substantial set of regulations to be brought before Parliament in 2026, but—and I really emphasise this to hon. Members—we do not expect this engagement to cause delays to the roll-out of the compensation scheme as it currently stands, which is absolutely crucial, as I said to the inquiry. We are responding swiftly and constructively to Sir Brian, and putting the voices and needs of the community first.

I will also provide a further update on the Government’s response to the 2024 report. I have continued to engage with the charities named by the inquiry in recommendation 10. I recognise their concerns about the allocated funding, and can confirm that the Department for Health and Social Care is re-examining funding for this year and will look at options for the future.

With regard to recommendation 2 on memorialisation, I am pleased to announce that, following engagement with the community, Clive Smith has been appointed as chair of the memorial committee. I am delighted to be able to appoint a chair with his wealth of experience, and I am confident he will be able to bring the community together to make great progress on this work.

The Government have made progress in implementing the recommendations, but progress is never a foregone conclusion. Sir Brian is clear about the importance of scrutinising progress in delivering what the Government have committed to, and I agree. I am pleased to confirm that I have asked the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee to take on the role of scrutinising implementation of the inquiry’s recommendations in the May 2024 and July 2025 reports. It is for the Committee to outline how it will approach that work, but I trust that it will see fit to follow the example of the inquiry through scrutiny of the design and delivery of compensation.

In addition, today I am publishing a record of inquiry recommendations and the Government response on gov.uk, as promised in our response to the recommendation of the Grenfell Tower inquiry. Those records will be periodically updated to show implementation progress, and will include all recommendations of future inquiries.

To conclude, I quote directly from Sir Brian’s report, which he ends by stating:

“Truly involving people infected and affected in how the state recognises their losses would start to turn the page on the past.”

He is absolutely right. Our focus as we move forward must be on working together with the community, with IBCA, and indeed with each other in this House, not only to deliver justice to all those impacted, but, essentially, to restore trust in the state among people who have been let down too many times. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement and for advance sight of it.

On behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, I thank Sir Brian Langstaff for his initial work on the inquiry and for all his follow-up work. This additional report, focusing on compensation, is a significant and thorough piece of work that has been done in good time. Our thanks also go to those working at the Infected Blood Compensation Authority to get the money out to those who desperately need it. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) welcomes the valuable insight that he gained from his recent visit to the team on the ground in Tyneside. Above all, we pay tribute to the victims, the families and the campaigners who have fought relentlessly and bravely on this issue.

I have previously raised in the House the concerns of victims and their families about the speed and structure of the compensation scheme. They have been repeatedly frustrated by a failure to speed up payments. Although there are signs that the pace is finally starting to increase, I know that their frustrations remain, and we share them. This scandal happened over decades, under successive Governments of different parties, but we all have a responsibility to do what we can to right the wrongs of the past as quickly as possible, and the Opposition will support the Government when they are doing the right thing in doing so.

I have also raised the issue of engagement and called on the Government to further solidify ongoing consultation and communication with victims and their families. It was disappointing to see that, as Sir Brian laid out in his additional report, sufficient progress has not yet been made on that. I welcome the Government’s response on that matter, but I urge them to ensure that that engagement work is carried out rapidly and urgently. Victims and their families deserve real action and, as the additional report makes clear, they have had far too many assurances but not yet enough substantial engagement.

I am pleased that the Government are now taking action on some of the issues relating to atypical personal or health impacts and supplementary routes, which I raised when we discussed the infected blood compensation scheme regulations in March. I know that will bring great comfort to many of those who have been infected with the diseases mentioned.

I appreciate that the Government are taking forward Sir Brian’s recommendation on a grievances mechanism, and I am certain that across this House we all hope that implementation of this recommendation and the others from the report will meet the terms of reference of Sir Brian’s inquiry and will complete the compensation and resolution process. However, the Government must ensure that this mechanism is an active one, not simply a recording device. While it is incredibly important that lessons are continuously learned from this tragedy, it is also really important that those cases that contain difficulties with regard to compensation eligibility—which we know make up a significant proportion—are addressed as a matter of urgency, and that all such cases, many of which will probably come through this new mechanism, are considered carefully, and that all information on the claim status and decisions made on it are communicated clearly and frequently to the complainant.

Above all, learning those lessons must not come at the cost of delaying payments to those who simply cannot afford to wait any longer. To that end, I would appreciate the Minister’s clarity on the number of personnel whom he expects to be tasked with the grievances mechanism and the oversight structure that will be put in place over it. Will that be the advisory board being established and, if so, what specific oversight powers will the advisory board have?

We support the Government in taking these measures forward, and we will do what we can as the official Opposition to help these actions be implemented, but it is incredibly important that the Government are clear to this House what measures they are putting in place to ensure that the steps announced here today are carried through and enacted efficiently and effectively. No amount of money can undo the harm that was tragically inflicted on so many, but a comprehensive and effective compensation scheme can offer a lifeline to victims and their families who have suffered far too much for far too long.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I thank the shadow Minister for his contribution and, in particular, for its tone. The cross-party way in which this has been approached has been crucial—I took that approach in opposition. I pay tribute to my predecessor as Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen), for the work he did in driving this forward. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this additional report is a very significant piece of work, and I echo his thanks to IBCA’s staff.

On the speed of payments, the hon. Gentleman referred to the number of payments and of course IBCA has used the “test and learn” approach, but I want to tell the House that I have announced today a substantial number of changes to this scheme, but it has to be on the basis that that will not affect the current speed of roll-out of payments. That is why I still expect IBCA to contact all registered infected people to begin a claim before the end of the year, and indeed to open the service to affected people by the end of the year.

I also agree with the hon. Gentleman about the need for an active consultation mechanism, and I entirely agree about clarity of communication. I very much hope that we can continue this cross-party spirit into the delivery phase as that is so important.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

Victims, survivors and campaigners have been fighting for decades for truth and justice due to cover-ups by public servants. Last year, the Prime Minister called for a duty of candour law to prevent future cover-ups, such as the infected blood and Post Office scandals, and I could not agree more. But if we are to restore trust in the state, does the Minister agree that it is high time for a Hillsborough law to be implemented in full, as promised by the Prime Minister last September?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I entirely agree on the need for a Hillsborough law, and I say to my hon. Friend that this Government are absolutely determined to get it right and to lead that culture of change that we need across public service so that people are not putting their own reputations or the reputation of institutions above public service. We are determined to lead that change.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his statement. We, too, pay tribute to Sir Brian Langstaff and his team for their ongoing work as they continue to investigate this appalling scandal.

