Infected Blood Inquiry: Additional Report

Debate between Baroness Brinton and Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent

Thursday 24th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, for the second time in a fortnight, your Lordships’ House is debating a report from a judge telling the Government, in no uncertain terms, that the compensation schemes are not working properly and are an affront to the suffering that the victims have faced. The first, of course, was the Post Office Horizon scheme a fortnight ago.

From the Liberal Democrat Benches, I echo the thanks of the Conservative Benches to Sir Brian Langstaff for continuing to speak truth to power and for holding the Government to account. Today, the Government are responding to Sir Brian’s additional report, following his urgent session, in which he took moving evidence from the infected and affected victims and organisations. His report is blunt. He also said that he reserves the right to reconvene the inquiry at a further date, to further assess whether this Government have not just taken on board but changed the delivery process to ensure that all victims are treated fairly, speedily and with humanity. I am not aware of another judge having done that recently.

Ministers seem not to understand that every challenge—having to prove things again and again during the compensation process—revictimises those who have suffered already over many years. That should not be necessary. As usual, Ministers say the right words, but, as I said in the debate on the Post Office Horizon Statement, that is like the old bank adage on a rejected cheque: words and figures do not agree. Can the Minister say when the victims and Parliament will hear the results of the consultations and the consequent decisions by the Government on Sir Brian’s recommendations that they are not accepting in full today?

Sir Wyn Williams made an important point in the new Horizon report, which I and others have said repeatedly in Parliament: when will we have a truly independent body to manage inquiries and compensation schemes? IBCA is not truly independent; it is staffed by people who have come from various government departments, many of whom were involved in the process on the other side of the table, when victims were told repeatedly that there was nothing to be done and nothing to be seen.

However, this applies not just to this scheme or the Post Office Horizon one. As we heard earlier, it also includes Hillsborough, Windrush, the Manchester bombings, the nuclear test veterans, the medical scandals that cannot even get to first base—such as those around vaginal mesh implants and sodium valproate, which means that babies are still being born with deformities—and many others. I ask this Minister: will she and all the other Ministers managing these compensation schemes, including the so-called arm’s-length ones, get together to consider Sir Wyn’s recommendations?

I have a series of questions about the Government’s response. However, I will start by thanking the Government for the recommendations that they have already accepted: the HIV start date; the effective treatment award for those with hepatitis B or C; and, especially, the 31 March cut-off date for bereaved partners receiving support until their affected claim can be started—they are all vital. The Government have also recognised that the estates of deceased affected victims should now be able to pass on their compensation as those of infected victims can.

In the comments to Sir Brian’s report, the Paymaster-General says very clearly that the timescales are not changing. Sir Brian made it plain that it was unacceptable that the affected victims would not even start to be approached until the end of this year. Can the Minister therefore explain why this timescale is clearly not being speeded up? It makes a mockery of “working at pace”. How long will it take for IBCA to design and introduce a process for registration, as opposed to victims waiting for a call, as they might do for the lottery?

Newspapers have reported that, this time last year, IBCA consisted of just a couple of staff and computers. What is the headcount now, and what plans are there to ramp up the number of staff to speed up the processes?

The review of IPCA is expected to begin in August. When will Ministers report back to Parliament on its results? I do mean Parliament and not just the Public Accounts Committee. The Government have agreed to look again at some of the recommendations, such as the calculations of past care and financial loss—where the current process downgrades the commitment of home carers, many of whom have had to give up work for decades to look after their loved one—and the compensation scheme for victims of unethical research. The experience of the latter is among the most horrific of any scandal that this country has seen in the past 50 years.

Forgive the cynicism, but “looking again” gives no assurance that the severe wrongs done to the affected and infected victims will be remedied. Can the Minister say how long “looking again” will take?

To conclude, the Liberal Democrats are pleased that there is progress in the Statement and the report. However, Sir Brian, the many infected and affected victims, and Parliament will be watching to see whether this Government deliver—and swiftly—on their moral obligations to the victims of the infected blood scandal.

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

My Lords, I am grateful, as ever, for the contributions of the noble Baronesses, Lady Finn and Lady Brinton. Their responses were, as they have always been in previous debates in this House, measured, reasonable, productive and challenging where we need to be challenged. I truly believe that this debate and the debates that we have had thus far on this issue show your Lordships’ House at its best.

Sir Brian’s further report set out a constructive way forward for the Government and IBCA to take, with one key message coming through loud and clear: the Government must build back trust with the community by truly involving them in how we move forward. In his report, Sir Brian says that

“there may yet be a prospect that some trust can be restored, though it will require more than goodwill, more than warm words, and more than statements of intent to secure it”.

