UK Covid-19 Inquiry Response Costs: Quarter 1 2024-25

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Monday 2nd September 2024 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 impact of the covid-19 pandemic. There are evidently lessons to be learned 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. Following the publication of the inquiry’s financial report for quarter 1 2024-25 on 29 July 2024, I would like to update colleagues 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 for 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 covid-19 inquiry are not included in the costs below.

Breakdown of staff & costs

The Government’s response to the UK covid-19 inquiry is led by inquiry response units across Departments.

Number of UK covid-19 inquiry response unit staff: 280 full time equivalents (Q1).

Cost of UK covid-19 inquiry response unit staff: £5,049,000 (including contingent labour costs) (Q1).

Total inquiry response unit legal costs

Inquiry response units across Government Departments are supported by the Government Legal Department, co-partnering firms of solicitors, and legal counsel. These associated legal costs (excluding internal departmental advisory legal costs) for April-June 2024 are below.

Q1 legal costs: £4,236,000.

[HCWS53]

Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Monday 2nd September 2024 Commons Chamber

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

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I think this is the first time that I have spoken with you in the Chair, so I congratulate you on your election.

I am grateful for the opportunity to update the House on the Government’s work on the infected blood compensation scheme, following my letter to Mr Speaker during the recess.

The infected blood scandal is a shameful mark on the British state, and those who have been impacted have waited far too long to receive financial redress and true recognition of their suffering. The inquiry’s report shed light on the trauma inflicted on thousands of people across the country. The voices of people who are infected and have been affected have gone unheard for far too long, which has compounded the trauma. The devastating findings of the report bear repeating: victims were used as objects of unethical research, and people were misled about the treatments they needed and received. As Sir Brian Langstaff KC put it, there was a “cover-up” that was

“more subtle, more pervasive and more chilling”

than an “orchestrated conspiracy to mislead”. It is a shameful part of our state’s recent history.

On 26 July, I updated this House on the engagement exercise being undertaken by Sir Robert Francis KC, interim chair of the new Infected Blood Compensation Authority, with the infected blood community on the compensation proposals that were published on 21 May. As I told the House, the Government were carefully considering Sir Robert’s feedback with a view to publishing his report and the Government’s position on it in advance of 24 August, which was the statutory deadline imposed by the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 for establishing the infected blood compensation scheme in regulations. I assure the House that this Government upheld that commitment, and I thank all the officials who worked in the Cabinet Office to ensure that that deadline was met.

On 16 August, the Government published on gov.uk an update on the infected blood compensation scheme, Sir Robert Francis’s report on his engagement exercise, and the infected blood inquiry response expert group’s final report. I met with some representatives of the community and with Health Ministers from the devolved Administrations, and I made calls to parliamentarians on both sides of the House so that they were informed of the Government’s progress prior to publication.

I have come to the House today to provide the Government’s update on next steps, but I would like to acknowledge the work and the valued contributions of Sir Robert Francis and the expert group appointed by the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) at the start of the year. It is the Government’s intention to deliver a comprehensive compensation scheme at the earliest possible opportunity, in order to provide justice and closure to the infected blood community, which has historically been neglected and mistreated.

I put on record my thanks to Sir Robert Francis. Through both his compensation framework study in 2022—which was taken into account in the inquiry—and his recent engagement exercise in June with key representatives of the community, he has contributed greatly to the development of the infected blood compensation scheme. He listened to the concerns of the community, and his most recent report took on board both those concerns and other feedback from a diverse group of representatives.

Sir Robert made 74 recommendations to the Government, covering a wide range of areas, including the future of the current infected blood compensation schemes, additional supplementary awards for those who were subjected to unethical medical research, and amendments to the five key heads of loss that inform the total compensation package for victims. The Government accepted the vast majority of those recommendations: 69 of the 74 were accepted. For the five that the Government have not accepted, it is because we believe that a different solution will be more practical and better for the victims.

The Government heard the infected blood community’s concerns about the 21 May proposal to phase out the regular infected blood support scheme payments upon delivery of compensation payments. I know that that proposal was causing great anxiety to those in receipt of, and reliant upon, those payments. The Government have listened, and we have changed the compensation proposal accordingly. Regular support scheme payments for those registered before 1 April 2025 will continue for life as part of the compensation package.

Support scheme payments are not the only thing to change. In the next set of regulations we will enhance the total compensation package to introduce a supplementary additional autonomy award of £10,000 for those who were subject to unethical medical research, as a specific acknowledgement of the impact on their personal freedom. That award will be uplifted to £15,000 for those who were subjected to research at Treloar’s college as children, as recommended by Sir Robert. I want to make it clear to the House that those payments will be on top of the comprehensive compensation package currently set out in the regulations that a person will receive.

Another of the community’s concerns about the 21 May proposal was the social impact award for affected individuals. Again, following feedback, we are increasing that award for individuals who are assumed to have lived in the same household as an infected person for two years or more.

The scheme has been designed in line with the principles of the inquiry, having regard for

“speed of provision, simplicity of process, accessibility, involvement, proactive support, fairness and efficiency.”

We recognise that this means that the scheme will not cover every circumstance in the way an individual assessment would, so in order to ensure that every applicant is justly compensated, we have introduced a health impact supplementary route for additional compensation.

Sir Robert produced a wide-ranging report following the engagement exercise and some of his recommendations relate specifically to the delivery of the scheme. Although it is for the Government to deliver the design of the scheme and to ensure that the legal framework to deliver it is in place via new regulations—and we remain committed to doing that—it is of course the case that the Infected Blood Compensation Authority will be administering the scheme.

We welcome the recommendations and we are confident that the authority, of which Sir Robert is the interim chair, will work tirelessly to operationalise and implement the compensation scheme as soon as possible, so that money can be passed to victims at the earliest opportunity. I would also like to thank the infected blood inquiry response expert group, which has informed the Government’s development of the infected blood compensation scheme.

As Sir Robert recommended, we have published the expert group’s final report, which provides more detail on the rationale for decisions taken on the scheme design. The expert group report includes detailed descriptions of each of the heads of loss that make up the total compensation package, the clinical markers used to determine severity bandings, and the formulae for the care award and financial loss award.

As I have referenced, the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 required the Government to establish the infected blood compensation scheme by 24 August. I am pleased to confirm to the House that on 23 August we laid the regulations that will give the Infected Blood Compensation Authority the powers necessary to pay compensation through the core route to the infected, both living and deceased. This will allow individuals who were infected with HIV, hepatitis C or hepatitis B through the use of contaminated blood or blood products to receive the compensation they so wholly deserve. Personal representatives of those who have tragically passed away as a result of their infection will be able to apply for compensation on behalf of their loved ones.

The Government are clear that although laying the regulations relating to infected individuals taking the core route is an essential step to delivering justice, the work is not finished. A second set of regulations will provide for other elements of the compensation scheme, including compensation payments to affected individuals and for claims under the supplementary route. We are committed to delivering this second set of regulations when parliamentary time allows, to ensure that those applying under these routes can start receiving payments in 2025. The Government’s plans regarding that second set of regulations are in the documents available on gov.uk.

It is an important step to have the compensation scheme enshrined in law, but I know that many people will want to know exactly when they can expect to receive their compensation. The Infected Blood Compensation Authority will deliver the compensation scheme and I know the interim chief executive and his team are working hard to put the operational systems in place with the aim of beginning payments by the end of this year. That will involve user testing with members of the community who have volunteered to help the authority to ensure that it is designed to address the specific needs of applicants.

Those who are registered with the infected blood compensation schemes will have their details shared with the Infected Blood Compensation Authority, to deliver on the promise that the Government will endeavour to make the process as user-friendly and free of distress as possible. Beneficiaries of the infected blood compensation schemes will be contacted in due course regarding the sharing of their data with the Infected Blood Compensation Authority.

I am grateful for the opportunity to update the House today on this important work. The victims of the infected blood scandal have waited far too long for justice, and I am encouraged that we are now beginning to deliver this long-awaited compensation. I undertake to continue to update the House as this work progresses. I commend this statement to the House.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

I thank the Paymaster General not only for early sight of the statement, but for his communications with me over the recess, when he kindly updated me and gave me advance notice of his intention to make a statement to the House today.

