Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

Rachel Gilmour Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

We have got to boil this down very, very simply. This has been described as the biggest tragedy the NHS has ever seen. As a result, lots of people have sadly passed on, and people are still dying on a frequent basis at a time when there are still issues in paying their compensation. People are dying as a result of contaminated blood as we sit here—they are dying on a regular basis.

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General, who I think has done a marvellous job. But I have made the point time and again, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford)—I think I have spoken in 10 debates in the Commons on this—about the issues with this scheme. The Minister has afforded as many meetings as have been required—he is totally dedicated to the scheme—but the reality is that it is failing the people who are still awaiting compensation. That is the reality, despite everybody’s best efforts and despite the fact that IBCA is doing a really good job, as the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) said. I have been to IBCA and had a look at how it operates. Regardless of all the Sirs, the chairman and the chief executive, it is the staff who are so dedicated and compassionate. As it is in my area, I am not too surprised that that is the case.

I pay tribute to the victims, the families, the friends, the supporters and the campaigners because without their persistence and commitment I am not sure where we would be. I am saddened that the latest iteration of the Government’s infected blood compensation scheme still falls short of what the victims and their families have been expecting. We have to question why might that be—why is this the case?

The Government have had the chairman of the inquiry into this scandal, Sir Brian Langstaff, intervene to provide guidance in November 2024 and they have had months of further consultations, but still the victims and their families feel that they and their representatives have not been listened to properly. They still find that they face unacceptable provisions in the scheme, as has been explained by a number of hon. Members already, regarding matters such as adequate compensation for all classes of relatives of deceased victims, for the suffering stemming from treatments and for the periods of financial losses experienced. There are still huge difficulties with this scheme. They are feeling like they might be let down by this Government. I share their frustrations, as hon. Members can hear from the tone of my contribution today. Again I thank the Paymaster General for the fact that the Labour Government allocated £11 billion to compensate the victims, but the reality is that that compensation needs to get to those who justly deserve it.

In November 2024, I said in this House:

“The infected and contaminated blood scandal is just one of far too many injustices in the UK in recent decades, in which powerful people have treated institutional reputations, career prospects and, in a number of cases, profits as being more important than working-class lives. Hillsborough, Orgreave, the postal service Horizon scandal and Grenfell all share this shameful characteristic: each one sent out a message that ordinary working-class lives do not matter. The Minister can take this opportunity to show that this Labour Government think that the lives of ordinary people matter by ensuring that the victims of contaminated blood products receive just and meaningful compensation without any further unconscionable delay.”—[Official Report, 19 November 2024; Vol. 757, c. 208.]

Many of the points have already been raised, but I am compelled to raise a number of the outstanding issues. The excellent work and the determination of the Paymaster General means that we are in the position that we are in today, with lots of progress made, and I thank him for his engagement with the infected blood community. There are a few points that I would like to raise. I want to talk about the changes many believe are still needed to the compensation scheme, about the pace of compensation and about the impact the compensation scheme is having.

Fundamental injustices clearly remain in the compensation scheme that I hope can still be addressed. Interferon treatment is still not properly recognised under the latest proposals. For example, people treated with interferon are excluded from the additional injury award if they later developed more severe conditions, like cirrhosis. That is supposed to reflect the fact that they are already compensated for a higher level of injury, but the harm caused by interferon treatment is distinct and additional to the harm caused by infection of any severity. It should be acknowledged in its own right. Will the Paymaster General look again at extending the additional injury award to all those who underwent interferon treatment, regardless of other conditions?

On estate claims, we are going to see families ending up with very different amounts of compensation depending on when their loved one died. In practice, that means that those who died earlier can end up worse off, which is ludicrous and perverse. It cannot be right that families receive less just because their loved one died before the scheme was up and running.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

I am going to try to make my intervention without crying. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his impassioned speech. I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee, and this subject came before us a couple of weeks ago when we examined the impact of the infected blood scandal as part of a much wider report on Government compensation schemes. These cases are always marked by a profound injustice, but nowhere is that clearer than in relation to the infected blood scandal. Each week people die before receiving the compensation they are promised, and I know that the hon. Gentleman will agree that that is a moral stain upon our country.

[Ian Lavery]

I am sure that hon. Members from across the House would agree with the hon. Lady’s sentiments.

