Draft Infected Blood Compensation Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2025

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: † Dr Andrew Murrison

† Bool, Sarah (South Northamptonshire) (Con)

† Brackenridge, Mrs Sureena (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)

† Butler, Dawn (Brent East) (Lab)

† Collinge, Lizzi (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)

† Cooper, Andrew (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)

† Costigan, Deirdre (Ealing Southall) (Lab)

† Craft, Jen (Thurrock) (Lab)

† Dewhirst, Charlie (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)

† Hamilton, Paulette (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)

† Lam, Katie (Weald of Kent) (Con)

† Macdonald, Alice (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)

† Munt, Tessa (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)

† Platt, Jo (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)

Smart, Lisa (Hazel Grove) (LD)

† Sobel, Alex (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)

† Thomas-Symonds, Nick (Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office)

† Wood, Mike (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)

Naomi Cooper and Aaron Kulakiewicz, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

Sixth Delegated Legislation Committee

[Dr Andrew Murrison in the Chair]

Draft Infected Blood Compensation Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2025

I beg to move,

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

It is a pleasure to serve under you for the first time in your new elevated capacity as Chair, Dr Murrison.

Since the publication of the infected blood inquiry’s detailed report in May 2024, the Government have worked to establish a compensation scheme and to set up the Infected Blood Compensation Authority, known as IBCA, to deliver it. I can tell the Committee that since the compensation scheme opened last year, IBCA has contacted all infected people registered with a support scheme to start their claim and made offers of more than £2 billion. It has now opened the service to the first claims from living infected people who have never been compensated. I am pleased with this progress, which is a significant step in the right direction towards delivering justice to those impacted, with IBCA now moving towards opening the service for those affected and for the estates of deceased infected people.

Colleagues may be aware that I, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and the shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), among others, spoke at the World AIDS Day event hosted by the Terrence Higgins Trust in Speaker’s House on Monday. It was important that the Government marked that important day. I am proud to say that IBCA has made offers to over 90% of those infected with HIV who are registered with a support scheme, and it hopes to have made offers to the remaining eligible living HIV claimants by the end of this year.

In July, the infected blood inquiry published its additional report, which made 15 recommendations to the Government on the design of the scheme. I immediately accepted seven of those recommendations, and the regulations we are considering today will implement the five that require legislation to achieve. The remaining eight recommendations are subject to an ongoing public consultation, as per Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendation, and the Government expect to bring in further legislation next year to implement the changes we will need following that consultation.

I rise to speak in support of these regulations, as we set out when the Paymaster General made his statement at the end of October. There are, of course, many things on which we disagree, but this is not one of them. The Opposition will not be confecting differences purely for political benefit when the reality is that there are no real differences of substance between the Government’s position and that of the Opposition, or indeed the previous Government, in this regard.

We welcome the progress made by the Infected Blood Compensation Authority in processing the payments. Victims were told that compensation must be in place without delay, and that is starting to become a reality for those who were infected. Does the Minister have any updates on the likely timetable for compensation for affected people and the estates of those who sadly died before they were able to receive compensation? Has there been any change in that?

In terms of the changes these regulations make, as I said at the end of October, we support the five recommendations that the Government are accepting and legislating on today. We welcome the Minister’s clarification that lifting the HIV start date means it will not matter at which point a victim was infected by HIV, if it was the result of treatment with infected blood or blood products that took place before 1 November 1985.

I am fairly sure I know the answer to this, but can the Minister confirm that this is also the case for people who may have discovered or been informed at a much later date that they were infected, but for whom it is likely that the infection relates to blood products before the relevant date? Similarly, can the Minister confirm that no one who should be eligible will fall through the cracks because of earlier failures in record keeping? This is particularly relevant for those infected as children, whose medical records at that point might have been incomplete.

We need to make sure that they do not miss out on the compensation that they need and deserve. The Minister will be aware of the representations of those who were deliberately infected with haemophilia as a result of studies and their anger over the levels of compensation for deliberate infection. Will the Minister, alongside Sir Brian, review whether the component for deliberate infection is appropriate?

The Minister will probably anticipate what I am about to ask him. It has been a long wait for a number of families, some of whom are in my constituency, so I am pleased to see that we now have an effective and speedier compensation scheme. That will be hugely welcomed by the families. I recognise that the five recommendations the Committee is discussing represent real progress, and I am very pleased to see it.

I have had a bit of back and forth with the Minister trying to sort out a date to discuss a particular group. Could he update me on the 916 victims eligible for the special category mechanism? I am unclear about where they fall in the grand scheme. All I know is that they were, for some reason, completely excluded, and they should not have been. They should have been included in the reports and the progress that was made last August—a year ago. I would like some clarity on that, if possible, but generally I am massively supportive of what is happening here.

I thank both the shadow Minister and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for their tone and their constructive approach. They quite rightly hold me to account on the compensation scheme, but, just as it was when I was shadow to the Paymaster General, it is important that we maintain cross-party consensus on this issue; I know it is very important to the victims that this does not descend into being some sort of political football. It never has done so, to be fair, and that is extremely helpful.

On the shadow Minister’s specific questions, I expect the first payment to be made to an affected person by the end of the calendar year, which is what I have consistently said over the past 18 months. On the issue of the start date, when giving evidence before Sir Brian back in May, I promised to go back and look at it again. The Government of the day was from 1979 a Conservative one, though that does not really matter; there was an argument as to the date after which liability should fall, but I decided that such a debate was not becoming, and that we should just remove the start date altogether, which is precisely what I have done.

I also entirely agree with the shadow Minister’s point about record keeping. It is not just that these events happened a long time ago, which they did; Sir Brian found evidence of deliberate document destruction. In those circumstances, while Members will realise that IBCA is operationally independent, I have always insisted that there should be a sympathetic and facilitating approach to evidence when dealing with claimants. Rather than simply saying that particular evidence is not available, it should be constructively looking for alternative ways to find that evidence. When I visited IBCA to see the training and work of its caseworkers, both the chair and the chief executive of the organisation very much shared that approach.

The heinous medical experimentation that happened, including at times on children, is also part of the consultation, and we are currently in the 12-week consultation period. Finally, I entirely agree with the shadow Minister that there must be regular communication from both the Government, through the consultation, and IBCA. There must also be plain English in official documents—that is one my passions and I repeatedly asking for it.

Is it possible to have some vague timeframe? The Minister is saying that there is a 12-week consultation, which I absolutely understand, but so many of these people are desperately ill. Can he give me any idea of when that might come into action?

It has already started; we are in the first 12-week period. After that, the Government then have another 12 weeks to respond, at which point I will bring forward a set of regulations. I have already committed to Sir Brian Langstaff, and on the Floor of the House, to changing the special category mechanism. I am fully aware of the issue the hon. Lady has highlighted, and we will certainly move as quickly as we can to introduce the regulations. There is the 12-week consultation period that we are in, there will be 12 weeks for the Government to respond, and then there will be the time that it takes to draft and introduce regulations, but I want to do that as quickly as possible.

Finally, while we are here debating Sir Brian Langstaff’s important recommendations on compensation, he also made a range of other recommendations on trying to prevent something as awful as this from happening again. While this work is hugely important, the work on implementing the other recommendations continues.