Infected Blood Compensation Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2025 Lords Chamber

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?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[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.

Northern Ireland Troubles: Operation Kenova

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Caine (Con)]

My Lords, a 164-page report really should have been accompanied by an Oral Statement by the Government in Parliament. The report contains much uncomfortable reading, and our sympathies are with those who lost loved ones. We also recognise again the immense role of the RUC, the Armed Forces and the intelligence services in securing peace. Can the Minister reaffirm the Government’s commitment to the “neither confirm nor deny” doctrine as essential for the protection of national security? On legacy, the Irish Government have now promised the fullest possible co-operation with the renamed Legacy Commission. What undertakings have they given that this will mean exactly the same levels of disclosure by them and their agencies as is required of the UK Government and their agencies?

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

My Lords, I first put on record my sincere thanks to both Jon Boutcher and Sir Iain Livingstone for an extraordinary piece of work. They have set the standard both for gaining the trust of victims and ensuring that we have an Article 2-compliant investigation, which has given us very sobering reading. The noble Lord is aware that, yesterday, we published a Written Ministerial Statement, and he is aware of the ongoing litigation concerning many of the issues in the report. We will be discussing them in more detail once some of that litigation is completed.

On the noble Lord’s points about our security services, I completely agree with him. As he knows, because I have said it from this Dispatch Box, I agree that our security services and all those who wore uniforms during the Troubles ran towards danger to keep us all safe. They continue to do so every single day, both in Northern Ireland and in the rest of GB.

On “neither confirm nor deny”, the noble Lord is right: the first duty of any Government is to protect national security, and we must therefore ensure that sensitive information that is injurious to the public interest, including information that could damage national security or present a real risk of harm to life, is not released. NCND is an important protection, particularly where disclosure of information might otherwise compromise the recruitment and retention of CHIS, but it also covers a broad range of other sensitive national security activities. There will be no change.

On the role of the Irish state, noble Lords are aware that in September we published a joint framework on how we will work together on legacy. We hope and expect to see that delivered in full.

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, this is an important and detailed report that is a welcome further step in trying to get to the truth of what happened. Like the Minister, I commend its authors. Families have had to wait such a long time for truth and justice. Do the Government accept the finding of serious organisational failure by MI5, as outlined in the report, and can the Minister say whether she is confident that the current legislative framework and oversight provisions will prevent similar lapses in future?

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

There is ongoing litigation regarding the first point, so I cannot comment. However, I remind noble Lords that since the Troubles, there has been a new legislative framework that includes both the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Act 2021 and RIPA 2000, which means that many of the practices outlined in the report could never be repeated.

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

My Lords, does the Minister acknowledge the debt of gratitude that we owe to the intelligence services, our Armed Forces and the courageous members of the RUC? It was by their action, infiltrating the IRA right to the very top of the republican movement, that many lives were saved—including my own. However, when will His Majesty’s Government put the spotlight on previous Governments of the Irish Republic and their role in arming and supporting the IRA in their terrorist activity?

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

I am very grateful to our security services for keeping many Members of your Lordships’ House safe and saving their lives, including the noble Lord. Let us be very clear what we are talking about here: the Provisional IRA were responsible for over 1,700 murders, and we need to make sure that that is reflected in these conversations.

On the noble Lord’s comments on the Irish Government, I have been clear that there is a new framework and agreement. This is historic, and the first time we have been able to achieve such. I look forward to working with the Irish Government to make sure that they, as we will, bring forward new legislation.

[Baroness O'Loan (CB)]

My Lords, I served on the steering group for Operation Kenova.

The Secretary of State said yesterday of the NCND policy that

“in a small number of cases it has been set aside for particular reasons”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/12/25; col. 172.]

MI5 knew about Stakeknife’s recruitment from the outset. It knew his identity, his role within the IRA and about his involvement in abduction, interrogation and murder. It knew that murders could have been prevented had his activities been terminated earlier and action taken by the state. Families know that their loved ones were murdered by a man who was allowed to carry on murdering by agents of the state. He is now dead. His identity is known worldwide; it is running in newspapers across the world today. Does the Minister agree that this situation constitutes “particular reasons” and that regardless of any judgments yet to come, Stakeknife should be named now?

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

First, I thank the noble Baroness for the work she has done with Kenova; it is a truly sobering piece of work and an incredibly important addition.

When any agent—active, living or otherwise—is publicly identified by the state, it calls into question the whole premise of the Government’s “neither confirm nor deny” policy, which is vital for national security. On Operation Kenova’s request to the Government to name Stakeknife, the Northern Ireland Secretary has set out in a letter to Sir Iain Livingstone, which is available in the Library, that the Government will issue a substantive and final response to that request after the Supreme Court has issued its judgment in the Thompson case, which is relevant to NCND policy.

I want to make it clear that the alleged behaviour revealed in this report is deeply disturbing, and such activities would simply not be tolerated today.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I would like to thank Jon Boutcher and Sir Iain Livingstone for the report they have brought forward. The Kenova report contains very disturbing findings. In view of this, can my noble friend the Minister highlight the Government’s intentions to address those very serious findings, including the fact that MI5 tried to restrict the investigation and conceal the truth of IRA crimes it knew all about?

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

My noble friend is right that this report contains a range of recommendations; some are outside its original terms of reference, which were in the interim report published last March. Noble Lords will appreciate that many of the issues touched upon are subject to ongoing litigation, so there is only so far I can go in terms of their actions.

I say to my noble friend that the director-general of MI5 again apologised to Kenova for the late discovery of the material in 2024. The House will also note that MI5 itself has initiated an internal review of what happened, and there are the findings of the Helen Ball review, in which she raised a number of points. There is always more to learn, but as I said before, the legislative framework in which these alleged activities happened is not the same as the one that operates today.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, £47 million was spent on the Kenova report, which was made with the benefit of hindsight and makes no mention of the thousands of people who were actually saved from being murdered by the IRA terrorists precisely because of the actions of the intelligence services and brave service men and women. Will His Majesty’s Government rule out immediately the ridiculous call made this morning on the BBC by the former PSNI chief constable Sir George Hamilton for a judicial inquiry into MI5 and its behaviour? Does the Minister agree that despite the endless inquiries, our security forces acted always with the intention to save lives and not, as was the IRA’s intent, to murder innocent men and women?

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

The Government have no intention to commission a public inquiry. The Kenova investigation was conducted over nine years and was Article 2-compliant. We are satisfied that Kenova has completed a thorough investigation. We do not believe there is any further requirement.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Caine and others have referred to the uncomfortable reading in this report. Can the Minister confirm unequivocally that the regime for handling agents is today utterly different from that which obtained when most of the events covered by the report took place?

