Infected Blood Inquiry: Additional Report

Debate between Baroness Brinton and Baroness Finn

Thursday 24th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for this opportunity to ask questions on the additional report of the Infected Blood Inquiry. I thank Sir Brian Langstaff for his continued work to get justice for the victims. Like him, the Official Opposition want to see fair compensation provided without delay to every person who is eligible—and the key words are “without delay”. I welcome that the Infected Blood Compensation Authority—IBCA—has accepted most of the recommendations made by the inquiry and we support the Government’s decision to instigate a review of the IBCA’s delivery of the scheme. The Government are also right to accept the seven sub-recommendations and engage with the community on those recommendations that they are not yet able to accept.

The critical factor in this issue is time. We know that many victims of the infected blood scandal have sadly died before receiving compensation. Ministers and officials must work tirelessly to ensure that victims receive the compensation that they deserve as soon as possible. In the other place, Ministers were clear that their top priority is to move quickly. Can the Minister confirm that the complexity of changes that will be made to the IBCA scheme will not stand in the way of timely payments? What assessment have the Government made of the complexity of the scheme after these changes, and the impact of that complexity on the timeliness of compensation? Under the previous Government, engagement with the infected blood community led to a broad push for timely compensation and it was thought by some that keeping the scheme simple would maximise the chances of delivering compensation more quickly. Can the Minister confirm whether this has been borne out in her own and other Ministers’ engagement with the infected blood community?

The Government have committed to bringing forward regulations following their acceptance of a number of recommendations. These are to be introduced as soon as parliamentary time allows. Can the Minister please confirm that these regulations will be laid on our return in September and taken through the House by the end of the year? We and the victims have waited long enough, and they cannot be expected to wait any longer than that.

The Government have also accepted the recommendation on a grievance mechanism. It is important that lessons are learned and we support the Government’s acceptance of this recommendation. Can the Minister confirm how Ministers will ensure that the grievance mechanism is properly staffed, and how its performance will be monitored? Finally, how will Ministers ensure that the grievance mechanism process does not lead to any delays in compensation for victims?

The additional report also contained criticisms of the IBCA, which raised concerns about its ability to maintain trust. Reports that the IBCA proposed a gagging clause during the process of agreeing the arrangements for lawyers to support individuals with the assessment of their compensation are worrying. The report also found that the numbers who have received compensation to date are profoundly unsatisfactory. We need to see urgent improvements.

I do not want to conclude my remarks without specifically raising the experience of the victims of unethical research practices, especially those who were pupils at Lord Mayor Treloar school. The additional report recommends that the IBCA should be authorised to make payments where it is satisfied that an individual was a victim of unethical research practices and that these decisions be based on the wider definition of research. The report also recommends that the Minister consider whether the compensation should be increased. We are pleased that the Government have listened and committed to consult. Can the Minister confirm when this consultation will be concluded and that the consultation will not result in any delay in compensation for victims? Questions have also been raised on the timeline of memorials for the young victims from Treloar. These are heartbreaking cases, so when can we expect work on memorials to be concluded?

It is essential that victims of the infected blood scandal receive fair compensation as soon as possible. We will continue to call for that, and press Ministers and their officials to address the criticisms and issues urgently to make progress so that we can achieve a better outcome for the victims.

[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.

Infected Blood Inquiry: Government Response

Debate between Baroness Brinton and Baroness Finn

Wednesday 21st May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for responding to the Statement made in the other place almost to the day of the anniversary of the Statement and apology made on behalf of the Government by my right honourable friend the former Prime Minister.

The infected blood scandal is one of the most serious failures of the British state in recent years, and it has caused immense harm for tens of thousands of people and their families. The heartbreaking film shown on ITV last night depicted the terrible deeds at Treloar college in Hampshire in the 1970s and 1980s, reminding us that the story is not yet over for so many living in the aftermath of such enormous negligence. As I mentioned when we debated the infected blood regulations earlier this year, in his 2022 report Sir Robert Francis said:

“Sadly, many of the infected community fear that they have not got long to live”.


That is why urgent action is needed, and we are united across your Lordships’ House in our conviction that the victims of this appalling scandal deserve justice.

As noble Lords across the House are aware, when we were in government we made significant progress towards justice for victims of the infected blood scandal—and I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead for her role in establishing the statutory inquiry. I put on record once again our thanks to Sir Brian Langstaff and Sir Robert Francis for all their work, as well as to all the tireless campaigners, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, Lady Brinton, Lady Featherstone and Lady Finlay of Llandaff.

We welcome the fact that the Government have picked up where the Conservative Government left off and are continuing work to deliver justice for the victims. I particularly welcome the announcement that Sir Robert Francis, who has done so much to design and deliver the compensation scheme, will continue in his role as interim chair of the IBCA for a further 18 months.

We know there is nothing we can do that will truly heal the wounds felt by all those affected, but it is vital that we do all we can to address the pain and anger felt by those in the infected and affected communities. I also welcome the announcement of funding for charities to provide much-needed patient advocacy services. As time passes, we know that, sadly, fewer and fewer of the victims will be with us. For them, justice delayed really is justice denied, and that is why we support the Government’s work to speed up the pace of compensation.

The Minister will not be surprised to know that I have a few questions on the Statement. In the other place, Ministers said they expect to see a significant increase in the pace of payments. Can the Minister please explain the Government’s actual expectations of this increase in the pace of payments, and what does it mean in practical terms for victims?

Ministers have also said that a new surveillance registry will be set up to monitor liver damage in those infected with hepatitis C. I very much welcome this but, again, for victims, time is of the essence. Can the Minister please confirm when this service will be established?

Finally, I welcome the fact that the Government have accepted the inquiry’s recommendations, either in full or in principle. However, I note the mention made in the Statement that the implementation of some recommendations will depend on future spending decisions by the Department of Health and Social Care. It is obviously important that the expectations of those applying for compensation from the scheme are managed clearly and transparently at the outset. Can the Minister say which areas of the recommendations may be affected by the departmental spending decisions that were referred to, and will she undertake to report to the House by an appropriate means when the relevant spending decisions have been made?

[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?