Nick Thomas-Symonds MP: speeches

Speeches

• 14 May 2025 · Infected Blood Inquiry: Government Response · Hansard source

  More

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

• 24 Mar 2025 · Draft Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for both those contributions. I repeat on record my tribute to my predecessor as Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for Salisbury. When I was in opposition, I always sought to work on a constructive, cross-party basis. I say to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire, that I am pleased to see that continuing today. That does not mean that the Opposition do not ask appropriate and searching questions—of course they do—but that cross-party support is really important for the signal we send to the infected blood victims and for the delivery of this scheme, as we stand behind IBCA. On the questions posed by the former Paymaster General, he will know that, during the general election campaign, when he and I were on various doorsteps around the country, Sir Robert Francis carefully conducted a consultation exercise with the victims. The first thing I found on my desk when I went into Whitehall was a report with 74 recommendations about changes to the scheme. Had the previous Government been re-elected, the document would have been waiting for the right hon. Gentleman. I accepted 69 of the 74 recommendations, including on the continuation of the regular payments and the payment of a lump sum. A significant set of changes were made to the scheme. I am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman has visited IBCA and seen the work that is going on. I encourage the shadow Minister and other Members of Parliament with an interest in this matter to visit it to see that work. In the other place, Baroness Anderson undertook to place the “Infected Blood Compensation— Getting it Right” document that the right hon. Gentleman referenced in the House Library so that everybody can see it. I support her undertaking. The right hon. Gentleman is entirely correct that IBCA is an operationally independent arm’s length body. That is what it is set up to be. That is how it will conduct its day-to-day business. As the Minister, I stand ready to help and assist in any way I can to speed up the payments. I am restless for the speed of delivery to increase, but I respect that operational independence going forward, as it is important that I do. To the point made by the right hon. Gentleman around myths and misinformation, which I am afraid are just a fact of life in the age of social media, it is important for hon. and right hon. Members to go to IBCA’s website and see the newsletters and updates that it publishes on payments. We must also ensure that that is on the Government website, and I take the view that publishing things and putting them in the public domain is by far the better way to go. I will come to the issue the shadow Minister raised about tariffs in a minute, but the explanations for the decisions the Government have made are there in the documents on the website. I say to hon. and right hon. Members that they should go to them so that they can best assist constituents who raise questions. The point about speed is important. IBCA is adopting a “test and learn” approach. In other words, it has a set of cases that are representative of the general body of cases for which it is paying out. That means that there should be—the right hon. Member for Salisbury referred to it as a hockey stick, which is essentially what it is—an exponential growth in payments. I am as restless as anybody in this room to get to that vertical part of the hockey stick as soon as possible. To the shadow Minister’s point about money, we will make available the money that is required. We have already made that £11.8 billion available. He also asked a really good question about the level of evidence, and we recognise two things in that respect. First, so much of this happened a very long time ago now—particularly the importation of infected blood, which obviously ceased a long time ago. Secondly, we know from Sir Brian Langstaff’s report that there was deliberate document destruction. Those two things have to be taken into account in terms of evidence. What I found at IBCA was that there will be that caseworker—that person—for each of these cases. What I also saw was the culture that Sir Brian Langstaff is insisting staff adopt, which is an enabling culture—a helpful culture. Many factors in particular cases are important, including whether someone was a carer or where people lived at the relevant point. People will have that sympathetic, enabling approach of asking what types of evidence might be helpful and where it could be obtained from. Let me deal with the points about the framework document and about hepatitis C and hepatitis B versus HIV. First, the framework document sets out the timelines agreed between IBCA and the Cabinet Office. The bulk of infected people are to be paid by the end of 2027, and the bulk of affected people are to be paid by the end of 2029, but let me just make it clear that those are not targets: it is as soon as possible and not later than those dates.

• 13 Feb 2025 · Infected Blood Compensation Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  On the right hon. Gentleman’s point about tariffs, they have been set out and published. There are then assessments to be made about severity within the tariff bands. There is also, as I have indicated, the supplementary route for more complex cases. I cannot give him a single figure across these cases as they obviously vary, but the House will gradually see the overall amount being published by IBCA. On the right hon. Gentleman’s second point, a victim making an application to the IBCA will be given a particular claim manager—I met the first claim managers only in recent weeks—to speak to and guide them through the process, which is crucial. I know that the culture imbued by Sir Robert Francis is an enabling one about helping victims, particularly with evidence. I have also signed off both legal support and financial support, because it is about receiving what are, in many cases, life-changing sums of money.

• 13 Feb 2025 · Infected Blood Compensation Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady is entirely right to raise the issue of evidence. There is the specific issue that she referred to, but there is also a far more general problem about incidents often being from a long time ago. We also know that in some cases there was deliberate destruction of records. The level of evidence is therefore clearly a significant issue. As I have indicated, when I visited the IBCA, I heard from claim managers about the approach they are taking and the culture that is being imbued—an enabling culture—and about how the IBCA will aim to gather some of the information to assist victims, which I think will be a vital part of the process.