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

The noble Lord is right: the use of covert human intelligence sources is now subject to strict regulation under RIPA 2000 and the CHIS Act 2021. Compliance with this legislation and the related code of conduct is subject to rigorous IPCO scrutiny. The Investigatory Powers Tribunal provides a forum for individuals to challenge the state if they believe CHIS have acted inappropriately or illegally. It is a completely different world that we live in, but we should never forget the context of what we are talking about.

Infrastructure (Wales) Act 2024 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2025

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent]

That the draft Order laid before the House on 27 October be approved.

Considered in Grand Committee on 8 December.

Motion agreed.

Procurement Act 2023 (Specified International Agreements and Saving Provision) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 21 October be approved.

Considered in Grand Committee on 8 December.

Motion agreed.

Infrastructure (Wales) Act 2024 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2025

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Infrastructure (Wales) Act 2024 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2025.

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

My Lords, this order was laid before your Lordships’ House on 27 October 2025. The draft order is needed following the passage of the Senedd’s Infrastructure (Wales) Act 2024. The 2024 Act streamlines and unifies the decision-making processes for devolved infrastructure projects in Wales, including significant energy, waste, water and transport projects. It does this by creating a new consenting regime for these devolved projects, with a number of existing consents, authorisations and licences integrated into the new process. Previously, these devolved projects in Wales have been consented under various pieces of legislation, including the Electricity Act 1989 and the Transport and Works Act 1992. They will now require infrastructure consent under the Welsh Government’s 2024 Act.

The Welsh Government will commence the Infrastructure (Wales) Act 2024 and bring the new consenting process into force next week, on 15 December 2025. This draft order makes consequential amendments to UK legislation that falls outside the legislative competence of the Senedd. The amendments are necessary to ensure that the Act can take effect as intended and are therefore needed in advance of the new process coming into force. As the 2024 Act establishes a new consenting arrangement in Wales, it is not reflected in UK legislation in the same way that existing processes are. This order updates the relevant UK Acts to take account of the establishment of infrastructure consent in Wales by ensuring that it is treated in a way that is consistent with those existing consenting arrangements.

First, this order amends the Nuclear Installations Act 1965. Under the 1965 Act, applicants for a nuclear site licence may be directed to notify relevant public authorities about their application. This power of direction, however, does not apply to applications for nuclear generating stations, which require consent under the Electricity Act 1989. This is because the 1989 Act sets out its own requirements for consultation with public authorities. In line with this, Article 2 of this order ensures that the power of direction in the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 does not apply to projects which require infrastructure consent under the Infrastructure (Wales) Act 2024. This is because the 2024 Act similarly places its own requirements on applicants to consult with public authorities.

Secondly, this order amends the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990. When granting infrastructure consent under the 2024 Act in circumstances where hazardous substances consent would also be required, the Welsh Ministers can deem hazardous substances consent to be granted. This enables hazardous substances consent to be granted without a separate application being needed. Article 3 of this order amends the 1990 Act to create a requirement for the Health and Safety Executive to be consulted before hazardous substances consent can be deemed to be granted by the Welsh Ministers as part of an application for infrastructure consent. This ensures that the HSE can consider the risks that the hazardous substance may present to people nearby and provide science-based advice to the Welsh Ministers. This replicates the process for other consenting regimes, including under the Electricity Act 1989, which require consultation with the Health and Safety Executive in these circumstances.

This order amends Section 130 of the Finance Act 2013, which relates to the annual tax on enveloped dwellings. This tax is payable on properties that are within the UK, classed as a dwelling and owned fully or partly by a company or a collective investment scheme. Where a building is being converted for non-residential use and the conversion requires infrastructure consent under the new Welsh processes, Article 4 of this order ensures that the building will be classed as a dwelling for the purposes of the tax until consent required for the modifications is granted. This is in line with the process for conversions to buildings which require planning permission or development consent under the Planning Act 2008.

I welcome the Welsh Government’s infrastructure Act and the new streamlined consenting arrangements for devolved infrastructure in Wales. This draft order makes the necessary consequential amendments to reserved legislation, helping to ensure that the Welsh Government’s Act can take effect as intended. I beg to move.

[Baroness Humphreys (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome this statutory instrument, which provides the necessary consequential amendments following the enactment of the Infrastructure (Wales) Act 2024. It represents a sensible and measured step to ensure that the new Welsh infrastructure consent system is aligned with existing legislation across the United Kingdom. While this order is by its nature technical, it none the less reflects an important moment in the ongoing evolution of Wales’s governance arrangements. I therefore ask the Minister whether she views this legislation as an expression of confidence in Wales’s ability to manage and deliver major infrastructure projects and, more broadly, whether she considers it indicative of a direction of travel towards further devolution.

The Minister will know, as many of us do, that there is growing concern in Wales that the party which proudly introduced devolution in 1999 now appears resistant even to discussions about extending those powers or devolving additional services. In the last year alone, Members of both Houses have made the case for the devolution of policing, justice, youth justice and the Crown Estate, all to no avail. However, this order shows that effective co-operation between the Welsh and UK Governments is possible and productive. Can the Minister clarify whether she sees this as part of a broader commitment to strengthen that partnership and recognise Wales’s capacity to take greater responsibility for its own affairs?

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this order to the Committee. The order makes minor and technical changes to UK legislation, recognising the provisions in the Infrastructure (Wales) Act 2024. That Act, passed by the Senedd in June 2024, simplified the consenting process for infrastructure projects in Wales. As the Minister outlined, energy, electricity, transport, water and waste projects can now proceed through a single approvals process monitored and applied by the Welsh Government. The effect of this order is to ensure that existing UK legislation aligns with the Act. This includes amendments to the Nuclear Installations Act 1965, the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990 and the Finance Act 2013. These changes are largely consequential, but they are necessary to make the provisions of the 2024 Act fully operational.

While we accept the technical purpose of this instrument, a number of questions arise. I am very happy to receive any answers in writing if necessary. First, are the agencies in Wales sufficiently resourced to handle the additional applications and responsibilities arising from these powers? Secondly, while the processes are broadly similar to current UK procedures, how will the Government ensure that assessments in Wales meet the same standards and rigour as those elsewhere in the UK? Thirdly, what types of projects are most likely to be affected by this new consenting regime over the next five years? I note the impact on the Nuclear Installations Act 1965, as the Minister would expect me to. Finally, do the Government anticipate this instrument acting as a gateway to further devolution of infrastructure powers to Wales? If so, how will safeguards be maintained to protect the public interest and ensure safety in vital sectors?

Third-party commentators have welcomed the aim of simplifying infrastructure approvals. It is hoped that this will encourage sustainable investment and support Wales in reaching its net-zero targets. That said, clarity and consistency in guidance will be essential if investors, the public and decision-makers are to have confidence in the new regime. Subject to the Minister’s assurances on the questions I have raised, we recognise the technical and consequential purpose of this order and support it.

