Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Stansgate) (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely, and I now invite her to speak.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the Government for this Statement, and the technical expert group—TEG—at IBCA for its detailed report, which sits behind the proposed changes to the scheme outlined in the Statement. There are many victims who will be reassured by most, though perhaps not all, of the changes.

It is good news to hear that over 3,000 people have now received an offer of compensation, and I note that the Statement says payments have been made to all eligible groups. Can the Minister say how many of that number are from the affected group? While accepting that the Government’s priority has been to secure compensation for infected victims first, it is still true to say that a number of the affected victims are themselves frail and elderly, or, worse, very ill. Does IBCA have a date by which the scheme will be up and running for all affected victims, and will those I have outlined be prioritised as an urgent group?

It is very good news that the Government are removing the 25% deduction applied to past care compensation, which is exactly what Sir Brian Langstaff’s inquiry recommended, but why has it taken well over a year for this decision to be made? Since the spring of 2024, one of the issues that I and others have repeatedly raised with the last Government, as well as with this one, is that the state should not claw back any past benefits, including care costs, from these families who have had to turn to benefits and care support because of a fundamental failure of the state. In so doing, they—both infected and affected—lost jobs, their careers and sometimes their homes, and, much worse, had to live on the breadline for many years. To penalise them at the compensation stage was cruel, so it is good that the deduction is stopping.

However, the bigger point stands, and I know the Minister will recognise this, as she and I often talk about the bigger picture of other schemes as well. This governmental approach is seen in other schemes, and too often the change comes after extended delays. Further, trust with the victims has been lost. Will the Government please rethink this approach in future schemes before decisions are made?

A further point on the care award is that it is not clear whether affected victims who were carers are yet recognised in their own right, or whether the entirety of the care award, including the carer’s element, will remain solely with the estate of the infected person. I wonder if the Minister can update the House.

The changes outlined in the TEG report follow on from the complications of a number of different schemes over many years in the past, using different matrices, and indeed through devolution. Many, especially the ones relating to psychological damage, are welcome. Before Christmas, the TEG published details of how to handle historic suicide in the compensation scheme. The wording of that paragraph in the report has caused real consternation and distress among victims, both the infected and the affected, especially those who have already lost loved ones who were infected to suicide.

The commentary paragraph in the TEG report outlines the complexity of suicide and recognises that it is retraumatising for a family member to have to raise it with IBCA. However, it then goes on to say:

“Even with the best explanation, we believe that linking more compensation to evidence of suicide creates a risk that the Scheme is misinterpreted, and places vulnerable people at risk if they feel pressured to harm themselves to help their families get more compensation”.


Anyone who has lost a loved one to suicide for whatever reason knows that suicide is not a rational act; it is an act of desperation. To suggest that victims might resort to it solely for financial benefit as a small part of a grant of total compensation is just staggering. It has caused real distress and a further loss of trust, again. I hope that this issue can be reviewed.

Finally, it is very good news that compensation is to be given to victims treated unethically, especially the children at Lord Mayor Treloar’s School. I want to ask the Minister two questions in relation to the unethical behaviour by doctors who used infected blood in research projects without informing the victims or, if they were still children, their parents. First, are the police looking at what evidence remains? I know the NHS has said that many documents have been destroyed, but if IBCA has enough evidence to know that they were infected—and in many cases it knows when—then surely any surviving doctor should be questioned. Secondly, will IBCA ensure that there was no other unethical treatment given to people in later decades, not just those infected through the early research projects 50 years ago?

As ever, I am aware that I have asked a number of technical questions to the Minister; if the replies are not to hand, please will she write to me with them?

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

My Lords, as ever, I am grateful to the noble Baronesses for their thoughtful and productive points. This is a collaborative effort and we all share one goal: to get this right. I hope your Lordships can appreciate that this announcement marks a significant step towards delivering a compensation scheme that not only works better for the infected blood community but explicitly reflects the feedback and views that the community provided to the Government.

I want to take this opportunity to thank all those who responded, particularly those from the infected blood community. I know many of these responses included testimony of people’s personal experiences, and I want to assure those who were brave enough to share their stories that we are grateful and that we appreciate the additional burden this places on them. I hope our changes to the scheme announced in the House of Commons last week reflect their experiences, their bravery and their loss.

The consultation was not unanimous on every point, nor would I expect it to be. The experiences of those infected and affected are unique and variable, and I am sure that there are issues where some may still feel that their personal experience is not adequately reflected by the compensation scheme. However, I firmly believe that the changes we are making bring us as close as possible to a scheme which truly reflects the range of impacts on a person’s life, while still being deliverable within the scheme’s tariff-based approach.

For infected people, the changes will increase the amount of core compensation available and increase the options available for supplementary compensation awards. For affected people, additional compensation will be available to those eligible. I encourage noble Lords to read the full response, but, in the interest of today’s debate, I want to set out for Members of your Lordships’ House who do not follow this in necessarily the same detail as the many of those who are living through it do some of the key changes we are making.

First, I know the special category mechanism is a key issue of interest across your Lordships’ House. We are introducing a new supplementary award to give additional compensation to people who have been assessed as eligible for SCM and who can now demonstrate to IBCA that they meet the criteria. After considering the community’s views, we will now ensure that every eligible person has this award backdated to 2017, which is when the SCM was first introduced. We will increase the core injury award for several groups of affected people, including bereaved parents whose child sadly died before they turned 18, bereaved partners, and siblings affected under the age of 18. These changes give more compensation to affected people whose experience of the scandal was egregious beyond my comprehension. These awards will require no additional evidence from applicants.

The matter of unethical research, which was rightly raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is of particular concern. Anyone who has engaged with the inquiry’s findings will know that it is one of the most shocking aspects of this scandal. We heard that the existing approach may not have compensated everyone who suffered this wrongdoing. We have therefore changed the scope of the award so that anyone treated in the UK for a bleeding disorder in 1985 or earlier will receive further compensation. It is clear from the consultation responses that the award amount offered does not reflect the harm done. We are increasing the unethical research awards. These include increasing our proposed award of £25,000 to those who attended Treloar’s to £60,000, as well as introducing a new unethical research award for those treated elsewhere for a bleeding disorder during childhood at a rate of £45,000. We are also tripling the award for those treated for a bleeding disorder in adulthood to £30,000.