On the estate claims, what has just been explained cannot be right, as the right hon. Member—sorry, I am promoting the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] Sorry! The right hon. Member for New Forest East set that out. Will the Minister be able to announce a change of approach for the families who have already suffered so much, so that they are not penalised because of the date when their relative died?

Carer’s contributions still are not properly recognised in the way they should be. Many family members provided unpaid care for many years, putting their lives and careers on hold, as has already been mentioned. This is especially stark for children and young people who took on caring responsibilities that went far beyond what would normally be expected, often at real cost to their education, wellbeing and future prospects. The supplementary compensation route should be amended to recognise both the financial and personal losses of carers, as well as recognising the additional impact caring duties have placed on children.

To his credit, the Paymaster General has engaged with the community, parliamentarians and advocates. I know he will listen closely today, and I hope that there may be further changes before the next regulations are introduced. I hope that the latest proposals are not the last word and that we will ultimately have a scheme that is free from the clear inequities that I have already described.

The other top priority now must be for compensation to be delivered faster. We need to focus on delivery and accountability. Too many people are still waiting, and the system is not moving fast enough. Many people are wondering how long it will take for their cases to be considered if this pace remains the same. The scheme made some initial progress, but it now feels as if it has slighted stalled.

Most of the progress IBCA has made is among the most straightforward category of claims—living infected people who are already on a support scheme. We also need to see faster progress across all remaining categories of claims, including infected people who were never previously compensated, affected people and estate claims. A lot of those cases should be relatively straightforward, for example with many estate claims where probate is already in place and interim payments have been made. There is strong argument for prioritising those so families can get closure sooner. There is also a growing concern that IBCA’s test-and-learn approach is not working and is not delivering speed or fairness. Would it not be in most people’s best interests to deal with these straightforward cases rapidly so that thousands of people get closure and can move on with their lives?

The haemophilia centres do fantastic work, but ongoing operational problems in the regulations are causing avoidable delays and placing additional burdens on them. Clinicians and haemophilia centres are under real pressure as a result. Many are being asked for historical records that no longer exist, and the administrative burden of finding evidence and responding to IBCA is falling on already-stretched NHS teams. There are cases where centre staff, whose primary focus should be on the treatment and care of people with bleeding disorders, are working every weekend to keep on top of compensation administration.

It is important to note that haemophilia care is already facing challenges. The most recent peer review found major gaps, with 93% of haemophilia centres staffed below the target standard. Compensation claim admin should be properly resourced and funded through IBCA, rather than relying on haemophilia clinicians to pick up the slack. I hope that will be accepted by the Paymaster General.

Finally, will the Paymaster General clarify a point about regulation 12, regarding the switching of payments? Sean Cavens, a great campaigner who has suffered greatly as a result of this tragedy, thought it was possible to switch his payments. He is asking that if an individual is on yearly support payments, which were previously guaranteed for life, they can switch it to take a lump sum payment.

To clarify, Sean believed there would be an appropriate lump sum payment. However, he is 45 years of age. If he commuted his support payments to a lump sum payment, it would represent only four years of support payments. When was that changed? Surely it cannot be right that if somebody wants to transfer their support payments, basically forget about the situation and move on, they are not allowed more than four years of support payments as a lump sum.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachel Gilmour Excerpts

Thursday 23rd April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

11. What steps he is taking to improve national resilience.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Dan Jarvis)]

The Government are taking decisive steps to strengthen our national resilience, as set out in the resilience action plan. Building on the findings of Exercise Pegasus, the Government published a new pandemic preparedness strategy just last month. It sets out how the UK intends to rebuild readiness and strengthen underlying capabilities for future pandemics through a whole-of-Government approach.

[Rachel Gilmour]

Not long ago, a Russian-flagged ship anchored just two miles off the Minehead coast in my constituency, directly above critical transatlantic cables. Our adversaries are becoming emboldened and operating even closer to home.

As the proud sister of a serving brigadier and a retired lieutenant colonel, who between them have served for over half a century in our armed forces, I know the calibre of those who serve. However, reports that the Ministry of Defence has lost track of some 95,000 veterans on the recall list are alarming. How can the Government credibly claim to be strengthening national resilience when they lack the basic data required to mobilise those capable of serving in a national emergency?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the point she raised and the way she raised it, and I pay tribute to the service of her family members, as I am sure all hon. Members will do. This matter is one that we take incredibly seriously. I can tell her and the House that, following sanctions already imposed on 544 vessels, the Prime Minister has now agreed that the British military will be able to board shadow fleet vessels passing through UK waters, but I will look carefully at the hon. Lady’s points and discuss them with colleagues in the Ministry of Defence.