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

My Lords, I thank both noble Baronesses for their valuable, if a little cheeky, contributions to the debate this afternoon. This order provides for a number of consequential changes to UK law and is necessary ahead of the Infrastructure (Wales) Act coming into force this month. I will touch on some of the points made; I may have to write to the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, but I will make sure that both noble Baronesses receive the correspondence.

On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, I believe that this order demonstrates that we have genuine confidence in the Welsh Government’s ability to undertake infrastructure projects.

Touching on a related point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, concerning the resourcing of agencies, obviously, that will be a matter for the Welsh Government, but they have received a record-breaking budget response in the SR and have promises in the SR going forward, so they should be fully resourced. As this area is devolved, it will be a matter for them.

On more devolution, the Labour Party’s manifesto at the last general election was clear about the areas in which we were working with our partners in Wales to explore and discuss options for further devolution. What we are seeing today with this SI is genuine devolution in action, with two Governments—one in Westminster and one in Cardiff—working hand in hand to deliver for the people of Wales. I hope and expect that still to be the case after May next year when the good people of Wales continue to vote Labour.

On the point about standards being maintained, we will expect standards to be maintained, of course. I am so pleased to be opposite the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, when we can talk about Wylfa; I was delighted by all her questions in the run-up because she will probably be as excited as many of our colleagues to see the development announced with £2.5 billion of investment and a genuine supply chain that will lead to a generation of jobs in north Wales and beyond.

I will reflect on the other comments made by the noble Baronesses. I close by offering my thanks for the productive manner in which the UK and Welsh Governments have worked together in preparing this order.

Motion agreed.

Official Secrets Act and Espionage

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, the report from the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy describes the handling of the Cash and Berry case as “shambolic” and highlights serious systemic failures and deficiencies. The report raises serious concerns about the ability of the Government to pursue those who want to undermine our security. The chair of the committee, a Labour MP, has urged the Government to show the public that they are confident in standing up to adversaries when required. Will the Minister commit to responding to and implementing the key recommendations of the report? Can she now confirm that the Government accept the conclusion of this report that there was clear evidence that China poses a threat to the UK’s national security?

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

I thank the noble Baroness for her questions. I join her in thanking the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy for its scrutiny and its work in shining some light—where there has been a great deal of heat—on what actually happened. On the key points that she has raised, we will reflect on the committee’s findings and I look forward to debating them with her across this Dispatch Box in due course when we come forward with our response to the report. I remind her of the Prime Minister’s comments at the Lady Mayor’s banquet last Monday about our position: China

“poses real national security threats to the United Kingdom … It’s time for a serious approach, to reject the simplistic binary choice. Neither golden age, nor ice age”.

He said:

“So our response will not be driven by fear, nor softened by illusion. It will be grounded in strength, clarity and sober realism”.

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, rather than simply blaming outdated espionage laws, does the Minister agree with me, as a member of the Joint Committee, that, given the parallels in the new legislation, they will need to be carefully handled to prevent a similar outcome happening again? What assurances can she give that these lessons will be learned and acted upon? Is she able to cast any light on the fact that it took eight months for the second witness statement from the Deputy National Security Adviser to emerge—the reasons for which, the report of the committee said, were very obscure?

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

I thank the noble Baroness for her work as a member of the committee. I make it clear that we keep all legislation and its effectiveness under review, and we will continue to do so under the new National Security Act 2023. I would like to reassure your Lordships’ House that one of the things we have already done was a change in the mechanism of government: the Security Minister now has joint responsibilities to the Home Office and the Cabinet Office, ensuring a level of co-ordination on some matters.

On her second point about timings, my understanding is that it did not take eight months on the government side. I will talk noble Lords briefly through the timeline: counterterrorism police first approached the Cabinet Office for discussions on the second witness statement on 25 November 2024, and the Cabinet Office then submitted the second witness statement on 21 February 2025. In the months between, the Deputy National Security Adviser was clarifying the request and working with a small number of officials from the National Security Secretariat, but our appreciation is that it was not eight months.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, labelling something an official secret is all too convenient a way for the Government to keep people in the dark. One example is BCCI, a bank that was forcibly closed in July 1991 but there has never been a full independent investigation. After five and a half years of legal battle, I obtained one document called the Sandstorm report. It shows that the Government were funding al-Qaeda and protecting arms smugglers, murderers and others. Will the Minister now ensure that the document is made publicly available and at least put in the Library of this House so that we can hold the Government to account? What is so secret about it? I have put it on the internet and everybody can see it. Why can the Government not release it?

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

My Lords, I usually practise for left-field questions but I was not ready for that one. I thank my noble friend for his question and I will reflect on what he says, but let us be clear: the clear responsibility of this Government, as for any Government, is national security, and we will never undermine that.

[Lord Macdonald of River Glaven (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister recognise that the statements of the Deputy National Security Adviser in the recent Chinese espionage case provided ample and sufficient grounds for the prosecution of that case?

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

I put on record my thanks to the Deputy National Security Adviser. He is an exemplary professional and has provided evidence in line with government policy of the time and government policy today. We continue to work closely with him and we are very grateful for his work. Noble Lords will appreciate that I am not noble and learned, just noble. On that basis, given that I am not a lawyer, this is not something that I can comment on, but we were very disappointed to see the case not taken forward.

Procurement Act 2023 (Specified International Agreements and Saving Provision) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Procurement Act 2023 (Specified International Agreements and Saving Provision) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.

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

My Lords, the purpose of this statutory instrument is to implement the procurement chapter commitments of the UK-Iraq partnership and co-operation agreement and the UK-Kazakhstan strategic partnership and co-operation agreement. Both agreements are part of the UK’s ongoing continuity trade programme following our exit from the EU.

The UK’s trade continuity programme aimed to replicate existing EU trade agreements with partner countries after the UK left the EU. The goal was to ensure that businesses, consumers and investors maintained stability and access to benefits such as preferential tariffs. These are two of the last remaining trade agreements to be updated, and the SI before the Committee today implements the procurement chapters of those agreements.

The UK-Iraq PCA and UK-Kazakhstan SPCA establish frameworks to govern our trade and economic relationship with Iraq and Kazakhstan. The UK-Iraq PCA was signed during Prime Minister Sudani’s historic visit to the UK in January 2025 while the UK-Kazakhstan SPCA was signed in April 2024 by the previous Government. The procurement chapters of these agreements broadly replicate the standards and market access commitments of the original EU agreements. Some of the language has been tweaked, however, better to reflect the specific bilateral context between the UK and these two countries.

The key distinction between the Iraqi and Kazak agreements is that the procurement market access commitments in the UK-Kazakhstan SPCA can be considered to be broadly equivalent to that of the WTO government procurement agreement, to which Kazakhstan is currently in the process of acceding. However, the market access levels in the UK-Iraq PCA are lower than this as they include only access to central government entities.