The consultation also invited respondents to raise any other concerns they have with the design of the scheme. One of the most compelling things we heard was that the scheme does not sufficiently recognise the profound impact of infection during childhood. We have heard the community clearly on this matter and we will make a further change to the compensation scheme to address the feedback. We will introduce a 50% increase to the core autonomy award for people who were infected at the age of 18 or under.

Although I have set out only a few of the changes we are making, they reflect the questions asked by the noble Baronesses, and I hope they go some way to show our commitment to listening to the community and to making decisions with those impacted at the very forefront of our minds. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, in order to make these substantial changes to the compensation scheme, we will bring forward further legislation in this calendar year—although whether it will be included in the King’s Speech is slightly above my pay grade.

I turn to some of the other points raised. With regard to IBCA and the extension of the cohorts, noble Lords will appreciate, because we have discussed this in your Lordships’ House on several occasions, that there is an issue of test and learn here. IBCA was a brand new organisation established to distribute £11.8 billion-worth of compensation. That is taxpayers’ money rightly going into compensation to those people who have been affected by this heartbreaking scandal, but it is vital that we get it right. So, to make sure that we do not have to keep going back to cohorts and so that we can make this right, each new cohort is taken through a test-and-learn experience. Given the experience of IBCA up until this point—we have seen that work with the infected community—I have therefore confidence in it to take the next steps. However, nothing is fast enough, and I hope to get as much out of the door as quickly as possible.

The noble Baroness, Lady Finn, was absolutely right also to raise consistent decision-making. Training is at the heart of everything that is happening at IBCA, including how the claims managers operate and making sure that there is consistent application.

On the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, I reassure her about our prioritisation in terms of all cohorts, where we are now prioritising the elderly and those who are nearing end of life; although everyone deserves their compensation, we are doing that so that we can get it to them as quickly as possible so that they personally have some benefit from it. I look forward to discussing future schemes with the noble Baroness in great detail, and I am sure many Members of your Lordships’ House will want to look at any future schemes to see what lessons have been learned from this scheme and from others.

The noble Baroness raised a very important point about suicide. I will write to her on that, but I have heard what she has said about the paperwork. I will say only that with regard to severe psychological harm, which is the closest space which I can move to in terms of suicide, infected people who can show that their circumstances require more financial loss and care compensation for psychological harm can apply to the new award for SCM. This applies to those whose circumstances require more compensation than the core route provides but who do not meet the eligibility criteria of the existing severe health condition for severe psychiatric disorders.

I was also asked about issues pertaining to carers. If someone who provided care to an infected person is not otherwise eligible for compensation in relation to that person—for example, as an effective sibling or parent—then they may be eligible for compensation as an affected carer and will be eligible to receive an injury award and a social impact award. Otherwise, infected people can continue to give all or some of their care compensation to affected people who provide that care. In the package of changes the Government have announced, we have increased the levels of compensation available to several groups of eligible affected people, but no specific changes are being made to the compensation available to carers.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, also asked me about police investigations. The National Police Chiefs’ Council has engaged senior investigators to conduct a review of all available evidence. That work is ongoing and has proven to be much greater in volume than originally anticipated, and I look forward to hearing their findings. One of the most heartbreaking things—if you can rank heartbreak when we are talking about these issues—or perhaps challenging issues here is the fact that there are still people who should be being held accountable for their actions.

We can all agree that getting this compensation scheme right is of the utmost importance. The Government are committed to ensuring that the scheme reflects the lived experiences of those infected and affected in a way that allows for the swift delivery of compensation by the Infected Blood Compensation Authority. These things, hand in hand, go some way to delivering not only justice but, I hope, a sense of peace for the community, if that is even possible.

The reality is that no amount of money is going to fix what was so badly broken here, but, at the very least, the compensation can go some way to supporting the families affected. The community and their stories must always be put first. Sir Brian Langstaff and his team always took this approach. Following the inquiry’s closure in March, I personally thank them for the sensitivity and care with which they carried out their important work. It is with this dedication to the community’s cause over nine years that we have reached this point today, and I know noble Lords across the House echo my gratitude.

The decades of tireless campaigning and the continued determination of the community is a story of strength which will resonate for generations to come. The changes to the scheme we have discussed today will provide uplifted compensation to many infected and affected people in a way that better reflects the unique experiences of so many. Beyond the compensation scheme, I hope they also feel that this consultation has given them a voice and shown that the Government remain committed to doing everything they can to work together to truly get this right. That is, after all, the least we can do.

Covid-19 Inquiry

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I echo the comments in the Statement and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, and extend our sympathies from these Benches to all those who lost loved ones in the Covid pandemic, those who are still losing loved ones to Covid—even though the numbers are much reduced—and those who are still living with the consequences, either with long Covid or with Covid having changed their health in other ways.

I also thank and remember everyone who stepped up to do extraordinary things during the pandemic, including the NHS, social care, our local government and directors of public health leading our local resilience forums. We must also not forget those who kept important infrastructure work going—railways and bus services, supermarkets, farmers and all those who helped to bring in the homeless in those early days of lockdown. The speed of response and care shown were inspirational. From these Benches we also thank everyone who took on volunteer roles. They show the strength of our British civil society, especially in a serious crisis.

The Covid inquiry report on preparedness makes it plain that the last Government did not get it right, but I suspect that had it happened after the election, the same would have happened. This is not just about politicians. It is also about how our Civil Service and others had always pushed it as a non-urgent item, meaning that funding and reviews did not happen. That is probably one of the reasons why it took the UK much longer to get ready when the pandemic came to our shores. I always try to contrast the work of Taiwan. Resilience is there every single day, not for pandemics but for an invasion by China. Taiwan’s relationship with people, with civil society and with different government departments is entirely different from ours. As a result, it was able to move much more swiftly.

So my first question to the Minister is: as pandemic preparedness is not just about those who have direct responsibilities and roles, what are the Government doing to change the cultural way that our society thinks? For example, some people say that masks are absolutely unnecessary and fight having to wear them, when we know that there is a large spread of infectious diseases going on at the moment, particularly in hospital.