Security Vetting

Rachel Gilmour Excerpts

Monday 20th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

We know that MI6’s finding last September that Mandelson had compromising business interests was accurate—I mentioned it myself on 15 September 2025. He failed his security vetting. We also know that the former Cabinet Secretary advised the Prime Minister to carry out security clearance for Mandelson before his appointment. It was reported in The Times yesterday that Mandelson was given STRAP—the very highest security vetting, well beyond DV—despite being failed for DV. It is likely that the Americans will have serious questions about what secrets of theirs a compromised British ambassador might have accessed. Despite all this, we also know that the PM and No. 10 were utterly determined to appoint Mandelson as ambassador to DC, come hell or high water. My question is: why?

[The Prime Minister]

I assure the hon. Lady that I have ordered a review of any national security issues arising in relation to what I found out last Tuesday. I will obviously update the House when that review is complete.

Extreme Climate and Weather Events: National Resilience

Rachel Gilmour Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jayne Kirkham]

I agree; the fire service is absolutely fundamental, particularly in Cornwall, where it did amazing work during Storm Goretti.

In its response to the UK’s third national adaptation plan, the Climate Change Committee called on the Government to urgently refresh NAP3, as it fell short of preparing the UK for the climate change that we are experiencing, and adaptation progress is too slow, has stalled or is sometimes heading in the wrong direction. We are still reliant on short-term emergency measures, which cost more in the long term.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member from across the border on securing the debate. She will know that the south-west was hit particularly hard by the recent Storm Chandra, including parts of my constituency that were left submerged. Does she agree that we must now embed a truly comprehensive climate resilience strategy across all Government Departments and agencies at the heart of decision making—one that shifts our posture as much as possible from reaction to prevention?

[Jayne Kirkham]

I agree. I was going to say that that kind of cross-departmental strategy is so important, because all Departments are impacted and can do things that could help, but that is made difficult when Departments are so siloed.

The EFRA Committee, on which I sit, has an ongoing inquiry into climate and weather resilience. Farmers are heavily affected by extreme weather events, and that impacts on our food security and prices. British farm businesses were down £800 million in 2025 because of crop failures, and three of the five worst harvests on record have occurred since 2020. However, the risks go beyond farming. According to the Environment Agency, 6.3 million homes and businesses are at risk of flooding, but over the past decade one in 13 homes were still built in high-risk flood zones.

US Department of Justice Release of Files

Rachel Gilmour Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

To be clear, the documents produced by the United States Department of Justice were not available to the Government until they were released a number of days ago. As soon as they have become available, we have instigated processes in our own authorities to make sure that we have a clear view of what information was available to the Government at the time and to comply with any investigations that may take place.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

As so many of my colleagues have rightly said, our thoughts today should be first and foremost with the victims. I hope that no political party in this Chamber would use this as an excuse to cover the backs of some of the less fragrant Members of the House of Lords. The fact that Lord Mandelson was, as ever, interested only in the ruthless pursuit of financial gain will come as a surprise to no one. No. 10 is now saying that Mandelson should lose his peerage, and I wholeheartedly concur. However, is it not staggering that Members of this House seemed more aware of Mr Mandelson’s skeletons in the wardrobe than the Prime Minister who appointed him?

[Darren Jones]

As far as I am aware, no Member of this House had access to the information recently published by the United States Department for Justice, or to the documents that were released at the time the Prime Minister sacked the ambassador to the United States. The Prime Minister has previously been very clear to the House that had he had access to that information, he would not have appointed him in the first place.

Digital ID

Rachel Gilmour Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

My assessment is that the most important issue facing this country is inequality. Will mandatory digital ID help to close inequality?

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

My Tiverton and Minehead constituency in west Somerset has the lowest social mobility in the whole country. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that mandatory digital ID will give a better quality of life to any of my constituents?

[Brian Leishman]

I have a lot of time for the hon. Lady, but she needs to exercise just a smidge of patience; I was coming on to that. Introducing digital ID means the likelihood is that millions of people, including those living in poverty, many disabled people and older people, will end up facing digital exclusion. That will add to inequality, and I therefore cannot support the policy.