• 6 Feb 2025 · UK-EU Relations · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for his contribution. Of course NATO remains the cornerstone of our security; that has been a cross-party position for decades. He asks about plans and red lines. I refer him to our manifesto, which was put to the people last year, that contains those clear red lines of no return to freedom of movement, the single market or the customs union. He can see in that examples of what the Government are seeking to negotiate. The hon. Gentleman talks about negotiating international agreements. There are many people from whom I would take advice about international agreements, but I hope the House will forgive me if the Conservatives—the party that managed to send hundreds of millions of pounds to Rwanda and all they got in return was sending some volunteers and most of their Home Secretaries there—are not at the front of the queue for giving advice on how to negotiate international agreements. I give some credit to the Leader of the Opposition, who strikes a markedly different tone on this issue from that struck by the hon. Gentleman today. She admits freely that the last Government left without a plan for growth, and that, frankly, they ended up making it up as they went along. I was surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not begin his remarks by repeating that apology. Perhaps he has a different view than the one taken by his leader. The hon. Gentleman talks about the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, but he was part of a Government who negotiated a role for the European Court of Justice in the Windsor framework. He talks about standards. This Government are committed to the highest standards, whether that is on product safety, employment rights or consumer rights. We believe in a race to the top on standards, not the race to the bottom that would be the dream of the Conservatives. As the Government move forward, our test is the national interest. It is about making Britain safer, more secure and more prosperous. There is another test for the Leader of the Opposition, however. I see that she has put out a social media video about tests, which is worth a couple of minutes for mild entertainment if nothing else. The test for her is whether she will face down the ideologues in her party. Is she going to show some political courage and back the national interest, or is she just going to back down in the face of the ideologues in her party? On the basis of the hon. Gentleman’s contribution, I am not optimistic.

• 23 Jan 2025 · Relations with the EU · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I can confirm that our priority remains ensuring that UK artists can continue to perform and promote themselves around the world. That is why the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is working collaboratively with the creative sector and across Government to address key issues for our brilliant artists and their support staff touring the EU. As we set out in our manifesto, we will work with the EU and member states to explore how best to improve those arrangements, but without seeing a return to freedom of movement.

• 5 Dec 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  In relation to my hon. Friend’s second point, it is right that the Church of England looks very carefully now at its procedures in the light of what has happened and been brought forward. In relation to the duty of candour, I have no idea why the Opposition Front Benchers were laughing about that. It is a hugely important reform that we are bringing forward, and it will make a significant difference across public service. We will have public servants putting the public interest above their own personal reputations and above the reputation of institutions. I hope the Opposition Front Benchers will come to support and help with the leadership required for that step change—that culture change—across public service.

• 19 Nov 2024 · Infected Blood Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  The Infected Blood Compensation Authority will obviously take—and I know this because of the discussions I have had with Sir Robert Francis—a sympathetic view of the level of evidence that will be required. Sometimes the problem is that the issues complained of date from so long ago, but another chilling aspect of this scandal is, in some cases, the wilful destruction of documents. That is something that we have to take into account when it comes to securing justice for people. I have had the privilege of meeting several members of the community, and I am grateful to them for continuing to campaign on this issue. Let me also openly express my gratitude to Sir Robert Francis and David Foley of the Infected Blood Compensation Authority for continuing to work with the community to drive that delivery of compensation forward. Ending the defensive culture in the civil service and Government is a cultural change that should unite all of us throughout public life. That is why work is under way across Government to strengthen responsibilities relating to candour and transparency for public servants. In the King’s Speech that opened this Parliament, the Government set out their commitment to legislation to introduce a duty of candour for public authorities and public servants, and the Prime Minister confirmed at the party conference that such legislation would be delivered. He said: “It’s a law for the sub-postmasters in the Horizon scandal. The victims of infected blood. Windrush. Grenfell Tower. And all the countless injustices over the years, suffered by working people at the hands of those who were supposed to serve them.” He also said that the Hillsborough law would be introduced to Parliament before the anniversary of that event, on 15 April next year.