I know that those words resonate with this House; they should be the model of how the Government drive this work forward. I hope that the Statement shows that we are planning to do just that by taking the actions we can now and engaging the community on how we can best achieve other changes to make a scheme that works for all of them.

I turn to specific points and questions raised by the noble Baronesses. If I am unable to cover them all, I will obviously reflect on Hansard and respond to anything in writing over the summer. I have a series of bits of paper and messages coming through, because there is one specific point from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that I do not know the answer to; I expect it imminently.

The noble Baroness, Lady Finn, discussed memorialisation. The Minister for the Cabinet Office has appointed Clive Smith as chair of the infected blood memorial committee. The Government are confident that he will progress the memorialisation work quickly, while bringing the community together. Given his history, we are very pleased that he has accepted this role. He has set out his intention to appoint a vice-chair to represent the whole blood transfusion community, and that post will be appointed in due course.

I turn to the mechanisms for concern about the scheme. In line with the inquiry’s recommendations, we seek to introduce a mechanism that individuals may use to raise concerns and to aid the continuous improvement of the scheme, working with IBCA to do so. We will respond shortly.

I will answer the questions as they were taken. It is the end of term, and I want to make sure that I get this right, so I ask the House to bear with me.

The noble Baroness, Lady Finn, said that we will continue to work tirelessly. I think that everybody across your Lordships’ House accepts that we need the Government to work at pace to deliver for members of the community. I hate the phrase “at pace”, but if it has ever been required, it is for these people at this point.

On the complexity of changes, I reassure all noble Lords that any changes will not stand in the way of timely payments. We seek to move as quickly as possible. IBCA will continue to make payments, as it does under the current scheme. No one will have to apply for additional enhancements on top of that, but IBCA will then give additional funds if they are found to be necessary. No one will have to reapply based on the schemes that we bring forward.

Both noble Baronesses asked me about timing. We will bring forward the new statutory instruments as quickly as possible. Those for phase 3 will be completed by the end of the year; I hope that they will pass through your Lordships’ House before Christmas, subject to the usual debates. Additional statutory instruments will then be brought forward next year, after appropriate consultations have been made with the community to make sure that we are getting this right for them.

I was asked for an assessment of how we have adopted this scheme that was established under the last Government. The last Government and this Government have had to consider a bespoke versus a tariff scheme. We have adopted a tariff-based scheme to make sure that people receive payments as quickly as possible. That was always going to have some associated challenges, as the victims of this horrendous scandal may not have felt that they were going to get fully recognised within each tariff. But it was the most effective way to get money and compensation as quickly as possible to those people who deserve it.

With the special category mechanism and the other additional changes we have announced this week, we are trying to make sure that the tariff scheme is as a broad as possible to provide support, but it is not a halfway house and there are initial tariffs to reflect changes.

I will have to write the noble Baronesses about the grievance mechanism, staffing and monitoring. I will come back to them.

When it comes to victims of unethical practices, everyone who has been touched by this horrendous, heartbreaking scandal will have their own stories of heartbreak and the things that touched their heart most. I think I speak for every Member of your Lordships’ House when I say that when we have talked about Treloar’s and the children and their heartbreak, you cannot help but cry knowing what has happened to them.

Victims of unethical practices have to be appropriately compensated—I say compensated, but you cannot compensate for what happened to anybody affected by this scandal. There is not enough money in the world to make up for what has happened, but we need to make sure that appropriate schemes are in place so that what has happened to them is truly recognised.

On consultation not leading to delays, we are very clear: we need to consult. The report was clear that people had

“been heard but had not been listened to”.

We need to make sure that people feel they have been heard and listened to, and therefore there is a balance here. While we move forward with the existing scheme, we need to make sure that for changes to the scheme there is genuine consultation and people feel listened to. It will not lead to delays, but we are going to make sure that the consultation is done properly.

There are two different levels of review being undertaken. The first is of IBCA, which will start in August. Without doubt, we will be discussing the findings of that review in your Lordships’ House. We have also asked the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee in the other place to analyse this to make sure that we are doing the appropriate work. That review starts in August. The Minister for the Cabinet Office is currently reflecting on the best way to initiate a true consultation exercise with members of the community. We hope to formally start that process in October, making sure we get it right so that people feel that we are moving forward appropriately.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, asked me about a statutory compensation body. I responded to this issue when we were discussing Horizon recently, but more broadly in terms of how we respond to public inquiries. We have brought forward the dashboard, and we are bringing forward additional changes so that we have a list of recommendations made by public inquiries to make sure that we are implementing them. The noble Baroness raises a really important point which is under active discussion at the moment, and I hope that at some point we will be able to discuss it in more detail.

