7 May 2025: Thomas-Symonds - A

Following on from the sight of a full panel of witnesses on the platform, the Minister sat in the middle of the long table looking as isolated a “Johnny No-mates”.

There was no welcome as usually afforded the witness by the Chair, just a statement of the oath being administered.

Before answering questions, the Minister, Nick Thomas-Symonds (NTS) wanted to make a statement. That was no surprise. After the obligatory latest apology, the statement was a combination of how short the timescales were (excuses), and how much he wanted to press ahead (oh really). Miss Richards reviewed how the so-called Expert Group had already done its work before he was appointed after the election. He was asked about the Inquiry findings related to the issue of a lack of transparency and candour by officials and how this had impacted the infected blood community. NTS was asked to confirm if the Government was committed to transparency and candour, and he said it was. It was pointed out that the timescale for doing this was already behind schedule. He could not say anything about when it would move forward. This was a response he would be heard to use more than once.

The Hillsborough tragedy was cited as a cover-up scandal to be addressed by a new duty of candour, but the Infected Blood had not suffered from such a cover-up, as far as he could say. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is all you need to know. He’s the puppet, not the master (of his brief).

When asked about the previous Government stating it needed to wait for the final report but then exposing itself as being untruthful since it had clearly worked out what it thought was a set amount for interim compensation, he did not think there was justification for waiting. He also sort-of agreed that the community was completely excluded from what the previous so-called Expert Group had produced. The muddy water inducing involvement of Robert Francis as a consulting opportunity could hardly cover its naked pretence as a vehicle for seeking views that would be listened to. It was agreed that the first set of regulations had been produced with no involvement of the community. It was also conceded that there was no “formal” consultation on the second set of regulations. The reason/excuse for this was to make things happen quickly. For not the first time already, there was a wave of sniggering from those in attendance. Sir Brian wryly looked at the company, perhaps as a reminder about respecting witnesses.

The writer has always found the Welsh accent as pleasant to hear. That enjoyable association was being challenged by NTS. He was asked about the obvious unhappiness with so much of the regulations but tried to deflect by citing a few token tweaks they had been forced to make. Again, the rationale for doing things his way was down to saving time, he righteously claimed. The alternative of starting again would simply cause more delay. Miss Richards pressed him on the possibility of a parallel process to keep IBCA doing what it is doing, while a proper consultation to make major changes occurs. The response was to try to wriggle out of making changes due to the time to get things through Parliament. He was pressed further to admit the Government had no plans to make major changes. He could not bring himself to form the words to say there were no plans, but clearly there is no intention to change much at all. What a snake. Clearly, we are all to forget the examples when “emergency” legislation was pushed through in a day. It must be that someone with a State-infected virus or two who is about to die is not an emergency.

There was a shift to pose questions about the difference between the scheme the Inquiry recommended and what has resulted, partly by inheritance from the previous Government. In particular, the whole form and operations of the so-called Expert Group were pointed out as completely at odds from the recommendations. Counsel asked for the full disclosure of documents related to the so-called Expert Group, and NTS almost agreed to do this, but allowed himself some leeway under certain conditions. He was reminded that the Inquiry could require the Government to provide these documents but would prefer to receive them voluntarily. Of course, there was no veiled threat intended.

The next topic was the “independence” of IBCA. Again, NTS had nothing useful to contribute to explain the massive variance with what was recommended. Having had his background pointed out for good measure (he is a barrister), there was the sight of a man who was clearly out of his depth. Even his training to be able to say lots of words but really say nothing wasn’t enough to help him say nothing successfully.

The next stick to beat the Minister with was the lack of any flexibility from the way the regulations allow IBCA to operate. Mr Quinault was quoted as saying it had to be that way, according to the regulations. That will be the Victims and Prisoners Bill with the amendments which the Government effectively nullified, right? So, they designed the straightjacket.

On to the delays, the Minister had to admit the number of payouts when compared with the total scale of the work to be done was not acceptable. When asked if there was a plan to speed things up, of course there was not, but he could not say it. He did say the Government would not withhold any resources required by IBCA, but even then, any residual confidence in this lawmaker was slipping further down the drain.

The specific matter of the long delays, at least up to 2029, means that many people will die, including affected people, before they get a sniff of compensation. The microscopic window of when an affected person’s compensation can transfer into an estate payment was pointed out. The Minister was forced to recognise how unfair this is. When asked if this could be looked at again, his voice literally trailed off to a whisper as he said it could. On a roll, Counsel pushed for a new category of tariff support for affected people. Thoroughly boxed in, he had to accede to that too, but added a little get-out-of-jail comment that it would need to not cause delay. Miss Richards pulled that rug away by suggesting that a 2029 date for payment would hardly count as likely to cause delay. Touché.

The grilling moved to a specific issue with the tariffs, particularly the exclusions under certain circumstances, encountered through the display of a communication from a case handler to a claimant. As had become his preferred coping mechanism, NTS went into mumble mode because the cognitive dissonance of being presented with an obvious error was banging up against what he was told he could say by his handlers.

The gobbledegook of the regulations was put up on screen in relation to the SCM. A series of changes after an engagement process was walked through. It illustrated how the Cabinet Office could get better outcomes from engagement than by being left to its own devices. The Severe Health Condition Award was a “wholesale change” which had been accepted by the Minister. He could not explain why this obvious error, then corrected, had not been picked up by the Government’s preferred experts. “You’ll have to ask them …” was the trailed off trope. The devilish detail appeared on the screen and the trap was set. A second attempt at “You’ll have to ask them …” was not tolerated by Miss Richards. As the Minister, he was properly open to be challenged since he is the place where the buck stops. He signed it off, “Why?” He said he was “More than willing to go back to this”, and the victory was applauded. Let us see if his officials let him.

The ridiculous research uplifts came into the spotlight. A quote from the morning panel made it clear what the community thinks about the levelling of these uplifts. Counsel then springboarded to the unnecessary listing of specific centres for someone to qualify for these paltry amounts. The push came by asking if it could not be at the discretion of IBCA to consider cases under this category.

The regulations were described as impenetrable even to well-trained legal minds such as Miss Richards and NTS (haha). This was used to question the lack of access to legal representatives to help claimants understand the complex details underpinning what would become their compensation. Surprise, surprise, the Minister had no meaningful response.

The funding for victim-survivor support organisations was raised, along with the coincidental communications to groups this week to offer money. He said he has been pushing for this for months.

(At this point a break was called.)