The Paymaster General rightly reminds the House of the gruesome nature of this part of our state’s recent history with respect to the infected blood scandal. He points to the fact that people were misled over treatments they needed and received, and Members on both sides of the House will need to take ownership of the enormous delay in bringing justice to those who have suffered so much over several decades.

I am grateful for the Paymaster General’s update on the work that the previous Government commissioned. After the infected blood inquiry’s final report was published on 20 May, we took swift action to establish the Infected Blood Compensation Authority on 21 May, when we also appointed Sir Robert Francis as interim chair of the authority and asked him to work with Sir Jonathan Montgomery as chair of the expert group to undertake an engagement exercise with the infected and affected communities. The right hon. Gentleman kindly updated the House on 26 July, when he confirmed that he was considering the outputs of that engagement exercise.

Those conversations were always intended to be a critical step in ensuring that the Government—whichever Government—delivered a final scheme that brought justice to the deserving victims, and was seen by them to do so. I welcome the Government’s determination to continue listening to the concerns of the infected and affected communities.

Could the Paymaster General confirm whether thought has been given as to how representatives of the infected and affected communities will be embedded in the organisational structures of the compensation authority? In my 18 meetings across the UK in May, it was very clear to me that their levels of trust in any Government would likely remain low, so determining exactly how their voices will be heard in future is critical.

In essence, the statement acknowledges that the Government have met their obligation under the statutory deadline imposed by the Victims and Prisoners Act to lay regulations to enable the scheme to be operationalised by 24 August. I warmly welcome that. The statement makes it clear that the Government will accept 69 of the 74 recommendations of Sir Robert’s June engagement exercise, and they offer a better practical solution for the five that they do not accept. Having read them, that seems sensible.

As the Paymaster General will know, however—I recognise the pressure that he will feel—what victims want to hear from him is when all the regulations will be laid, when the claims will be processed, and when the deserved payments will be transferred into victims’ bank accounts. The statement does not offer anything specific in that regard. I would welcome any further details on the timetable for the laying of further regulations pertaining to the infected communities core route for compensation delivery.

As the Paymaster General knows, those communities have suffered the most and the urgency of their need for the final balancing payment remains acute. Today’s statement does not give them clarity on the timetable they can expect. It was my understanding that the Infected Blood Compensation Authority was aiming to make the final balancing payments on the core route by the end of 2024. I think he committed to that, and it would be good if he reconfirmed that in his response.

I will move on to the supplementary route outlined in the statement, which involves a commitment to provide a supplementary additional autonomy award of up to £15,000 to those subjected to unethical medical research. Further, a recommendation to increase the social impact award for affected individuals has been accepted. We on the Opposition side of the House support these new developments, but I have a few questions about the implications for delivery.

I ask the Paymaster General to clarify the additional autonomy awards for unethical medical research, especially for the nearly 100 haemophiliac children from Treloar’s, who the Government have now stated will be paid a higher £15,000 award. Comments have been reported from some in the Treloar’s community who appear unhappy with these relatively modest supplementary amounts. It would be helpful if he reiterated and explained how unethical research can be quantified, graded and added to the heads of loss that already take account of loss of autonomy and social impact.

Furthermore, it continues to trouble me that those who determined that this research should take place in the first place appear unaccountable for those decisions. I recognise that is not the Paymaster General’s personal responsibility, but we need to keep that in focus in the broader response to Sir Brian Langstaff’s report. May I also ask when the estates of the infected who have died will be paid? Many thousands of individuals who have lost family, friends and loved ones will be entitled under the terms of the scheme, and they now need to know a realistic timeline for those payments to be made. Equally, when will the work to evaluate the affected communities’ individual entitlements begin, and what is the timeframe for when payments will be made to those qualifying individuals?

Finally, I would like to address the decision of the Government to continue the existing payments of the infected blood support scheme beyond the final payment from the Infected Blood Compensation Authority. There is now surely a risk of administrative complexity whereby victims continue to interact with existing support schemes and the newly enabled authority. I urge the Minister to consider the trade-offs between efficient speedy delivery of final compensation packages with administrative overlaps and the confusion arising amid a very troubled and vulnerable group of distinct communities that can often disagree with each other.

I conclude by thanking the right hon. Gentleman sincerely for his openness and clarity about what he is intending to do. However, I urge him to bring more specificity on the timelines for different communities to this House as quickly as he is able. I note he acknowledges that the victims have waited too long for justice, and I am encouraged that the Government are beginning to deliver, but as he used to urge me, speed is of the essence, and granular timetables that some of his officials will be reticent for him to specifically commit to are now required if good will is to be generated from the combined efforts of all parties in this House in 2024.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman not only for his work in Government in seeking to deliver this compensation package, but for the constructive tone he has taken in responding to the statement. I will try to deal with the issues that he raised. First, he is right to raise the continuing importance of engagement with the infected and the affected, which I know is a priority for Sir Robert Francis in how he conducts the business of the Infected Blood Compensation Authority.

The right hon. Gentleman asked me about some of the timelines. In respect of the estates of deceased infected persons, there will be a further interim payment of £100,000, and applications for that will be open from this October—next month. I can confirm, as he asked me to, that the timetable for payments to the infected on the core route should start to be made by the end of this year. In relation to the affected, which he also asked me about, I would expect those payments to start to be made next year.

The right hon. Gentleman also asked about the payments for unethical medical research. I should say to the House that no amount of money is ever going to make up for the horrors we have seen as part of this scheme, but the recommendations made to us by Sir Robert Francis were in the sum of £10,000 for unethical medical research generally, and because of the very specific breach of trust at Treloar’s, that those payments should be £15,000. The Government have accepted those figures, and these amounts of compensation serve as a marker of those appalling unethical medical practices. However, it should be pointed out that, given the other heads of loss, that will form but a small part of the overall amounts I would expect to be paid out under this scheme.

On accountability, the shadow Paymaster General will be only too aware that individual prosecutorial decisions are quite rightly independent decisions for the prosecuting authorities. However, I can confirm that on 9 August I wrote to the National Police Chiefs’ Council—I think he has had sight of that letter—to make it clear that the Cabinet Office and, indeed, the Government will co-operate fully and make any evidence within our control and possession available, as appropriate, so that decisions can be made about people being held to account.

The final point the shadow Paymaster General made about complexity is a sound one, and I think one of the priorities—and I know it is a priority for Sir Robert Francis —is to ensure that the Infected Blood Compensation Authority operates in a way that does give those making claims to it the most appropriate possible experience with appropriate support from caseworkers. I think it is absolutely essential that it does that.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call Clive Efford.

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

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate you on your new position.

I am grateful to the Minister for keeping in contact and keeping me informed of progress on this matter. I have two constituents who are directly affected—one affected and one infected. My constituent’s husband, who died 30 years ago, was a former Treloar’s pupil, and she has recently received a payment, but there is no written explanation of what she has received. She does not know if it is for her, her son, her husband, or all three of them, and she does not know how it is going to be delivered, including whether it will be through her husband’s estate and if that will plunge her back into probate. Some affected people are still experiencing issues.

My other constituent is a former Treloar’s pupil, and he is upset about the £15,000 payment and does not think it is anywhere near enough. I think this shows that those people who have been campaigning for 40 years want to be more involved in the decisions being made about them. I hear what the Minister has said, but I certainly think that they want to hear how they are going to be engaged so that they can make their voices heard about the issues. While generally welcoming what has been proposed, they want to be able to influence things as they go forwards, and I would like to hear from him how he thinks that can be achieved.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. On the first point he makes about his constituent who has received a payment but without any clear explanation, one of the things the Government are committed to do is to try to make this whole process as clear as we possibly can. If he wants to write to me about that particular case, I can ensure that the explanation and, indeed, the correspondence is looked at appropriately.

On my hon. Friend’s second point, he is absolutely right that the voice of victims must continue to be heard. I think the consultation exercise that took place during the general election campaign was hugely important. It is important that the Government listened and made the substantial changes to the scheme we have made on that basis. It is hugely important, too, that the voice of victims continues to be heard as the infected blood compensation scheme continues its work, and I know that is a shared priority for Sir Robert Francis. On the £15,000, can I also say that we accepted that recommendation in full from Sir Robert Francis? It is a marker of the appalling unethical medical research, but as I said in my response to the shadow Paymaster General, the overall awards, which appear under five different heads of loss, will of course be substantially larger, and that is a very small part of them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I thank the Paymaster General for his statement, for his update and for confirmation that the establishment of the infected blood compensation scheme has been achieved in regulation on deadline. That is a significant step forward, which I think we should all recognise. It is a significant step forward for the families who feel they have waited far too long, and many of us have such constituents. I do, and I also have a constituent whose family were very close family friends, so we witnessed what they went through for four decades.

