Draft Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Regulations 2025

John Glen Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2025 General Committees

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I want to make a few points and to provide some context around how we got to this point, and also to ask the Paymaster General a few questions about the regulations.

As far as I can see, the regulations are identical to what I would have done had I continued in the role of Paymaster General and taken them forward. Notwithstanding the careful and forensic observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire, which I am sure the Minister will wish to respond to, it is important to put on the record that the regulations were not just cooked up by myself or the Minister, with officials, without regard to the report and expectations of Sir Robert Francis. Indeed, I commissioned an independent expert—and they were an independent expert—using the best advice available, and the regulations were designed to capture all the difficult trade-offs in calibrating a scheme with five heads of loss and for a large number of conditions, while seeking, at every opportunity, to make good on the expectations of those who have suffered so much.

For clarity, I would like the Minister to acknowledge that that work was not just left and then translated into the regulations. There was a careful period of reflection with representatives of many of the infected and affected communities last summer before the Minister accepted the vast majority of the recommendations from that consultation. Will he therefore confirm that he stands by the outcome of that consultation?

I visited IBCA in Newcastle, and I recognise the ongoing concern around the speed of delivery—the Minister will no doubt feel exactly the same as Opposition Members do. Will he say a little about how he will ensure that the activation of the affected route and the supplementary route by these regulations will not impede but accelerate the expectations around securing payments?

A number of points were made in the “Infected Blood Compensation—Getting it Right” document and in the documents from the Haemophilia Society and the Hepatitis C Trust about the calibrations, and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire mentioned them in his questions. It would be helpful if the Minister could answer those concerns, because I echo them and they need to be dealt with.

Will the Minister also put on record that the myths out there about a large number of officials from the Cabinet Office or the Treasury—God forbid—being sent up to Newcastle to deliver this scheme in a constrained way are absolutely false? Will he acknowledge that it is the will of both sides of the House to deliver it as quickly as possible within the agreed framework, at arm’s length from Ministers and officials from whichever Department? Indeed, he is now in the invidious position of setting out the regulations for an arm’s length body to deliver something that he is not running day to day. He therefore has my enormous sympathies, and I hope we will have the integrity to continue this cross-party process, because it is important that IBCA, under David Foley’s experienced and able leadership, accelerates the delivery of these payments to the affected community and makes the supplementary route clear as quickly as possible.

I will finish by saying that 40 payments and £44 million do not sound like large numbers, and we do need to see that hockey stick. I am not dismissive of the concerns around speed of delivery, but the recommendation was that this would go to an arm’s length body, and it is fair for us all to acknowledge that the Minister cannot be held responsible for operational matters. However, he can be responsible for the regulations that he has set out so well this afternoon.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Glen]

I can say this now: it is quite frustrating when, as a Minister, you are given those dates and you know that the significant likelihood and probability is that it will be faster than that, but you are not permitted to say so, because you cannot give false hope. I know the Paymaster General is seeking to move those to the left at every opportunity, but his wonderful officials will be constraining him and giving him some concerns around doing so.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The right hon. Gentleman has particular insight into the workings of the Cabinet Office. Like everyone in the room, he and I are restless for progress. We want these payments out of the door as soon as possible.

The shadow Minister raised the issue of HIV, on the one hand, and hepatitis B and C, on the other. In terms of our tariff rates for hepatitis C, the impact of a hepatitis infection can obviously range from very mild to very severe, through to liver failure and death, as a direct result of the infection. The expert group—appointed by the right hon. Member for Salisbury—provided the Government with clinical advice on the distinctions between those impacts. That meant that we could set severity bands for hepatitis based on clear clinical markers. Therefore, where someone’s experience of hepatitis—whether historical or now—has been more severe, they will get more compensation.

The expert group also recommended a single severity band for those infected with HIV. Sadly, most people infected with HIV due to infected blood have already died, and in most cases the death was as a result of that HIV infection. Those who survived will continue to be severely impacted by their infection. The view of the expert group, which the Government accepted, is that it is disproportionately complex to break down the HIV category into different severity bands. That is why there is a distinction in the bands.

The shadow Minister rightly asked about affected estates. As he indicated, the Government are following Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendation about how widely we draw the circle. Where an affected estate will have a claim is where there is a claim on a debt. What that means is that an offer was accepted while the affected person was alive. If there has been the offer and the acceptance, then the affected estate has a claim on the debt. We think that that is a reasonable place to draw the line, and it is in line with Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendation.