• 19 Nov 2024 · Infected Blood Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  The Infected Blood Compensation Authority has operational independence. The Government have stewardship over the amount of money allocated. As my hon. Friend will appreciate, the £11.8 billion is a huge and substantial commitment. I do not pretend for a moment that any amount of money can actually provide recompense for the scale of the injustice, but at the same time it is an indication of the commitment—from the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and across the Government—to deliver justice. In saying that, I should say that I am grateful for the work and co-operation of hon. Members across the House. In particular, I once again thank my predecessor as Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen), for his efforts in government. As I indicated in the debate last week, I look forward to continuing to work in that spirit with the new shadow Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), on this hugely important issue. I also thank my ministerial colleague, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), and the former Member for Worthing West. Their tireless campaigning and representation of the community’s interests over so many years has been invaluable. Much progress has been made in responding to Sir Brian’s report, but much more remains to be done. I will set out the Government’s fuller response to the recommendations to the House in line with the timetable Sir Brian set out, but I hope in the course of this debate to assure right hon. and hon. Members, and most importantly those in the community, that we have listened, we have learned and we are taking long overdue action. The inquiry’s report is persistent in uncovering the truth, unshakeable in its honesty and damning, frankly, in its criticisms. It is absolutely clear that fundamental responsibilities of patient safety in healthcare were repeatedly ignored, and that “what happened would not have happened if safety of the patient had been paramount throughout.” The culture of wilful ignorance runs through the report, and continued to proliferate as the scandal developed. It speaks to Governments across decades and a state more focused on discharging its functions, whatever the risk and whatever the cost. The report chronicles suffering of almost unimaginable scale: thousands of people died prematurely and continue to die every week; lives completely shattered; evidence destroyed; victims undermined; families devastated; and children used as objects of research. It is a truly horrifying injustice. However, Sir Brian’s report goes much further. He lays bare the institutional defensiveness that existed within the Government, and indeed the civil service, which led to the truth being hidden for so long, compounding the pain and the injustice. Sir Brian highlights “the consequences of civil servants and ministers adopting lines to take without sufficient reflection, when they were inaccurate, partial when they should have been qualified, had no proper evidential foundation…or made unrealistic claims that treatment had been the best it could be.” These actions are the very antithesis of public service, and that is why I know there is such collective determination to learn the right lessons and to act on them. There is so much that can be said about the volumes of evidence that Sir Brian has uncovered, and I know that during this debate many Members will raise vital issues, but let me be absolutely clear: the report details utterly unacceptable failings on a chilling scale, and this Government will do everything in their power to address them. Through acting on these lessons, we must ensure that all those who have suffered, and those who have campaigned, have not done so in vain. Let me now turn to the 12 recommendations that the inquiry made in its report. First, I will touch briefly on the progress that has already been made. I know that Members on both sides of the House are keen to hear the details of what the Government intend to do in response. The recommendations are wide-ranging, and are being given full consideration. As I have said, I will provide an update to Parliament by the end of the year against each and every one of those recommendations. I will begin with compensation. I have already updated the House on a number of occasions on the progress that is being made. I am grateful to Members on both sides of the House for their contributions to the debate on the regulations that we have made to establish the Infected Blood Compensation Authority and the core route for compensation for infected people, but I am also grateful, crucially, for the support there has been throughout the House to ensure that the delivery of compensation is not delayed in any way by Parliament.

• 23 Oct 2024 · Infected Blood Compensation Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  I hope to be able to make an announcement about it shortly. I have told the House previously how important I think the memorialisation proposals are, and they will certainly form part of the update that I will give the House before the end of the year. I join the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), in congratulating the students whom she has had with her and on the work that they did in researching this subject for her speech. What she said about a culture of cover-up was important. What Sir Brian Langstaff said was not that there was some specific conspiracy between individuals, but that there was something far more pervasive, which he described as a culture of “institutional defensiveness”. People and institutions put their own reputations above the public interest, and to tackle that the Government will be pushing forward with a duty of candour. That, in my view, will be a powerful lever that the House can pull for change, but it is not just about a change in the law. It is about leadership as well, and it is about culture and changing the culture, in order to bring about a system in which the public interest is put first and we collectively do all that we can to minimise the chances of a repetition of what has happened in relation to not just this scandal but others, such as Horizon and Hillsborough. The hon. Lady and a number of other Members asked about the severity bands. The scheme is tariff-based, and the tariffs were developed through the work of the infected blood inquiry response expert group, whose members were appointed by the right hon. Member for Salisbury when he was Paymaster General. They were clinical and legal advisers, assisted by social care specialists. The Government then chose to improve the scheme after the engagement exercise that Sir Robert Francis carried out, as I mentioned to the right hon. Gentleman during the general election campaign. The comparison between HIV and hepatitis C has been raised. For people infected with hepatitis C there are four severity bands, and they are designed in line with clinical diagnostic markers. Recognised health conditions, for example liver damage, have, therefore, been informed by the work of the expert group. It is correct that in comparison there is a single severity band for people infected with HIV. That is because HIV is a lifelong infection. The vast majority of people infected with HIV through blood products have experienced progression to advanced symptomatic HIV disease, including AIDS conditions, and have died as a consequence of the infection. Those who survived continue to be severely impacted by the infection, and the view of the expert group was that it was disproportionately complex and onerous to disaggregate that category into different experiences, and that contrasted with hepatitis, where there is a wide range of experiences, including both acute infections with long-term limited impacts and very serious and ultimately fatal infections. That is the approach, based on the expert group, that the Government have adopted. Similarly, on siblings, which several Members have raised, the scheme is based on recommendations from Sir Robert Francis’s framework compensation study. It does not exclude siblings over 18 who may have been carers and provided care.

• 26 Jul 2024 · Infected Blood Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 26 Jul 2024 · Infected Blood Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 26 Jul 2024 · Infected Blood Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 26 Jul 2024 · Infected Blood Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  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.