Nick Thomas-Symonds MP: speeches

Speeches

• 25 Jun 2026 · UK-EU Relations · Hansard source

  More

  Because it has a 10-month review clause to ensure that it is delivering value for money. Under Erasmus+, there are still opportunities to go around the world. I say quite candidly to the hon. Gentleman that he should look very carefully at all the different opportunities under Erasmus+. It is not just about traditional studies. People studying vocational qualifications go overseas as well, such as those studying sport coaching. There is a range of opportunities that are not available under Turing. If the Conservatives are seriously now setting their face against these opportunities for young people, best of luck to them.

• 23 Apr 2026 · Contaminated Blood: Compensation · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend and pay tribute to him for the work he has done campaigning for victims. On IBCA and the culture, and on how it treats evidence, as I said, there needs to be a sympathetic and compassionate approach to evidence. In that regard, when I have visited IBCA I have been very impressed with the general ethos that people have been trained in. Specifically on severe psychological harm, I have made very significant changes to the special category mechanism. On the precise issue of the evidence, I will write to my hon. Friend, as I promised to do to the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds).

• 3 Dec 2025 · Draft Infected Blood Compensation Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank both the shadow Minister and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for their tone and their constructive approach. They quite rightly hold me to account on the compensation scheme, but, just as it was when I was shadow to the Paymaster General, it is important that we maintain cross-party consensus on this issue; I know it is very important to the victims that this does not descend into being some sort of political football. It never has done so, to be fair, and that is extremely helpful. On the shadow Minister’s specific questions, I expect the first payment to be made to an affected person by the end of the calendar year, which is what I have consistently said over the past 18 months. On the issue of the start date, when giving evidence before Sir Brian back in May, I promised to go back and look at it again. The Government of the day was from 1979 a Conservative one, though that does not really matter; there was an argument as to the date after which liability should fall, but I decided that such a debate was not becoming, and that we should just remove the start date altogether, which is precisely what I have done. I also entirely agree with the shadow Minister’s point about record keeping. It is not just that these events happened a long time ago, which they did; Sir Brian found evidence of deliberate document destruction. In those circumstances, while Members will realise that IBCA is operationally independent, I have always insisted that there should be a sympathetic and facilitating approach to evidence when dealing with claimants. Rather than simply saying that particular evidence is not available, it should be constructively looking for alternative ways to find that evidence. When I visited IBCA to see the training and work of its caseworkers, both the chair and the chief executive of the organisation very much shared that approach. The heinous medical experimentation that happened, including at times on children, is also part of the consultation, and we are currently in the 12-week consultation period. Finally, I entirely agree with the shadow Minister that there must be regular communication from both the Government, through the consultation, and IBCA. There must also be plain English in official documents—that is one my passions and I repeatedly asking for it. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson raised the special category mechanism, the changes to which are in the public consultation at the moment. After the 12-week consultation period, the Government will have 12 weeks to respond. My plan is then to introduce what will be the full set of regulations, so another Committee will be reconvening as soon as possible to make the necessary changes to the scheme on the basis of that consultation.

• 4 Sept 2025 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Whether we go back to 1924 or even further back—and I will during my speech—we find Conservatives in this House protecting their friends born into positions of power. This Bill will finally remove such an archaic right. Just as the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) —he is overseas at the moment, I understand—wants to send people, certainly in Wales, back down the coalmines, the Leader of the Opposition is stuck in the politics of the past. Before I turn to the amendments sent back from the other place, I want to draw attention to comments made by the noble Lord Strathclyde. He said of this Bill that “inevitably, there will be repercussions. They”— the Government— “are storing up huge problems for themselves.” The Conservatives have not only complained that the Government are removing hereditary peers while offering “nothing in return”; more sinisterly, they have threatened to use delaying tactics on this Government’s agenda. We only have to look at their behaviour in debates in the upper House, to see that they have been trying to hold the Government hostage on the Football Governance Bill, the Employment Rights Bill and the Renters’ Rights Bill—all to protect the hereditary principle. We know that the Conservative party is in no fit state to take action on very much, but where is their energy being directed at present? It is being directed at the self-preservation of hereditary peers in the House of Lords. That is unacceptable and, frankly, it deserves to be highlighted. As I say, the Bill has returned to the House amended by the other place. Most of the amendments serve to undermine the core purpose of the Bill, or go well beyond the Bill’s intended remit. Lords amendment 1 has to be read with its consequential amendment—Lords amendment 8. It seeks to end the system of hereditary peer by-elections while retaining the current cohort of hereditary peers. The Government cannot endorse those amendments, which fundamentally undermine the core purpose of the Bill. The Government have a manifesto commitment to bring about an immediate reform by removing the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. Lords amendment 1 would allow existing hereditary peers, the youngest of whom is 39, to remain in the other place for decades to come. That therefore blocks an immediate reform.

• 21 Jul 2025 · Infected Blood Inquiry: Additional Report · Hansard source

  More

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

• 21 Jul 2025 · Infected Blood Inquiry: Additional Report · Hansard source

  More

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