I was interested in the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, that the report’s proposal for an arm’s-length body is wrong. I believe that she is wrong, because setting up lots of small units is not helpful. Part of my Front-Bench brief is to follow all the current inquiry and compensation schemes, and common to all of them is a Civil Service attitude that retains departmental priority rather than looking at the crisis. I am not trying to traduce civil servants, many of whom do step up, but there is a culture, as noble Lords know, that, as you have to work to your annual budget, you work to the priorities that you are set, and I am afraid that it is clear from the Covid inquiry report that the pandemic did not feature on the radar.

I think a UK resilience academy is a good idea, but its funding must be protected. Attendance on courses must be compulsory for certain key individuals, and it is important that this covers other emergencies, too: flooding, bombings and any other major unexpected event must have people who will run towards the crisis while everyone else is told to move away.

However, funding for the academy is not enough. We must have ring-fenced and guaranteed funding for local resilience forums. I did not start, and I should have done, by declaring my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. It is appalling that local government’s public health role funding was not just decreased but often announced late over the last 10 years, meaning that there was little capacity for LRFs to focus on anything other than the most urgent demands, so they could not plan ahead for other events.

The previous Government often talked about reducing waste in public services and cutting pandemic planning. Worse, they did not even learn from the events that did happen. The inquiry report says that that must not happen again and these Benches agree. While it is good that there will be a full national pandemic exercise this year, I ask the Minister how often these will be held in the future.

I will very briefly mention vulnerable groups, which are referred to in the Statement. We seem to have moved back to a world where vulnerable groups are people who may be elderly or disabled, but we forget the clinically vulnerable, who are still with us. Particularly on health issues, will the Government make sure that, whenever vulnerable groups are discussed, clinically vulnerable people will be checked as well? There are recommendations in today’s second inquiry report, which has been published, to increase the base of vaccination to ensure that many more clinically vulnerable people are regularly given access to vaccinations.

The new national risk register is impressive, and pages 7 and 8 demonstrate how much the new Government—I give the previous Government some credit for starting work on this—have taken on board from the Covid inquiry report and other reports on key emergencies in recent times.

I end with a warning. In the excellent social and medical history of the Spanish flu pandemic, author Laura Spinney had a number of chapters at the end on life across the world post the pandemic. Virtually all the lessons that they said they would learn in the immediate aftermath of that pandemic were forgotten, including preparing for future emergencies—so much so that, in the mid-1930s, when large numbers of young people were dying of strokes and heart attacks, nobody could work out why. These days, we would understand why.

The Covid inquiry’s clear recommendation to centre all preparedness in the Cabinet Office is rejected by the Government. I wonder whether the Government will review that. I recognise that they are talking about devolving, but the Cabinet Office must hold control of everything.

Finally, by all means have some departmental staff with expertise involved, but we need a neutral body that can see the whole emergency and is able to challenge the preconception better. For example, local resilience forums, and in particular the directors of public health, were ignored by NHS England and the Department of Health for far too long. Will the Government undertake to look at this issue?

Procurement Act 2023

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

This Government are absolutely committed to using every means possible to recoup the public money that was lost in pandemic-related fraud and contracts that have not delivered. In July, the Chancellor announced that the Government would appoint a Covid counterfraud commissioner, who will be appointed by open competition for a fixed term. I am pleased to say that applications closed on 30 September and the Chancellor will announce the commissioner in the coming weeks. I hope that noble Lords will welcome this measure to address some of the shocking instances of pandemic-related fraud and awards of contracts that happened in the past.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, it was a pleasure to work cross-party on the Procurement Act, but my party objected to the NHS and the Ministry of Defence being granted an exception from having to follow the Act. Avid readers of the Health Service Journal will see that about once per week the NHS is being taken court to by its suppliers for its new procurement rules. Will the Government now review the recent NHS procurement rules in the Health and Care Act 2022 to see if they are up to the standard that the rest of the public sector is required to follow?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

In passing the Health and Care Act 2022, Parliament recognised that healthcare services delivered to NHS patients and service users, such as 999 emergency ambulance services and cancer-screening services, had particular issues and challenges which necessitated special procurement measures. Consequently, as the noble Baroness made clear, the Procurement Act does not include special provisions for those healthcare services.

Public Procurement: Data Offshoring

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

As my noble friend will appreciate, the Ministry of Defence took these reports extremely seriously. In response, on 6 September this year, Maria Eagle, the Minister of State for Defence, confirmed that both the MoD and Rolls-Royce Submarines had conducted an investigation into the matter. The Minister assured that the investigation found no evidence that Belarusian nationals had access to sensitive information and concluded that no change to the MoD procurement policy was required. The Ministry of Defence has set a policy of using Secure by Design. This is a modern approach whereby senior responsible owners, capability owners and delivery teams are accountable and responsible for delivering systems that are cybersecure. This includes ensuring new systems being bought or built carry out due diligence on the security of their systems.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, my dental practice changed its IT supplier a year ago. After going online to confirm an appointment and agree the usual dental practice use of my data, I was invited to check the IT supplier’s data. Seven layers down, it appeared that I gave permission for all my medical data to be used by the UK company, its parent US company and all its commercial subsidiaries. The practice has now got a new IT contractor. How well aware are clinical practices and surgeries of this underhand technique by major digital contractors?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a really important point. I will speak to my noble friend Lady Merron, to make sure it is taken forward through DHSC. The Government are quite clear that government data is owned by the Government and any commercialisation should be agreed with His Majesty’s Government.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 8th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and I am glad he started referring to international products. Given the earlier contribution by the noble Lord, Lord Frost, I am reminded of this House’s scrutiny of the Biocidal Products (Health and Safety) (Amendment) Regulations 2022. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, told the Grand Committee that there was a huge backlog in processing chemical standards given that we lost access to the EU chemical standards database. As a result, the Health and Safety Executive’s chemicals division had to have its budget increased by 39%. On those figures alone, any sensible Government would want to be able to use existing standards—in this case, the EU’s standards—not least because any organisation manufacturing products in the UK that sell in the EU will have to conform to them. I have not had time to check what the HSE chemicals division’s budget is now, but over five years from 2018 to 2022 it increased by 39%.

I was also delighted to hear the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Winterton. With her wit and experience, she is already being heard very seriously and with some smiles in this House. I wish her well.

