Infected Blood Compensation Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Thursday 11th December 2025 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

12:19

Moved by

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 30 October be approved.

Relevant document: 41st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

My Lords, since the publication of the Infected Blood Inquiry’s detailed report in May 2024, the Government have worked to establish a compensation scheme and set up the Infected Blood Compensation Authority, IBCA, to deliver it. Since the compensation service opened last year, IBCA has contacted all infected people registered with a support scheme to start their claim, and made offers of over £2 billion. The service has now been opened to the first claims from living infected people who have never been compensated. I am pleased with this progress and it is a significant step in the right direction toward delivering justice to those impacted. IBCA is now moving toward opening the service for those affected, and for the estates of deceased infected people.

In July, the Infected Blood Inquiry published its additional report, which made 15 recommendations for the Government on the design of the scheme. We immediately accepted seven of those recommendations. The regulations we are considering today will implement the five of those seven that require legislation to achieve. The remaining eight recommendations are subject to an ongoing public consultation, and the Government expect to bring in further legislation next year to implement the further changes following the consultation. The regulations at hand today show that the Government have reflected on and listened to the inquiry’s words on involving those impacted by this dreadful scandal. It is right that we accepted these recommendations and I am pleased that we have been able to bring them forward swiftly.

Hearing the voices of the community is essential. That is why the Chancellor announced changes in the Budget that ensured that infected blood compensation payments are relieved from inheritance tax in cases where the original infected or affected person eligible for compensation has sadly died before the compensation is paid. I am pleased that we have been able to make this change, and that justice is not only delivered but reflected in the way compensation is treated.

I will set out the changes that we are proposing to the scheme in the regulations. These are a result of the Government’s immediate acceptance of some of the inquiry’s recommendations. Regulation 3 responds to the inquiry’s recommendation 3(a) and removes the 1982 start date for eligible HIV infections. This means that anyone who was infected with HIV via infected blood or infected blood products before 1 November 1985 will be eligible for the scheme. Regulation 4 makes changes in line with the inquiry’s recommendation 8(b) on affected estates. Its additional report set out that the time being taken to deliver compensation is disadvantageous to affected people who are older or in ill health. The recommendation is that, where an affected person has sadly passed away during a specified date range, their compensation should become part of their estate. The Government have accepted this recommendation and is going beyond the inquiry’s recommendation, extending the recommended date range by two years to be between 21 May 2024 and 31 March 2031.

Regulation 6 actions the inquiry’s recommendation 4(e), recommending that the Government remove the need for applicants with hepatitis C or B to “evidence” their date of diagnosis. The date of diagnosis has no bearing on the calculation of an individual’s compensation, and therefore making this change removes an unnecessary burden that will facilitate swifter processing of claims by IBCA. Regulation 7 implements the inquiry’s recommendation 4(d), relating to how the scheme deems the level of severity of someone’s hepatitis infection. Where someone shows a level 4 diagnosis of hepatitis, but no level 3 diagnosis, we are amending the scheme so that they are deemed as having spent six years at level 3 prior to their level 4 diagnosis. This will uplift their overall compensation package and recognises that the burden of evidence should not fall on the claimant in light of the inquiry’s finding on lost medical records.

We have heard from the community and the inquiry that the use of effective treatment dates under the scheme does not reflect the lived experience of many victims. Not all infected people were able to resume work after treatment for various reasons, including continued illness or stigma. Some people received effective treatment much later than when it was introduced. In line with the inquiry’s recommendation 4(c), Regulation 9 rectifies this by removing the earnings floor on the supplementary route exceptional loss award for financial loss. This ensures that a route is available for infected people to present evidence on their actual earnings loss.

The Government recognise that there have been concerns raised about bereaved partners’ access to support scheme payments following the tragic loss of their spouse. In response to these concerns and to the inquiry’s recommendation 9(a), the Government reopened bereaved partner applications to the infected blood support schemes, IBSS, on 22 October. I am grateful to devolved Administration colleagues for their work in helping us make sure we could achieve this so quickly.

One of the key themes of the inquiry’s additional report was the need for IBCA to increase the speed with which it delivers compensation. In order to achieve that, Regulation 10 delays by one calendar year the transfer of responsibility to make support scheme payments from IBSS to IBCA. This will allow IBCA to focus its resources on continuing to build an effective compensation service. I am again grateful to devolved Administration colleagues for their collaborative work on this. Outside the inquiry’s report, Regulation 14 makes a number of technical changes to ensure that the compensation scheme functions correctly, and that its administration is improved. These are minor corrections that do not impact the policy.