As part of the process under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act, to enable parliamentary scrutiny of treaties, both agreements were laid in Parliament on 9 July 2025. The agreements cleared the CRaG scrutiny process on 16 October, and this statutory instrument was subsequently laid on 21 October. The procurement chapters of these agreements can take effect only once the agreements have been implemented in domestic legislation. This statutory instrument will achieve this by updating Schedule 9 to the Procurement Act 2023 to implement in domestic law the UK’s procurement obligations under both agreements. By our adding these agreements to Schedule 9, suppliers entitled to benefit from them will be considered “treaty state suppliers” under Section 89 of this Act. This will provide them with UK public procurement access and rights equal to those afforded to UK suppliers. In turn, the agreements require Iraq and Kazakhstan to provide equivalent access to UK suppliers.

The Procurement Act 2023 (Commencement No. 3 and Transitional and Saving Provisions) Regulations 2024 are also being amended to ensure the UK’s obligations under both agreements apply in relation to contracts that can still be entered into under the previous procurement regime.

The territorial extent of this instrument is the United Kingdom. The territorial application of this instrument in relation to contracts under the Procurement Act 2023 extends to England and Northern Ireland. The same extends to Scotland, but not in respect of procurement carried out by a devolved Scottish authority. The same extends to Wales, but not in respect of procurement regulated by Welsh Ministers. The Welsh Government are therefore making a separate statutory instrument to implement these agreements in respect of procurements regulated by Welsh Ministers. The Scottish Government will be implementing these agreements separately under their own legislation in respect of procurement carried out by a devolved Scottish authority. Finally, the territorial application of this instrument in relation to contracts under the previous procurement regime extends to England and Wales and Northern Ireland.

I hope noble Lords will join me in approving this SI today, which helps to update and strengthen our relationship with both Iraq and Kazakhstan. I beg to move.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

It looks as though it is the “Baroness Anderson and Baroness Finn show” again. I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the measures before us today. These regulations amend Schedule 9 to the Procurement Act 2023 to implement the procurement chapters in the new partnership and co-operation agreements with Kazakhstan and Iraq. By adding both agreements to Schedule 9, the instrument ensures that suppliers from those countries are treated as treaty state suppliers and that the United Kingdom can meet the procurement obligations we have entered into.

This is a pragmatic measure that helps maintain stability and consistency in the UK’s post-Brexit trading relationships. The agreement with Kazakhstan, as the Minister pointed out, was concluded under the previous Conservative Government and it is right that its implementation be now brought to completion.

The Minister said that the procurement provisions in these agreements broadly replicate arrangements that existed under the previous EU agreements. That continuity provides reassurance for contracting authorities and businesses operating across borders. Unsurprisingly, therefore, the instrument attracted no comment from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and was not drawn to the attention of either House by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

While the regulations are narrow and technical, they reflect the wider importance of procurement arrangements for British businesses operating internationally and for the reciprocal access they secure overseas. On that principle, we are aligned with the Government. I would, however, be grateful if the Minister could provide three brief points of clarification. First, nothing in these regulations diminishes the need for contracting authorities to apply proper due diligence, national security checks or sanctions compliance. It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that further guidance will be issued to ensure that contracting authorities understand the risk profile associated with new treaty state suppliers.

--- Later in debate ---

Subject to these assurances, we are content to support the regulations before the House today.

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

My Lords, I welcome you all to the “Baroness Finn and Baroness Anderson show”. I am delighted that you are here with me.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, for the very pertinent points raised. I am waiting for a magic piece of paper, and if it does not arrive in the next 30 seconds, I will have to write to the noble Baroness. The one point I can respond to is on the divergence of and impact on the devolved Governments. As I made clear in my opening remarks, there are complicated elements that Wales and Scotland need to legislate for directly, but there should be no divergence from this legislation. On the timescale of those legislative actions, I will have to write to the noble Baroness—but there is at least one magic piece of paper coming my way. Scotland has already implemented the Kazakhstan agreement and will be doing the Iraq agreement early next year. Wales’s will be implemented directly after the UK; that will come into force the day after the SI gets Royal Assent.

I have been given another, absolutely magic piece of paper—anyone would think it was Christmas—and I can now answer on whether the Government intend any changes regarding evidence in regulations to be communicated to suppliers and potential suppliers based in the UK, and when the updated guidance will follow. The FCDO will issue public communications once both agreements are ratified, alongside any guidance for suppliers. Once the agreements are enforced, they will be available to view online in the treaty series of command papers available on GOV.UK. Interested persons can also apply for monthly updates on treaties by signing up to the FCDO’s UK treaty action bulletins, which I am sure, after listening to this speech, many colleagues will wish to do. On the other points, I will write to the noble Baroness.

The Government are committed to enhancing our bilateral relationships with Iraq and Kazakhstan so that they go beyond security to include strength and co-operation on trade and the economy. As I said earlier, the purpose of this SI is to implement the procurement chapter commitment of the UK/Iraq: Agreement on Partnership and Cooperation and the UK/Kazakhstan: Strategic Partnership and Cooperation Agreement. This will provide Iraqi and Kazakh businesses with access and rights to UK public procurement equal to that afforded to UK suppliers. In turn, the agreements require that Iraq and Kazakhstan provide equivalent access to UK suppliers. I am grateful for the support of the Opposition, and I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

Office for National Statistics

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Monday 10th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bousted]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to support the improvement of the data produced by the Office for National Statistics.

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

My Lords, access to trustworthy, accurate and timely statistics lies at the heart of a thriving democracy. In June the Government published the Devereux review on the performance and culture of the Office for National Statistics. The Government accepted all the recommendations and are now working closely with the Office for National Statistics to implement them. This has included the ONS publishing plans to recover economic statistics and to improve and enhance its surveys, and the appointment of a new Permanent Secretary to run the ONS.

[Baroness Bousted (Lab)]

Does my noble friend the Minister share my concern that the response rate to the Labour Force Survey dropped to just over 14.5% in 2023, down from nearly 48% a decade earlier, and that the gender pay gap has been underreported for the past 20 years? Does she agree that a democratic society cannot function well without reliable, timely and accurate statistical data?

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

My Lords, the drop in the response rate is of deep concern, and I thank my noble friend for asking. Concern about the Labour Force Survey and our economic statistics more widely was a key reason for the Devereux review, which was commissioned earlier this year. As I said, since then the ONS has published a survey improvement enhancement plan on economic statistics. I assure my noble friend that this is something that we are taking very seriously, not least because having clear data, especially in an age of misinformation, ensures that the Government can act. This is always the case with the gender pay gap—but, regardless of the data, what is clear is that the underlying message on the gender pay gap is the same. There is a persistent gender pay gap that is bad for women, businesses and growth, which is why this Government are taking the necessary steps to ensure that it narrows more quickly.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, when I was attached to the Cabinet Office well over a decade ago, I was told that the Government, locally and nationally, have a very large amount of administrative data which is not shared because of systemic barriers between different departments. I note that this was recommendation 6 in the Lievesley report last year, but nothing much has been done in that regard. I note also that the Devereux report suggests that we may need legislation to correct this. How do the Government plan to integrate administrative data much better than we have so far achieved?