As noble Lords have heard, these Benches support the scope of the Bill and the secondary legislation. Others have already explained how necessary it is, but, along with my colleagues, I have some concerns and I will try not to go over the points they have already made. The Government’s delegated powers memorandum says at paragraph 5:

“We judge it essential to be able to respond quickly to an evolving evidence base on product safety and metrology issues”.


I want to focus on those powers being used in a slightly different way and I hope that the Minister can give your Lordships’ House some reassurance that emergency procedures made available to Ministers will not be used on this Bill, as happened on many others over the previous eight years—not least, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Russell, on the issue of leaving the EU.

I also saw it at first hand when I was the Lib Dem health and social care spokeswoman from January 2020. The emergence of the pandemic inevitably meant that there was obviously a need to introduce emergency statutory instruments but, to be frank, using the emergency powers completely negated the importance of Parliament being able to scrutinise affirmative SIs before they are introduced. Between January 2020 and March 2022, the Government laid 118 affirmative Covid SIs, of which 66 were introduced by emergency procedures, meaning that they were implemented before either House had any chance to see them, let alone debate them.

The Hansard Society Covid statutory instrument dashboard website is a brilliant resource for this period—perhaps I am extremely sad, but it really is extremely useful. It also noticed that those SIs implemented using the emergency procedure were more likely to have to be amended or revoked, which was perhaps not surprising because of the speed of response needed and the fact that there had been no time to scrutinise them. I hope the Minister will give the House some reassurance that emergency procedures would be used only in true emergency.

I say that because it has become something of a habit inside Whitehall to use them. I had a call from the Paymaster-General in August, informing me that the SI relating to the redress scheme for the infected blood compensation scheme was laid in the middle of August. We do not debate it until the end of this month. We have a debate on the inquiry and the redress scheme generally next week but we have to wait to the end of the month, which is two months after the SI was implemented. I really am keen to hear from the Minister on that.

I turn to one of the examples that was repeatedly raised in the preparation of the Bill and was the subject of my noble friend Lord Redesdale’s Private Member’s Bill—lithium-ion batteries. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Foster for his many years’ work in this area. I declare my interests as a vice-chair of the APPG on Fire Safety and Rescue and a vice-president of the LGA. The APPG on Fire Safety and Rescue, the National Fire Chiefs Council and almost everybody involved in manufacturing safety equipment for the fire service want urgent regulation of the use of lithium-ion batteries.

E-bikes and e-scooters present one of the fastest-growing fire risks. In London on average there was a fire every two days last year. There were 143 e-bike fires, three deaths and around 60 injuries. This year, up to the end of August, London Fire Brigade has so far recorded 127 e-bike and e-scooter fires. The real problem is the intensity of the lithium-ion fires, both the heat and the length of the flame. It is not even a flame; it is more like a firework. If you have ever seen a video of such a fire, it is never forgotten. Temperatures get up to 1,000 degrees and substantial damage can be done.

We also need regulation for those who use products with lithium-ion batteries that do conform to very strict regulation. I have a travel wheelchair that uses lithium-ion batteries. It complies with IATA regulations but I have been refused permission to go on a plane because the pilot has the final say on whether or not you can take medical devices on board. He said he was not having any lithium batteries on his plane at all and did not care whether they were IATA-certified. Having regulation would enormously help those of us who rely on these things. It cost me €900 to get back from Bucharest that night.

I also think that lithium-ion batteries stand as a proxy for everything that the Bill is trying to achieve. Many of the e-bikes and e-scooters in these fires have had different batteries or converters bought in an online market and added to the machine, so regulation is vital, as is compliance and ensuring that there are enough people to be able to find out where these are. The below-the-radar sales of these batteries, which often look identical to ones which comply with current safety regulations, mean they can be hard to track down.

It also takes us into what I think is a grey area of the Bill and I have not heard anybody else talk about this: at what point do the product regulations apply to individuals as opposed to businesses or people working in businesses? The Bill sets out those people covered by the regulations in Clause 2(3) and, helpfully, paragraphs (a) to (g) explain those with particular responsibilities and roles, but Clause 2(3)(h) refers to

“any other person carrying out activities in relation to a product”.

Does this include individuals who may have bought an e-bike online as an individual, changed the battery to one bought elsewhere online and then after a couple of years decided to sell it on through eBay, which has a mixture of professional sellers and individuals?

I am trying to find the boundaries here because if the answer is that individuals are included, communications to the public about their new responsibilities when they buy and sell will become vital. But if the answer is no, how will the Bill prevent what is happening at the moment, which is individuals buying and adjusting products from a global marketplace, often untraceable, where the UK has no ability to scrutinise or take action? How would this be enforced? If it is helpful, I do not necessarily need an answer now but would appreciate a letter from the Minister before we go into Committee.

I am very interested in who will be the statutory consultees and wonder whether we might have access to lists—again, before we move on to Committee—because there are some professional associations that might be very obvious to include if you are in the fire industry but not necessarily obvious to the Department for Business.

I turn briefly to the creation of criminal offences through affirmative statutory instruments, which has already been referred to. I want to pick up on the earlier comments from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, about medical devices, which are specifically disapplied in the Bill because of the Medicines and Medical Devices Act. Can the Minister explain why this Bill has a maximum imprisonment of up to two years, whereas the Medicines and Medical Devices Act, which covers at least as sensitive and dangerous issues, has provision for conviction and jail sentences of up to 51 weeks only? Why have those different figures been used?

It was good to hear the Minister say that the Attorney-General had been involved. Is there a formal consultation with the Ministry of Justice once these regulations are drafted? I remain concerned that our court system is really congested at the moment and if there were, for example, a particularly large, concerted campaign to bring people to justice, that might involve breaking gangs, frankly, even 30 or 40 extra people in prison over a short period would put real pressure on our prisons. What can the Minister say on that?

Finally, we need this Bill but we must have access to affirmative instruments in plenty of time to be able to scrutinise them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I am coming back to that in the later part of my winding speech.

National emergencies such as Covid-19 highlight the importance of ensuring that our product regulation framework allows for flexibility in times of national emergency. This enabling Bill will allow the Government, in response to an emergency, to temporarily disapply and modify product regulation while maintaining high safety standards, thereby providing a faster process by which critical products are able to reach the market in order to sustain an adequate supply of such products.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I apologise, but that was not my question. My question was: will the Government make sure that, if emergency powers are used, both Houses of Parliament are kept informed prior to that happening?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I will get back to the noble Baroness in writing. I see the time flashing, so I might have to write to other noble Lords in response to their questions. Let me conclude.