This compensation scheme is for people who have had their lives changed by unimaginable pain and suffering. The regulations we are debating today are a direct response to these people’s calls for change, meeting their expectations of Government and carrying forward a sense of justice. As Members of your Lordships’ House, we all share the sentiment that the victims of this scandal should be at the heart of this work. These regulations are a significant step in ensuring that this compensation scheme delivers for the people impacted, as we all intend it to do. I beg to move.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing this to the House and going through things so comprehensively. I also thank her for being open to having conversations about the whole scheme at other times, without necessarily requiring us to book an appointment with her.

I have a couple of questions on areas that require clarification. First, is it correct that the compensation scheme does not pay specific damages to people infected as children up to the age of 16, other than a £10,000 unethical research award if the family of the deceased can prove that they were a victim—which is the same for adults? Is it correct that, if the infected child dies, there is no compensation for a lost life? As parents are not classed as dependants, can the Minister clarify what they are eligible for, having lost their child, and how that changes if their child died after the age of 16 or 18?

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful that the Minister is keeping in touch about the regulations, not just today but from when we last debated this in November. She will not be surprised to know that most of the concerns from these Benches are about the practicalities. The main concern remains the slowness of progress of the compensation arrangements. Clearly, there is some movement, and I am grateful for the increase in the amount of money that has now been agreed for compensation. That is good news. However, it is still very slow even for some infected victims, because they have not even got to first base. The proposed arrangements for affected victims just seem to drift longer and longer into the future.

The Minister knows that the real problems emerging at the moment actually relate to the detail of the compensation scheme, and specifically to changes that are being made at the moment. I apologise to her that I have a series of questions and some are quite technical. If she cannot reply today, please will she write to me? I do not think that this is the first time I have said that.

12:30

The compensation proposals made by Sir Robert Francis in 2022 and by the Infected Blood Inquiry, which the Government claim they are following, now seem to be being overridden by the work on the detail that is going on elsewhere. It is worth remembering that in the Francis review of 2022 on page 127 in paragraph 10.3, he said:

“I have further recommended that no account be taken when calculating compensation of any past payment from a support scheme or one of the preceding trusts and charities. Put simply, all such payments were ex gratia, were without any admission of liability, and were never intended to be compensation. In any event, the inquiry required to establish the full detail of support payments would be burdensome to all, and in some cases impossible because of lost or inaccessible records”.

This is really worrying. At the moment we are seeing that the Government cannot possibly on one hand delay compensation payments for 40-plus years and to have been found guilty of evasion, and then, on the other hand, argue that they cannot set up the scheme until after they have read the final report, which is what happened under the previous Government, and fix eligibility to said ex gratia scheme set up as late as 2017. The Government’s advisors recommended that past payments should be discounted. There was a specific argument that this was not compensation but now it appears that everyone is insisting it must be fixed to it, which conveniently denies those who died before the schemes were established 40 years ago. After the fact, they have lost their right to claim special injuries, suffering or mental injury. I apologise; I realise this is highly technical. Can the Minister help explain why these changes are happening? They are so different from Sir Brian’s initial report, his subsequent report and the Francis review.

I also want to ask—I am sorry to do this—about the special category mechanism details in response to Sir Brian Langstaff’s scathing analysis in his extra report of how the Government are making statements in Parliament only to row back on them without consultation or notice. Specifically, on the eligibility of the SCM—special category mechanism—I am referring to additional pages 83 to 106 in of Sir Brian’s May 2025 report. On eligibility, he said:

“Living infected people or the estates of infected people who are receiving SCM or equivalent payments (or received them before they died) would be automatically eligible for this award”.

This means that only those who were on the support schemes and who have died would be automatically eligible. Sir Brian went on to say:

“Living infected people who are not currently receiving SCM or equivalent payments from an IBSS would be able to apply to be assessed by IBCA against the EIBSS assessment criteria and if they meet them, will receive the award”.

But, once again, there is no mention of the estates of the deceased. This is clearly only for living infected people, meaning that every dead child or adult who died before the SCM was introduced will have no right of appeal or compensation for actual injuries to them.