Inequality is impacting people from all over the UK, and the cost of living crisis is creating deeper poverty for millions of people. The truth is that introducing digital ID is a distraction from what the Government really should be doing. We need to redistribute power, wealth and opportunity to the millions who have been victims of chronic austerity—to those most impacted by the deterioration of public services and by the social cost of political decisions and what they have meant for their communities.

I have said who will not benefit from introducing digital ID, but who will? It is obvious: it will be corporate interests, shareholders and their dividends. Realistically, it could also be a future Government with an ideological agenda of selling data to private capital.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachel Gilmour Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend raised this case with me in the Lobby last night. It is a really shocking case of two years leading to someone being in prison for over 20 years and not yet released, and with delays in the release process. The Justice Secretary will look into this case and meet her to discuss her concerns to see what more can be done. It is right that IPP sentences have been abolished, and we are committed to supporting the progression of all those who are serving such sentences.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

I have a charming elderly constituent who, after a series of major medical interventions, has been left in excruciating, uncontrolled pain after her opioids were withdrawn, pushing her to suicidal ideations. Can the Prime Minister shed light on what plans His Majesty’s Government have to help people manage pain in order to live a happier and more comfortable life? Please can I have a meeting with the appropriate Minister?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising this awful case. We are putting in further protection and support, but I will take this up. It is important for her to discuss this with the relevant Minister, because the case that she has referred to sounds appalling.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Rachel Gilmour Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Thursday 4th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to all the Lords amendments, but I will go into more detail on Lords amendments 1, 2, 3 and 8. I am pleased that the Bill is making progress, and I look forward to seeing it on the statute book as soon as possible. We are one step closer to fulfilling yet another manifesto pledge.

I welcome Lords amendments 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 for the reasons already set out. They will allow Members of the other place who lose capacity to retire with the dignity that they deserve. It is clearly a sensitive and complex problem, and I congratulate the Government on finding a solution that received unanimous cross-party support in the other place. I hope it will receive the same cross-party unanimous support in this place today.

We have already discussed Lords amendments 1 and 8, which propose to stop hereditary peer by-elections and stop any vacancies being filled, although they would still allow current hereditary peers to stay in the Lords, allowing their numbers to grow smaller and smaller as they gradually begin to leave. If passed, the amendments would leave the current crop of hereditary peers in the Second Chamber for years and years—indeed, in some cases, as we have heard, for decades—but the entire purpose of the Bill is to remove them immediately, because of the principle that underpins our decision to make this change.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

I count a great many hereditary peers among my friends, and I know that they do excellent jobs. However, Britain stands, alongside Lesotho, as a complete anomaly in the 21st century by preserving legislative roles based on lineage. Serving in this House, as in any other, is a privilege of the highest order. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that our legislators should be there on the basis of merit rather than DNA?

[Mark Sewards]

I congratulate the hon. Lady for having so many friends in the other place. I could not agree with her more—it is almost as if she has read my speech and hence made her timely intervention.

UK-EU Summit

Rachel Gilmour Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

Last week, this House recognised the 80th anniversary of the allied victory in Europe, so I find it somewhat strange that today the party of Churchill is calling for a debate that seeks to drive a wedge between us and our friends and allies on the continent.

I speak on behalf of the young people, farmers, fishermen and small business owners of my constituency—[Hon. Members: “Fishermen?”] Yes, plural! They are hard-working people who have felt the consequences of our severance from Europe. The bungling of farming and fisheries policy since Brexit has led to supply chain disruptions, reduced access to export markets and financial uncertainty for our producers. Our farmers—once able to trade freely with Europe—now find themselves bogged down in paperwork, losing out to competitors who enjoy smoother trade arrangements.

Despite the turbulence of Brexit, the European Union remains our largest trading partner. To undermine this reality seems, to my mind, to be a curious act of economic self-harm. Grand promises of scaling back Brussels bureaucracy were made, but precisely the opposite has occurred, with more red tape, delays and headaches for our businesses and traders.

[Dr Mullan]

As was put to the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary), at the start of the debate, the red tape is coming from the EU, not us. Why is the ire of the Lib Dems never directed at the people responsible for introducing the trade barriers?

[Rachel Gilmour]

I simply do not accept what the hon. Member says. Big corporations may be able to adapt, shift operations—[Interruption.] Do be quiet for a minute!