Liberal Democrats know that the victims of the infected blood scandal deserve compensation. They and their families have been mistreated and have been waiting for decades to see justice. We welcomed the establishment of this scheme in August 2024 and the commitment shown by Governments from both sides of the House to justice for these victims.

However, Sir Brian Langstaff’s additional report has been excoriating about the glacial pace of payments and the abject failure to listen to victims. One of the report’s most scathing findings stated that victims of the scandal had “not been listened to”. As Sir Brian has reported, the experts who were responsible for the design of the compensation scheme were forbidden to talk with victims and their families. After so many years of secrecy, deceit and delays, excluding victims and their families was wholly unacceptable.

This report has been welcomed by many victims, including many of the 122 haemophiliac boys who attended the Lord Mayor Treloar college in Hampshire. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) has been a powerful advocate for these victims, and I thank her for her work advocating for constituents such as Gary, who welcomed the findings of this report. That is why we are urging the Government to set out clearly and in detail the timelines for delivering compensation. We are calling on the Government to engage properly with victims and their families. Does the Minister agree that it is entirely unacceptable that victims were not involved in the original design of the scheme and that they had been consistently ignored? When can victims of the scandal expect the implementation of Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendation to introduce a formal advisory body of victims for the Infected Blood Compensation Authority?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

In relation to transparency on the expert group established under my predecessor, I entirely acknowledge Sir Brian Langstaff’s criticisms and points on that. The Government are now going to have to create new sets of regulations, and clearly I will have to reconstitute an expert group, but I give the House an undertaking that transparency will be at the heart of that group, including publication of its work and its minutes, because that is essential to regain trust.

The hon. Lady is also absolutely right about how essential it is to put the voice of victims at the heart of what we are doing, but I would also say to the House, in relation to today, that at the autumn Budget last year the Chancellor set aside £11.8 billion of funding to the end of the Parliament to pay compensation for victims, and the policy decisions that I am announcing today are currently estimated to cost around £1 billion in further compensation payments. The total cost depends on what is agreed following consultation with the community, but the Government have said—and we will stand by this—that we will pay what it takes to fund the scheme, and we will update the forecast costs at the autumn Budget of 2025. But victims should be in no doubt of the Government’s determination to seek justice.

[Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Following the inquiry’s report, will the Government now speed up the current timelines of 2027 and 2029 for the payment of compensation to victims?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The 2027 and 2029 dates were backstops. My determination was for payments to be made as soon as possible. I hope that what I have said to the House about offers of payment, and indeed payments starting, to affected people this year is an indication of that speeding up.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

I welcome what the Paymaster General has said about removing administrative burdens to payment and accepting the recommendations, and his commitment to working with the community and doing so in a timely way. I know that he will continue to devote his considerable energies to those things. Could he also say a word more about memorials? I am thinking particularly of the young victims from Treloar. I welcome what he said about the appointment of a chair to that committee, but is there a timeline for that; obviously there are sensitive matters to deal with, but given the passage of time does he have a timeframe in mind for its completion?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The right hon. Gentleman raises the issue of Treloar’s, which is in his constituency. He speaks very powerfully. I have also spoken in recent weeks to a former Treloar’s student. Hearing about the experiences there never fails to move people. I am pleased to have appointed Clive Smith—that has already been done—and I am asking him to progress that memorialisation work, first, quickly, because the right hon. Gentleman is right about the passage of time, and secondly, in a way that brings the whole community together. Clive has set out his intention to appoint a vice-chair to represent the whole blood transfusion community. I welcome that effort to bring the community together in what will be a very emotional memorialisation.

[Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement. The infected blood scandal is the worst treatment disaster in NHS history, but as the inquiry’s chair said:

“This disaster was not an accident”.

Institutional reputation was put above truth and ordinary people paid the price. It is far from alone—there is Horizon, nuclear test veterans, Grenfell and Hillsborough. A Hillsborough law would end the culture of cover-up, which is why victims and families, including those from the infected blood scandal, fully support it. The Prime Minister promised that one of his first acts would be to introduce that legislation, but one year on we are still waiting. Does the Minister recognise the importance of fulfilling that pledge before Labour returns to Liverpool for the party conference in September?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I absolutely understand the importance of introducing the duty of candour to which my hon. Friend refers, as I indicated in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson). Sir Brian Langstaff talked about the “pervasive” culture—the concept of people putting their own or institutional reputation above the public interest. The Government are determined to change that and to get the duty of candour right by working with the families, which I think is absolutely crucial.

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on HIV, AIDS and sexual health, I very much welcome the removal of the 1982 start date. Coincidentally, today is Zero HIV Stigma Day, so it is important to recognise the stigma that many people suffered as a result of contracting HIV through infected blood. I hope that one of the supplementary routes to compensation might be to those who suffered extreme stigma and discrimination, or severe psychiatric consequences from the contraction of HIV.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments about the removal of the 1982 date. I promised in my evidence to the inquiry to look at that, so I am pleased to remove it. He is absolutely right about stigma; I visited the Terrence Higgins Trust in recent weeks, and listening to the terrible stigma that people suffered is extraordinarily moving. He is right to remind us of that, and as we move forward with trying to deliver justice, we should all keep that at the forefront of our minds.

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

On behalf of the APPG on haemophilia and contaminated blood, I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. It is a major step forward. As he knows, the issue of engagement with the affected and infected community has been a major bone of contention since the expert group set the tariff. For over 40 years, that community have been ignored and lied to by the state, which should have been on their side. When Sir Brian Langstaff published his recent report, he said:

“For decades people who suffered because of infected blood have not been listened to. Once again decisions have been made behind closed doors leading to obvious injustices.”