I would like to thank everyone across this House for their contributions in today’s debate. I specifically thank my counterparts on the Opposition Benches, the noble Lords, Lord Johnson of Lainston and Lord Fox. This is not the first time that we have sat across from each other in such debates, albeit in different spots. I look back fondly on our debates during the passage of the CPTPP Act last year. I hope and expect that debates on this Bill will be as good-natured and as enlightening as those were.

I should like to stress my willingness to meet noble Lords to discuss further the detail of the Bill. I take the firm view that dialogue is essential to building public and parliamentary support.

To sum up, this Bill allows us to keep pace with new technologies, gives us the tools to stop dodgy suppliers placing dangerous goods on the market and allows us to make sovereign choices as to how we diverge or align with the EU and other trading partners. It gives enforcement bodies the tools they need to tackle modern problems facing the transit of goods coming across our borders, be they land, maritime or digital. Finally, it will allow us to update the legal and technological framework that underpins economy and trade. This Government will never compromise on safety. The Bill is essential to strengthening the rules and regulations needed to protect consumers, businesses and the public.

Conversion Therapy Prohibition (Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity) Bill [HL]

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Friday 9th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, who rightly focused on the poor mental health service that is available at the moment, which is not helping adults and young people who seek guidance and reassurance. I thank my noble friend Lady Burt for opening this Second Reading debate in such a clear way, explaining the limited scope of the Bill, and my noble friend Lady Featherstone for reminding us of the legislation she helped steer through Parliament, including the first ever transgender equality action plan in 2011.

I was moved by what the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said about how his life has been affected by his treatment by those in his church; I have a friend who was in much the same position. I was also moved by the reminder from the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, of the devastating effect on LGBTI people when others impose upon them their views about who they are. This Bill is not about free speech but about those in a position of power over the individual imposing their personal view—a priest or a doctor, most commonly—rather than what the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, said, which was right, about the need for patient-led therapy.

I want to use my time to highlight one medical conversion therapy case, which I hope gives some clearer lines for those who say that the Bill is wrong. I have talked to Mr B, an adult transgender man in Wales who came out 10 years ago. At that time in Wales, in order to get a GRC, transgender people had to be seen by a psychiatrist. For eight years he was constantly delayed and ignored by the hospital. Worse, the psychiatrist he did see during that period announced at the start of the process that he did not believe he was transgender and that he would only recommend antidepressants and would not initially permit any discussion of transgender matters at all.

Mr B says that this treatment over a number of years made his mental health considerably worse. Then, the psychiatrist told him he should have ECT for his severe depression. This psychiatrist and another he saw were absolutely against making a referral to the gender identity committee, and he could not progress without its approval. This is the exact opposite of the affirmative and curious responses the noble Baroness, Lady Hunt, outlined so effectively: this was definitely the furious response. At this point, Mr B was suicidal; years of constant challenge and denial had taken its toll. The hospital doctor even said it was not their job to stop him killing himself. But this case was even worse. The psychiatrist wrote to Mr B’s GP with an inaccurate account of the sessions, as well as keeping inaccurate medical records at the hospital. Finally, after eight years, he saw a doctor at the same hospital who was a gender specialist: someone who, in the description of the noble Baroness, Lady Hunt, was affirmative and curious.

This is not just Mr B’s view of his own case. He was brave enough to make a complaint to the Welsh ombudsman, who was clear in his judgment:

“The Ombudsman found that there were failures [by the Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board] to conduct an appropriate assessment in 2017, that an assessment in 2018 failed to identify that Mr B met the criteria for a referral, and that a challenge to the 2018 assessment outcome was not dealt with appropriately. He also found that Mr B had been misled to believe that a referral had been made when it had not, and was not kept fully informed about the process of referral or the decisions the Health Board was making. Finally, the Ombudsman found that the records did not reflect the appropriate diagnostic terminology (which might have contributed to the confusion around Mr B’s eligibility for referral) and demonstrated that clinicians failed to refer to Mr B using his preferred name and pronouns.”


I quote from the ombudsman at length because I think the detail of it might help to understand when things cross a boundary. The judgment goes on to say:

“The Health Board agreed to apologise to Mr B and offer him £2000 within 1 month, in recognition of the distress caused to him as a result of these failings. As the referral process had changed since the time of the events, it also agreed to remind relevant staff of the current appropriate referral process for individuals who require gender healthcare. The Health Board also agreed to provide training to relevant staff within 6 months, on the current NHS approach to diagnosis and symptoms relating to gender healthcare, trans-inclusive diversity awareness and meeting the needs of transgender individuals”.


Mr B was very brave to take a case that had caused him so much distress. However, we know there are still doctors who do not approach transgender patients with affirmation and curiosity, nor do they have an open and thoughtful discussion to explore through a patient-led process. The Bill says that practice that has intent to change or suppress a person’s gender identity must be evident. Mr B’s experience is one such shocking case.

Ten years on, Mr B is contented living who he is and is loved by friends and family. His experience at his local hospital should not happen to others in the future. His case highlights why the Bill is necessary.

Infected Blood Inquiry: Government Response

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Tuesday 19th December 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister for reading the Statement out this afternoon, and we very much welcome it.

Someone dies every four days as a result of this scandal. Time is passing. Each week, more families are left to grieve. The campaign led by victims, by their families and, in Parliament, by Diana Johnson, and the vote in the other place to amend the Victims and Prisoners Bill, forcing the Government to establish a body to administer compensation in anticipation of the final report of the inquiry, are no doubt focusing Ministers’ minds. I had hoped that the Statement that the Minister helpfully read out would provide some assurance that the Government are proceeding with this work. Can the Minister clarify what they are doing in anticipation of the completion of the passage of the victims Bill to comply with its new Clause 40?

It is clearly the will of Parliament that the Government make progress quickly. They could, for example, set about appointing a chair and members of the compensation awarding body. They could begin conversations with devolved Governments about how to work together to ensure fairness across the United Kingdom. Much could be done ahead of the final report. Can the Minister inform the House when these steps will happen? We are pleased to hear that the Government are establishing specialist psychological support, but can she explain why this will not be available until next summer?