I am grateful for both contributions to the debate. There is huge importance to getting this right. It is about achieving fair and comprehensive compensation that is simple enough to deliver quickly without diminishing the individual harm that people have faced. That is the purpose of a tariff-based scheme: it is to get that balance right between swiftness of delivery and not diminishing individual harm. As the shadow Minister will know, if we look at an infected person, there is the injury award, the social impact award, the autonomy award, the financial loss award and the care award, and indeed the core route and the supplementary route. It is a scheme that is trying to strike that balance.

No one is suggesting that this is a straightforward task, but if we look at the recommendations of the infected blood inquiry, at the work of Sir Robert Francis, the advice of the infected blood inquiry response expert group that was led so well by Sir Jonathan Montgomery— appointed by the right hon. Member for Salisbury—they have all made a significant contribution to where we are today. No amount of compensation will make up for the pain and suffering that the victims have faced, and the Government recognise that. Now, however, we need to focus on supporting the Infected Blood Compensation Authority, so I hope we get support for the draft regulations in a few moments; they will enable IBCA to provide that compensation swiftly and compassionately.

I welcome and thank all Members who are interested in this topic. I appreciate the cross-party work on seeking justice, but I also say to all Members present—just as the right hon. Member for Salisbury did—that the door is open for them to raise individual cases and issues with me. Members should please raise them with the Cabinet Office, and I will do my best to ensure that they get a swift response. I hope all colleagues will join me in supporting the draft regulations, and I commend them to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Regulations 2025.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Glen Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I will publish a simplified version of the document explaining the infected blood compensation scheme by the end of the month. Transparency is vital. IBCA, although an independent body, is committed to being open with the community and publishes monthly figures showing progress on compensation claims.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

I welcome the Minister�s progress in this area. I visited IBCA on 30 January and was impressed by the professionalism of the team. Since then the Minister has made himself accessible so that I can give him feedback. One issue that has come up is the need for recipients of payments to sign non-disclosure agreements or terms. I am anxious that misunderstandings do not arise as a consequence of that. Can the Minister use his good offices to implore IBCA to explain why that happens? If IBCA cannot do that, perhaps he can explain to the House why such agreements might be necessary.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his work as Paymaster General. Indeed, I was pleased to facilitate his recent visit to IBCA and am grateful to him for the constructive approach that he continues to take. On the specific issue that he raises around the contracts that IBCA has entered into, I can say that I entirely agree with him about the need for transparency, and that is something that I am re-emphasising to IBCA.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pat McFadden]

As I have said a few times this morning, reform is important, particularly when the taxpayer is being asked to put in extra investment. That is true in schools as well as in the NHS, because we want to ensure that teachers can do what they want to do, which is teach children in the classroom. That is also why the best start in life is one of the targets in the Government�s plan for change, which was published in December.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

During their eight months in government, what assessment have the ministerial team made of the productivity of the civil service? What measures are they putting in place to improve it, and will the Minister report back to the House?

[Pat McFadden]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the work that he did on public sector productivity. It was probably essential given that in the eight years between 2016 and 2024 the previous Government employed an extra 131,000 civil servants, so it is quite right that we look at the productivity for the extra employment sanctioned by the last Government.

Defence and Security

John Glen Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with both those propositions, and about what we spend and how we spend it. Speaking for myself, the Government and, I am sure, the whole House, we thank our armed services for what they do on our behalf, day in, day out.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

It is without doubt that enduring peace is achieved only if we have enduring security arrangements, so I warmly welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement on defence expenditure and the commitment to it. However, I reiterate my observation, and the observation of others, on the way that that money is spent. For a generation, we have been complacent. There is significant dysfunctionality in the way that industry works with Government on the procurement and delivery of defence capabilities in this country. I urge him to keep his Defence Secretary in place for the duration of this Parliament, so that we can find some common purpose, across this House, and deliver enduring reforms that stand the test of time. Treasury after Treasury has found it impossible to get to grips with defence expenditure—we must achieve that in this Parliament.