My right hon. Friend said that he will accept most of the recommendations, but if he is going to consult, he must consult with the community. Will he guarantee that he will set up a proper mechanism that will be approved by the community, and that he will provide financial support to those organisations that are giving advice to victims who are making claims?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

First, on consultation, my hon. Friend is right. I am determined that we are going to get this right. Secondly, as I indicated in my statement with regard to the organisations and recommendation 10 of Sir Brian Langstaff’s May 2024 report, DHSC is looking not only at this year again, but to the future. My work in recent weeks speaking to charities has made it clear that they want to look beyond this financial year, and I agree.

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

I, too, thank the Minister for his statement, in particular the fact that IBCA will design and introduce a process for registration. Sir Brian Langstaff concluded that the current approach to compensation perpetuates harm by creating different treatment for registered and unregistered victims. Can the Minister confirm whether that includes interim payments for unregistered victims, which was another recommendation in Sir Brian Langstaff’s additional report?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

In relation to registration, as the hon. Gentleman will have seen, IBCA has accepted all of Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendations, including that one. With regard to the estates of those who have sadly passed away, I have just, from the Dispatch Box, extended interim payments, and I hope to be able to announce the timetable for that very soon.

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

The very fact that Sir Brian Langstaff reopened the scheme for the additional report bears testimony to the fact that there is something sadly wrong with the initial scheme. I am wondering whether the infected blood victims will be warmly welcoming my right hon. Friend’s statement, or whether they will be a bit apprehensive, frustrated or disappointed because the Government have said that they will accept, at this point, only seven of the nine recommendations. Only 460 victims have settled to date, but many others have sadly passed on. Can my right hon. Friend clarify what will happen to those waiting to start their claim? They are the Tuesday night lottery club—they have been waiting for months for a phone call to tell them that they will get an invitation to apply for compensation. Will new invites be put on hold while IBCA revisits the settled claims? Is it still a priority to start all living infected claims by the end of the year?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The answer is yes, absolutely. I would not have made such a substantial number of changes without assurance that it would not delay the ongoing payments. IBCA has said that there will be offers to all the living registered infected by the end of the year. That is unchanged by the changes I have made to the scheme today. The promise that we made to start the affected by the end of the year also stands. As I said a moment ago, IBCA has accepted the recommendation about registration. It has also accepted Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendation about cohort prioritisation and is looking at that. I hope that my hon. Friend, who is a powerful advocate on these matters, will see that having said at the inquiry that I would look constructively at these issues, that is precisely what I have done. On the recommendations where we are consulting, that is precisely because I want the voice of the community to be heard.

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

It was in 2015 that I first raised the case of my constituent, Lesley Hughes, who was infected with contaminated blood in 1970 and discovered the reason for four decades of ill health in only about 2010, so it is great that this progress has been made. Very large sums of money will be paid in compensation, so can the Minister outline what provision there will be for the recipients to receive financial advice to make sure that they are not taken advantage of by unscrupulous people—for example, people trying to tell them how to make a claim that they can make directly?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman about that risk. I have been very conscious of that, which is why the Government have signed off financial support for both legal advice and financial advice. For the reason that he said, that is crucial.

[Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)]

The Minister has heard me talk about my constituent Brendan West, a veteran who lived unknowingly with hepatitis C for decades after being infected through a military blood transfusion. Brendan talks about how he feels lucky to be alive, but his view is that successive Governments continued to delay justice for him by design. Brendan has just received an invitation to start the process for compensation, which I welcome, but how long can he expect that process to take? He has served our country and suffered a horrific injustice in the process, and he deserves to be able to not waste a single further day in living out the next chapter of his life.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I say to my hon. Friend, who has raised her constituent’s case before, that IBCA is operationally independent, but I stand ready to give any support that is required to speed up claims, which I think is crucial. There is absolutely no deliberate delay from the Government in terms of the money being paid. Some £11.8 billion was allocated in the autumn Budget, and I have just announced a series of measures worth around £1 billion. That is the commitment of this Government to securing justice, and I will continue to do all I can to speed up payments.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

As far as I can see, some of the Paymaster General’s announcements and his acceptance of some of the recommendations and sub-recommendations will cause devolved administrative bodies to have to stay open for a longer period. I believe they were initially scheduled to close on 1 February 2026, but they will now have to stay open for longer than that. I seek his reassurance that he will ensure that all the costs will be met by the Treasury and that there will be no divergence between the support given to those infected or affected anywhere across the United Kingdom, as there was previously due to the work started by the inquiry.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly reasonable point. I spoke on Thursday to the Health Ministers of all three of the devolved Administrations, including Minister Nesbitt in the Northern Ireland Executive. The hon. Gentleman is right that the schemes for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will stay open for a further year. That has been done to make sure that we can keep up the pace of payments at IBCA, but I give him the reassurance, which I gave to the Health Ministers, that that will be funded by the UK Government. We are not asking the devolved Administrations to bear the cost of that.

[Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)]

The Minister knows that I have raised the case of my affected constituent Ronan, whose mother Jane died from hepatitis C after a blood transfusion she was recommended following an ectopic pregnancy. I welcome the announcement on the affected estates, but when will the affected, particularly parents and partners, be invited to start their claims? Many have been waiting decades for justice and are concerned that they will not see it in their lifetime.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. In the first instance, as I have said, payments to the affected will start by the end of the year; that remains the case. There has been concern about the affected estates, and I hope that my hon. Friend will have seen that I not only accepted the recommendation, but extended it by a further two years to try to give that reassurance.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister—and the Government, because ultimately he is doing this on their behalf—very much for his statement; no one can doubt his commitment, and we thank him very much for that. It is always good to hear that movement has been made on compensation, to make it as fast as possible. Will the Minister reconsider the rejection of the recommendation by Sir Robert Francis of an enhanced award for people with extrahepatic disorders resulting in long-term severe disability, including people currently included in the special category mechanism and its equivalents in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? Also, he referred to substantial regulations being made in 2026; can they come forward in 2025?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

On the first point, as I have just said, we have acknowledged Sir Brian Langstaff’s criticisms on the special category mechanism. That is why I am taking action on that and announcing that today. In relation to the very specific condition that the hon. Gentleman talked about—I think he is referring back to Sir Robert Francis’s previous report—I am certainly happy to write to him on that particular detail. The first set of regulations that I have spoken about will be brought forward before the end of the year.

