Infected Blood Compensation Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd July 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Brinton]

At end insert “but that this House regrets that the draft Regulations do not address the concerns expressed by many victims about the changes made from the original proposals in Sir Brian Langstaff’s Inquiry Report and Additional Report on Compensation; further regrets the slow progress they make in addressing the cases of affected victims, while welcoming the progress in compensation for the living infected victims; expresses concerns about the arrangements for estates of deceased victims; and notes the difficulties in implementation they will pose for the Infected Blood Compensation Authority, which may lead to further delays in providing compensation.”

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

I thank the Minister for her introduction to the SI and for the recent meeting. I will ask her many questions. If she cannot answer them all, I will look forward to hearing from her in due course. I have tabled this amendment because of very serious disquiet from infected and affected victims about changes to the scheme, including some in this SI, and real worries about the new processes. I thank the individuals and infected blood organisations for contacting me and echo the points made by the Minister about the seriousness of what has happened to them and their lives and the loved ones they have lost.

Unfortunately, the changes have destroyed what remained of the trust of many of the victims and have had a deeply damaging consequence on people already victimised for decades by our NHS and Governments past. There was real hope after Sir Brian Langstaff’s full inquiry report in May 2024 and his additional report last July stating that government and IBCA needed to review their processes to get them right and follow his recommendations.

IBCA says that scheme managers attend a three-week training course. Astonishingly, there are no assessors or reviewers who have clinical experience in this specific area. Victims tell me that assessors just do not understand what had happened medically to victims, causing immense distress. Both the Haemophilia Society and the Hepatitis C Trust say that the arbitrary and indefensible inequities resulting from this lack of expertise must be addressed. For example, the consequences of using interferon as an early treatment for hepatitis C are similar to having severe chemotherapy, which has caused, on top of the infection, very long-term life-changing damage to victims. The new level 2B uplift of two years’ financial loss award just does not recognise the lasting medical legacy from interferon treatment.

Will the Government agree that those treated with interferon should receive a permanent uplift to their financial loss and care awards? Sir Brian Langstaff said clearly in his inquiry report that assessors must not ask for inappropriate evidence. IBCA assessors keep asking clinicians in haemophilia centres for the exact date of infection, but the inquiry report set out in detail how many health records were destroyed many years ago. Worse, these IBCA requests then result in long pauses to the processing of claims as well as frustration from clinicians and, frankly, despair from victims.

This burden of exact proof should be relaxed, as Sir Brian said. It is clear, over the decades of illness and treatment, roughly when people were infected. Arguments about an exact date in the decade of infection do not change the subsequent decades of ill health, loss of employment, infection of family and consequences for affected victims. Will the Government stop this practice, take Sir Brian’s common-sense approach to the burden of proof and relax exact evidence requirements for infected and affected families once it is clear roughly when people were infected? Will the Government address this and other operational problems as a priority?

Concerns continue about the unethical research awards. I am glad that the Minister mentioned this. It is not clear exactly how these awards were calculated. Please can this be explained clearly and the level reviewed, reflecting the seriousness of the treatment? To be absolutely clear, this was the NHS and the state using children as guinea pigs without their or their family’s knowledge or understanding of the risks. It is still truly shocking and not just a minor dereliction of duty.

The IBCA technical experts group’s discussions about how to handle suicide or attempted suicide are appalling. It beggars belief for officials to suggest that people might wish to commit suicide in order to secure some further compensation for their family. It demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what the families have been through, long before the scheme was created more recently. Their view—that is, the technical experts’ view—contradicts the Government’s own view that the infected blood scandal represents a system failure with

“a profound and lasting impact on the lives of thousands”.

No wonder families are distressed.

Compensation for carers is also causing real concern. Many affected people provided unpaid care for family members, including children, suffering financial disadvantage and missing work opportunities. The current scheme does not recognise this financial and personal loss, so will the Government review this injustice?

The Government say that the care award for deceased estates recognises care received by the infected person, but this award is automatically passed on only through the law of succession. Therefore, family members who may have provided full-time care for decades, but who are not in that direct line of succession—for example, a parent or a previous wife—are excluded from the estate. That is a denial of everything that family carer did and lost. How is this fair? Also, the financial loss payments for eligible dependants of the deceased infected people do not address the substantial difference in overall compensation between an infected person who survives to claim, and one who dies just before compensation is paid. The financial loss was the same; the difference is catastrophic.

Can the Minister say why the infected injury award increases according to the severity of the infection, but the tariff ends before the most serious outcome of all, the death of the infected person, and why there is no recognition of this ultimate harm? The Treasury uses its compensation “death discount” if there was any physical separation of the couple before death. One caregiving widow left the marital home because she feared her husband’s behaviour—a side-effect of his infection—with their children. The Treasury’s actions seem unforgivably hard.

These are just a few of the concerns of the infected blood community, and I hope the Government will review these issues urgently. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Davies of Devonport, for her very moving contribution about her mother’s own experience, reminding us of the consequences of stigma, hidden infections and diseases such as hepatitis not being identified, which meant that she could not be treated. I understand what it took for the noble Baroness to give that speech, but it was very powerful. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, cannot be here this afternoon, and I pay tribute to her many decades of campaigning for justice for victims of contaminated blood. My noble friend Lady Featherstone’s family’s experience was sobering for us all and a reminder of the real impact of this. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patten, for his informed contribution, which stressed the urgency of resolving the many outstanding issues, and I am grateful to the Minister for responding to that.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Bennett, both spoke movingly about the bigger picture; we must not lose sight of that. The noble Lord, Lord Doyle, reminded us of the progress that has been made. I apologise that my speech did not talk much about progress—there has been some. My concern is what is still outstanding. The noble Lord, Lord Pack, made a very important point about inflation, which I hope the Minister can look at.

I thank the Minister for her measured and caring approach, as ever. This is something on which we all want to work together, but today’s debate has demonstrated that there remain urgent issues. I end by thanking all the victims and their families. I hope they are reassured by the cross-party support for them and their concerns. I hope the Minister will be able to improve payment times and remedy some of the many injustices in the scheme at the moment. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment to the Motion.

Amendment to the Motion withdrawn.

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.