We pay tribute to the bravery and determination of the victims of this scandal and their families. These Benches would gladly work on a cross-party basis to ensure that a scheme can be agreed and implemented as soon as possible to provide certainty to those infected and affected.

The Minister said that the Government are appointing clinical, legal and social care experts to advise the Cabinet Office on detailed technical considerations in the new year. It is not clear from the Statement what this will involve or what technical considerations are meant. Can the Minister elaborate? Is it the Government’s view that primary legislation will be needed to establish the body to administer the compensation? If so, this could also be done in January, given the cross-party support that exists. When do they plan to introduce any necessary legislation?

There is no need to wait for the victims Bill to pass, given the clarity of the words of the Minister of State in the Ministry of Justice that the Government would

“put in place the necessary legislative framework and timescales for a delivery body for compensation for the victims of infected blood”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/12/23; cols. 136-37.]

In the light of this Statement, when does the Minister anticipate that payments can start to be made?

We cannot undo what has happened. We cannot bring people back, but we can, through a fair compensation scheme, recognise the wrong that has been done to so many families and individuals. We can provide the financial support that is due. But I reiterate that we do not have the luxury of time. We have a moral duty to act, which the Government accept, and Parliament has demanded. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I would like to pick up from where the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, left off. We need to occasionally remind ourselves of the history of this. I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and thank the various campaign groups that continue to persevere for justice and compensation and to ensure that we are kept informed about the current situation.

I particularly thank Colette Wintle and Carol Grayson for their briefing and their amazing campaigning over the years. They reminded us that the history of this started in 1991 with the HIV litigation, when the Conservative Government blocked compensation. In 2003, the Skipton Fund was set up, but that was blocked by the Labour Government. In 2009 and 2010 there were other incidents that were also blocked by that Government. In 2012, the coalition Government also blocked compensation, delaying things for a further decade. This year, given that Sir Brian Langstaff’s second interim report made it absolutely clear that compensation should be set up and run from now, it is extraordinary to have a three-page Statement, in which the first page says all the right things but the second and third pages then put it into the long grass.

It is good news about Clause 40 in the Victims and Prisoners Bill. It had its Second Reading in your Lordships’ House yesterday and, had we heard the details of the Statement before that, some of us might have changed our speeches. It is almost as if Ministers have not yet seen Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendation on 5 April. To remind your Lordships’ House, he said:

“I recommend that a compensation scheme should be set up now and it should begin work this year”.


The Statement says that the Government will work through everything before starting the scheme. Can the Minister say on what grounds they are going specifically against Sir Brian’s recommendation that the scheme should start immediately? Time is not on the side of the victims or their families.

From these Benches, we too welcome the proposals for a bespoke psychological service for people infected by and affected by the infected blood products. But can I ask the Minister if there is new funding for this? There has to be funding outside the existing mental health budgets, which are severely under strain. If there is not, it will just put further pressure on an overwhelmed service and lead to further distress for people who believe that it will be available to help them when it is not. Even worse, others who have been waiting years for urgent mental health services will find that they cannot get them.

It is important because, as the Factor 8 scandal campaign has said, in a recent case of a young man whose father, mother and sister all died of AIDS when he was three years old, he has received nothing. He gets no ongoing support and struggles deeply with his mental health. Factor 8 says that it is “unimaginable” that his case is not

“described as ‘one of those most severely impacted’”.

There is also reference to setting up a group of experts. Who is appointing these experts? It would be normal for the chair of the compensation panel to choose their experts. There would usually be two panels —one would be medical advisers and one would be legal advisers. There is, of course, the important element of making sure that there is the voice of the people affected. Can the Minister say whether this is being done by the Government in advance of the panel being set up?

It would really good if we could have some speeding up of this process. There is no time, as everyone has said—but we have been saying this for close to 30 years, and it needs to be actioned now.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her comments about cross-party support because, after all, this dreadful scandal dates back, I think, 40 years and has involved many different Governments. She is also right that we have to recognise what has gone before us and do the right thing. It has been an awful scandal and, even more, it has left a stigma—particularly in the days before HIV and AIDS were properly understood—on all those involved. She is right to say that the amendment to the victims Bill has helped to focus minds on this issue.

Obviously, the Government recognise the strength of feeling across the House and the importance of what this amendment seeks to achieve. We are working through the implications as drafted and considering the question of primary legislation and, having this amendment, what is the right vehicle.

As I said, the inquiry’s final report is expected in March 2024. There was, I suppose, a small ray of light in the last day or two, as the inquiry said it would announce the date of its report on 17 January. The Government have already made it clear that, within 25 sitting days following the publication of that report, we will provide a full response to Parliament with an Oral Statement on the next steps. That gives us a better timetable than we have had before. I understand, of course, the points made about speed, and I look forward to being able to fill in on them.

I reiterate the news about the bespoke psychological service for people infected and affected by infected blood products and the appointment—I hope, imminently —of clinical leader and social care experts. The role of social care experts will be to advise on technical issues that require a high level of relevant knowledge in order to make informed choices in responding to the inquiry’s eventual recommendations on compensation—things such as tariff schedules. These experts will be independent and will be appointed solely to advise on technical issues. Our feeling is that it is right to get on and make those appointments: the Minister for the Cabinet Office was very clear about that. That probably means that it is not possible to do the chair and the experts at the same time. He made it clear that that process was ongoing, would be communicated early in the new year and that he was working, as it were, right over Christmas on this important issue.

In relation to the psychological support service in England, I understand the concerns that the service cannot go live until early summer 2024. The reason for that is that we need time to recruit suitably experienced and qualified staff and for all the necessary arrangements to be made for them to start seeing patients. What is good about the scheme is that access is anticipated to be primarily by people referring themselves. There may be onward referrals from GPs and hospitals, but people will not be reliant on that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, was right to run through the history of this again and remind us of that and of individual cases. I am the process of reading Caroline Wheeler’s book on this blood scandal in preparation for today and have been shocked by the individual cases. I commend that, and think it has been influential in this whole matter. We have made a Statement because we promised to do one before Christmas and, as I have said, the Minister for the Cabinet Office is working relentlessly on moving these schemes forward so that we are in the best possible stage of readiness for the final report when it emerges.