I know that there will be some discussions at IBCA next week. I understand that initially none of the groups was invited to be party to them, but some have now been invited. Not to include victims who have decades of experience of things going wrong seems questionable.

I have some questions about eligibility for the SCM that I will not go through here, but I think the Minister needs to understand that there is a very large group of victims who are extremely concerned about what is going on. Some of them are actually outraged; they feel that this is worse as they are allowed only to make written submissions regarding the SCM and the expert group—the TEG. This seems to really get close to infringing human rights for these victims. I am not expecting the noble Baroness to answer on the detail. The big message I would like the Government to hear is that in the space of one month, in which the Government have been trying to rebuild trust with the victims, things are changing that they are not aware of and not able to get to. Please will the Minister review this with IBCA as a matter of extreme urgency?

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the progress that has been made by the Infected Blood Compensation Authority—IBCA—and the Government in delivering payments. I pay tribute to the work of Sir Brian Langstaff and all those involved in the Infected Blood Inquiry and its additional report. This report made a number of recommendations to improve the compensation scheme. The Government have broadly accepted the recommendations, five of which are given effect by the regulations before us. After the catastrophic failures that led to the infected blood scandal, it is vital that justice is delivered swiftly and fairly to all who were affected.

I also take this opportunity to thank the noble Baroness opposite for her letter of 27 November, which addressed some of the questions that were raised when we discussed this matter on 4 November. In particular, I am glad to see in response to my question about the steps the Government and IBCA are taking to ensure that those who should be prioritised for compensation are being identified that the noble Baroness has confirmed that IBCA will prioritise claims in the order recommended by the inquiry.

In line with my colleagues in the other place, I make it clear at the outset that His Majesty’s Opposition support these regulations. There are no substantive differences between the position of the Government and that of the Opposition, or even of the previous Government. However, we cannot forget that we are discussing one of the most egregious and profound injustices: the infliction, collectively, of grievous harm upon thousands of people by the state. It is paramount that we have a scheme which delivers justice and redress compassionately, quickly and fairly. We support the five recommendations that the Government are accepting and legislating for today. I welcome that they go some way to making this ambition a reality.

The changes include: provision to remove the 1982 start date for eligible HIV infections; removing the need for applicants with hepatitis C or B to evidence their date of diagnosis, which does not have a bearing on the calculation of an individual’s compensation; and removing the earnings floor on the exceptional loss award for the financial loss supplementary route, thereby creating a route for infected people to present evidence on their actual earning loss.

We welcome the Minister’s confirmation that lifting the HIV start date means that it will not matter when a victim was infected with HIV, provided that the infection arose from treatment with contaminated blood or blood products administered before 1 November 1985. However, can the Minister confirm that this also applies to those who only discovered or were only informed much later that they were infected, but where the likely cause was treatment before the relevant date? Similarly, can she assure the House that no one who should be eligible will fall through the cracks because of earlier failures in record keeping, particularly those infected as children whose medical records may have been incomplete at the time? We must ensure that no one is denied the compensation they both need and deserve, and I am sure that this is something the Government will wish to avoid.

The Minister will also be aware of the representations from those deliberately infected with haemophilia as part of clinical studies and of their deep concern at the proposed level of compensation for deliberate infection. Will the Minister commit to working with Sir Brian to review whether that component is appropriate?

When we debated this matter on 4 November, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and I raised concerns about IHT and the risk that the Government could be giving out compensation with one hand and clawing it back with the other. The Minister said in response to our concerns that she was listening and would seek to arrange a meeting with Treasury officials to discuss this issue further. Can she update us on this meeting, and what recommendations or changes have come out of it? Can she confirm that all infected blood compensation payments, whether made directly to victims or through estates, are entirely exempt from inheritance tax, regardless of the circumstances or timing of payment?

The noble Baroness also raised the review by Sir Tyrone Urch when we last discussed this matter. Can she give us an update on what assessment the Government have made of the recommendations he made and whether any of them are going to be given effect? Can she please assure the House that the changes we are debating today will not impact on the timeliness and swiftness of repayment to victims, given that they will likely impact on the scale of the operation? As the Minister in the other place confirmed, we have moved from the test-and-learn approach to the exponential phase of delivery. Rather than having yet more reviews and recommendations, the Government must now focus on the delivery of IBCA at scale. The scaling up process must be commensurate with the urgency of the situation.