--- Later in debate ---

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

The noble Lord raises a very important point about data sharing of statistics. The ONS, which we all talk about regularly, is only one of nearly 200 organisations that provide government data and are governed by the Office for Statistics Regulation. As for how we can move forward, there is a new framework in place. There is also the issue, by the way, of devolution and the impact that that is having on data. There is a framework moving forward for data sharing. It is very difficult. The noble Lord is absolutely right that it was in the Lievesley report. Given that progress was not as speedy as we had hoped, what we are looking to do now, through the recommendations and with the current interim National Statistician, is to implement better processes more quickly.

[Lord Londesborough (CB)]

My Lords, the ONS’s attempt to improve the quality of its data has been challenged by staff members of the Civil Service union, the PCS. They have voted once again in favour of strike action and non-compliance over the ONS’s office attendance target, which is 40%—just two days a week. Does the Minister believe that this level of working from home is consistent with the ONS getting its act together?

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

My Lords, Ministers are clear that we expect people to be in the office 60% of the time, at least. The new ONS leadership is working with unions to resolve this dispute. One of the issues that was highlighted in both the Lievesley and Devereux reviews was culture. It is very hard to effect cultural change if people are not in the office.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, what progress have the Government made in implementing the report of the Sullivan review, which recommended collection of data by sex?

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

My Lords, the Sullivan review has been published and has been shared with all relevant government departments to ensure that it informs their thinking.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, Sir Robert Devereux’s independent review of the ONS earlier this year highlighted a culture where there was

“a reluctance, at senior levels, to hear and act on difficult news”

and where unrealistic targets were pursued. What measures are being taken to change that organisational culture, and are the Government confident that they now have the correct leadership, in terms of technical expertise, to improve both the statistics and the culture, so that those in positions of senior management listen to internal warnings about data quality?

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

My Lords, we are very grateful to Emma Rourke, the acting National Statistician, for working with us as we seek to fix some of the current challenges. Since we came to government, we have had the Devereux review to restore public trust and confidence in ONS national statistics; we appointed a new Permanent Secretary to the ONS, which was the second recommendation of the Devereux review, to ensure that there was significant corporate leadership; and we are continuing to work with them and with the UKSA chair to make sure that the ONS is reformed and is fit for purpose.

[Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)]

My Lords, the UK Statistics Authority’s new code of practice now covers the trustworthy communication of data and statistics. Are there plans to update the Ministerial Code to reflect this?

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

I believe that all my colleagues are very clear on their responsibilities under the Ministerial Code, and we have updated it since we came to office. We have no plans to update it now, but obviously it is always under review.

[Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

My Lords, in his independent review, Sir Robert also pointed to relatively low pay, leading to recruitment and retention difficulties, particularly for analysts. Does my noble friend the Minister agree?

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

Obviously, pay levels within the ONS are a matter for its leadership. I reassure noble Lords, however, that the budget for the ONS has increased. Rarely would I say so from this Dispatch Box, but the last Government and this Government have ensured that the budget for the ONS has increased by 6.5% year on year since 2015. It is the only government department to have had that uplift, and its budget is over £430 million. It has the resources it needs to make sure that they are deployed effectively.

[Baroness Manzoor (Con)]

My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that the new Permanent Secretary has the technical expertise necessary in this particular area?

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

Absolutely.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I believe I am right in saying that some 40% to 50% of all ONS data is produced by survey. What steps are being taken to dramatically reduce that percentage? Surveys rely on the good will of people offering to fill them in, particularly in areas such as immigration; there must be a better way to collect data than surveys.

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

The noble Lord raises a genuinely important point about the quality and calibre of our data and how we collect it. As the world moves on, so has our need for data, and how we use and collect it. We expect the ONS to be using all available resources to it. We also need to make sure of the value—especially with regard to the census, for example—of survey-based data, because it is some of the most effective and efficient available to us.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend the Minister will be aware that when I was First Sea Lord, I used to encourage my sailors to all be on board the ships when they were working.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

Why should the Civil Service work to a different pattern? Admittedly it has few ships, but I would be very interested to know.

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

My Lords, as an honorary captain in the Royal Navy, I would never want to disagree with a much more senior officer. The noble Lord raises a genuinely important point. While people who do not necessarily have to be deployed also have the 60% target for being in the office, there is an issue here about making sure that we have people in the right place at the right time, especially when we are trying to effect cultural change. That is what is clearly required at the ONS, according to both the reviews that have been undertaken.

[Lord Strasburger (LD)]

My Lords, I was pleased to hear from the Minister just now that the Sullivan review has been copied to all departments. Can she tell the House what they are doing about it?

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

My Lords, I answer for the Cabinet Office. I can inform the noble Lord that it has been shared and highlighted to the relevant government departments. If he has a specific query, I am more than happy for him to write to me, and I will respond to it.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister will know how keen I am to set targets for departments and organisations. Given that we spend more every year on this service, do we not need to have some targets that we can judge its performance by?

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

The noble Lord raises a very important point, especially given the concern about some of the data. I reassure noble Lords that we have faith in the ONS and that the overwhelming majority of its data is sound. Having said that, we have established, with the ONS, the economic statistics steering group, which includes representatives from the Cabinet Office, the Treasury, the Bank of England and the OBR. It meets quarterly to track its progress on being more effective with its economic data.

“Soldier F” Trial Verdict

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Caine (Con)]

My Lords, as part of the small team that helped my noble friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton draft his apology for Bloody Sunday, I stand by every word in that Statement. But in the case of soldier F, 15 years after the 12-year Saville inquiry, the judge was clear that the evidence presented fell well short of the standard required for a conviction. Meanwhile, last month, a different judge in Belfast dismissed the challenge against another former soldier, after four years of investigation, as being “utterly divorced from reality”. Does this not reinforce what we have consistently said about the chances of successful prosecutions at this distance from the Troubles being vanishingly small? Given that, will the Government now think again about the provisions in their Troubles Bill that will leave the terrorists largely untouched but mean elderly veterans once again facing lengthy investigations and being dragged back before the courts?

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

I thank the noble Lord for his work with the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, in response to Bloody Sunday. We need to remember at this point, as at all points, that we are talking about people and their experiences. With regard to the substantive point that he raised, I remind your Lordships’ House that the current legacy Act did not halt the prosecution of soldier F. Unfortunate false promises, as it turns out, were made to the veterans community about immunity, but they would never have been able to be applied.