An important thing to bear in mind is the trust that was broken with those families over what they went through, and we need to continue to work to re-establish that. So I would ask the Paymaster General if he will continue to update this House, but also to recognise that, in setting out the timeline, phrases such as “when parliamentary time allows” and “in due course” put doubt in people’s minds. People have been let down too often before, and they need more reassurance. Can he tell us more about the timeline, can he reassure them and can he reassure all of us that he will continue to come to this House regularly with updates, when possible?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the constructive tone of that contribution and her recognition of the importance of meeting that deadline. She is entirely right to raise the issue of trust and I am very conscious of that in all the work I carry out in this area. She is also entirely correct to raise the issue of timetabling because it is hugely important to the victims and there are three things I would say. On the estates of deceased infected people, there will be the opening next month, in October, of interim payments of £100,000. The final payments to infected people that go down the core route of this scheme will start by the end of this year. And payments to affected people will start next year. The timetabling of appropriate regulations is done with that timetable in mind, to ensure we get those payments to people as quickly as possible.

[Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, but will he outline the categories of loss that victims can claim against the scheme, and how will this inform the size of the compensation award that they can claim?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The report sets out the five different areas of loss: those from injury and the social impact, then the autonomy award for the real effect on people’s freedom and family life, and also the loss from the care people have received, and financial loss as well. Those are the major heads of loss under the scheme and it is important to reflect the very different ways in which people were affected. It is also important to accept, as Sir Brian Langstaff set out, that a tariff-based scheme is crucial as well. That is to try to make this process as simple as the Government possibly can and to ensure people receive the justice they deserve.

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

The infected blood scandal is the health service equivalent of the Post Office Horizon disaster, with the added torture that it has gone on much longer. It took 40 years—over 40 years—before my constituent Lesley Hughes even discovered that the blood transfusion she had been given in 1970 had given her hepatitis C and subsequently cirrhosis of the liver and liver cancer. So although the end now appears in sight, I first raised her case in 2015 and I did not think we would still be waiting for a resolution nine years later; I hope the finishing tape really is at last about to be breached.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The thoughts of the whole House will be with the right hon. Gentleman’s constituent, and I know from my own service in this House in previous Parliaments that he has raised this issue on a number of occasions before. I would say to him, and indeed to this House, that there is no dispute that decades have passed when people should have achieved justice and did not. We had this scandal of infected blood and infected blood products in the 1970s and 1980s, but it was compounded by the failure since to recognise what had gone wrong and to try to make recompense for it; there is no doubt about that. The undertaking I give him is that the Government will push this forward as quickly as we possibly can, and I hope finally we will get to where he wants, which is the position where compensation has finally been paid to those who so richly deserve it.

[Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)]

What progress been made in establishing the Infected Blood Compensation Authority?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Now that the regulations have been laid, as I indicated, it is operationalised, and I know Sir Robert Francis will now be moving as swiftly as he can to be in a position to deliver that final compensation to the infected down the core route and to start those payments by the end of the year.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I thank the Paymaster General for his statement, which is testament to the long-fought campaign for victims, including the campaigning done by my constituents Judith Thomas and Ruth Jenkins, whose husband and brother Christopher Thomas died in 1990. The UK Government have announced that the Infected Blood Compensation Authority will work closely with the devolved Administrations to deliver payments in Wales, and the statement outlined meetings that were held with the devolved Health Ministers. In May, the Senedd heard that the UK Government will bear the costs of the scheme in full. Will the Paymaster General today reaffirm that commitment, and assure victims in Wales that they will not face any delays in compensation?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I can reassure the right hon. Lady that in advance of the action I took in the summer, I spoke to the Health Ministers in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I am very committed to working with the devolved Administrations. I repeat the commitment that this will be funded by the UK Government. I am also happy to give the commitment that there will not be undue delays, whether in England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.

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

For constituents like Justine Gordon-Smith in Edinburgh North and Leith, of whom my right hon. Friend will be aware, the resolution to this scandal can be achieved only when Governments work together, so I appreciate those reassurances. What actions have my right hon. Friend and his colleagues taken to drive forward the results with the Scottish Government?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I entirely agree on the importance of the Governments across the United Kingdom working together on this issue, and that is exactly the approach that I took in doing this work over the summer, and as I indicated to the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), I repeat my commitment. I spoke to Health Ministers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland before taking this action.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I welcome the fact that the Minister has come to the House so quickly to give the assurances that he has given, but reading the statement, I see quite frequently such phrases as “at the earliest opportunity” and “if the parliamentary timetable allows.” Those who are suspicious will wonder if this will be dragged out. May I ask two questions on the details? The Paymaster General has indicated that those on regular payments can keep them if they so desire, but will that be on top of the compensation package, or will the compensation be adjusted to take that into consideration? Secondly, if people go down the health impact supplementary route for additional compensation, will it delay the payment that they are entitled to, or will the comprehensive package be available to them, with the additional compensation added on after more information is given?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

On the first point, the Government are saying that people can have both a continuation of the support schemes and the lump-sum compensation as well. Awards are made under five heads of loss: injury, social impact, autonomy, care and financial loss. The continuation of the support schemes is taken into account for only two of those: the future care element and the future earnings element. The other elements stand alone. That is one of the big changes the Government have made to allow these support schemes to continue.

On the health impact supplementary route, the regulations have set up the core route. That health impact special route has been set up because there will be circumstances in which the health impact and condition is not quite captured by the core tariffs under the scheme. This route has been put in place to make the package more individualised. Again, I undertake to the House that action will be taken as swiftly as possible.

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend will appreciate that injustice is often compounded by a brutal, faceless and unnecessarily complicated bureaucracy; ostensibly established to right the wrongs, it quite often fails to do that. That is certainly what I have heard from my constituents affected by this scandal. What support in getting compensation will be available to victims of this huge injustice, and will the Infected Blood Compensation Authority have dedicated caseworkers to help people navigate the process?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend raises valid points on behalf of her constituents. Yes, the Infected Blood Compensation Authority will have dedicated trained caseworkers available. Their purpose is to make this process distress-free and as accessible as possible. That is hugely important for the work of the scheme.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I welcome broadly what the Paymaster General has outlined, but I have a couple of points to make. One is around those children and adults who were infected. The £10,000 and £15,000 seem relatively small sums, compared with the overall package, particularly given what those people were subjected to. Secondly, and more broadly, the Paymaster General has outlined the start dates of the process. Is there an end date that he can point to, so that we will know when all the financial compensation is delivered to the victims of the infected blood scandal?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

On the first point, the Government have accepted the figures suggested by Sir Robert Francis in full, and I re-emphasise, because it is so important, that these awards are a small part of the overall awards. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will look at the tariffs for the core route to see the amounts of money that will be paid out. I am not suggesting for a moment that they can make up for what has happened, but that will give a sense of how much £10,000 or £15,000 is in the totality of the award. He asks for a bit more information about completion. Clearly it is for the Infected Blood Compensation Authority to work as speedily as it can. As I have said, I would expect the infected core route final payments to be made by the end of the year, and payments to the affected to start next year.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

The communication with representatives of the Scottish Government is welcome, but can the Minister reassure us that representatives of the infected and affected in Scotland will be listened to as well? Can all payments be excluded, as far as possible, from income when it comes to benefits eligibility? On the administrative point, if people do not respond quickly enough to the data protection query—this is a very big, overwhelming thing to deal with—will they be given support? Can the Minister confirm that they will not be sent just one letter, and will not be left out and not given compensation if they do not respond? They should be given every encouragement and support in making their application, particularly if they find that difficult.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The hon. Lady makes a valid point. What she says about encouragement, support, proactive communication and clarity is hugely important. She is entirely right to raise the issue of victims in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and indeed England. I am sure that she will appreciate that it was crucial for me, in working with the devolved Administrations, to speak to the Health Ministers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but she is entirely right to raise the matter of the voice of victims, too.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