[The Prime Minister]

The Defence Secretary has just asked me whether he could reply to that question. The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Procurement and the grip on defence spend has not been in the right place, and we have not used our businesses in the way that we could have done in the past. I gently say that the past 14 years might have been a good period to have got to grips with that, but we need to get to grips with it now. I think that will be welcomed by the whole House, because we need to do that.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Glen Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I do not think the hon. Gentleman can seriously compare the appointments we have put forward with what happened under the Conservative party. We have already set out that each and every appointment will be accompanied by a citation indicating the experience to be brought to the upper House, and the people he refers to will make an excellent contribution there.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

7. What progress he has made on payments to infected and affected people under the infected blood compensation scheme.

[Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)]

10. What recent progress he has made on establishing the infected blood compensation scheme.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Glen]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his update to the House. I note the press release that went out yesterday, and no doubt there will be another one on 5 March, the day before the next Cabinet Office questions. However, I want to be constructive in my approach; I, too, will be visiting the Infected Blood Compensation Authority in Newcastle, next Thursday.

The legal representatives of the complex web of stakeholders in the infected blood and affected communities remain concerned about the status of the arm’s length body, the appeals process and the role of victims in the oversight board. I am absolutely clear that the Infected Blood Compensation Authority has the necessary authority and will work through those issues. I urge the Minister to work with and reassure the victims’ representatives, so that the lawyers can be more constructive in supporting these people along this difficult pathway. No doubt hon. Members will come in with more questions, but does the Minister agree with me that we need to move forward in a constructive manner?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Yes, the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I look forward to the former Paymaster General’s reflections after his visit next week. I was delighted yesterday to meet the user consultants— three victims; two infected, one affected—who are certainly making their voice heard at the Infected Blood Compensation Authority. That voice of victims is hugely important, as is the constructive approach the right hon. Gentleman has indicated.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Glen Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Bridget Phillipson]

I agree with my hon. Friend that it is absolutely crucial that we take action on regional inequalities. He champions that cause very strongly on his constituents’ behalf. He will know that we have set out an ambitious plan for the future of the minimum wage, and we are taking action to make sure that all workers receive more money in their pockets to spend. He also draws our attention to the importance of children having a great start in life, which is why we as a Government are committed to making sure that more children than ever arrive at school and get the support they need, so that, by the end of reception, they are ready to move on to the next stage in their journey.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

In the City of London, one of the big remaining challenges is to ensure that the maximum number of people from the widest socioeconomic backgrounds can get into that industry. Recently, I met people from Progress Together. Vincent Keaveny, a recent Lord Mayor of the City of London, has made massive progress to understand that the data collection process does not need to be expensive. Will the Secretary of State get in touch with her ministerial colleagues and the Financial Conduct Authority to alert them to the opportunity to collect data at little expense, which would really raise the profile of the remaining challenge?

[Bridget Phillipson]

I am more than happy to do that. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his work in this area and the attention that he has drawn to it, because it is a cause that we can all get behind. There is more that employers can be asked to do, as he describes, and more that we can do as a Government. That is why it is important that all young people have access to good work experience and careers guidance, so that they understand the full range of opportunities out there in the world.

G20 and COP29 Summits

John Glen Excerpts

Thursday 21st November 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I raised it personally myself because it is such an important case, and it is very important that we continue to do so. It is raised by Government Ministers every time we engage with China. It is such an important case—this House knows the details—which is why I took the opportunity in the meeting I had earlier this week to raise it directly with the President.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

Everyone in the House welcomes high ambitions for our country, but given the complexity of delivering against the ambitious targets that the Prime Minister set out, there will be apprehensiveness about other countries going down the track at a different pace, which will have implications for our economy. May I draw his attention to the excellent comments made by his Chancellor about the financial services industry last week at the Mansion House? What assessment has he made of the prospects of another economic and financial dialogue with China, building on the one I attended in 2019 in London, as an opportunity to extend economic dialogue, which has to be positive for the UK economy?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for referencing the Chancellor’s excellent Mansion House speech last week. On matters economic, I do think there is a dialogue to be had with China. It needs to be pragmatic and serious, and it needs to sit alongside the frank discussions we need to have, as we have referenced in this House, on the issues on which we disagree. But I do think there is room for that dialogue in the national interest—in our own interests.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

John Glen Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 12th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Snell]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Madam Chair. I will keep my comments brief, because I know that that will entertain the Committee more. [Hon. Members: “More!”] I have not started yet—give me time. I very much enjoyed the Bill’s Second Reading, which is why I have come back for a second go.

I genuinely welcome the new reforming zeal of the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson), and I believe there are merits to some of the amendments that bear his name. I am glad that the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) has said that those amendments are part of our manifesto, because they are, as is this Bill. I am sure that means that he will want the Salisbury convention to be accepted in the other place when the Bill reaches it, meaning that Opposition Members in the House of Lords will make no attempt to prevent its successful passage. I am sure that at some point in today’s proceedings, an Opposition Front Bencher will be able to confirm for the record that the Bill will pass smoothly once it has passed this House.

