Infected Blood Inquiry: Government Response

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

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.

[Baroness Campbell of Surbiton (CB)]

My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest as the widow of Graham Ingleson, who died at the age of 33 in 1993.

I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and for meeting me before the Easter Recess. I know that she is genuinely committed to ensuring that the victims get justice, and that is welcome. However, she will not be surprised when I say that the Statement that was made in the House last week is wanting. I do not feel that it reflects the deep frustration and disappointment of the infected blood community at the shocking lack of progress. Therefore, in the light of their concerns, Sir Brian Langstaff took the unprecedented step of reopening the inquiry two weeks ago to hear why the compensation scheme is failing the community so profoundly. Does the Minister agree that the chronic delays in processing claims are lamentable? Only 160 or so of the 30,000 known to be affected received payment in the last year, and people are dying at the rate of one or two a week. Will the Government consider quarterly targets for IBCA to speed up claims settlements?

The Statement rightly recognises the devastating impact of this scandal. Does the Minister accept that the bureaucratic nature of the scheme exacerbates the distress of the community as they relive their trauma?

It is clear from the recent hearings that genuine engagement with the community is just not happening. Can the Minister reassure the House that the Government will address this with IBCA urgently? A

“publicly accessible dashboard in due course”

is not good enough.

Lastly, the Prime Minister said a year ago, “Politics itself failed you”. Will the Minister acknowledge that the paramount need is to ensure that politics does not repeat itself? In the words of the CEO of the Haemophilia Society:

“The inquiry gave us the truth, but we’re still waiting for justice”.

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

I thank the noble Baroness for coming in today to participate in the debate. As she is a member of the affected community, I know of the strain of leadership that she has had to face as people look to her for answers. She is a tenacious woman and a dedicated campaigner, but that still requires a huge amount of inner strength, and I thank her for what she is doing for the community.

With regard to the specific points, obviously several were raised and I will reflect on Hansard. But the noble Baroness is absolutely right: politics failed the infected blood community and we need to make sure that that does not happen again, both for this community and any other community that is facing issues where the state has let them down. I truly believe that politics is a force for good in society; we need to make sure that it is. I hope that the noble Baroness will soon be meeting with the Minister for the Cabinet Office to discuss next steps, and I hope both to be present and to make sure that she makes some of these recommendations forcefully, as I know she will. We will reflect on them as we also reflect on the findings of the second phase of the inquiry.

[The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is taking part remotely. I invite him to ask his question.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, with an infected blood compensation bill of £11 billion-plus and a further annual bill of £3 billion for misdiagnosis and incorrect medication, and then recognising the limitations on Commons inquiries due to Member availability, limited expertise and agenda pressures, does not this whole affair now demand an ad hoc inquiry into compensation arrangements administration in the Lords, drawing on our huge expertise in accountancy, healthcare and wider issues of compensation law? I am sure our people could find ways of speeding up the process and the scheme, saving a lot of public money that is currently unnecessarily feeding some areas of the legal and other professions. I suspect this will all end up in a VFM report before the Public Accounts Committee in years to come.

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

Noble Lords across your Lordships’ House have extraordinary expertise, and I will more than happily meet with any of them if they have recommendations for how we can more quickly expedite infected blood compensation payments. With regard to the £11.8 billion, though, that money has been ring-fenced in compensation payments for the victims of infected blood. We will do everything we can to make sure they get it. This is taxpayers’ money, so there is a balance here; we need to make sure that the people entitled to it get it, which is more straightforward for the infected; we will discuss in great detail what that means as we progress on to the affected, to make sure that safeguards are in place. But this money is for those people who have been directly affected, and we need to make sure that they are the ones with the money.

[Baroness Featherstone (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. Many noble Lords will have heard me say before that I have to declare an interest, but for those who do not know, it is because one of my sister’s twins died aged 35 of infected blood and hepatitis C, leaving a 10 month-old baby daughter.

I met with the campaigners yesterday and these are among their main issues. Those in the infected blood community told me of their deep concern about the delays in the application process, but also of an arrogance of behaviour on the part of members of the IBCA. They said it appeared that the delays were deliberate and that, as has been stated, up to two victims a week are dying and there is a feeling that the Government might be saving money. I do not think that is the case, but the delays allow such theories to develop.

I ask the Minister the following questions. Why are responses to applicants’ queries taking so long? Is it that the IBCA needs more capacity, staffing or training? What are the Government doing about the difficulties that victims are having navigating the bureaucratic compensation claim system, which many of them think is vastly overcomplicated? There is, as I mentioned, a constant complaint about the attitude of some within the IBCA, who

“come across as gatekeepers rather than efficient, compassionate compensation enablers”.

Many wonder whether Treasury civil servants are seconded to the IBCA, as their treatment is so like the treatment they received from members of the Civil Service and the Government during the 40 or 50 years when they were trying to bring this to a head.

What is happening on the disparities between those with HIV, as opposed to hepatitis C? At the moment, HIV is scheduled for a vastly larger amount of compensation than hep C, yet those with hep C are dying more than those with HIV. Creating divisions among groups of people who are suffering and dying is not a great idea; I should like the Minister to convey that to the IBCA. Lastly, what is happening about the issues within the compensation scheme, such as 25% less for carers and underpayment errors due to wrong tariff calculations? I hope the Minister can answer some of those questions.

