Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Regulations 2025

Baroness Finn Excerpts

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, sadly, this regret amendment was needed, and I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, on tabling it and on having this debate.

It is regrettable that we have to have the debate at this time of night, because the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, who has been intimately involved in every way with this, has been unable to participate. I met her earlier today to go through things that we might cover in the debate tonight. I knew her first husband and I saw, although second hand, how much he went through, and how much she went through when he died, and how much she has gone through in bereavement.

The new regulations are indeed very difficult and complex. I am most grateful to the Minister for meeting us earlier in the week and sending through the document which tries to explain the regulations in a tabulated form. Having tried to read the regulations, I find them incredibly difficult to work through.

I echo the concern that has already been stated about the difference between the way that those with hepatitis and those with HIV are being treated, because hepatitis C is absolutely devastating. The delays, unfortunately, mean that the confidence that was beginning to be built up after the inquiry is being rapidly eroded.

There was an expectation that the Infected Blood Compensation Authority would be completely independent and judge-led, and would report to government, and yet there is a sense that it is somehow being controlled by the Cabinet Office. That means that those who are both infected victims and affected victims are feeling increasingly let down again.

I am grateful to the Minister for having telephoned us immediately that the error that was made became evident. Errors happen, and it is terribly important that people own up immediately and do what they can to correct them, but it does not mean the delays are acceptable at all.

There was an expectation that there would be two independent panels, one legal and one medical. The expert groups seems to have been appointed rapidly before the iterative process involving those victims had happened at all. There is a real need for transparency over the tariffs, how they have been weighted and how they have been designed.

I would like confirmation on the record from the Minister tonight that everyone subject to unethical research will not be required to produce any further evidence—the places are listed in the report. I seek assurance that no benefits—not PIP nor any other benefit—will be affected adversely by any compensation. There is a real need to rebuild trust as rapidly as possible. Any further delays will carry on eroding that trust.

I am particularly concerned about those who have been severely mentally traumatised by caring for a relative. The regulations refer, under the heading “Severe psychiatric conditions”, to a person who has received

“consultant-led secondary mental health treatment for a period of at least 6 months, or … assessment or treatment as an inpatient”.

I really worry that that might be very difficult for some people if they had been cared for by an extremely good general practitioner in the community who has had enhanced training. I worry that, somehow, because they have been managed in the community and have not pushed for admission—or their family has not—they will inadvertently be excluded from compensation, without going back to those records to see the level of competence of the doctor who was looking after them at the time. I am sure that there will be other aspects in these regulations that one could find, but that was one that leapt out at me.

There is a whole section on the offsetting of awards, which I really could not understand—I tried to read it three times.

We must be grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which has looked at the report and drawn it to the attention of the House. Although the committee has commented that a wide range of evidence will be acceptable, there is a real difficulty when unremunerated care has been provided by a family member or friend to an infected person. How can they prove what they were doing and how much care they were providing? The other difficulty is that there will be some people who die during the process of compensation being awarded. Clarity over how that will be handled will be very important.

My last question for the Minister is: how will IBCA decide which individuals to invite to claim first from their particular group? How will that be rolled out and, again, how will those processes be transparent? Those who have not been called are left hanging in limbo.

I am grateful to the Minister for the effort she has put in to communicate with us over this. This is such a terrible situation that has been ongoing. The only way to manage it now is to try to speed up processes, with transparency and involving those who have been affected so they can really understand what is happening. We should not do it behind closed doors.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, there are moments in history when the machinery of the state fails its people so gravely that it leaves scars on the national conscience. The infected blood scandal is one such moment: a tragedy measured not only in lives lost but in decades of suffering, neglect and injustice.

In 2017, my noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead recognised this failure and announced a full statutory inquiry. I pay particular tribute to the tireless work of the noble Baronesses, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, Lady Featherstone, Lady Brinton and Lady Finlay.

It was a watershed moment and an acknowledgement, at last, that the victims of this scandal had been failed by the very institutions meant to protect them, and from that moment there was consensus across all parties that justice must be done and that compensation must be fair, comprehensive and delivered without delay.

That is why, when the Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, came to office, she made clear that the Government would get on with it. As she wrote, while shadow Chancellor, in her letter to Jeremy Hunt in December 2023:

“For the victims, time matters. It is estimated that every four days someone affected by infected blood dies”.


She also noted:

“This is not a party political issue. All of us have a responsibility to act now to address this historic wrong. That includes working together on a cross-party basis”.


That spirit of cross-party consensus was evident in the final months of the last Government. John Glen worked closely with Nick Thomas-Symonds, as did my noble friend Lord Howe with the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, to ensure agreement on the key elements of the compensation framework. It was a moment of unity, a recognition that justice must be shaped not by political considerations but by the needs of those who have suffered.

I greatly appreciate the engagement of the Minister, to which the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Finlay, have referred. We all share that commitment: the commitment that those affected must finally receive the justice, recognition and compensation they deserve.

The final report of the Infected Blood Inquiry, so ably chaired by Sir Brian Langstaff, was eventually published on 20 May 2024, and the Government committed to compensate victims in line with the report’s recommendations. The Infected Blood Compensation Authority, IBCA, led by Sir Robert Francis, was set up as an arm’s-length body to administer the compensation scheme. Clear understandings were reached at that time between both Government and Opposition Benches, both in this House and in the other place, that Sir Brian’s recommendations would be implemented in full.

There is much to welcome in the Government’s commitment to £11.8 billion in funding, and in its acceptance that compensation must be delivered without further delay. However, it is with considerable regret that the Government have placed these draft regulations before the House. Victims’ groups and campaigners, including the Haemophilia Society, the Hepatitis C Trust and many others, have raised concerns that key elements of Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendations have not been fully implemented. As the regret amendment from by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, sets out, the object and effect of these regulations appear to be to alter substantially the scope of victims’ eligibility for compensation, the evidential burdens they are expected to satisfy to avail themselves of compensation, and the quantum of compensation to be awarded to some of those victims who are within scope.

We must therefore ask whether these regulations are delivering the fair and comprehensive scheme that the inquiry envisioned. Do they uphold the proposals set out in the infected blood inquiry report and the Government’s response or do they instead introduce exclusions that lead to inconsistent treatment of victims, downgrade previously agreed awards, disregard expert advisory recommendations by imposing new evidence requirements for certain support scheme payments and discriminate against carers and those receiving care through the proposed care awards framework?