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

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. One of my constituents, who is now in her 80s, cared for her husband, who was a victim of unethical research in Edinburgh. Her son now fears that she will die before receiving recognition or redress for what she endured. Does my right hon. Friend recognise that there is a real fear that carers of infected people will die waiting for their compensation? If so, what steps will the Government take to ensure that carers reaching the end of their lives can be prioritised for compensation?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is why I have changed the scheme in respect of affected estates. Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendation was for those who sadly pass away between May 2024 and 2029, and I have extended that by two years to 2031 for precisely the reason that she raises.

[Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement, which is the right response to a very thorough report that yet again details the significant size of the scandal we are trying to undo. He mentioned the level of increased payments that these measures will lead to, and I think he mentioned a figure of £1 billion. Will additional resources be given to deliver the recommendations, in addition to extra payments?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I just give my hon. Friend the reassurance that the Government have said that they will pay what it takes to fund the scheme. We will then update the forecast costs at the autumn Budget this year.

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

I thank the Paymaster General for his statement. I think the hearts of all of us across the House go out to the victims of this terrible scandal and their families. As somebody who saw a family member die of AIDS, I know how incredibly difficult that must have been for many of them. Does the Minister agree that the common thread in the infected blood scandal, the Post Office scandal, Hillsborough and the pelvic mesh scandal—the one that comes across my desk the most—is that victims were not listened to? He mentioned the need to consult on the recommendations. How will he go about that consultation? Can he assure me that it will be thorough?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend speaks very powerfully about his own personal experience. He is entirely right about a consistent failure on behalf of the state over many decades on many scandals that have been debated in this House and on which we have listened to victims. Getting the consultation right and ensuring that we hear the voices of victims and the community is crucial to the Government.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

15. What assessment his Department has made of the effectiveness of the new UK-EU trading relationship.

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

We have reset our relationships with the European Union, and are now focused on delivering a long-term strategic partnership to improve the lives of working people and make the UK more prosperous. That is good for bills, good for our borders and good for jobs.

[Sarah Pochin]

In 1973, the UK joined the European Economic Community, which later became the European Union. Given this week’s visit by the French President and this Government’s desire for closer co-operation with the EU, will the Minister confirm that no new or existing trade deal will lead to this country rejoining the EU through the back door?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

That is absolutely not the case. What we have with the European Union is a new deal that the supermarkets say has put a downward pressure on prices, and which Octopus Energy says will bring the cost of energy down. I am surprised to hear that Reform is against that, but since it has welcomed Liz Truss’s party chairman as a new member today, perhaps it is no surprise that Reform takes that view.

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

Yesterday on “Farming Today” at 5.45 am, it was put to a shellfish farmer that it was going to become much easier for her to export her produce to the European Union. Her response was, “Yes, but we are told that the changes will be two or perhaps four years away, if they happen at all.” Given what we have negotiated away, can those changes be expedited?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am determined to expedite these new arrangements as quickly as possible. It is fantastic to see the Opposition take that position—I thought the right hon. Gentleman’s Front Benchers were against them.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

As the Minister will be aware, under the existing framework, the UK is entitled to take unilateral measures to protect the internal market where there is a diversion of trade. The Federation of Small Businesses Northern Ireland says that a third of businesses that previously traded between Great Britain and Northern Ireland have ceased to do so. We know from his interview yesterday that the Minister does not consider three quarters of deportations being voluntary to represent a majority, but does he consider a third of businesses to be a diversion of trade? If he does not, what would be a diversion of trade?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

On 1 July, we introduced the phase 3 checks under the Windsor framework. The Windsor framework was negotiated by the previous Government, and we supported it from the Opposition Benches. I assume that the Conservatives continue to support those arrangements. Obviously, we monitor the issue of trade diversion very carefully, and we stand ready to help businesses adjust to the new arrangements.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

A few months ago, this Government reached a small but welcome trade agreement with the EU—our largest trading partner—and just this week, Members of this House heard from the President of France, Emmanuel Macron, about the closeness of the relationship between the UK and France. It was the first state visit by a French President since 2008 and the first by a European Union political leader since Brexit. Now that UK-EU relations are at a turning point, does the Minister agree that it is finally time to be more ambitious, drop the red lines, cut the red tape, and aim to negotiate a UK-EU customs union that would boost the public coffers by £25 billion a year?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

We have delivered an ambitious new trading arrangement with the European Union. We have also delivered a new free trade agreement with India and an economic deal with the United States. What the hon. Lady is suggesting would take away our freedom to be able to do that, which is contributing to our economy.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

2. What discussions he has had with his EU counterparts on visa rules for UK citizens visiting the Schengen area for 90 in 180 days.

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

Government officials and Ministers, including me, regularly engage the EU on a range of issues of importance to British citizens. The UK and the EU allow for visa travel in line with the standard arrangements for third-country nationals. The UK Government will continue to listen to and advocate for British citizens.

[Tom Hayes]

Many thousands of constituents, including Philip and Kathryn in my constituency, live for part of the year in Spain. Prior to Brexit, they did so without restriction, but now they face limited visa options, resulting in more frequent flying. What conversations has the Minister had with Spain’s Government about ending these barriers?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I thank Philip and Kathryn for raising this issue, and I know my hon. Friend is a powerful advocate for them. The Foreign Office leads on bilateral issues with EU member states, and they regularly engage on a range of issues. While we recognise that extending the 90/180 day period is a matter for member states and the EU, my hon. Friend can be assured that we will continue to listen to and advocate for UK nationals affected.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

As the Minister knows, Northern Ireland is in that wonderful limbo land of movement—half in the United Kingdom and half in the EU, because of the unfinished protocol Bill. Can he tell us how those in Northern Ireland will be affected by the Schengen area due to the particular, and perhaps peculiar position they are in as a result of the protocol?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Northern Ireland has the unique advantage of dual market access. On the wider issues of application of EU law that the hon. Gentleman is talking about, he can be assured that as co-chair of the joint committee I work carefully and closely on these matters with the Northern Ireland Executive.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

3. What steps he is taking to relocate civil service roles to locations outside London.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)]

16. What steps he is taking to improve relations with the EU.

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

On 19 May, we held the first ever UK-EU summit and announced a strategic partnership that will make people across the UK safer, more secure and more prosperous. We are delivering greater security via the security and defence partnership, increased safety through tackling irregular migration and organised crime, and prosperity through the removal of trade barriers, energy efficiency and a cheaper transition to net zero. That is good for bills, good for jobs and good for borders.