At least four of my constituents still live with the consequences of this scandal. Among them is a resident of Kendal who lost her daughter due to infected blood products. She has since raised her grandson, who has of course grown up without his mother. The lack of urgency, clarity and commitment shown by a series of officials and Governments over the past 30 years and more has robbed everyone’s constituents, including mine, of justice. As a result, so many victims tragically lost their life before compensation became available, as we know. Will the Secretary of State commit to ensuring that this year we will see compensation not just for those who were infected, but for those who were affected by the devastating loss of loved ones? Many cases, including that of the constituent I referred to, are deeply complex. Will he personally look at the details I will send him, and ensure that my constituents are aware of what is available, so that they can get support as soon as possible?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The thoughts of the whole House will be with the hon. Gentleman’s constituent on the unimaginable loss of her daughter. If he wants to write to me, I am more than happy to look at those details. I would expect compensation payments to the infected to start by the end of the year, and payments to the affected to start next year.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I put on record my thanks to the Paymaster General for a most positive statement, and for the clear commitment to getting the contaminated blood compensation paid. If I may say so humbly and graciously to the Paymaster General, he has shown the compassion and understanding that the people out there want to hear. The words he has put forward are much appreciated by us as elected representatives, but also by our constituents, so I thank him for that.

The Paymaster General will know my long-held position on this issue. Indeed, in years past, we have both stood up from the Opposition Benches at all times to speak on this issue, so I know he will be in absolute agreement that compensation must be prioritised. He has stated that, but realistically when does he believe that the roll-out will be completed? Will Members have access to the route to compensation, so we can help ensure that our constituents receive what they have needed for far too long from Government—that is, not from the Paymaster General specifically, but from this Government and the Governments that came before?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks and, as ever, his constructive tone. He raises an important point about how Members of Parliament can continue to raise concerns for their constituents once the Infected Blood Compensation Authority is fully up and running. I am holding a drop-in for Members from across the House tomorrow, and I will endeavour to continue to ensure that as much information as possible is made available to Members, so that they can continue to speak up for their constituents effectively.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the Minister for that statement, particularly perhaps on behalf of all those who have not spoken, but have affected constituents.

Infected Blood Inquiry

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Friday 26th July 2024 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to provide an update on the Government’s progress in responding to the infected blood inquiry’s report.

I start by reiterating that the inquiry’s final report laid bare harrowing aspects of the scandal that make it vital that we provide regular updates on this work. The infected blood scandal is an injustice on an unprecedented scale that spans decades. Thousands of people have died and, sadly, continue to die every week. Lives have been shattered and the voices of victims have been ignored for decades. People have watched their loved ones die and—this is one of the most chilling facts that the inquiry brought to light—children were used as objects of research. It is hard to conceive of the scale of the damage done and the incredible suffering of all those impacted.

On 20 May, the country bore witness to the devastating findings of the infected blood inquiry’s report. It was a national moment, a profound moment of shame for the British state, and a moment of long-overdue recognition for the victims and their loved ones. My right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister, in his former role as Leader of the Opposition, acknowledged that

“suffering was caused by wrongdoing, delay and systemic failure”

by all parties

“across the board, compounded by institutional defensiveness.” —[Official Report, 20 May 2024; Vol. 750, c. 667.]

The former 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. Today, on behalf of this Government, I reiterate that deep and heartfelt sorry. First, let me reassure the House that the Government are committed to acting on the findings of the infected blood inquiry report to ensure swift resolution. We are also committed to working cross-party, and will work with others to deliver the compensation scheme and get final payments to victims as soon as possible. It is vital that we shine a penetrating light on the lessons that must be learned, and that includes paying comprehensive compensation to those infected and affected by the infected blood scandal.

I would like to thank hon. Members who have played prominent roles in pushing the work to this point. The Minister of State, Home Department, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), has always been —and I know will continue to be—a powerful advocate for this cause. Her work in pushing forward the cause and representing the voice of those infected and affected was unquestionably pivotal to our reaching this point. I also thank my predecessor as Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen). As I said yesterday in Cabinet Office questions, I am grateful for his work in the lead-up to the announcement of the compensation scheme, and for his collegiate approach. I hope that we can continue to work together on this important issue.

The scale of the horror that was uncovered by Sir Brian Langstaff’s report almost defies belief. One of the issues that the report brought to light is the importance of addressing the unacceptable culture of defensiveness in the public sector. We must make sure that people’s reputations and protecting institutions are never put above public service. This Government will bring forward legislation to place a duty of candour on public servants and authorities to make sure that this kind of behaviour cannot happen again. That legislation must be the catalyst for a changed culture in the public sector by improving transparency and accountability. It will address the culture of defensiveness and help ensure that the lack of candour uncovered in the infected blood scandal —and, indeed, in too many other instances, such as Hillsborough and Horizon—is not repeated.

We recognise that as well as delivering institutional change, we must provide financial redress to people whose life has been irreversibly and tragically changed as a result of the infected blood scandal. One of the most powerful conclusions in the inquiry’s report is that an apology is meaningful only if it is accompanied by action, and it is now my responsibility to carry forward this action. I hope to lead that work not only with the support of this House, but with sensitivity and respect towards the people who have been so unfairly affected by this scandal. After all that has happened, listening to the voice of victims is crucial, and I will endeavour to work closely with the infected blood community as we progress this work.

I would also like to update the House on the progress being made in establishing the Infected Blood Compensation Authority. The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 legally created the authority on 24 May, and since that point, the interim chief executive David Foley has been working closely with Sir Robert Francis KC, the interim chair, to set up the compensation service. It is, frankly, no small task. The Cabinet Office is supporting the organisation as it recruits and sets up a service that is easy to access and simple to use. The authority will provide regular updates to the infected blood community and all others interested in its work.

Let me turn to compensation. On 21 May, I welcomed the former Administration’s announcement on compensation. There is an urgent need to get money to people in the most timely way possible. On 24 June, further interim payments of £210,000 were made to beneficiaries of the infected blood support schemes living with infections, bringing the total paid in compensation to victims to more than £1 billion. However, we recognise that this is not enough, given that many others have also been waiting for far too long.

The Cabinet Office is working closely with the Department of Health and Social Care, the devolved Governments and the administrators of the existing infected blood support schemes to establish the process for making interim payments of £100,000 to the estates of deceased people who were infected with contaminated blood or blood products, and whose deaths have not yet been recognised. Work is progressing to ensure that these payments are made as soon as we are able to. I am pleased to confirm to the House today that applications for these payments will open in October, and we will set out further details in due course.

There is also the matter of the final compensation scheme. We are committed to delivering this work quickly. We are also committed to getting it right. The proposed compensation scheme was published on gov.uk on 21 May, and we are committed, as I indicated yesterday to the shadow Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for Salisbury, to making regulations to establish the scheme by 24 August, as we are obliged to by the Victims and Prisoners Act. However, we also recognise the importance of building support and trust among those who will access the scheme. Sir Robert Francis undertook an engagement exercise in June at the former Government’s request, with the support of all parties. The exercise engaged those who have been most impacted by the scandal on the content of the compensation scheme. I have been engaging with Sir Robert to hear his advice following his meetings with members of the infected blood community. I am considering his advice carefully, with a view to publishing both his report and the Government’s position on it in advance of 24 August.

Finally, I reassure the House that there will be an opportunity to fully debate the content of the inquiry’s final report. I am conscious that given the timing of the recent election, there has not yet been time for right hon. and hon. Members to do so. It is essential, in my view, that Members of this House have enough time to digest and debate the devastating findings of the report. The Government are considering Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendations, and we will provide an update to Parliament by the end of the year on the progress that we are making on responding to the inquiry’s recommendations, as Sir Brian recommended in the report.

The infected blood scandal is one of the gravest injustices this country has seen. I want to end by paying tribute to the courage and determination of the victims of this scandal—those infected and those affected who fought so hard for justice. At every debate on this issue, we remember that they are at the centre of all this. It is for them that we must come together to restore the sense that this is a country that can rectify injustice. They deserve nothing less. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate you on your elevation. I thank the Paymaster General for his statement, and thank him very much for the customarily early sight of his statement this morning.