We have just heard the importance of the primacy of this House stated eloquently by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart). This House is going to make a decision on the Bill today—to decide whether we believe there should be a role for hereditary peers in the House of Lords—and it will then be sent to the House of Lords. Given the importance of convention, history and statute, I am sure that he will be able to confirm that the House of Lords will happily pass it, without any attempts by Opposition Members to amend it. I doubt it, but I hope so.

The point of the Bill, and the reason why I believe it deserves support from all sides of the House, is that—as my hon. Friend the Minister pointed out—this is the first step in a package of House of Lords reform.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is a serious individual on the Government Benches, and I respect him very much, but does he not understand that given the delicate set of constitutional arrangements we have, it is not unreasonable to expect the Government to come forward with a plan that sets out several steps, taking us on the journey that they intend to go on, with some substance behind it? Given the number of years the Government have had since the previous changes over a quarter of a century ago, it is not unreasonable to expect a little more detail on those second, third and fourth steps, or a timetable.

[Gareth Snell]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and to a degree, I agree. That is why we set out in our manifesto the package of reforms and changes that we hope to see made to the other place during this Parliament, in order to deliver on the promises we made in the election. He is absolutely right to say that constitutional reform is a delicate thing; that is why it is important that we make these reforms with consideration and in small steps, to make sure that the unintended consequences of large-scale reform are not felt.

The Conservative party made modest reforms during previous Parliaments, such as giving Members of the House of Lords the ability to retire from it. That was a small change, but one with consequential impacts—far more Members have left the House of Lords under that provision than will be impacted by the provisions in this Bill. That was done thoughtfully, carefully, slowly and, I think, consensually.

Similarly, I think that the principle of this Bill—that hereditary peers will no longer have the right to sit in the House of Lords—has already been established in this House. None of the amendments that have been tabled today seeks to overturn that; none of them seeks to make a case for the continuation of hereditary peers. As such, the consensus that the right hon. Gentleman rightly talks about exists in this Bill. The more we seek to tack on to the Bill—taking other elements of constitutional reform and adding them to the Bill—the more we risk that consensus falling apart. We risk this House not having a settled position, creating the opportunity for potential wrecking amendments. I do not suggest that Opposition Members are tabling wrecking amendments, but they could be tabled elsewhere to completely flatline what is a very modest and sensible reform.

Cabinet Office

John Glen Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2024 Written Corrections

The following extract is from Cabinet Office questions on 24 October 2024.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

I turn to another area of national resilience. National security experts have been warning about the Chinese Communist party’s use of genomics companies to harvest DNA data globally and dominate the genomics industry supply chain. Given the increasing importance of genomics for public healthcare, and the potential dual-use application of the technology, will the Minister confirm whether her Department is conducting a risk assessment on the data privacy, national security and ethical risks posed by genomic companies linked to systemic competitors?

[Ms Oppong-Asare]

The right hon. Member is right to raise that question. We will ban China’s economic engagement, and make sure we strengthen our national security.

[Official Report, 24 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 393.]

Written correction submitted by the Parliamentary Secretary in the Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Ms Oppong-Asare):

Oral Answers to Questions

John Glen Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister, John Glen.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

I turn to another area of national resilience. National security experts have been warning about the Chinese Communist party’s use of genomics companies to harvest DNA data globally and dominate the genomics industry supply chain. Given the increasing importance of genomics for public healthcare, and the potential dual-use application of the technology, will the Minister confirm whether her Department is conducting a risk assessment on the data privacy, national security and ethical risks posed by genomic companies linked to systemic competitors?

[Ms Oppong-Asare]

The right hon. Member is right to raise that question. We will ban China’s economic engagement, and make sure we strengthen our national security.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

I warmly welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s announcement on the £100,000 interim payments to the estates of the deceased infected, thereby maintaining the momentum that was established earlier this year, and I thank him for his thorough statement to the House yesterday introducing the statutory instrument. Will he confirm that it is his intention to ramp up rapidly from the payouts to the test case cohort of 20 infected? Can he give the House as much detail as he can about when others in the infected cohort should expect to receive their payouts?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the constructive tone he has taken throughout the debates under this Government. That continues the work we did when I was the shadow Minister, when we worked together to try to deliver these payments as quickly as possible.