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

I thank the noble Baroness for her questions. Every time we discuss this, I am very aware of the impact that it has on members of the community who have to relive the pain and hurt of the loved ones they have lost or are still caring for.

I want to be very clear and put on record that none of the delays is about saving money. That would be the most heinous of approaches. Although I understand that that is being said by members of the community, it is simply not true. Rather, we adopted the establishment of IBCA with a test-and-learn approach. We thought that the worst thing we could do would be to promise more and not be able to deliver. We are trying to ensure that we can deliver at a level and that the people who are entitled to money are actually getting it, and that we are learning from where we get it wrong and fixing it.

On streamlining the process, I tried to use the calculator to figure out what I would or would not be entitled to if I was a member of the community. There is still some way to go in terms of IBCA’s communications, I think it is fair to say. They are getting better but there is still some way to go. I say to all noble Lords, but especially to the noble Baroness, that if there are specific complaints and people are coming to you because they trust you, but there are cases that you would like me to raise directly to find out what is going on, then please pass them to me. I have already done this on behalf of some noble Lords and I have been more than happy to do so. I am very aware of the added burden this is, both in your inboxes and in the emotional toll that it takes. Give them to me and I will raise them.

On the tariffs, the impact of hepatitis infections can range from very mild to, as the noble Baroness’s nephew experienced, horrendously severe. The expert group provided clinical advice on the distinctions between these impacts. This meant that we could set severity bands. I am really sorry, because bringing it down to bands is emotionally very difficult when we are talking about people’s horrendous experiences, but if we are to expedite the compensation then that is the practical way in which we have to do so. The bands mean that when someone’s experience of hepatitis is more severe, based on clinical markers, they receive more compensation, and if their hepatitis symptoms get more severe they can then progress and reapply for additional funding.

On the lack of an HIV tariff, very, very sadly, most people infected with HIV due to infected blood have already passed away; in most cases their deaths were as a result of their HIV infection. It was the view of the expert group that it would be disproportionately complex to break down the HIV category into different severity bands, given the ultimate severity of death.

[Lord Prentis of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare that I was a member of one of the expert groups that fed into the Infected Blood Inquiry, which looked into one of the darkest periods in the history of healthcare in our country. There was systemic failure and inertia, with blood plasma being brought in from dangerous sources, such as American prisons. Lives were destroyed. So many people are suffering. So many families are feeling pain. So many people are dead, with many deaths yet to come.

There is a moral duty on all of us to ensure that Sir Brian’s report on compensation is implemented in full. It is well over a year since it was published. I say to my noble friend the Minister that putting aside so much money is welcome, but surely there is a moral imperative to pay compensation now to those who have suffered or are suffering through no fault of their own. It is great that money has been put aside, but what is causing the delay? What is the hold-up? I am sure that, if that could be dealt with, we could then move forward to spend the money that has been set aside. The delays appear cruel and besmirch all of us, to say the least.

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

I thank my noble friend for his question and for the work that he did as part of the expert group. The Government will not be satisfied with the speed of payments until every eligible person has received the compensation that they are due as quickly as we can do it. When the previous Government and the then Opposition worked together to ensure that this could be delivered just before the general election—or just as the general election was called—we were clear that we would work together to make sure that this happened.

The money is there. We have had to create an independent vehicle to make sure that it is given away judiciously and is accessed by the people who need it—these are public funds—because, given the community that we are talking about, which for every reason in the world simply does not trust the state, having a body that is not the state was viewed as incredibly important. This means that we have had to create something from scratch, which takes longer, and we have had to make sure that the people working there have the tools and experience to give the money out. They are doing a job that most of us, when we enter public service, would celebrate. Those whom I have met cannot believe that their job is to try to fix something that was so horribly broken. The agency literally exists to give compensation to people who have experienced something horrendous. The people who work there are doing themselves out of a job, because IBCA will close as soon as people have received their compensation.

There is a long way to go but we want to do this as quickly as possible. I look forward to working with all noble Lords as we progress on this journey.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I would be very happy if my noble friend the Minister could outline when the funding for the support organisations will be provided. Many of them have worked strenuously over many years to ensure that the funding and the compensation go to the people who need them most: the victims of infected blood.

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

I thank my noble friend. The money was allocated only last week, I think; I will correct the record if I am wrong. We are working with the charities now to see which of them will be allocated the funding. That is a matter for the DHSC, but I will update my noble friend when I have more details.

[Lord Waldegrave of North Hill (Con)]

My Lords, in joining with the moving testimony of those on both sides of the House who have done so much, I will just end with one tribute. I gave evidence to Sir Brian Langstaff’s inquiry over a number of days. I have had the misfortune, or fortune, to appear before a number of inquiries in my relatively long parliamentary career. Sir Brian conducted an absolutely exemplary investigation, with all those who worked with him. Among all this horror, it is something to hold on to that we have people in our public life in this country who can do work of that quality.

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

The noble Lord rightly highlights the work of Sir Brian Langstaff. If we consider the subject matter that he has been exploring and the trust that he has managed to instil within the community, we see that his work is both extraordinary and miraculous. On the day of the report, when, across the road, he came forward to the group in the room to present the final report, there was cheering and a standing ovation from a group of people who have been so badly treated by the state. The fact they had that reaction to him—someone who, based on his CV, could easily be said to be the establishment—shows what an extraordinary thing he has managed to do. We owe him hugely for the work he has done, which is why we will act on every one of his recommendations.