In terms of timescales not changing, I want to reassure your Lordships’ House that this is about backstops, not targets. IBCA has started increasing the number of people in the infected community whom it is contacting. While there are deadlines, there are backstops we hope to bring forward as quickly as possible, while making sure that we get it right. The infected community is to be expedited on the terms that have been laid out. Obviously, the affected community has slightly different issues because it is a much wider group of people. We will move forward quickly.

I had hoped that I would get the noble Baroness an answer about how many people are actually at IBCA, but we do not have the headcount to hand, so I will write to her. That is what I was waiting for.

In terms of the long look ahead, we are clear that there is a huge job of work to do, and I want to do it with all Members of your Lordships’ House. I am determined that we continue to work collaboratively to progress this work and continue in the spirit that has characterised our debates on this issue. Now is not the time for this Government to be defensive. This is about all of us working together to ensure that the next steps we take work for everybody, to get us to a point where, as Sir Brian says,

“the detail of the scheme matches up to its intent”.

To be clear, these are not small changes we are proposing. The decisions we have announced are currently estimated to cost a further £1 billion of public money in further compensation payments. It will take time to achieve them, particularly with those that we wish to put to consultation in the community. However, the inquiry’s further report was clear that the actions we take next must show that we have

“not only heard, but listened”

to the community. Involving the community in the decisions that matter to them is the only way forward.

Before we move on to Back-Bench questions, I reiterate my thanks to the noble Baronesses on the Front Bench and to colleagues who are about to speak. Their tireless work has ensured that we have got to this place. While we are all sad that our friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, is unable to be with us today, she, the noble Baronesses, Lady Featherstone, Lady Finlay and Lady Brinton, my noble friend Lady Thornton and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, have been tenacious and determined. It is their collective work on behalf of the people who had no voice and no platform that has allowed us to deliver for those touched by this appalling scandal. I for one am grateful for all their efforts.

Infected Blood Inquiry: Government Response

Debate between Baroness Brinton and Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent

Wednesday 21st May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I also thank the Minister for responding to the Statement in your Lordships’ House. I will start by thinking about all those infected and affected who, a year ago yesterday, heard Sir Brian Langstaff speak at the launch of the inquiry report. For those of us who were there, it was a joyful day when people really thought that things were going to change and happen at pace. The last Government promised rapid action, and the new Labour Government promised, and continue to promise in this Statement, moving “at pace”—indeed, the Statement uses this exact phrase. However, any conversation with any of the infected and affected leaves you in absolutely no doubt that, from their perspective, progress is still glacial: 77 claimants have been paid out of a possible 140,000, of whom over 3,000 have already died. Only 475 infected claimants have been invited to claim so far, and no affected claimants have even got that far because that scheme does not open to claimants until later this year.

If this is complicated—and we know that it is—why have the Government not invested more resources in the compensation body to process claims and, above all, not repeat work that has been done under previous schemes? As with many of the other current compensation schemes, including the Post Office Horizon scheme and the Windrush scheme, this one is floundering. It is fascinating that, whenever I talk to people from one of these schemes, they always cite how well the others are going, but all of them feel that everything is far too slow.

It matters because claimants are dying, probably every week. Some claimants were infected nearly 50 years ago, and Sir Brian’s statement on 13 May, made after taking two extra days of evidence earlier in May, is very clear. Action to speed up is needed now. Instead of a random system, including deferring all affected claimants until after the infected claimants have been sorted, is not acceptable. He proposes a prioritisation scheme, helpfully including worked examples. Will the Government accept that prioritisation is now necessary?

I have raised before the issue of an affected claimant who, when we looked at the regulation some months ago in February, was given less than a year to live. Under the current arrangements, there is not a hope that she will have even started the process before she dies. This is unacceptable. Will the Government ensure that all who have a limited time to live—I include within that Sir Brian’s definition of those over 70, and there are other detailed definitions as well—will have their claims started sooner rather than later?

There is also a difficulty with some of the routes. Those who were infected with just HIV—but probably hepatitis as well—have a very simple, essentially three-step route, and I am very grateful to the survivor who sent me two A3 pages demonstrating the processes. The HIV one is very clear, but for someone infected with hepatitis alone, it is essentially a horribly multifaceted process that takes up a whole page of A3 full of boxes. Will IBCA prioritise a simplification of this process? That is what is taking the time.

I also watched the Treloar documentary last night. I met some of the Treloar students in the mid to late seventies, with drama groups. I worked with those students. Talking to the survivors of Treloar’s, most of the young men I spoke to are dead. That, we need to remember. They and their families have a very difficult life; their families are still waiting. These are the affected people we have been talking about.