Big corporations may be able to adapt, shift operations and sidestep the chaos, but for our small businesses—the backbone of our economy—this is not merely an inconvenience, but a catastrophe. Ask my constituent Becca James of Williton what she has made of the Brexit fallout, having run a superb au pair agency that folded. As an MP representing many SMEs in my constituency of Tiverton and Minehead—Minehead being on the sea, hence the fishermen—I hear daily about their struggles to keep trading and to navigate new regulations. Conservative Governments have hung them out to dry, leaving them to fend for themselves in a post-Brexit economic landscape riddled with uncertainties. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

We must swerve the temptations of dogma and pursue policies that benefit our economy, our people and our future. We must come to terms with the fact that forming a new customs arrangement would offset much of this harsh impact and would be a sign of a more grown-up politics. I and my party are looking forward eagerly to the Government’s big reset in the weeks to come. Without a comprehensive trading arrangement with the EU, it will be clear that reset just means rebrand.

Fisheries have not fared any better. Grandstanding notions of reclaiming British waters turned out to be hollow, as coastal communities have seen dwindling profits, complicated licensing, and deals that have left them materially worse off than before. If only the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) had attended more than one of the 42 meetings of the EU Parliament Committee on Fisheries, which he was paid to attend, our fishermen might be on a more even keel.

We must embrace the EU youth mobility scheme. The West Somerset area of my constituency sits at 324th out of 324 on the social mobility index, and while there is no overnight panacea to this, I believe that those from disadvantaged backgrounds having access to opportunity on the continent can only be a good thing. The youth mobility scheme would democratise travel and work abroad by removing the financial barriers that typically make it an option only for the privileged. It would empower talented young people who may have the skills but lack the financial means to access the same opportunities as their more affluent peers. Why should they be reserved for a few?

It is my firm belief that travel and broadening one’s experiences can be one of the best forms of education. Why would we deny our young people that golden ticket to live, work, study and build lifelong friendships in Europe? This is not entirely an argument about economics, for what monetary value can be placed on broadening the horizons of our young people wherever those opportunities may lie? It is a peculiar irony that young people from nations on the other side of the world—the likes of our Australian and Kiwi friends—are part of this scheme, while the UK across that small body of water known as the channel, or la manche, remains on the outside looking in.

I will end with the words of the European Union preamble: nous sommes unis dans notre diversité, notre histoire commune, nos valeurs et notre avenir partagés. I will give hon. Members a translation if they need one.

Storm Éowyn

Rachel Gilmour Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Pat McFadden]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right to outline the situation and the consequences for his constituents. I totally share his concern about the prospect of people being without power for 10 days—as I said in my opening statement, that is too long—and that is why we are trying to get as much help to Northern Ireland as quickly as possible to see whether we can reduce that time.

The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the plight of pensioners, who will be vulnerable in this situation. We are getting as much help as we can to people on the ground. The engineers are working under difficult circumstances, and I support what they are doing, but we are here to help as much as we can with his constituents. It is Northern Ireland that has had the worst of the storm, and it is Northern Ireland where the focus of our help effort is concentrated.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

We have had terrible flooding in my constituency because of Storm Éowyn. As I drove through my home village of Bampton yesterday, I saw an elderly resident—Richard Hutter—desperately trying to pull up the drain so that the water could be taken from the high street. The wall between Withycombe and Rodhuish has fallen into the stream, so there is water all over the roads. At Exebridge, where the silt has not been taken out from under the bridges for years, there is flooding again—for probably the 10th time.

Nearly a decade of underfunding at the hands of the Conservative Administration, which oversaw a 45% cut in the local government settlement, has exacerbated subsidence, erosion and poor road conditions. That has had dangerous consequences, as we have witnessed over the past few days. I ask this question more in hope than in expectation: will the Government revise the funding mechanisms for local government to ensure that villages such as those in Tiverton and Minehead are better protected from future adverse weather?

[Pat McFadden]

My sympathies go out to the hon. Lady’s constituents—flooding is devastating for those who are affected by it—and I understand what she said about the consequences. I note what she said about funding. We have a better settlement for local authorities this year than they have had in recent years, but I must say to her what I also said to Conservative Members: all appeals for more funding, to be consistent, must be matched by consistent support for the revenue measures needed to raise that money in the first place.