[Tony Vaughan]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for his answer. Given that he leads on UK-EU relations, will he outline how the Cabinet Office will ensure that the new sanitary and phytosanitary agreement will reduce the level of checks on goods at both the Eurotunnel terminal in Folkstone, in my constituency, and the Port of Dover, and improve the flow of trade? What steps are being taken to further break down barriers to trade in goods with the EU?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. and learned Friend is a powerful advocate for his constituents in Folkestone and Hythe. The SPS agreement will remove routine border checks and certification, including for goods travelling through Folkestone and the Port of Dover. It will mean that fresh produce will hit supermarket shelves more quickly, with less paperwork and fewer costs.

[Gregor Poynton]

The new agreement with the EU will help Scottish businesses to grow and to export. World-class producers such as Glenmorangie whisky, which is bottled in my constituency, Paterson’s shortbread, which is baked in my constituency, and the Scottish salmon industry have warmly welcomed the deal for Scotland. Why does the Minister think that the SNP, the Tories and Reform have set their faces against it?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend speaks very powerfully for his local businesses, and I am delighted that great produce such as Paterson’s shortbread, Lorne sausages and Scottish seed potatoes will benefit from easier and cheaper trade with the EU via the SPS agreement. Any party that wants to reverse that will have to explain why it wants to take £9 billion-worth of benefits a year by 2040 away from our economy.

[Mr Rand]

Does the Minister agree with me that, after years of the Conservatives picking fights with our most important allies rather than working with them on the shared challenges we face, our recently agreed trade deal and our closer co-operation on security and migration show the benefits of a grown-up approach to improving relations with our European partners?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The trade and co-operation agreement left a massive gap in our ability to tackle irregular migration. The agreement we have now made with the EU starts the process of filling that gap through a comprehensive partnership. It includes enhancing our operational relationship to tackle organised immigration crime and irregular migration with key agencies such as Europol.

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

This Government have a track record of announcing trade deals and then nothing actually happens, as our steel sector can attest. Two months on from the Prime Minister crowing about a deal with the EU, will the Minister confirm whether any legal text has been agreed on SPS checks, sharing criminal records data and energy co-operation, and whether any of those measures have been implemented?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

If the hon. Member is seriously saying that our trade deals make no difference, he should visit Jaguar Land Rover and speak to the workers there, whose jobs were saved by the economic deal with the United States. He is absolutely right to say that the new common understanding is not in itself a legal text, but we will be moving to agree that legal text as soon as possible. Given the questions from Conservative Back Benchers so far, they all seem to want it done as soon as possible, despite the opposition from those on their Front Bench.

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

If the last nine years have taught us nothing else, they have surely taught us that it is much easier to agree about the need for an agreement than it is to reach an agreement. The SPS agreement will be critical for food and drink exports. We are only going to get one chance on this, so to get it right we need maximum engagement with the companies and businesses doing the exporting. What is the Minister doing to ensure that their voices are heard in these negotiations and that the agreement suits them?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, which is why I have engaged throughout. The domestic advisory group under the previous trade and co-operation agreement contains a range of stake- holders, and I regularly speak to them, but I go beyond that in my work with stakeholders. He is right that it is hugely important that their voice is heard in the process of agreeing the legal text on the SPS agreement.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

While we await the detail of the SPS deal, Northern Ireland is still seeing new and additional bureaucracy to implement the Windsor framework. Does the Minister agree that it would make more sense to extend the grace periods and put a freeze on that bureaucracy rather than introduce more, as indicated in the report by the Federation of Small Businesses in Northern Ireland?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

On our ability to negotiate generally, it is hugely important that we show good faith in implementing the agreement that the country previously agreed. However, I say to the hon. Gentleman that I always show pragmatism on implementing the Windsor framework. If we take parcels, for example, when I went to Belfast last summer I was told that there was no readiness for businesses there, but I applied for and secured a six-month delay, and then implemented that part of the agreement, so he can be assured that I take a pragmatic approach.

[Elaine Stewart (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)]

6. What recent progress he has made on implementing the plan for change.

--- Later in debate ---

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

We are fully committed to introducing a Hillsborough law, including a legal duty of candour for public servants and criminal sanctions for those who refuse to comply. We have been engaging with the families and we will continue to do so.

[Ian Byrne]

There is a long list of MPs, Ministers and Prime Ministers on both sides of the House who enabled the establishment cover-up at Hillsborough, which denied justice to the victims and survivors. There have been only a few honourable exceptions of politicians who did the right thing. The establishment is a powerful force, and it takes real courage to confront its deep-rooted fear of accountability. Given that the Government have so far failed to deliver their promise to enact the Hillsborough law, does the Minister recognise that this is a continuation of the betrayal of the Hillsborough families, survivors and all those affected by state cover-ups? If he does recognise that, will he support the Second Reading of the Hillsborough law that I have tabled tomorrow —and if not, why not?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

First, I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend has done. I know that he speaks on this matter from lived experience. He is, has been and will continue to be, an extraordinarily powerful advocate for the Hillsborough families. The assurance that I give him is that the Government are absolutely determined to get this right.

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

10. What support his Department is providing to local partnerships to improve public service delivery.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)]

18. What recent progress he has made on the infected blood compensation scheme.

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

Yesterday, the infected blood inquiry published an additional report on compensation. The Government will now urgently work through its recommendations and work closely with the Infected Blood Compensation Authority to understand the delivery implications and any policy changes to the scheme. With your permission, Mr Speaker, I hope to provide a further update to the House before the summer recess. Two thousand and forty-three people have been asked to start their compensation claim and 616 offers of compensation have been made, totalling over £488 million. Last week, the Government wrote to the Public Accounts Committee and the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee outlining the steps that the Government are taking to remove administrative barriers to allow IBCA to speed up payments.