The Statement talks about listening to the incredibly moving testimony of those impacted, but feeling pain on their behalf is no longer enough—we must see action. Yesterday, a letter was delivered by the various survivor groups to No. 10, in which they said:

“As the Infected Blood Inquiry heard when it reconvened hearings on 7 May 2025, the community’s voice was absent when the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme was drawn up. The resulting scheme contains fundamental flaws, which could and would have been foreseen”.


Will the Government instruct IBCA to ensure that those are dealt with?

I will move on briefly to the government response last week to the Infected Blood Inquiry report, which has only taken a year to be published. First, on page 31, the Government say that it is

“complex to implement and enforce”

a duty of candour. I am grateful to the Government for making a priority of duty of candour in their manifesto, but there is still no timeline on when the Hillsborough law will appear. Those countries that have either a duty of candour or mandatory reporting for safeguarding find that having a strong law and good training absolutely changes the culture of those organisations. In Australia in particular, it works really well. May I encourage the Government to look at that?

Secondly, there are two recommendations on the defensive culture in the NHS and the Civil Service that are accepted only in principle. Repeated Home Office failures on the Post Office Horizon scheme and the Windrush scheme demonstrate that actually, we have to get rid of the defensive culture. It is a shame that, frankly, this has been recognised in principle only, and that the scale for it to happen has no timetable attached to it.

The Government say that the recommendations on training and an effective transfusion service are a

“complex set of sub recommendations”

from Sir Brian, but they say there needs to be

“a joined-up approach across … four services”.

This, again, is in principle, with no timeline, mainly because no funding has been identified. Have we not learnt from Sir Brian’s inquiry report that we have to do this to stop future mistakes?

On the patient voice, I echo the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, about the gratitude for the funding for the IB groups. That is important, but the Government have not accepted in principle the clinical audit. The Welsh and Scottish Governments have, but our Government and the NIA have not. Please can this be done at pace? It is ridiculous to do it on its own.

In summary, things need to change, and fast. I recognise that the compensation body is an arms-length body, but please will the Government provide funding to upscale things so that compensation can start in earnest?

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

My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions of the noble Baronesses, Lady Finn and Lady Brinton. As ever, the tone of this discussion and the questions so far has been one of sensitivity and co-operation; it is your Lordships’ House at its best.

I pay tribute to the work of many noble Lords across the House. Parliamentary scrutiny has played an important role in holding the Government to account on the progress they have made in responding to the inquiry, and I know that your Lordships’ House will continue to push forward the implementation of the inquiry’s recommendations.

I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Campbell of Surbiton and Lady Featherstone, for their ongoing engagement. I also put on record my personal thanks to the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Finlay, who have been incredibly helpful in my own journey on this area. We are truly lucky to have such tenacious women in your Lordships’ House.

The inquiry’s report revealed the scale of devastation caused by the infected blood scandal: lives were shattered and families were torn apart, all attributable to the collective and avoidable failings of the state. I and ministerial colleagues have pledged on a number of occasions that this Government are listening, and we are hearing. We will not seek to repeat the mistakes of the past. I hope that the progress set out in the Government’s response provides some reassurance—although, rightly, with questions—that we are acting on the inquiry’s recommendations. On behalf of the state, I reiterate our deepest apologies to those impacted by this heartbreaking scandal, as my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Minister for the Cabinet Office have stated.

I turn to some of the specific points and questions that the noble Baronesses have raised. I apologise if I am unable to cover all the points raised, or if I have misunderstood any of them. I will reflect on Hansard and write to all noble Lords who participate today.

On the speed of delivery of the compensation, I think we know that this is at the heart of many of the issues highlighted over the last week in the media, separate from the heartbreaking documentary shown last night. I know that the speed of compensation payments is a primary area of concern to both noble Lords across this House and in the infected blood community more widely. Earlier this month, IBCA confirmed plans to ask an average of 100 people a week to start their claims. While the rollout of the scheme is an operational decision for IBCA, as an independent body, the Government are supportive of this ambition and stand ready to assist in speeding up payments. I am assured that it has the resources to expedite its findings. If it does not, I will speak to officials today and find out what else we need to do.

As the Minister for the Cabinet Office noted to the inquiry last week, the Government will consider the concerns that the inquiry and the infected blood community are continuing to raise. The Government’s primary focus is ensuring that compensation payments are made as quickly as possible, and we are aware that that leads to some challenges with certain parts of the implementation.