I remind noble Lords that we have drafted our forthcoming Troubles legislation, which we will have many opportunities to discuss in your Lordships’ House, with veterans at its heart, to make sure that the provisions that veterans community organisations have asked for are reflected in it, along with the protection of our veterans. During this week of remembrance, it is incredibly important that we put on record every day our thanks to those who are currently serving, those who have served and those who served in Operation Banner.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, in the other place, my colleague Al Pinkerton pointed out that prosecution should not be persecution. Clearly, there is a whole set of issues that we still need to resolve in the context of Northern Ireland, having gone through a long period agreeing the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act. Obviously, we welcome the new legislation that the Government are bringing forward as another opportunity to look at this. But does the Minister not agree that this is a very difficult time for families of victims and that it will be essential that, with the new legislation, victims as well as veterans have trust in the process?

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

The noble Baroness is absolutely right. We are not bringing forward legislation for the sake of bringing forward legislation—noble Lords discuss legislation to the nth degree. We are bringing it forward so that victims and their families can get the answers that they are still waiting for. The noble Lord was absolutely right to say that it has been 50 years; other people have waited even longer for answers. It is incredibly important that victims and their families are at the heart of our legislation, so that we can deliver on the promise of the Stormont House agreement and what we pledged in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, to make sure that legacy is dealt with too.

[Lord Dannatt (CB)]

My Lords, now that the 2023 Act has been suspended, it is open season once more on veterans. Quite recently, the Minister of State for the Armed Forces announced six protections for veterans. Do His Majesty’s Government intend to put those six protections in the new legislation, and if not, why not?

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

My Lords, let me be clear that the legacy Act still stands; nothing has been put into abeyance. We are bringing forward two things: the remedial order to tackle the issue of civil cases and immunity—this was in our manifesto—and new legislation. I can go through the protections for veterans and am happy to write to the noble Lord to specify exactly where they will be, but the overwhelming majority of them are in the Bill.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the Secretary of State in the other place told us that the Irish Government have moved to a place where they would give their “fullest co-operation”. When will we see the Irish Government move to that place? Where is the evidence for that? Some of us would like to have seen any co-operation over the past 50 years.

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

The noble Baroness raises an incredibly important point. That is why it was so important that we announced a joint framework with the Government of the Republic of Ireland and the Tánaiste to make sure that they are committed. Obviously, I cannot speak for their actions —we will all be judged on how we deliver—but this Government are moving forward with our legacy plans.

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

My Lords, when even the judge in this case has said that the evidence fell well short of the standard required, can the Minister understand why most people regard these prosecutions, particularly this one, as vexatious? Can she understand the feeling among many people in Northern Ireland, from all communities, that a blind eye is turned to the ringleaders of terrorism, who continue today to boast of their involvement in crimes and who eulogise and glorify terrorism? There is legislation on the books, but nothing is done. They may be elected politicians in Sinn Féin—some of them are MPs and some are even in the Executive. Why is it that certain people are immune from prosecution while our veterans are hounded?

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

My Lords, no one is immune from prosecution and nor should they be. As the veterans’ commissioners of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales said collectively in July, this is a call not for immunity from the law but for fairness under it. That applies not just to people who wear uniforms; it should apply to everybody. With regard to the prosecutions, over the last month noble Lords have heard me, in different guises, talk about the independence of our Public Prosecution Service and our judiciary. Those are incredibly important parts—the core basis—of our British values. That is why people put on uniforms to protect them, and it is incredibly important that that is what is delivered.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My Lords, given what the Minister has just said, can she explain how many prosecutions of former public servants—Army and police —might be happening? We know of some that are pending. How many prosecutions are pending for former terrorists—enemies of the state—who were shooting British people, both Northern Irish and English? What about Mr Gerry Adams, known for being on the Army Council in Belfast?

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

My Lords, the vast majority of live cases are actually against paramilitaries. We need to remember that terrorists killed over 3,000 people during the Troubles. Over 25,000 of them were imprisoned during the Troubles. Very difficult decisions had to be made to deliver peace in Northern Ireland. Some of those were around the early releases. To be clear, the overwhelming majority of current live cases are against paramilitaries.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, could my noble friend confirm that the decisions in the case of Soldier F and the other cases that have been highlighted where judges have taken a particular view demonstrate the impartiality and appropriateness of the way in which judges act? Could she further confirm that the Crown Prosecution Service will apply the same tests to all these cases as they do to other cases and that those should be based on the probability of successful prosecution and whether the prosecution is in the public interest?

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

I thank my noble friend and can confirm both aspects. The Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland is independent and has clear structures to determine what cases it does and does not take up.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, language matters. In taking forward the new legislation, will the Minister and Government reflect on the fact that, although this is often presented as an issue of veterans versus victims, in a great many instances the veterans and their families were victims too? Will the Government ensure that, in taking forward this new legislation, they do not create yet more victims among our veterans community?

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

I thank the noble and gallant Lord and I absolutely agree with him. One of the most important parts of this is recognising that there are many members of the military community who still do not have answers themselves and whose families are awaiting justice. That is why we need to make sure that they have trust and faith in the legacy commission. That is why they will have a role in the governance structures, as outlined in the legacy Bill.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a serving member of the Armed Forces. It is impossible not to conclude that successive Governments have failed in their duty of care to our veterans. The process itself has been a punishment. This has not gone unnoticed by serving members of the Armed Forces today, who want to know that, when it comes to making split-second decisions of life or death, they will have the backing of the Government who they serve. Can the Minister put in simple language to those veterans and members of the Armed Forces that they have the backing of this Government, and why the Government continue to rule out a statute of limitation or time bar on civil cases?

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

Noble Lords are aware of my personal commitment to the military family and of my entry on the register of interests. Let me be very clear from the Dispatch Box: we have the back of our Armed Forces. We celebrate the fact that they put on a uniform to protect us and that, in Operation Banner, as in many different environments, they run towards danger. With regards to the statute of limitations, it would apply also to paramilitaries. As we have heard from numerous veterans’ groups, they do not want that to happen either.

Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I thank all the infected and affected victims who have been in touch with me and other noble Lords in the last few weeks, not least since the consultation started and the independent review of the workings of IBCA was published. They are living the consequences of the scandal that the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, outlined at the beginning of her contribution, and the problem is that any delays or problems in the scheme retraumatise and revictimise them. Although I am grateful that the Government have been tackling some of the issues, there are still many outstanding; and while the numbers of those registering claims and receiving offers have begun to improve since we last met, there remain real concerns about the slowness of the deceased claims.

The phrase used is “to start by December 2025”, but that is a somewhat woolly timescale; it should not just be about starting. When is it expected that the claims process will be up and running at pace—a favourite phase of the Cabinet Office? Also, understanding that one has to use, test and learn in each different part of the compensation process, can the Minister say when things will be speeded up? It may be too early to ask if there is an end date in sight, but even an end year in sight for deceased claims would be very welcome.

Victims and groups have referred IBCA and the processes to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee in the House of Commons, so will both IBCA and the Cabinet Office co-operate fully with any requests for evidence that that Committee might seek?