The whole purpose of having the test cohort is to enable a range of different cases to be considered by the Infected Blood Compensation Authority, to give us the best possible opportunity to ramp up as quickly as possible. That is why I expect the first payments to be made before the end of this year. I then expect payments to the affected to begin next year, and I will ensure that regulations are placed before this House to make sure those deadlines are reached.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

The Opposition support the new Government’s aspirations for the highest ministerial standards, and we acknowledge the significant experience that the Prime Minister’s former chief of staff can bring to her role as envoy to the nations and regions. Why then, in breach of Cabinet Office guidance, have Ministers not published a word on her terms of reference, her new salary or her special adviser severance payment, and is she correct in her understanding that she is at the top of the list of new peers?

[Ellie Reeves]

Anything in relation to the former chief of staff will be announced in due course. It is not right for me to comment on the terms and conditions of any individual.

Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

John Glen Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2024 Commons Chamber

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

I thank the Paymaster General for advance notice of the statutory instrument being laid, as he has always given. He rightly reminded the House of the injustice that victims of the infected blood scandal have been subject to—one that has spanned several decades. I hope that we are now in rapid delivery mode. My role is to ensure that the Government are doing all they can to deliver compensation as swiftly and effectively as possible for the infected and affected, following the passage of the Bill under the previous Government.

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is also my duty to work collaboratively with the Government on this matter, supporting them and scrutinising them where appropriate. To that end, I wish to set out some issues raised with me by representatives of the infected and affected communities. First, I draw the right hon. Gentleman’s attention to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s second report of the Session, which found the explanatory memorandum to be

“overly complex and technical, while lacking basic information about the policy”.

To some extent, I very much sympathise. This is a very complicated matter. I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that this critical information should be easily accessible to all. Can he assure the House that he will do everything he can to ensure that the explanatory memorandum to the second set of regulations will be much clearer in language and in outlining how the policy will work practically? He rightly referred to the detailed policy paper that he published in August, with the case studies and the reference to advice and support, but the implication of what has been said is that an improvement can be made.

On the Infected Blood Compensation Authority, I echo my previous comments in welcoming the Government’s pledge to deliver the first payments by the end of the year. I know that the Paymaster General and I align in recognising the paramount importance of delivering this compensation as quickly as possible. However, currently, there is no defined timetable for when applications can be made and when payments will be processed.

Furthermore, I know the Paymaster General will find it as troubling as I do that groups of victims have previously described meeting the end-of-year deadline as “nigh on impossible”. We need to solve these trust issues. Can he outline the steps the Government and the IBCA are taking to ensure that payments will be made by the end of the year—just 10 weeks away? Can he confirm what proportion of the eligible infected community will receive their payments by the end of the year?

There is a suspicion, of which I am sure the Paymaster General is aware, that achieving payouts for the previously mentioned user group of 20 individuals by the end of the year will be used to technically satisfy the obligation he undertook to get money out of the door by the end of the year. The infected community as a whole will want to know that all of them—beyond the 20—will receive their payments in their bank accounts, and what will be the interval between the end of the year and that happening. Please could the Paymaster General explain how the user group of 20 people have found the new scheme, and how quickly their lessons can be applied to the rest of the infected community? I understand that the IBCA recently confirmed its intention to invite increasingly larger groups of people to test the service before it opens to those who are eligible. Can the Paymaster General confirm when the scheme will open to larger groups? How many will be involved? Will they include all victims, including those affected from the infected estates?

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned issues around the burden of proof. I seek clarification on the proof that victims need to provide. It appears that the burden of proof once again falls to victims, which risks going against the letter and spirit of both Sir Brian Langstaff and Sir Robert Francis’s recommendations. I recognise and am sympathetic to the challenges, given Cabinet Office officials’ advice to me when I was in his position. Locating medical records could be an issue, given that the latest case date specified in the regulations is more than 30 years ago. Can the Paymaster General outline the decision-making process of the IBCA in circumstances where medical records are apparently unavailable? What steps is he taking to ensure that rightful compensation is received when proof of infected conditions is not readily available?

I would like to move on to affected persons. In his report in May, Sir Brian Langstaff made it abundantly clear that both infected and affected persons were to be given interim payments as quickly as possible. I am therefore concerned that part 3 of this instrument defines eligible infected persons but not the affected persons. Can the Minister offer some reassurance to the affected community and confirm that he has not ignored Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendation for the affected community? The affected community are concerned that the Government’s delays in laying the second set of regulations for them means that many elderly parents of infected victims or bereaved partners will not live to see their rightful payouts as affected individuals.