The findings of the infected blood inquiry remain a shameful moment for the British state. First of all, I reiterate our apologies to all those whose lives have been changed as a result of this appalling tragedy, which never should have happened. On 20 May 2024, the day of the inquiry’s final report, the then Prime Minister confirmed that the Government would pay comprehensive compensation to those who have been affected and infected, as quickly as possible.

Before the election was called, on 22 May, I took a number of steps to ensure that interim compensation of £210,000 would be paid as quickly as possible to those registered with existing infected blood support schemes, as well as those who registered with the support scheme before the final scheme became operational, and to the estates of those who passed away between then and payments being made. I am delighted that the Paymaster General this morning confirmed that over £1 billion has now been paid during the run-up to the general election.

The legislation passed on 24 May established the Infected Blood Compensation Authority to administer the compensation scheme, and appointed Sir Robert Francis as the interim chair. Sir Robert had previously led the infected blood compensation framework study, and I understand from engagement with senior officials right up till the day of the general election that he undertook a meaningful series of engagement meetings, as the right hon. Gentleman confirmed, with representatives of the infected and affected communities during the purdah period.

We also accepted the then Opposition’s call for regulations to set up the scheme to be made within three months of the legislation receiving Royal Assent. We asked for an update to be provided to the House within 25 sitting days of the inquiry’s final report being published. I believe that the statement this morning honours that. I welcome the fact that the new Government have continued to prioritise this issue, and to keep the House and, of course, the victims and their families updated on progress. However, there remain questions, and matters on which I think the infected and affected blood communities would, respectfully, expect me to challenge the Government.

Will the Paymaster General confirm that the debate that I promised after the Whitsun recess could be scheduled for September? That would give Members a reasonable amount of time over the recess to study this considerable report. Will he reiterate my commitment to respond to Sir Brian’s recommendations one by one, as quickly as possible, within a comprehensive response to the report?

I am grateful today that the Paymaster General is considering the advice from Sir Robert’s engagement with the infected blood community in June. I hope that he will not just consider it, but decide to publish it in advance of the 24 August deadline for making regulations. In my modest experience, any regulations laid would be open to misinterpretation unless the Government set out Sir Robert’s considered reflections on the engagement exercise that he supervised and his considered judgment on what changes, if any, to qualifying criteria and parameters may be required to ensure that the scheme has maximum credibility. I believe that the Paymaster General’s new ministerial colleague, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), would also advise him that maximum early transparency will yield maximum understanding and acceptance of the path forward.

I am anxious that the guarded optimism I heard during my 18 meetings with representatives from 40 groups in May will be sustained, and that the good will generated on the path the delivery will not be squandered. I give my commitment this morning that I will seek to support the Paymaster General as he completes the delicate process of finalising regulations by building on the engagement exercises and the invaluable work of Sir Jonathan Montgomery and his expert team.

On wider matters, can the Paymaster General confirm that the £1 billion he referred to represents the completion of the 90-day interim compensation commitment, or indicate to the House what quantum is outstanding and confirm that that will be paid within the 90 days that I set out on 21 May? It is critical that Sir Brian’s forensic assessment of culpability across the medical, civil service and ministerial domains is properly addressed as part of the Government’s evolving thinking on legislation on the duty of candour. While recognising that this is ultimately a matter for this House, it would be good if the Paymaster General could define what role the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee could play in scrutinising the Government’s progress.

Following my statement on 21 May, the Paymaster General referred to potential criminal charges and asked me to ensure that all relevant evidence would be made available for consideration by the prosecuting authorities. Will he update the House now on whether he is in a position to be able to do so? I also ask him to reiterate my acknowledgement of the call for memorialisation and to say whether he will appropriately frame the commitment the Government will make to the recommendations by the end of 2024, as I committed to do.

Finally, I wish the Paymaster General every success in this delicate work. I believe that he is well supported by an excellent team of civil servants to complete this work, and he will have my full support as he operationalises the legislation that the previous Government passed on 24 May.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the characteristically collegiate way in which he approached his perfectly reasonable questions. I shall deal with them one by one.

I will certainly push for the debate to be scheduled as soon as possible. It is really important that across the House we are able to comprehensively consider not just the recommendations, but the level and scale of the criticisms that have been made. Yes, the Government will respond one by one to the 12 recommendations made by Sir Brian Langstaff. In relation to Sir Robert Francis, I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the need for transparency. I certainly undertake to publish those findings and that report ahead of the regulation to operationalise the scheme being laid by 24 August.

In relation to the right hon. Member’s point about the 90 days, my understanding is that the payments were completed on 24 June, which is within that 90-day period, but there will be, as I announced in my statement, additional interim payments to the estates of infected people and that process will begin from October.

With regard to parliamentary scrutiny, I welcome the scrutiny that there rightly will be on this, whether it is by PACAC or, indeed, by the House more generally. I certainly undertake, as the right hon. Gentleman did, to ensure that all relevant information is provided to the prosecuting authorities as they see fit for any action that needs to be taken against specific individuals.

Finally, in respect of memorialisation, Sir Brian Langstaff set out that there should be memorials in the constituent parts of the United Kingdom, and also a specific memorial to those children who were sent to Treloar’s for protection, but who ended up in the hideous situation of being experimented on when they were at their most vulnerable. I look forward to taking forward the process, as the right hon. Gentleman committed to do, of ensuring that we do have appropriate memorialisation, which is crucial to recognising the scale of what happened.

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

May I congratulate you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on your elevation to your position?

I welcome the Minister’s statement this morning, but can he say a little more about how the compensation authority will arrive at its decisions? There is concern that advisers have undue influence on the Cabinet Office and that the voices of those who have been infected and affected are not being heard sufficiently in this process. There are concerns about the compensation process and whether that will be in addition to, or conflated with, support payments; the non-payment of exemplary or punitive damages; the lack of recognition of the impact of illegal experimentation or the knowing use of contaminated blood products; and the payments that will be made to estates where people have died. The people who really should be scrutinising this are those who have been infected and affected, so will the Minister commit to involving them in the compensation authority, so that they can have confidence in the decisions that are being made?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his questions. First, may I say that, of course, the voice of victims should be absolutely central to this. I thank Sir Robert Francis for the work that he did in the general election purdah period to ensure that that is the case. I will consider very carefully the recommendations that Sir Robert makes on the basis of that engagement and hearing the voice of the victims.

I want to deal with one other point that my hon. Friend raised, which was to do with the future of the infected blood support schemes. I understand that there has been concern about this. The current proposal is that no immediate changes will be made to the infected blood support schemes. Payments will continue to be made at the same level until 31 March next year, and they will not be deducted from any compensation awards.

From 1 April next year, people who receive the England infected blood support scheme payments will continue to receive them until such time that their case is assessed under the new scheme by the Infected Blood Compensation Authority. Once assessed under the scheme, the applicant will be able to choose how to receive their compensation, either as a lump-sum or periodic payment. I hope that that gives my hon. Friend the reassurance he seeks.

I have absolute confidence in Sir Robert Francis to run the Infected Blood Compensation Authority in an entirely appropriate way. I was in the Chamber when his appointment as the interim chair was announced, and it was welcomed warmly, as I recall, from the Public Gallery by the infected blood community.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair following your election, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the Paymaster General for early sight of his statement, and I welcome the tone and the cross-party approach that have been taken on this serious issue.

Victims of the infected blood scandal and their families have been waiting for decades to see justice. As we know, tragically, thousands have died without ever receiving compensation. The report of the inquiry into the scandal chaired by Sir Brian Langstaff laid bare the suffering inflicted, the cover-ups and the systemic failures across the British state. Not only did the state fail to help the victims, but in many cases people were lied to, treated with contempt and outright dismissed.

Now we have the evidence, and we have heard and read the most personal and courageous testimonies from victims. One of my constituents in North East Fife was a participant in the inquiry, and I have met others in the constituency. It is imperative that every one of us works across the aisle to deliver this effective and just compensation scheme.

We welcome the work by Sir Robert Francis and David Foley in setting up the IBCA. It is clear that transparency is vital in establishing trust between the IBCA and the infected blood community, so I am pleased to hear that the IBCA met with the community over the election period, but I would be grateful for more detail from the Paymaster General about what the ongoing work with the community will look like.