[Emma Foody]

I thank the Minister for his answer and for the response to yesterday’s report. I speak today on behalf of one of my constituents, a core participant in the inquiry, who was recently invited to start their claim. They have asked specifically when those affected, such as the parents of the infected, will be invited to start their claims, given that they have been waiting for decades for justice and there are concerns that delays may mean that they do not get to see it in their lifetime.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I understand that concern. My hon. Friend is a powerful voice for her constituent, and I welcome the news that they have started their claim. I know that many across the House will be eager for their constituents, including those who are affected, to begin their claims as soon as possible. The Government expect IBCA to begin payments to those who are affected by the end of this year. As I have set out, the Government are taking steps to remove administrative barriers to allow IBCA to speed up payments. I recognise that the infected blood inquiry has also made a recommendation on the sequencing of payments, which it will be for the Infected Blood Compensation Authority to consider.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

I remain concerned that Sir Brian Langstaff has never asked me, as the Minister who was responsible for the design of the scheme, to account for the process that I adopted under the advice of the civil servants that my successor, the Minister, shares. I am concerned now that there will be continued lack of clarity and certainty for those who have been waiting for too long. We appointed an expert group on the best advice of the civil servants, we ensured that there would be engagement with representatives from the 40 groups, and I met them over 18 meetings in 10 days prior to legislation coming to this House. I am gravely concerned that continued uncertainty through more report writing will not serve the best interests of this community. Does the Minister agree and what steps will he take to resolve these matters once and for all?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I pay tribute to the work of my predecessor as Paymaster General in this area. I know the practical experience with which the right hon. Gentleman speaks. When I gave evidence to the inquiry back in May, I said that I was not bringing a counsel of perfection and that I would listen to suggestions, which I would judge on the basis of not causing further undue delay to victims who have already waited for too long. That is the approach I will take as I urgently look at the recommendations. With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will hopefully update the House on that before the summer recess.

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

Sir Brian Langstaff was particularly critical of the engagement with the infected and affected community since the publication of his final report in May last year. In particular, he was critical of the way the expert group was set up with the explicit instruction not to engage with the community. Does my right hon. Friend accept that a lot of damage has been done since the publication of that final report, as is exposed in the report that Sir Brian Langstaff published yesterday? Will he say what he intends to do to improve relationships with the infected and the affected?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am deeply sympathetic to the inquiry’s words on the involvement of the infected blood community. The Government are committed to providing fair compensation to victims of this scandal. The inquiry recognised this and said:

“There can be no doubt that the Government has done right in ways which powerfully signal its intent.”

However, I also recognise what Sir Brian said when he stated that

“there is still more to be done to ensure that the detail and operation of the scheme matches up to its intent.”

I will now urgently look at those recommendations with a view to action.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

My constituent Graham is a victim of the infected blood scandal. His experiences and the length of time that he has had to wait for compensation have strong parallels with another constituent of mine, Steve, who was the last RAF officer to go to prison for being gay. Both constituents have suffered decades of trauma as a result. What parallels can the Minister draw when learning about those two compensation schemes, and how will we ensure that in future the administration of such schemes is smoother, swifter and a better experience for those who are impacted?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The hon. Lady speaks very movingly about her constituents, Graham and Steve, who have clearly had to wait decades—far too long—for justice. She raises a fair point about learning from compensation schemes. This is historical. For instance, we had the Windrush compensation scheme that began under the previous Government, we have Horizon ongoing, and infected blood, where the inquiry has just produced an additional report but the compensation scheme is ongoing.

On infected blood, IBCA has used a test-and-learn approach, which I think is important in allowing us to move into a phase in which we can speed up payments. To the hon. Lady’s central point, it is vital, and I am conscious of this, that we look at what has worked well in previous compensation schemes and at what has worked less well, and be honest about that and learn from it.

[Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Further to the answer given by the Paymaster General regarding the contaminated blood inquiry, I welcome that he will update the House when he has had an opportunity to digest yesterday’s report, but can I have an assurance from him that it will not be on the last sitting day before recess?

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

I may be in the hands of Mr Speaker so I will certainly not tread on to which days I will be permitted to do so, but definitely before the summer recess.

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

Mr Speaker, as you are well aware, Bridlington is the lobster capital of Europe, so there is understandable outrage at the recent Government decision to sell out the UK fishing industry for the next 12 years in return for a sanitary and phytosanitary deal that is yet to be negotiated. Is that just another example of the shambolic way this Government do business?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

No, absolutely not. What we have, first of all, is a multi-year deal with stability, which will give the opportunity for investment. The Government will then invest £360 million in coastal communities and updating the fleet. If the hon. Gentleman is opposed to that, he should say so—surely, he is not. And the SPS agreement will allow our catch to be sold far more easily to the EU—by the way, 70% of our catch currently goes to the EU. He should be welcoming that.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

I welcome the UK-EU reset, which will help to bring down energy bills and grocery bills. I also welcome the Government’s new procurement plans. Bournemouth East has fantastic talent, particularly among our younger population. Will the Minister outline how the new procurement plans will both help to give those younger people opportunities and secure clean power in the south-west?

Infected Blood Inquiry: Additional Report

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Wednesday 9th July 2025 Written Statements

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

The infected blood inquiry has today published an additional report. This additional report reflects the unprecedented nature of the infected blood scandal and the thoroughness of the inquiry’s investigation. I am grateful to Sir Brian Langstaff for the dedicated work of the inquiry.

I would like to reiterate a wholehearted and unequivocal apology on behalf of current and previous Governments to every single person impacted by this scandal. Nothing of this nature can ever happen again. But for this to be anything more than words, more tangible action must be taken.

The UK Government committed £11.8 billion in the Budget, delivered on 30 October 2024, for the infected blood compensation scheme. As of 1 July, 460 people have received their compensation payment, totalling £326,184,985.78; 2,043 people have begun their compensation claim; and 616 people have received an offer of compensation, totalling £488,346,336.18.

The Government are committed to reflecting carefully on this report to ensure that people who are both infected and affected are properly supported in their search for justice for this devastating scandal and to receive the compensation they are due.

As the inquiry notes,

“it is the time now to build constructively on the scheme as it is and as it operates”.