Finally, as we have repeatedly highlighted over the past year, many victims and families still feel that they are in the dark—an issue identified again in Sir Brian Langstaff’s most recent report. The Minister in the other place has given an undertaking that transparency will be at the heart of any expert group going forward. Will the Minister commit to publishing a clear communications plan and to working with IBCA to ensure regular updates and accessible guidance in plain English so that those who may be eligible understand their rights and can access the compensation they need?

I reiterate that we support these regulations but would welcome clarity from the Minister on the points that I have raised. I thank her again for the steps that she and the Government are taking to provide some redress after this terrible saga. We appreciate the need to proceed with care and consideration, but we must not lose sight of the need to scale up delivery so that the process can be as quick and effective as possible. That is the only way to ensure that those victims and their families who have already been failed so profoundly by the state face no further injustice.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, I would usually say I thank noble Lords, but I thank the noble Baronesses—as is our wont when we talk about issues of infected blood—for their points and their continued representation of the infected blood community with unwavering dedication. Many in your Lordships’ House have consistently ensured that the voices of the infected and affected community are given a voice in this Chamber. I particularly pay tribute to the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell—I was delighted to see her in your Lordships’ House last week, and she is definitely on the road to recovery—and the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, who has ensured that we always have a human voice, as well, of course, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. Their resolve in seeking justice for the victims of this scandal cannot be overstated, and their generosity of time to make sure that I am fully abreast of such issues has been incredibly personally beneficial.

I also thank my opposite number, the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, for how constructively we have worked together on these issues to deliver for a community that rightly has limited faith and trust in government after its experiences. The onus is on all of us in your Lordships’ House to make sure that community knows we are listening. I will look in detail at the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, whose questions were very specific, as she highlighted. It may be useful for us to have a meeting with officials. I will invite all those who have participated today to attend , but I will also reflect on the points and write in advance of it.

We are here first and foremost to debate the regulations, and I will prioritise the issues raised on them in my response. I am aware of the other points that have been raised and will do my best to address those too, but obviously I will reflect on Hansard if I miss any of them. On the specific points raised, I will start with those from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. These are incredibly important points, and she worried me, when she gave me the detail in advance, that there was a gap that we had missed. So, to clarify for the record—I think that would be useful—someone infected as a child would receive injury, social impact, autonomy, care and basic financial loss awards in the same way as an adult. They would not receive an additional financial loss award for the years when they were aged under 16. However, they would still receive an additional financial loss award for the years when they were or will be aged 16 or over. I hope that gives a level of reassurance.

In the heartbreaking situation when an infected child has passed away, a bereaved parent would receive injury, social impact and autonomy awards based on the child’s infection and infection severity. This will not change based on how old their child was when they passed away. The awards to parents are higher where their child’s infection has caused or is expected to cause an early death in the future. This includes those infected with HIV or levels 3, 4 and 5 hepatitis infections. They would also be the likely beneficiary of their child’s estate under the law of intestacy. All such would likely be the recipient of whatever injury, social impact, autonomy, care and financial loss awards are due to the child’s estate. So there is still a level of compensation, but I will make sure that I also write to the noble Baroness so that she has a copy in writing as well as from Hansard.

I will touch on IBCA’s prioritisation, because that is helpful in this context. IBCA is prioritising those nearing the end of their lives because community members and representatives have highlighted how important it is for these people to start their compensation claims. “Nearing the end of life” means that a person has been told by a doctor or medical professional that they might have fewer than 12 months to live. This could be due to any medical illness or condition; it does not need to be caused directly by an infection from contaminated blood.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

The noble Baroness has said that this is the case for infected victims, but will the same rules apply to affected victims who are nearing the end of their lives? Many of them are: many are dying now.

12:45

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

I believe that to be the case. I will confirm to the noble Baroness in writing, given the issues that we are talking about. I would not want to mislead anybody, but I believe that is IBCA’s approach for affected estates as well.

Previous payments are all, pre 31 March, ex gratia. Only payments from 31 March count towards compensation calculations, and no payments from an AHO are compensation. But, again, after our conversations and reflecting on Hansard, I will write to the noble Baroness.