I acknowledge the drafting and timetable challenges, but it will be 10 months from the final report this May to the end of next March without any defined regulations or timetable for making a claim as an affected person. That will distress many in the affected community. I am absolutely sure that the Paymaster General does not think it is fair for those affected people to feel like second-class citizens, but will he explain what processes will be under way between now and the end of March, and will he look to publish, even in broad outline, a timetable for affected communities’ applications and the interval before payments will be received?

I am also concerned that no impact assessment has been published for this statutory instrument. Parliamentary scrutiny from all sides needs to be balanced, and fairer legislation will ensue if we can have maximum information on impact in advance, so that the evaluation process can be better informed. I know the Paymaster General has previously said that the costs of the infected blood scheme will be recognised in next week’s Budget. Can he confirm whether the Government have calculated the impact and cost of the regulations?

I shall conclude by thanking the Paymaster General for his work in this area and his transparency with me. This legislation is very technically challenging and difficult to get right. I have enormous sympathy and respect for him. However, I urge him to ensure that critical information is as readily accessible as possible to all victims, infected and affected alike, bringing as much specificity as possible to the timelines for those different communities to this House as quickly as possible, and outlining the cost of the scheme.

For many of these victims, time is of the essence, which is why we must do all we can to deliver justice as quickly and effectively as possible. I remain committed to supporting the Government where I possible can and asking questions that are as reasonable as possible where answers still need to be provided.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I hope to be able to make an announcement about it shortly. I have told the House previously how important I think the memorialisation proposals are, and they will certainly form part of the update that I will give the House before the end of the year.

I join the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), in congratulating the students whom she has had with her and on the work that they did in researching this subject for her speech. What she said about a culture of cover-up was important. What Sir Brian Langstaff said was not that there was some specific conspiracy between individuals, but that there was something far more pervasive, which he described as a culture of “institutional defensiveness”. People and institutions put their own reputations above the public interest, and to tackle that the Government will be pushing forward with a duty of candour. That, in my view, will be a powerful lever that the House can pull for change, but it is not just about a change in the law. It is about leadership as well, and it is about culture and changing the culture, in order to bring about a system in which the public interest is put first and we collectively do all that we can to minimise the chances of a repetition of what has happened in relation to not just this scandal but others, such as Horizon and Hillsborough.

The hon. Lady and a number of other Members asked about the severity bands. The scheme is tariff-based, and the tariffs were developed through the work of the infected blood inquiry response expert group, whose members were appointed by the right hon. Member for Salisbury when he was Paymaster General. They were clinical and legal advisers, assisted by social care specialists. The Government then chose to improve the scheme after the engagement exercise that Sir Robert Francis carried out, as I mentioned to the right hon. Gentleman during the general election campaign.

The comparison between HIV and hepatitis C has been raised. For people infected with hepatitis C there are four severity bands, and they are designed in line with clinical diagnostic markers. Recognised health conditions, for example liver damage, have, therefore, been informed by the work of the expert group. It is correct that in comparison there is a single severity band for people infected with HIV. That is because HIV is a lifelong infection. The vast majority of people infected with HIV through blood products have experienced progression to advanced symptomatic HIV disease, including AIDS conditions, and have died as a consequence of the infection. Those who survived continue to be severely impacted by the infection, and the view of the expert group was that it was disproportionately complex and onerous to disaggregate that category into different experiences, and that contrasted with hepatitis, where there is a wide range of experiences, including both acute infections with long-term limited impacts and very serious and ultimately fatal infections. That is the approach, based on the expert group, that the Government have adopted.

Similarly, on siblings, which several Members have raised, the scheme is based on recommendations from Sir Robert Francis’s framework compensation study. It does not exclude siblings over 18 who may have been carers and provided care.

[John Glen]

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that when he assessed the June engagement exercise that Sir Robert Francis supervised, he did not resist any of the recommendations from the expert group that interrogated the scheme—apart from four or five where he thought the Government could do better—and there was no attempt either by the previous Government or his to resist the advice of the expert group who are engaged with the communities?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. He took exactly the same approach that I did to the expert group. I accepted, as I told the House, 69 of the 74 recommendations, including, crucially, the continuation of the support schemes. On the other five, there were reasons of simplicity or speed—of getting compensation to people more quickly. I hope the House will take the assurance that there is that imperative to act as quickly as possible.