Not only do we have a duty to support the victims and their families with a fair compensation settlement, but, in order to create a lasting solution, we must ensure that the state cannot let such scandals happen again. Therefore, I am glad that the Paymaster General agrees that we need to adopt a duty of candour for public officials to ensure that victims are never treated in this manner again. Given that we have so many inquiries ongoing, can he give more detail on when the legislation on candour that he referred to will be brought forward?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for those questions, and I look forward to working with her on this issue on a cross-party basis throughout the next few months and, I suspect, for quite a bit longer. I really do echo her point about the need for cross-party working.

The hon. Lady made a very fair point about the need to establish trust between the victims and the compensation body; that will be vital. She also asked me to say a little more about the voice of victims being heard. It will be for the Government to consider Sir Robert Francis’s recommendations, which follow on from his extensive engagement with victims and victims’ groups during the purdah period. As I said to the shadow Paymaster General a moment or two ago, I agree with him entirely about the need for transparency in the publication of Sir Robert Francis’s work and report ahead of 24 August. I will be writing to the victims’ groups to ensure that their voice continues to be heard.

The duty of candour stands alongside other measures that we are bringing forward, including the public advocate and ensuring that families who find themselves in the tragic situation that many did with Hillsborough are able to be appropriately represented at inquests. We need to see those measures as a collective package, but we will be bringing them forward as soon as we can.

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

My constituents Justine and Rachel Gordon-Smith lost their father six years ago on Wednesday. He suffered from haemophilia and was given infected blood in the 1980s. I welcome today’s statement. The current compensation scheme makes provision for children of affected persons only while they are under the age of 18, which does not take into account the long-term impact faced by my constituents. Will my right hon. Friend meet me and my constituents to discuss this matter and ensure that the scheme supports all affected persons in Edinburgh North and Leith and across the country?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

First, I think the whole House will have every sympathy with the situation that my hon. Friend’s constituents and their family find themselves in. In the scheme, there are of course those who were infected and those who were affected, who include partners, parents, children, siblings and, quite rightly, those who provided care to infected people, because there were often situations where the carers were not necessarily close relatives but none the less provided significant care. If my hon. Friend could please write to me, I can ensure that there is an appropriate ministerial meeting.

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

I too congratulate you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on your recent elevation.

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement, which was very welcome. I echo his words by acknowledging that the infected blood inquiry is one of the greatest scandals of our age. I pay tribute to the victims and their families, who have fought tirelessly to bring matters to this point.

I am glad to hear that the Minister is committed to meeting the 24 August deadline for laying regulations to establish the final compensation scheme, but I am a little disappointed that he did not set out a full timescale for the full operation of the scheme. It would be helpful if he said a little more about that. Will he comment on his commitment to working closely with the Scottish Government on the scheme’s implementation in Scotland, to ensure that victims seeking redress face no further delay?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I echo what the hon. Gentleman said about the scale of the scandal and his appropriate tribute to the victims. On the timescale, as I indicated in my statement, the additional interim payments to the estates of the infected will start from October. As I indicated at questions yesterday in respect of the full scheme, I would expect the final compensation payments to start being paid from the end of this year.

It is my intention to meet the Health Ministers of the devolved Administrations in my native Wales, in Scotland and in Northern Ireland. I am committed to working with the devolved Administrations. As I indicated earlier, they will have a key role to play in the memorialisation process, too.

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

I congratulate you on your new position, Madam Deputy Speaker. I welcome the Front Benchers to their roles and thank them for the content and tone of the statement—my constituents will welcome that update. However, this is not an isolated incident in which the state has failed to protect its citizens. We have had the Horizon Post Office scandal, the Hillsborough families, and the child migration scheme—a matter in which I must declare an interest—for which former Prime Minister Gordon Brown gave a national apology back in 2010. Will the Paymaster General assure me and my constituents that the Government are committed to bringing about the culture change that is so clearly needed, as those scandals show?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Yes, I can give that commitment. I should really emphasise its importance. As I indicated a moment or two ago, we are committed to the introduction of a duty of candour; we are committed to ensuring that families are supported at inquests and inquiries, particularly for situations such as Hillsborough; and we are committed to a public advocate. Those are all really important steps that we need to take. Ultimately, that has to be accompanied by leadership and a change of culture, to move away from what Sir Brian Langstaff described as “institutional defensiveness.” That is absolutely critical.

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

As your constituency neighbour, may I congratulate you on your elevation to the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker?

I must put on record my sheer admiration for one of my constituents, Clive Smith, who chairs the Haemophilia Society. When I was first elected to this place in 2019, one of my very first constituency meetings was with Clive at his home, to talk specifically about the importance of pushing these matters through the House. I thank the previous and current Government for their collective work to get the House to this position of providing reassurance to those who have been impacted. I also thank the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson) for her work as part of the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood.

There are still concerns about how the payments will be made to the estates of those who have died. There is a risk that if such payments are made to the estates, they will be directed away from those who have been most impacted. My understanding is that it is currently expected that the executors of wills will decide how compensation payments are made to family members, and the payments may not go to those who have been most impacted. How will the Paymaster General ensure that the payments get to those who are most impacted?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I echo his tribute to his constituent Clive Smith for all his remarkable campaigning over many years. In respect of the hon. Gentleman’s second point on the probate process and ensuring that the money actually reaches those it is supposed to reach, the Government are considering how we can best support victims through the probate process. I hope to have further details on that in due course.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

Huge congratulations to you on your elevation, Madam Deputy Speaker. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson) for her dogged work in getting everybody to this point.

I want to raise with the Minister the interesting report that has come out from the National Audit Office this week, which looks at compensation schemes across the piece and makes recommendations to the Cabinet Office. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Mr Barros-Curtis) said, there have been a number of compensation schemes, but they seem to be ad hoc, and lessons are not always learned about how to deliver them, so victims in the middle get squeezed. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister can tell us that he will be considering that and coming out with recommendations in due course.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. She is entirely right that we need to learn lessons from previous compensation schemes, where they have gone well, and, frankly, where they have gone not so well—where, after looking at and reflecting upon them, we see that the proportion of money that we wanted to go to victims did not quite make it. I certainly give the reassurance that we are looking at those previous schemes and trying to learn best practice from them.

[Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)]

Congratulations on your elevation, Madam Deputy Speaker.

This statement is welcome in my constituency, where it is estimated that between 80 and 100 people were infected with HIV and approximately 26,800 were infected with hepatitis C after a blood transfusion. Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to the campaigners who have fought so hard to move this campaign and search for justice forward for those victims?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I certainly join my hon. Friend in doing that. As we speak today, we really should recognise that it took decades—a frankly unacceptable length of time—for people to achieve justice in this scandal. Not only did we have that profound moment when Sir Brian Langstaff announced the inquiry’s report, but it is so important that we now take the time that is necessary to learn the lessons for the future.

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

I thank my right hon. Friend for this update. He mentioned that one of the crucial points in this scandal is the fact that children were identified because of their genetic condition. Would my right hon. Friend explain how that issue will be looked at? How on earth can we compensate children who were identified at a very young age? Many of them have since died. They need substantial compensation and much more support than I think they are currently getting.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend refers to one of the most chilling aspects of this scandal. There is no varnishing this; the reality is that children with haemophilia went to an institution—Treloar’s school—for protection. The school was set up in such a way that it was meant to give reassurance to parents that their children’s condition would be appropriately cared for, but they were actually used for medical experimentation. It is absolutely shameful and appalling. Of course my hon. Friend is right about appropriate compensation, but it is also vital that, as we go through Sir Brian Langstaff’s 12 recommendations, we put in place procedures, standards and structures so that something like that can never happen again.

[Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)]

Last week in my constituency I met Mike and Diana Blake, who told me the harrowing story of their son Stuart. Stuart was infected by contaminated blood, and was then infected with HIV and hepatitis C—he was just six years old. Stuart lived and suffered, and passed away aged 27 in 2006. The torment of the Blake family has been compounded by the fact that they have not received the full compensation that I know everybody in this House believes they are due. I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement from the Dispatch Box, setting out the intention to move forward with compensation for bereaved families such as the Blake family. I would be grateful if he could say a little more about that process.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am sure the whole House sends its sympathies to the Blake family on the loss of their son Stuart in such appalling, tragic circumstances. As I indicated a moment or two ago, I do not think any of us can conceive of the grief of losing a child in those circumstances, but Stuart’s parents are clearly people who are affected—they are exactly the kind of people whom the scheme has in mind. Whether they are partners, parents, children, siblings or those who provided care, it is absolutely critical that the compensation body recognises their suffering.

[Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. I would like to talk about Linda, one of my constituents, who sadly lost her husband Bill Dumbelton because of the infected blood scandal. He contracted HIV and hepatitis C, and lost his job when he told his employer that he had HIV. He had no life insurance—he was unable to get life insurance at that time because of his HIV status—so Linda had to pick up the pieces and deal with all the financial problems when he died. Can the Paymaster General please update the House on how the scheme will be used to compensate those affected by the scandal, including spouses such as Linda? Are the Government still aiming to make those final compensation payments by the end of the year?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. We are looking to make and start those compensation payments by the end of the year. Again, I am sure the whole House offers its sympathies to Linda on the loss of her husband. My hon. Friend highlights another problem when she speaks about the fact that Linda’s late partner could not secure life insurance at that time. Another aspect of this scandal was that the people who were both infected and affected were, in decades past, unable to access the support that they should have been able to access.

[Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

I congratulate you on your elevation, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank the Paymaster General for his statement. Can he update the House as to what measures are being put in place to learn the lessons of this scandal, including on the indefensible time it has taken to put it right and on improving mechanisms for whistleblowing?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend raises a really important question. First and foremost, we need to consider very carefully the 12 recommendations that Sir Brian Langstaff has made. The Government will respond to them as requested in the timeline that Sir Brian mentioned in the report. In addition, we need to introduce the duty of candour and the public advocate, to support families at inquests and inquiries, and above all—in relation to my hon. Friend’s point about whistleblowers—to lead a change that moves away from the culture of defensiveness and towards one of putting the public interest first.

[David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)]

I welcome you to your new place, Madam Deputy Speaker—congratulations. I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement today, and for the swift actions of this Government in starting to resolve this situation. As we have heard, there have been far too many scandals over recent years, such as Hillsborough, Horizon, this infected blood scandal and the women against state pension inequality. Does the Minister agree that people have to fight far too hard and for far too long to get the recognition and justice they deserve, and that this simply has to change?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Hillsborough, Horizon, a number of other past scandals and this one are all severe and awful injustices, but what makes them even worse and compounds them is then having to fight for decades and decades. That is simply unacceptable, and it is one of the things that this Government are determined to change.

[Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)]

Like many others in the House, I have constituents who have been deeply impacted by this scandal and will welcome the statement. Does the Minister agree that it is vital that we take action not only to deliver the compensation, but to tackle the culture of defensiveness, which we have seen in this scandal and in every other scandal that has emerged? If we do not tackle it now, it is never going to change.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Anyone who reads Sir Brian Langstaff’s report will see the emphasis he puts on culture and the chilling nature of what he talks about as institutional defensiveness. That is something we need to change. We will put forward legislative measures that we hope will make a significant difference, but it is also a question of attitudes and culture, and changing that will require leadership.

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

Can the Paymaster General clarify whether an office for the whistleblower would be an independent office? That would be helpful in progressing the sort of clarity and transparency that he has referred to.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Protection for whistleblowers is important; it is something the Government are considering and keep under constant review.

[Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and congratulations on your elevation. I thank my right hon. Friend for updating the House so quickly after the general election. This issue is one that families in my constituency, and across the country, care about deeply. Will he commit to ensuring that hon. Members are regularly updated as we move toward drawing a line under this dreadful scandal?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I do give that commitment, and I hope the House will see that the Government have moved swiftly to update Members. It is critical that the whole House gets to have a full debate on Sir Brian Langstaff’s report and its recommendations. I certainly commit to keeping the House regularly updated.

[Dan Aldridge (Weston-super-Mare) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and congratulations on your elevation to the Chair. I thank the Paymaster General for his statement and action so far. I was proud to stand on a Labour manifesto promising a duty of candour. After 14 years of broken promises, people in my constituency, as in so many others, have lost trust in politics and public institutions, and cynicism is a toxic consequence of these broken promises. I was so glad to see the duty of candour in the King’s Speech, but can the Minister update us on progress on this long-overdue measure?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. He points to one of the deep issues across this debate, and indeed across other scandals such as Horizon and Hillsborough: there is a lack of trust in public institutions. This has happened because it took far too long—decades—for the truth to come to light. The Government are committed to bringing in the duty of candour. It was in the King’s Speech alongside the measure to create a public advocate and to support families in inquests. I look forward to that being brought forward as soon as possible.

[Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and congratulations on your elevation to the Chair. I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, and I pay tribute to the brave campaigners whose lives have been changed in the worst possible way by this scandal, including in my constituency. Many of the campaigners are children of people who have died as a result of their infections, and they have suffered immeasurably. I am pleased to see that there is support for this community across the House. Can the Minister confirm that the voices of the affected children will be included in his ongoing discussions and in the implementation of the recommendations in order to ensure fair and proper compensation and true accountability for this scandal?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

We have to listen to the relatives, including the children, of those who have died as a result of this scandal. It is an awful fact that thousands of people have died. Now we must listen to their relatives, who are their voices for today in this process.

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

Like many Members, I have constituents who have been affected. Indeed, I grew up without a grandmother, due to infected blood. Not only did my constituents in Barnard Castle lose a child, but their other son experienced severe mental health challenges, which are lasting throughout his adult life, as a consequence of the strain that has been placed on the family because of their long struggle for justice. I am grateful for questions about the duty of candour, but will the Minister agree to regularly update the House on the other measures that will bring about culture change? Culture change is difficult, and it is difficult to know if and when it has been achieved. I would be interested to see a regular update on that.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am sure the whole House extends its sympathies to my hon. Friend on the loss of his grandmother as a consequence of this scandal. He is entirely right to highlight the impact that it has had on others: the people we call the affected people as a consequence of this scandal. With regard to the culture of institutional defensiveness, the critical thing is that people do not put protecting individual reputations or the reputation of institutions above what is in the public interest or above the duty of public service. I am not suggesting for a moment that that is an easy thing to lead on, but it is certainly something that this Government are determined to lead on, and of course I undertake to update the House regularly on that.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call John Slinger to ask the last question.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and congratulations on your elevation to your position. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the public note that all too often in such cases of egregious state failure, prosecutions do not follow? It appears to the public that there is, in some ways, impunity. Compensation is belatedly given; reforms are made; but all too often individuals are not held accountable. That is part of the problem that we are discussing this morning. Will he commit to giving further updates on the steps that may be taken to ensure that individuals are held properly accountable?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Whether individuals are prosecuted is rightly a matter that is independent of Government; that is for the Crown Prosecution Service. What I do undertake to do is ensure that all relevant information is made available to the prosecuting authorities, so that the decision can be an informed decision based on the evidence. I also undertake, as my hon. Friend asks, to keep the House updated on that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2024 Commons Chamber

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

4. How many people affected by contaminated blood products have received compensation.

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

The infected blood scandal is one of the gravest injustices in our history, and it is vital that we get final compensation to victims as soon as possible. As of 30 June this year, the Government have paid more than £1 billion in interim compensation to those infected with infected blood products and bereaved partners registered with existing support schemes. The total number of recipients of interim payments across the United Kingdom is 4,606.

[Ian Lavery]

I thank the Minister for that answer. Sadly, the previous Government dragged their heels with regard to this absolute tragedy—[Interruption.] Of course they will deny that, but the fact remains that two people per week are dying as a result of contaminated blood, without full compensation. Can he tell the House when the latest report from Sir Robert Francis on the compensation recommendations will be published?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question and pay tribute to his campaigning on this matter, including presenting a petition to this House on behalf of his constituent, Sean Cavens, back in April. I pay tribute to the work of Sir Robert Francis. Certainly the Government will publish his report ahead of laying regulations before this House. More broadly, in respect of compensation for which victims have waited far too long, this Government are committed to paying comprehensive compensation to the infected and affected victims of the scandal. Indeed, the Prime Minister said that on only his second day in office.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

May I start by offering my warmest congratulations to the Paymaster General? I offer him my sincerest good wishes in these opening weeks of a new Government. I start with deep respect for him, and I wish to support him where I can while fulfilling my constitutional responsibility.