Minister for Disabled People

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Tuesday 19th December 2023 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Brinton]

To ask His Majesty’s Government why the status of the Minister for disabled people was downgraded from that of Minister of State to that of Parliamentary Under Secretary of State.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville- Rolfe) (Con)]

All Ministers speak with the authority of the Government, and it is for the Prime Minister to decide how responsibility is allocated. The role of Minister for Disabled People has been undertaken at both Minister of State and Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State level in the past. The new Minister has been at the Department for Work and Pensions since 2019 and has the ability to get things done and extensive experience of the issues that disabled people face.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, disabled people are horrified by the Prime Minister’s decision. DWP estimates that 16 million people have a disability— that is one in four—and they face multiple barriers in their lives beyond DWP. It is harder to get a job— 29 percentage points less—their financial position is much worse, they have to spend much more on energy, and other barriers remain for health, education and transport. The former role of the Minister of State for Disabled People could focus on influencing change but the new PUS is covering a large portfolio including housing benefit, the military covenant and youth. Why have this Government once again downgraded support for disabled people?

Procurement Bill [HL]

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Monday 11th September 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Brinton]

Leave out “agree” and insert “disagree”.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I start by thanking the Minister for our meeting last week. I have listened carefully to what she has said today and during that meeting; I am afraid that she has not convinced me that the procurement rules for the NHS would be as strong, clear, transparent and accountable as we find in this Procurement Bill. My Amendments 1A and 81A would ensure that the NHS is included.

During the passage of the Health and Care Act 2022, the very short Clauses 79 and 80 gave the NHS exemption from this Bill, with procurement rules to be introduced in secondary legislation by the Health Secretary. Seventeen months on, this still has not happened. When she spoke just now, the Minister relied on government Amendment 82. However, in the consultation—it is, I believe, still open—the NHS provider selection scheme that she referred to sets out some general principles only. During an earlier stage of this Bill, in response to my earlier amendments, the noble Lord, Lord True, referred to clinical contracts being exempt. However, that is not so; in fact, I note that, today, the Minister has been referring to healthcare. Every single time I ask a Minister a question, the definition changes.

In the NHS provider selection scheme, the flexibility rests with NHS bodies to make their own decisions about which scheme they use. The consultation document says:

“This is intended to remove unnecessary levels of competitive tendering … the Provider Selection Regime is intended to make it straightforward to continue with existing arrangements for service provision where those arrangements are working well and there is no value for the patients, taxpayers, and population in seeking an alternative provider”.


Those phrases—“remove unnecessary levels of competitive tendering”, “working well” and “no value in seeking an alternative provider”—are worrying, frankly. The problem, as we have discussed at length in our debates on this Bill, is that poor practice creeps into a culture where people believe that things are working well. The rules that this Bill sets out are there to ensure that every public body putting out a tender has carefully thought through what is appropriate, not just working well.

There is evidence that the current practice in NHS procurement has a mixed record, whether at the highest level or right down at the level of local trusts and CCGs, which is often covered by the specialist press. Despite a blunt National Audit Office report in 2011 on value for money in NHS procurement, the experience during the pandemic showed that some of the deep-seated culture of things not being value for money and not being completely open and transparent continues. The NAO has commented on this and the NHS recognised it in its response paper, Raising Our Game, in which it said:

“Recent reports suggest NHS procurement is lagging behind industry procurement performance”.


Unlike Ministers, the Civil Service and staff at many other public bodies, who are constrained by conflict of interest rules, it is possible for NHS staff, including directors, to use a revolving door to move from the NHS and join a company that contracts with the NHS without a gap. Last year, a deputy director and the head of AI at NHS Digital both left and immediately joined the technology firm Palantir just as it was bidding for further contracts, some without open tendering; Palantir is known to be bidding currently for the federated digital platform contract, which is worth an estimated £360 million and is due to be awarded imminently. Only 10 days ago, the chief operating officer of the NHS left on a Friday and joined Doccla, the virtual ward company that is bidding for substantial NHS contracts, the following Monday. It was also reported in July this year that NHS Digital had spent £7 million on “irregular” payments to external contractors while, last year, the Treasury flagged “irregular” spending by the Department of Health and Social Care and the NHS worth £1.3 billion. Let me say that again: £1.3 billion. Last year, the Technology and Construction Court found that staff from three CCGs in the south-west had manipulated a £2 million contract knowing it to be improper.

Many of these incidents are not reported widely. I thank in particular the Health Service Journal and other technology and health reporters for shining a light on this poor practice, even if it is not regular, wherever it has happened. This is not about those individuals nor the contracting companies. It is about the culture of procurement in the NHS. My amendment would ensure that by including the NHS in this Procurement Bill it would share robust regulations with other bodies and would be accountable and transparent even if there is a need for some subsequent special arrangements for complex clinical contracts. Not doing this will not change the culture of NHS procurement but including it in this Bill will. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by sharing my appreciation for the number of incisive contributions we have heard in the course of this short debate. It is always a pleasure to debate these things here. Of course, they have now been reviewed in the other place, as my noble friend Lady Noakes said, and there was a long discussion, including a long Committee stage attended by my friend in the other place Alex Burghart. I particularly thank noble Lords for all the work that has gone into this across the House, including these important provisions.

My noble friend Lord Lansley is correct that the objective in Clause 12 applies to cover procurement. The NPPS clause allows an NPPS to cover all procurement, but in practice its scope will be determined by the contents of the statement. In my opening remarks I explained at some length the position on the coverage of the NHS. I will come back to one or two of the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton.

I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for all that she said. Concerning principles that need to be considered by Ministers in preparing the NPPS, these principles are already covered through other commitments and legislation, as I have already set out. The amendment is therefore not necessary, as my noble friend Lady Noakes said. In addition, our fundamental view is that the Government of the day should not be constrained by the Bill in their ability to prescribe something more specific. They are free to do so—and I think this is the charm of the Bill—through the NPPS rather than through primary legislation. The Bill is about clarity and simplicity, not layering rules on rules.