During the hearings to the infected blood inquiry, I set out that there were matters that the Government are willing to consider in the light of any recommendations from the inquiry. The inquiry has today made a total of nine recommendations, many of which reflect the areas I have already committed to reviewing. These include: eligibility for the unethical research award; the 31 March 2025 cut-off date, beyond which people will not be able to register with support schemes as a bereaved partner; expanding the supplementary route for the affected; the position of persons infected with HIV before 1 January 1982 and the special category mechanism—and its equivalents.

The Government will now quickly work through these recommendations and work closely with the Infected Blood Compensation Authority to understand the delivery implications of any policy changes to the scheme.

In his concluding remarks, Sir Brian Langstaff said that

“it is fair to record that the Government has taken major steps”.

It is our firm commitment, as we reflect on the inquiry’s work, to continue to take steps and support the Infected Blood Compensation Authority to deliver compensation to victims of this scandal as quickly as possible.

Subject to parliamentary approval, my intention is to provide a further update to the House before the summer recess and a response to Sir Brian’s additional report of actions the Government are taking in due course.

[HCWS797]

Oral Answers to Questions

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Thursday 5th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)]

21. What steps he is taking to improve relations with the EU.

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

The historic deal that we signed with the EU on 19 May is in our national interest and good for bills, borders and jobs. It slashes red tape and bureaucracy, boosts British exporters and makes life easier for holidaymakers. Indeed, I am delighted to confirm that Faro airport in Portugal will start the roll-out of e-gate access to UK arrivals this week.

[Josh Dean]

After years of closed doors under the Conservative party, I warmly welcome this Labour Government’s landmark deal with the European Union and the opportunities that it will open up for our young people again. I welcome in particular the commitment to working towards a youth experience scheme and to exploring a return to the Erasmus programme. Will the Minister set out what progress the Government have made on the talks thus far, and will he reassure the young people in my constituency that we will move at pace to deliver?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

We have agreed that we will work towards a balanced, capped and time-limited youth experience scheme. We will also work towards Erasmus+ association on much better financial terms for the UK. The exact parameters will be subject to negotiation, but we want to move forward as quickly as possible.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I am so pleased that there is cross-party agreement in welcoming a new youth experience scheme. My young constituents in Bath are unequivocal that they want the UK to join Erasmus+ again, because that gives them the best opportunities for study, training and internships abroad. Will the Minister reassure my young constituents in Bath that joining Erasmus+ will be one of the highest priorities for the Government as they enter into further negotiations with the EU?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Certainly, there will be great opportunities for young people, both in the youth experience scheme and in associating with Erasmus+. I too welcome the cross-party consensus—even the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), backed the youth experience scheme in the debate a couple of weeks ago.

[Jon Pearce]

Today is starting to feel like a bit of a love-in. Last week, I met a group of constituents who presented me with a petition that demands better access for young people to learn and work in the EU. I have heard the Minister’s responses to the last questions, but will he reassure those young people in my constituency that there will be opportunities for them to learn and work in the EU in the very near future?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

We will see how long the love-in will last. None the less, the deal provides great opportunities for young people. As I indicated a moment or two ago, we will work towards establishing a balanced youth experience scheme that is time-limited, capped and subject to visa controls, like the 13 we already have with different countries around the world.

[Sojan Joseph]

Local businesses across Ashford, Hawkinge and the villages have warmly welcomed the new agreement that this Government have signed with the European Union, telling me that it will make it easier for them to sell their products to our largest trading partner. Does the Minister agree that to build on that agreement, everything possible should be done to find long-term solutions to current post-Brexit uncertainties, such as the entry/exit system and the regular deployment of Operation Brock on the M20, to help UK-based businesses further develop trading links with Europe?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend’s local businesses are in agreement with many others that welcomed the package with the EU. It cuts red tape and opens up access to the EU market.

On Operation Brock, the deployment is a decision for the Kent and Medway resilience forum, but the Department for Transport and Kent partners are working to keep it and other traffic management measures under review to ensure that they are designed and implemented in the most effective way, through actions such as traffic forecasting, using better data and exploring the use of AI for that purpose.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

I do not know how much longer the love-in will last. [Hon. Members: “Aw.”] I will start off nicely.

The Minister has been commendably clear that the youth mobility scheme must be capped, and has made comparisons with agreements reached by the previous Government with countries such as Australia, Canada and Uruguay. He will know that last year 9,750 youth mobility visas were issued to Australian nationals, 3,060 to Canadians and just 140 to Uruguayans. Will he be equally clear in setting out what he thinks would be a reasonable level for that cap, or is it just a matter of whatever Brussels tells him he has to accept?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

It certainly will not be; it will be subject to negotiation. I genuinely welcome the Opposition’s support for a youth mobility scheme. I think it came as a bit of a surprise to some of their Back Benchers in that debate, but none the less I welcome it. What I have said—and this is what the wording of the common understanding sets out—is that it has to be balanced, capped and time-limited. That is the negotiation we will take forward.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I am going to resist all attempts to involve me in a love-in. However, the Liberal Democrats very much welcome the progress that has been made in the UK-EU reset. We are particularly pleased to see the Prime Minister listen to our long-standing calls on a defence fund, on a veterinary scheme and on youth mobility, or youth experience—whatever we are calling it now. The Minister knows that I am going to continue to press him on the matter. We welcome the announcement, but we need more certainty of the scheme’s scope and timescales. I am thinking particularly of those young people who want to start making plans for their future, perhaps not for this summer but maybe for next. Will the youth experience scheme be open to them? Can they start to plan for experiences in the EU? May I press the Minister for more detail on the timeline for introducing the scheme?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her support. In fairness, she has been supportive of the youth experience scheme throughout. Having secured the agreement at the summit, we will obviously move now into a different phase of the negotiations, looking at implementation, whether that is in terms of the link with the emissions trading systems, the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement or the youth experience scheme. We obviously want to move forward as quickly as we can with implementation.

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

5. What assessment his Department has made of the adequacy of the new trading relationship with the EU.

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

There is no question but that the new arrangements we have with the European Union will grow our economy. It will put more money in the pockets of working people, and the proof will be there for all to see as it eases pressure on food prices and cuts red tape—more prosperity, more safety, more security—but unfortunately, it seems that the Opposition’s position is to unpick all of that.