I want to thank the Government for increasing transparency. We have over many years in your Lordships’ House been concerned about some of the secrecy about arrangements. A lot of this goes back 50 years, to when doctors were not very clear about their own arrangements and there certainly was no paperwork. But it is good that the names of the expert group and the minutes of its meetings are now published, and I hope there will continue to be more transparency about the arrangements.

I have a specific query about the arrangements for the assessment of severe mental health continuous treatment. Apparently, the Government are insisting on six months of continuous treatment as the benchmark, to justify the supplementary routes for mental health, but the NHS offers continuous treatment for only 20-week periods because there just are not enough counsellors and psychiatrists available to go round. As a result, there are inevitably gaps in treatment in order that other people can also be treated. To the victims, this feels like a barrier that none of them can get past. I wonder if the Minister could look at that problem.

There are concerns about the processing of deceased claims. I see that there is a proposal to have the first claim started. The victims continue to be very concerned about the Treasury and HMRC’s stance on inheritance tax, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, outlined. The Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners and the Association of Lifetime Lawyers have written a letter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, copied to the Paymaster-General, to point out that in their discussions with HMRC over the additional report on compensation, which Sir Brian Langstaff published earlier this year, they remain particularly concerned about this payment. The issue is that the Government have confirmed that compensation payments should be free from income tax, capital gains tax and inheritance tax, but, unfortunately, because of the way IHT operates, this principle is not being upheld consistently.

Here, there are three points. Where the infected or affected persons are alive when compensation is paid, they get a tax credit to ensure the sums are not later taxed in their estate. But where the victims or their loved ones have sadly died before receiving compensation, the payments flow through their estates without the benefits of such a credit. Their beneficiaries can therefore face IHT charges—in some cases at 40%—on compensation specifically designed to provide redress for a heinous act by many Governments over many years.

This so-called secondary transfer problem is particularly acute where compensation first passes to a surviving spouse or civil partner and then on to children or other relatives. In such cases, significant proportions of compensation are lost to tax. Throughout the inquiry, the last Government, and indeed this Government, made it clear that past benefits would not be called back out of settlement money. Surely the same must be true for the Treasury and HMRC. It would be iniquitous for an infected person to die, their settlement passing to their widow, who dies, say, within a month, but then anything passed on to their children is severely taxed. What is different about infected blood to a general principle on IHT is that entire families are badly affected by the experience of their loved one. This is not just in medical terms; we have to remember that they were also shunned in their communities, particularly those who had AIDS, losing homes and jobs because of ill health. It would be awful to punish them through that taxation.

Will the Minister agree to a meeting with Treasury to discuss this issue? It is not a good look for Treasury to give billions with one hand and then claw back with the other. I thank the Minister for the Statement and hope she will continue to keep your Lordships’ House informed of the progress and issues in the weeks to come, including the regulations that we will look at very shortly.

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

My Lords, I am, as ever, very grateful to the noble Baronesses for the thoughtful and productive points raised on this issue. It is very easy for Members of your Lordships’ House to get caught up in the politics of many issues, but on the issue of infected blood this has genuinely been a cross-party and cross-House approach, and I hope we will continue to adopt that theme. At the heart of everything that we are trying to do is to support the victims of one of the most heinous experiences the state has ever undertaken. We need to fix it, not only for them but also, as a Member of your Lordships’ House reminded us last time, to ensure that wider society can have faith that the state can be a force for good. I truly believe that it can.

I truly believe that, since I last updated the House in July, significant progress has been made. This demonstrates that we are committed to moving forward swiftly, and with the community at the front and centre of what we are doing. In other contexts, the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, and I have interesting discussions about the concept of test and learn. But truly, if we think about what we are trying to do, it is to compensate many thousands of people with up to £11.8 billion—although that is not a target or a goal, but the amount allocated currently. We are trying to get money out the door as quickly as possible to the people who need it. Test and learn has been an appropriate way to do that, to make sure that taxpayers’ money gets out to the people who need it as quickly as possible and at the appropriate speed.

I would like to respond to the points raised by the noble Baronesses. As ever, if I have missed something—and I and pretty sure I will have—I will write. First, both noble Baronesses raised the issue of inheritance tax, which was obviously a theme of discussions in the other place. It may be helpful to clarify exactly where we are. Anyone in direct receipt of compensation from IBCA or who is a beneficiary of an estate of a deceased infected person does not need to pay inheritance tax. Inheritance tax relief is applied, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said, to the estate of the person who received the compensation, whether they received it as an infected person or an affected person. Under HMRC regulations, the inheritance tax on that person’s estate is reduced so that the amount of compensation received is effectively free of any inheritance tax when it passes to the estate beneficiaries.

However, once the compensation has passed to the beneficiaries, it is treated the same for inheritance tax purposes as any other money or property they own; the relief does not apply again—for example, when the beneficiaries themselves die. Where compensation is paid to a person who has been affected or infected and that person then dies, the inheritance tax which would otherwise be payable in respect of their estate is relieved. It does not matter who the beneficiary of that estate is, the inheritance tax relief applies. However, once the money is received by that beneficiary, inheritance tax applies as normal. To put it as simply as possible, the relief will apply to the estate of the person who is being directly compensated, whether that person is infected, affected, living or, sadly, passed away.

Having said that, I appreciate the strength of feeling in your Lordships’ House, and having reflected on Hansard, we are listening. I will seek to arrange the meeting with Treasury officials—I am about to make myself very popular with the Treasury—to discuss this issue. We will see if my noble friend Lord Livermore is still speaking to me by the end of the day. There is also the Budget coming, so we may have to wait a little bit, but I will endeavour to answer noble Lords.

On the consultation and timing, the consultation will run for 12 weeks, to 26 January. We will publish a response to the consultation on GOV.UK within 12 weeks of its closing. Regulations to make changes to the scheme as a result of the consultation will be brought forward next year.

This is a genuine consultation, not a tick-box exercise. Many recommendations have been made by our technical experts that offer us a range of options within the tariff-based system that we will seek to apply. We should always listen to those people who are affected, but we especially need to make sure that we get this right for the infected blood community. This is truly about making sure that we get the answers needed.

Both noble Baronesses raised points about the effectiveness of IBCA. Noble Lords may be aware that on Thursday last week we published a review by Sir Tyrone Urch that we had commissioned in August, reviewing the effectiveness of IBCA to make sure that it was able to take us forward to the next stages as quickly as possible. He has made a series of recommendations, which we published only last week, and now we are looking, with IBCA, to see who is appropriate to take them forward—noble Lords will be aware that they focus on three issues: stability, resources and digital systems—to make sure that we have the opportunity to move forward.