The noble Baroness raised specific points about the special category mechanism, or SCM. I recognise the level of community concern about how the scheme considers and recognises the impacts captured by the special category mechanism, and I confirm that the matter of how the scheme recognises and compensates people for the impacts that make someone eligible for the SCM is part of the public consultation and further regulations. The consultation proposes that anyone currently receiving special category mechanism or equivalent payments through the infected blood support schemes would now be automatically eligible for a severe health condition award. Everyone who receives SCM payments should have been contacted by IBCA already as part of the cohort of infected people registered with a support scheme. I hope that gives a level of reassurance, but I am aware the noble Baroness asked more specific questions about that, and I will revert.

On inheritance tax, the noble Baroness will appreciate that, such was the statement from the Chancellor, no such meeting was required. Private conversations happened about this, reflecting on the issues raised in your Lordships’ House and the other place about how important this was. Representations were made and the Chancellor reflected that in the Budget, and I am very pleased that she did so. So there was no such meeting; I hope noble Lords will appreciate that I had offered one, but it proved to be unnecessary.

On the inheritance tax point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, I think it would be helpful if I outlined what we have agreed to. Inheritance tax policy has been widely raised by many Members of your Lordships’ House and many in the community. It was of huge concern. Compensation payments made under the scheme will be exempt from income, capital gains and inheritance tax. This is in line with tax exemptions for the first and second interim payments. At the Budget, the Government announced that further updates to the inheritance tax disregard will be made to ensure that infected blood compensation payments are relieved from inheritance tax in cases where the original infected or affected person eligible for compensation has, sadly, died before the compensation is paid. I know this was an important issue for many members of the community, and I am pleased that the Government have been able to listen and make this change.

The changes mean that inheritance tax credit will be automatically applied to the estate of the first living beneficiary of the infected or affected person’s estate. For example, this would mean that the children of a bereaved partner who inherits their infected partner’s estate and then dies would not face an inheritance tax charge on the compensation they inherit. This will apply to compensation made before or after 26 November 2025. The Government have also made changes to the rules on gifting compensation payments. The change means that the first living recipients of compensation payments will have two years in which to gift some or all of their compensation payment without an inheritance tax charge. This applies to gifts of compensation made on or after 4 December 2025.

The noble Baroness, Lady Finn, also said that no one should fall through the cracks, and she is absolutely right. IBCA is working with those affected and infected to build an evidence base where people are struggling. Noble Lords will appreciate that as we move from the infected who are claiming to the affected who have claims, some of the evidence base is going to become more challenging and it is right that the case handlers will work with people to help support their evidence efforts.

On the Tyrone Urch review, we are still reflecting on its recommendations and talking to colleagues at IBCA about what support it can provide, because many of the recommendations were for IBCA. I will report back in due course. I can confirm that the changes to these regulations will not slow us down: where enhancements have been made, those will be retrospectively applied to those people who have already received compensation without them having to come forward again, and we do not believe that anything we are proposing at this point will slow anything down.

On the clear comms plan, noble Lords are aware that earlier this year I visited IBCA and met its comms team. I think we can all agree that there have been significant communication challenges from IBCA during this process. I personally think, having seen some of the new materials it is using and the fact that it is using a different level of basic English standard now, as opposed to a level of science, that that has made this much more accessible. We are talking about people who have different experiences and different personal circumstances. Comms is always going to be a challenge, but I put on record my thanks to the women—and it is overwhelmingly women who are answering the calls in the first instance—who are providing huge support, and to the handlers who are based at IBCA, who are doing a very good job, having built an organisation from scratch since May last year to deliver over £2 billion of compensation. There is a long way to go, but I believe that they are on track.

These regulations will action several of the inquiry’s recommendations and bring them into force as quickly as we are able to, but I am very clear that this is not the end of the process. These regulations are only one part of the Government’s response to the inquiry’s additional report. The consultation that is currently under way does not close until 22 January and I encourage all those impacted by the scandal to respond to ensure that their voice is one of those helping to guide us forward. If there are problems with people being able to access the consultation, please let us know. We are making other mitigations, but if there are specific challenges, I want to hear them.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

Let me be clear that my comment was not about the consultation, which is a written one, but the fact that nobody with lived experience was invited to attend the round table meetings looking at the detail.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

But that has now been resolved.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

With one such person.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

Okay; I will speak to officials and see what has actually happened.

Many of the points raised today are subject to the consultation. I look forward to discussing these in more detail with noble Lords once the Government have considered the consultation and published our response. In the meantime, I hope the changes we are making today with these regulations demonstrate that we are fully committed to ensuring that justice is finally brought to a group of people who have waited far too long. I beg to move.

Motion agreed.