[Mr Mohindra]

The Government continue to celebrate last month’s latest EU surrender deal, continuing their long-term ambition to undo the results of a democratic vote that their leadership has never agreed with and is doing its best to reverse at every opportunity. The Government have already proven that when Labour negotiates, Britain loses. Can the Minister reassure the House that this Government have no further intentions to surrender any more hard-won Brexit freedoms?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The only thing that has been surrendered is the credibility of the Conservative party. This Government have used the independent post-Brexit trade policy to secure a deal with India, a deal with the United States, and a deal with the EU that is good for jobs, good for bills and good for borders. The Conservatives will have to explain at the next election why they want to undo all of it.

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

6. What steps he is taking to relocate civil service roles to locations outside London.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Osamor (Edmonton and Winchmore Hill) (Lab/Co-op)]

19. 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)]

Payments to infected people started at the end of last year. The Government expect payments to affected people to start by the end of this year. The Infected Blood Compensation Authority, which is independent of Government, publishes updated figures fortnightly. As of 3 June, it has contacted 1,360 people to begin a claim and made offers to 324 people, totalling £253 million. There is much further to go, but progress is being made in delivering justice to the victims of this devastating scandal.

[Matthew Patrick]

In Wirral West, my constituent became a victim of this scandal over 50 years ago when she was a child, and it has affected her life ever since. In her own words, victims have gone through horrible levels of distress, and now they wait for compensation. That wait is not just for financial security; it is for closure. Could the Minister please give me and my constituent assurances that the speed at which the payments will be made will be ramped up?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend’s constituent is entirely right to talk about the deep distress that victims have been through. IBCA is contacting an average of 100 people to start their claim every week, and expect to have brought into claim all those who are infected and registered with a support scheme this calendar year. I will continue to support IBCA to deliver compensation as quickly as possible.

[Kate Osamor]

The infected blood inquiry heard from black and Asian victims who say that they were even more dramatically let down due to discrimination, which has helped to create an understandable mistrust of the authorities and a lack of faith that justice will be done. Please could the Minister ensure that he does all he can to reach out to all communities to encourage everyone who is entitled to apply for the compensation scheme to do so?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the need to reach out to all communities and ensure that every single victim secures justice. I assure her that that is absolutely what the Government are committed to doing.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

I welcome the progress that is being made by IBCA. Of course, the Minister is not directly responsible for how quickly that is rolling out. I note that IBCA has announced that its plan is to prioritise those infected who are still alive; indeed, my constituent Daryn Craik was contacted last week. I suggest that the Minister set up a metric that IBCA could agree to for the time between when people are contacted and when they receive their payment. He could then report that interval back to the House, which would hold IBCA to account on the delivery for these infected people, who have suffered for too long.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I again pay tribute to my predecessor as Paymaster General for the work he did in standing up for the victims of this scandal. He is right to raise the case of his constituent, and about the balance between respecting IBCA’s independence and the levers, assistance and support that Ministers, and I specifically, can offer to IBCA. I would be more than happy to have a discussion with him about his specific suggestion.

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

My constituent Phill is one of the 916 people in the special category mechanism who were suddenly and inexplicably excluded from the Government’s infected blood compensation scheme when it was published in February this year, even though the Government’s expert group had said in August last year that they should be compensated. Why did the criteria informing the eligibility for the scheme change without explanation, and can the Minister please provide a list of all the conditions included in the core award?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The hon. Lady is right to raise this issue. Components of the SCM criteria are planned in both the core awards and the supplementary route, and those in receipt of SCM payments can continue to receive those payments under the infected blood support schemes route. However, as I said in my evidence to the inquiry only a few weeks ago, that is a matter that I will consider further.

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

15. What steps he is taking to reform the civil service.

--- Later in debate ---

[Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)]

T2.   Despite the majority of hereditary peers leaving the other place and the limitations post- election on the Opposition’s ability to appoint new peers, the House of Lords will remain disproportionately dominated by Opposition peers. Why not tweak the Fowler recommendations, set a new limit of 500 and legislate for that in the last year of this Parliament? When that is blocked, as it will be, why not leave reform of the House of Lords to be an issue at the next general election?

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

I thank my hon. Friend for his innovative suggestion. He rightly points out that following the passage of the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill, the Opposition will remain the largest party in the other place. That Bill, which we are keen to see on the statute book as soon as possible, is the first step in Lords reform. The Government set out in our manifesto a number of proposals to bring about a smaller, more active second Chamber that better reflects the country it serves.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)]

T4. Businesses in my constituency often complain about the shocking Brexit deal that the Conservative party gave us, with more costs, more red tape and more paperwork. That is why Labour Members welcome the new EU deal negotiated by this Government. Can the Minister set out how businesses in my constituency—in Loughborough, Shepshed and the villages—will benefit from our new grown-up relationship with the European Union?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The package will cut red tape and reduce barriers to trade for businesses; make it easier for businesses to export iconic products such as Melton Mowbray pork pies, Red Leicester cheese and Stilton cheese; and open up wider access to the UK market. That is why it has been backed right across the business sector.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

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

At yesterday’s meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood, we heard from someone whose father was terminally ill and unlikely to survive to see the compensation to which he is entitled. It is not fair on people who have waited 40 years for justice that they are left at the starting line for compensation. Is there any way we can make a list of people who are in that situation and calculate their entitlement for their estate?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the work he does with the all-party parliamentary group. He will know that the Infected Blood Compensation Authority has published a prioritisation list in recent months. I can also update the House that IBCA is contacting an average of 100 people every week to start their claim, and it expects in this calendar year to have brought in to claim all those who are infected and registered with a support scheme.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will know that the UK has some of the best intelligence agencies in the world, and they have huge powers and huge budgets which they use to keep our country safe every single day of the week. He also knows that in any large organisation mistakes are made and public confidence in those agencies is vital. Given that the Intelligence Services Act 1994 is more than 30 years old—there have been some other Acts—is it not time for the Intelligence and Security Committee to have new powers of oversight and even new powers of sanction, so that the public can have confidence that our intelligence agencies have proper scrutiny and oversight?

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.

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.

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]