It was the privilege of my ministerial life during my six months in office to accelerate and then deliver the legislation to set up the Infected Blood Compensation Authority. Will the Paymaster General set out what progress has been made, given the urgency of this work? Is he on track to meet the expectations of Sir Brian Langstaff and Sir Robert Francis, given the engagement he will undoubtedly have had with them already?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

First, I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome. I pay tribute to the work that he did in government to push this agenda forward. When I was sat where he now is, I always sought to work on a cross-party basis, while holding the Government of the day to account. It is good to hear that he will continue to work in that spirit. With respect to the timetable that he refers to, our aim is still that final compensation payments will begin to be made by the end of this year. The Infected Blood Compensation Authority is established in law, and the team is working hard to put the operational systems in place to make sure that we start delivering final compensation payments by that target.

[John Glen]

When the right hon. Gentleman was sat here, he described my commitment to set out a clear timetable as “another important victory” for the victims in delivering the compensation scheme. In that spirit, will he reassure the House that the regulations I committed to by Act of Parliament on 24 May will be laid by the three-month legal deadline of 24 August? Will he report to the House at the earliest opportunity on when he will respond to the inquiry’s report, which is intended by the end of the year?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

That three-month deadline was hugely important in speeding up a process that frankly had taken far too long for victims. I give the shadow Minister that commitment about meeting that statutory deadline of 24 August. I hope to update this House sooner than that on the ongoing work.

[Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)]

6. What assessment he has made of the implications for his policies of discussions at the European Political Community.

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

8. What assessment he has made of the implications for his policies of discussions at the European Political Community.

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

Discussions at the EPC enhanced co-operation on European security and advanced the reset of our relationship with Europe. The EPC summit brought together 46 European leaders, recommitted to Ukraine’s defence and announced a new call to action against the Russian shadow fleet. The UK agreed co-operation arrangements with Slovenia and Slovakia to disrupt serious and organised crime. The Prime Minister also announced an increased UK presence at Europol and an £84 million package to tackle upstream migration.

[Yuan Yang]

Many small business owners in my constituency of Earley and Woodley have expressed to me their strong need for smoother relationships with our closest neighbours. I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister held meetings last week with the Irish Taoiseach and the French President. Can the Minister set out how he will build on those relationships to improve trade ties and to boost British businesses trading with Europe?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I welcome my hon. Friend to her place. As our nearest neighbours and as close allies, both those relationships are of great importance to the UK and to this Government’s plan to reset our European relationships. We look forward to working closely with the Irish and French Governments as we take forward our plans to improve the trading relationship to help boost businesses, jobs and economic growth.

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

Can the Minister outline more about the additional support offered at the European Political Community summit? What impact is that expected to have?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

In the margins of the EPC, 44 countries signed up to a UK-led call to action to tackle the Russian shadow fleet, which is using malign shipping practices to evade sanctions and the oil price cap. In addition, Ukraine signed bilateral security arrangements with Czechia and Slovenia. The opening plenary discussion focused on the need for Europe to support Ukraine for as long as it takes.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

There can be no doubt of the high regard in which the right hon. Gentleman is held by the Prime Minister given that within his responsibilities he is tasked with resetting EU relations, reforming the House of Lords and renewing the constitution as well as legislation, delivering all public inquiries and completing delivery on infected blood. But will he confirm how he will work with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and whether in effect the Cabinet Office now runs the Europe desk in the FCDO from 70 Whitehall?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am grateful for that question and the reminder of the number of responsibilities and tasks that will require delivery over the coming months and years. The written ministerial statement issued in the Prime Minister’s name yesterday clearly sets out the division between the roles. I look forward to leading from the Cabinet Office on the cross-Department and cross-Whitehall UK-EU reset. Of course, the FCDO will continue to deliver the diplomacy across Europe that is vital to that.

[John Glen]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that answer, but many in the House and in the public at large will be curious as to what plans he will develop in terms of trade-offs between any changes he seeks to make on behalf of the Government with the EU. For the sake of clarity and transparency, will he describe how he expects to evaluate the benefits of any changes and how his Prime Minister’s commitment to respect the referendum outcome will be meaningfully adhered to through the process? When does he expect to make a statement to the House on his progress?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The Government’s approach was set out in the Labour manifesto that was endorsed overwhelmingly at the general election. We will not rejoin the European Union, we will not return to freedom of movement, and we will not rejoin the customs union or the single market. What we will do is advance a reset in the relationship, and our test for that is for our European continent—the UK and the EU together—to be more secure, safer and more prosperous. That is what is in our national interest. It is in the EU’s interest as well.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Lib Dem spokesperson.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

May I welcome the new Minister and indeed the whole team to the Front Bench? I am sure that the Minister will agree that his most important role may be in repairing that broken relationship with the European Union for our security, for our defence and, most importantly, for our economy. Given the new Prime Minister’s focus on mission-driven Government, and with our recent return to Horizon Europe, what discussions did he have—or will he have—about extending the youth mobility scheme to the European Union? That would give thousands of young people the chance to live, work and study abroad and increase our cultural and economic links with Europe again.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The Government have been clear that we will not be returning to freedom of movement, but clearly we want economic and cultural ties to be far closer than they are at the moment—indeed, closer than they were under the previous Government. That is in the interests of the UK and in the interests of the EU. On the economic side, the Government have already set out their objective of a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement to achieve mutual recognition of professional qualifications to help our excellent services sector, as well as to ease the position for our travelling musicians around Europe, which is hugely important to our cultural soft power.

[Jon Trickett (Normanton and Hemsworth) (Lab)]

9. Whether he plans to increase the number of facilities management services that are insourced within Government Departments and agencies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

21. What steps he is taking to help ensure high standards of propriety in public life.

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

The sleaze of the previous Government eroded trust in politics and the public’s belief in our political system. The Prime Minister’s commitment to upholding the highest standards of integrity in public life is clear. He met the independent adviser on Ministers’ interests on his first day in office. This Government are committed to ensuring high standards, including by establishing an ethics and integrity commission, reforming the business appointment rules and appropriately empowering the independent adviser on Ministers’ interests.

[Sarah Coombes]

Just 49% of people in my constituency of West Bromwich voted in the recent election. That came as no surprise to me, because I had conversation after conversation with people who had lost trust in politicians because of the previous Government’s rule breaking and scandals. What steps are the new Labour Government taking to restore trust and ensure that politics can once again be a force for good?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

This Government will restore trust in politics by delivering for the public. As I have indicated, the Cabinet Office will support the development of a new ethics and integrity commission to deliver a much-needed reset on standards in public life. We will also review and update post-Government employment rules and support the Prime Minister as he issues a new ministerial code and grants the independent adviser the powers and support that he needs.

[Warinder Juss]

Polling before the last general election found that two thirds of the British public did not think that the then Government had observed high ethical standards, which probably accounted for the disillusionment with politics that we saw on the doorsteps. It is therefore essential that the new Government now work to restore trust in politics and to put public service rather than self-service at the heart of everything that they do. How will the Minister ensure that ministerial standards are upheld, and how will he ensure that the Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests has the powers to crack down on misconduct?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is entirely right: the last Government presided over appalling falling standards, which is why the Prime Minister is insisting that this is a Government of service to the public. The Labour party manifesto committed the Government to giving the Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests the powers to initiate investigations of misconduct, but also to ensuring that the adviser has access to the evidence that he or she needs, and those changes will be introduced in due course.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

17. What steps he is taking to protect whistleblowers in the civil service.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Further to the question of the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery), does the Minister hold any statistics on how many individuals are due infected blood compensation in Northern Ireland and how many have been awarded it? I am happy for the Minister to send me the stats if he does not have them to hand.

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

I am grateful to the hon. Member for that question. I do not have the specific figures for Northern Ireland to hand, but if he writes to me I would be only too delighted to provide them to him.

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

T10. The CrowdStrike outage this week showed how reliant we are on digital infrastructure. What will the Minister do to reassure people in Newcastle-under-Lyme that Britain will be resilient against cyber-attacks and hostile action from those who wish to do us harm?