To understand how it works in practice, I refer my noble friend Lord Lansley—I think I have already discussed this with him—to the current non-statutory NPPS, which covers innovation and social value. Attempting to drive innovation, which I am as keen on as he is, in every single procurement will not always be relevant or proportionate. Our Bill drives innovation through, for example, our new competitive flexible procedure, pre-market engagement and our duty for contracting authorities to have regard to reducing barriers for SMEs—which will also benefit social enterprises, as the noble Earl, Lord Devon, referred to. Future NPPSs will also be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and consulted on as appropriate.

The consideration of environmental targets and objectives relating to social value in preparing the NPPS, and the other principles set out in this amendment, are duplicative and would render the Bill more complex and confusing for contracting authorities and suppliers. Singling out specific objectives for Ministers to consider will create the impression that they trump others, which could unduly constrain flexibility for a Government to set priorities in future, which they will do through the NPPS. This is a principle seen in other legislation, where you have framing legislation and then statutory guidance.

Finally, regarding environmental considerations—as highlighted in discussions during the REUL Bill debates, although perhaps I should not remind noble Lords of those as they took a long time—Ministers will now be under a legal duty to have due regard to the environmental principles policy statement when making policy, including the development of policies in accordance with the Bill.

On the NHS amendments championed by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, I am grateful for the meetings that we have had but I believe that they stem from a confusion. NHS bodies are contracting authorities and therefore already covered by the Bill; we had a good conversation about mixed contracts and so on, which I think was helpful to us both. It would be inappropriate to remove the power to make the provider selection regime regulations, especially given the benefits that they will bring to patients.

In response to a question about the definition of healthcare services, the scope of services in the PSR has been consulted on and will be further supported by reference to a list of common procurement vocabulary codes, set out clearly in the PSR regulations. An indicative list of those codes was included in DHSC’s recent consultation on the PSR.

The noble Baroness made a point about conflicts of interest. Our Bill strengthens existing legal duties on conflicts of interest and embeds greater transparency throughout the commercial life cycle. This has been welcomed and, I think, is important. Furthermore, the provider selection regime regulations will clearly set out provisions for the effective management of conflicts of interest. The PSR is designed to ensure transparency across all procurement decisions to which it applies, including how the decisions were made. This transparency will help ensure that there is proper scrutiny and accountability of decisions to award contracts for healthcare services.

Finally, an independently chaired panel will provide expert review and advice concerning decisions made under the PSR, helping to ensure that procurement processes are transparent, fair and proportionate. I very much hope that that additional information about our plans for the PSR will enable this debate about just how these two regimes, both of which have been discussed constructively and at length in this House, fit together, and that noble Lords feel able to support the government amendments and withdraw the amendments that they have put forward.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I thank everybody who has spoken in this brief debate. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for at least agreeing with the principle, even if she cannot support me in the Division Lobby, because it is really important.

For all the reasons that the Minister outlined, we are where we are. When we were working on the Health and Care Bill, it was absolutely evident that the secondary legislation changes would be outlined quickly thereafter—I am looking at others who were in the Chamber at the same time—and agreed by last autumn. We are now 17 months on and there is no sight of them at all.

The Minister outlined the NHS provider selection scheme and all its arrangements. That it is not looking for a culture change worries me most. In my earlier speech I gave examples of the behaviour of three senior managers at three CCGs, which the public would not have known about if the losing company had not gone to the Technology and Construction Court. This revealed that it is all too easy, where the culture is poor, for people to believe that the rules are being followed when they are not.

I appreciate that we have a point of difference on this, but on our Benches we believe that there is much benefit in this Procurement Bill and do not understand why the NHS is excluded. It is perfectly possible to include some special arrangements for it, but nothing has happened since the Health and Care Act was enacted. At the moment, nothing we are hearing from the NHS is about that culture change. On that basis, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

Covid-19 Inquiry: Judicial Review

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Tuesday 6th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for his wise advice and the background. We miss him on the Front Bench, and it is good that he has come to talk to us today. As evidence of his point, materials are carefully considered. One of the issues under debate was the Sarah Everard processes. In this case, a message that appeared unconnected to Covid was initially redacted, but it was then identified as potentially relevant as part of the additional counsel review, which the noble Lord referred to, so the Cabinet Office then provided it to the inquiry proactively. A process is going on, and a large team is working away at this. All along, our legal team in the Cabinet Office looking after the inquiry has tried to agree on sensible arrangements. We have entered a JR, but we remain hopeful and willing to agree the best way forward with the inquiry, if that is possible.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, one of the strengths of a judge-led public inquiry is that it is able to look at everything, including the emerging wider context and competing pressures facing those who have to come to some very difficult decisions. Inquiries such as the Leveson inquiry, that on Hillsborough and, more recently, IICSA have all had confidential information and have had to decide what to redact. I was peripherally involved in the latter of those as a witness, and it was somewhat nerve-racking to hand over personal information, but I was utterly confident that the decisions would be made in the interests of the inquiry.

As the health spokesperson on the Front Bench during Covid and just before it first struck in January and February 2020, I note that there are a large number of issues, including the Government disbanding the pandemic preparedness group to leave more space for Brexit. NERVTAG and SAGE minutes between January and February changed very quickly, and it is illuminating to read them. But it was concerning to read that the Prime Minister missed the first five COBRA dates, and there were reports that he was not working on weekends during that early period. In addition to those reasons, some of what the inquiry needs to look at includes why the UK did not follow the World Health Organization guidance on testing and protection from the start, and why the UK Government sent PPE to China just at the point that the experts were saying that our health people needed it. We had health staff in bin bags because we did not have any PPE in this country.

For all these reasons, I ask the Minister whether she believes that the inquiry really needs to see the detail of that correspondence. It may look irrelevant from the outside, but, in terms of emerging contexts and competing decisions, it becomes vital to what happened and whether people lived or died.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

The Government set up the inquiry for exactly the sorts of reasons that the noble Baroness outlined. These questions need to be answered. As I said, the Government are making available all relevant information—anything related to Covid or decisions about it is being made available. The judicial review is on a narrow technical point about unambiguously irrelevant items, and I assure the noble Baroness that the Government seek to ensure that the inquiry and its chair have all the information and access to witnesses that they need, to ensure that the very important questions that the chair is asking are answered. That is why we are having an inquiry. Of course, we want it to get on, and we look forward to learning the lessons as soon as possible.