On the duty of candour, I recognise the concerns about the delay in introducing the forthcoming Hillsborough law Bill to Parliament. I want to assure your Lordships’ House that the Government remain fully committed to legislating in this area. The Government have been consulting widely with interested parties—we want to get this right—and are working to ensure that the best version is drafted ahead of its introduction. I look forward to debating the content of the Bill with noble Lords.

I reiterate the point about the ongoing implementation of the inquiry’s recommendations: we are committed to future transparency and accountability in this area, and we will be publishing the Government’s progress via a publicly accessible dashboard in due course. The dashboard will be updated regularly as progress is made.

We started by highlighting the documentary that was shown last night. There are too many heartbreaking stories associated with the infected blood scandal—in fact, every story is heartbreaking. What happened at Treloar’s was utterly abhorrent. I encourage all noble Lords across the House to watch the documentary, and I pay tribute to those in the community who courageously told their stories again to bring this documentary to our screens. The Government are committed to remembering the victims of this scandal through memorials, both specifically at Treloar’s and more widely in the UK. We are working through the process to remember them in a way that is appropriate and fitting.

On the extension of Sir Robert Francis’s contract, I am pleased that he will be continuing in his role. He has been involved in the creation of the process, and we have a shared priority to deliver compensation as quickly as possible.

With regard to monitoring liver damage, we absolutely recognise the importance of this for those who have been infected, and we will accept the majority of the sub-recommendations in full. Our approach will balance the implementation of the recommendations against the principle that all patients should receive the same treatment, irrespective of how the disease was acquired.

With regard to the DHSC and the recommendations, we are awaiting the CSR, so noble Lords will have to bear with me, but we will update the House on the additional recommendations as and when.

In respect of compensation and the speed of delivery, I can assure noble Lords that IBCA is committed to opening the full compensation service to all those eligible as soon as possible. On 11 February, IBCA set out its plans to open the compensation scheme in stages to make sure it is effective and secure for all those claiming. This was a decision taken independently of the Government by the IBCA board. IBCA is —importantly—an independent agency, but we do want it to expedite the payments. The Minister for the Cabinet Office is looking at all the recommendations and I will report back to your Lordships’ House in due course, when we have the recommendations of the latest stage of the inquiry.

With regard to charitable funding, as has been mentioned, I am pleased that the Department of Health and Social Care has identified a pot of £500,000 for this financial year. This is brand-new money for those charities that have supported victims in the infected blood community for many years, doing so independently. The Government recognise the important work done by those charities that are supporting the infected and affected community and the pressures placed on these organisations following the inquiry’s report and the Government’s setting up of the infected blood compensation scheme. Earlier this week, I met with the Hepatitis C Trust, which has had more than 3,000 phone calls just this year related to infected blood.

With regard to further hearings and the report, we remain fully committed to co-operating with the inquiry and to acting on its recommendations, and we are grateful for its compensation work to date. So far, we have set aside £11.8 billion to compensate the victims and made compensation offers of £130 million. I am conscious that noble Lords across the House will be keen to hear the Government’s plans for responding to the inquiry’s forthcoming report on the design of the scheme and the speed of delivery. While I cannot commit to concrete timelines at this stage, my honourable friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office will carefully consider all proposals and recommendations from the inquiry and will respond as soon as possible.

I thank noble Lords once again for their contributions. I am determined that we shall continue to work closely together to progress this work and continue in the spirit that has characterised our debates on this issue. The Government are clear that this is not the end of the discussion on infected blood. There is much more for us to do to deliver justice to the infected blood community: people who have suffered so much hardship as a result of this scandal. We must do what we can to provide what justice we can, and they must be at the forefront of our minds and our primary focus as we do so.

75th Anniversary of Formula 1

Debate between Baroness Brinton and Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent

Thursday 12th December 2024 Lords Chamber

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

The Minister for Sport has regular conversations with all relevant stadia. With regards to Formula 1, those will start for next year’s celebrations in January. If the noble Lord has specific concerns, he should feel free to raise them with me and I will make sure the department addresses them.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, nine years ago I was in Mexico at the same time as the grand prix there, sharing a hotel with the Ferrari back-office team. I got stranded at the hotel because the disability taxi failed to turn up. After 36 hours without sleep, three of the team worked with me to solve the problem and help me rebook my flight. I have a picture in front of their Ferrari. My next car is definitely going to be a Ferrari. Does the Minister agree that we need to recognise the support of the back-office teams, who are often invisible? In this particular circumstance, it was unusual for a grand prix team to help somebody in a wheelchair, and they were brilliant.

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

I thank the noble Baroness for sharing her story and put on record our thanks to Ferrari for making sure that she did not get stranded. I think we can see that our collective teams want to help as many people as possible, and it was great they were able to do so in that instance.