A matter of weeks ago, I visited IBCA to make sure that I was confident in its ability to take steps forward. That option is available to all Members of your Lordships’ House, and for those who are interested I highly recommend taking a trip to Newcastle to meet IBCA. It was an extraordinary experience, on which I am sure I will reflect more during these questions.

I would like to reassure noble Lords about the ability of the staff at IBCA to move forward. IBCA now employs 329 dedicated claim managers who support people with their claims from start to finish. All claim managers are fully trained and complete a three-week training programme, which includes working with a clinical psychologist to undertake trauma-informed training to ensure that claim managers work compassionately with the community. They are extraordinary people; when I met one of them, he said: “Other than the National Lottery, I get to make someone a millionaire every day by working at IBCA”. By the time he has ensured that the payment is in their bank account, he knows the family well. If any part of this can be joyful, that part is.

On delivery, all registered infected have been contacted to claim by October; for the unregistered infected, the first claims begin in November; and affected and infected estates will begin by the end of the year. I appreciate that the noble Baroness is concerned about when we will pay, and for the overwhelming majority the answer is by the end of 2027.

I have an answer, although time is short, about the issue of severe psychological harm and the six months of support. I will write to noble Baroness, but I assure her that this is about not counselling but psychiatric treatment. A day as an in-patient qualifies you, not six months, but there is a severity, and currently part of the consultation is about how we will pay that. I will reflect on everything else that has been said.

Not only was I overwhelmed by the expertise and professionalism of the people I met when I visited IBCA earlier this year but I want to give special mention to IBCA’s three user consultants, as they are called, who are members of the infected blood community themselves. Jason Evans, Clair Walton and Susan Harris advise IBCA on how its processes and plans can be focused on the needs of those who will be applying for compensation. Given their personal experiences and how easy it would have been for them to walk away, the fact that they are helping us to fix it is extraordinary, and I put on record my huge admiration for them. I will reflect on any points that I have missed and write to the noble Baronesses.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for having met me, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, with whom I discussed the Statement yesterday.

The Minister has spoken about claim managers now being trained and directly employed. I wonder if she has evidence that trust has increased and of how the claim managers are managing when there is difficulty accessing medical records, particularly if the microfiched records cannot be found easily or if there are gaps in the whole medical history.

A separate question, but equally important, is how claim managers and others are able to provide advice to recipients who may wish to be protected from it being known that they have compensation because they need advice on how to manage the payments they receive. Sadly, they may be fearful of pressures put on them, either within their own families or within the community, when it is known that they have received a large sum of money in compensation, because there is sometimes inadequate understanding of what the compensation has actually been for.

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

I put on record my thanks to the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and—I think I can call her a noble friend, even though she is not on my Benches—Lady Campbell, who is much missed; I am pleased that she will be returning to us in the new year. As ever, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, raises very important points. I think trust has increased, but that is difficult to tell in an environment where misinformation is rife; making sure that people have access to genuine information is truly one of the most challenging parts of this. We have discussed in your Lordships’ House many times the ability of IBCA to communicate and the need to make sure that it is providing relevant information.

That said, the claim managers have played an incredibly important role. We are seeing that when claims are finished—obviously this is a small community, relatively speaking—people are asking the claim managers who have just finished with them if they will be the claim manager for their friends, or for other members of the community, by name. This suggests that trust in the claim managers, at least, is clear, which is an important part of this.

The noble Baroness makes two incredibly important points. One is about access to medical records. Our claim managers are not investigators but, where there is clearly paperwork missing, they are working with the recipients to help them find the paperwork; so the onus is not just on the members of the infected blood community—there is someone helping them get the paperwork. We still have challenges in making sure that we can access some of the medical records. Noble Lords will appreciate that, as we move forward away from registered infected cases and towards estates and other areas, that may well be challenging, but we are working on what new technologies we can use to harness some of that material.

As regards advice to recipients who want to be protected, we are offering paid financial advice to make sure that it is easily accessed. We have to appreciate that these are very vulnerable people who have had horrendous experiences and could be targeted again, so making sure that we can work to protect them will be an incredibly important part of what we do going forward.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, I feel that I am a veteran of this issue, like many other Members of your Lordships’ House. Indeed, I was a Health Minister in 2009 and 2010, and I think that might have been the first time I had a huge row with civil servants because they would not let me say sorry. That is something that featured through many Administrations, with great shame. I was on the Opposition Benches when we came to agreeing the amendments, and thus finally agreed the scheme that we see before us today. I congratulate my Government on finding the funding to be as generous as possible in this compensation scheme.

I want to ask my noble friend the Minister about transparency, how that has been built into what happens next and, indeed, the wider lessons that need to be learned from the way in which the scheme has been constructed, as well as other issues that might arise in the future and that will need this kind of attention.

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

I thank my noble friend for her work in getting us to this point. We put on record our thanks to her, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, as the leading negotiators making sure we got to this point. My noble friend was not allowed to say sorry, but I can say sorry to those people who have been affected by this. I get to do that because of the fights that she had. For that, I am grateful; I do not have to have so many fights with my civil servants.

With regard to transparency, noble Lords will appreciate that we are talking about a cohort of people who have been affected by infected blood and who have no trust. Rightly, there is no reservoir of good will. We have to be as transparent and open as we possibly can to make sure that they know what is happening, why it is happening, at what speed and in what process. While the speed may be a challenge, we have to make sure that it is in place.

One thing that I have not said yet but wanted to put on record is that, as of 1 October, staff at IBCA are now directly employed and are no longer seconded civil servants. They are now public servants who work for IBCA. I think that helps lead to transparency of and trust in IBCA. In addition to the fact that we publish everything—the reviews are making sure that we are able to do that, including transparent publication in relation to the technical meeting group—everything we are doing is trying to rebuild trust with that community.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, I listened to the Minister carefully with regard to inheritance tax. I am sure that she will agree that for those who are affected by this scandal, it will be generational rather than just stop at the end of the life of the person who was infected. Let me give an example of the generational issues: a child of somebody who was infected has been affected, and that may pass down to their children in terms of them not having a full education or not being able to work fully in light of the issue they were dealing with in respect of their parents. What would the Minister say to citizens and individuals who have been affected, where it goes to their children’s children, and they may have to pay inheritance tax? What can the Government do in terms of speaking to the Treasury to ensure generational fairness as well as fairness for those who have been infected when it comes to inheritance tax?

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

I truly appreciate the strength of feeling in your Lordships’ House about this issue. I have said as much as I can without getting myself into even more trouble, but what I will say is that it is a fair point. Noble Lords will be aware that I also talk about issues pertaining to Northern Ireland and legacy, intergenerational trauma and making sure that we have the right support structures in place and the right answers for people so that they can perhaps turn the page—I do not know if they can ever shut the book—on what happened to them and move forward. While I appreciate noble Lords and I have probably already got myself in trouble with my colleagues in the Treasury, I have heard and will continue to listen to noble Lords’ contributions on this issue.