The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Monday 21 July.
“The Infected Blood Inquiry’s additional report was published on 9 July, and today I would like to provide the House with an initial response. I am grateful to Sir Brian Langstaff for seeking justice for victims and for the inquiry’s constructive additional report. His ambition was to ensure that fair compensation is provided without delay to every person who is eligible, and that resonates across the country.
Before considering the detail of the report, I want to share the latest delivery figures from the Infected Blood Compensation Authority. As of 15 July, IBCA has contacted 2,215 people to begin their claim, and 1,934 have started the claims process; 808 offers have been made, to a total value of over £602 million; and 587 people have accepted their offer, and over £411 million has been paid in compensation. That means that approximately 60% of infected people registered with a support scheme have been contacted to begin their claim.
I am pleased that progress is being made, but I acknowledge the calls from the community for faster payment. That is why the Government wrote to the Public Accounts Committee and the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee last month outlining the steps we are taking to remove administrative barriers to IBCA speeding up payments. I am also pleased to announce further interim payments of £210,000 to the estates of infected people who were registered to an infected blood support scheme and who have sadly passed away. That is in addition to the more than 500 interim payments that have already been paid, on which I will provide further information as soon as I am able to do so.
The Government are committed to providing fair compensation to victims of the infected blood scandal and in the autumn Budget we set aside £11.8 billion to do that. The inquiry has recognised the Government’s commitment, saying:
‘There can be no doubt that the Government has done right in ways which powerfully signal its intent’.
However, I agree with Sir Brian’s statement that
‘there is still more to be done to ensure that the detail and operation of the scheme matches up to its intent’.
Sir Brian has made a number of recommendations on ways the compensation scheme could be amended to achieve a scheme that works for everyone. We will publish an update on GOV.UK today setting out the Government’s approach to the inquiry’s further recommendations. I will deposit a copy of that update in the Libraries of both Houses. We will also provide a comprehensive response to all the recommendations in due course.
The report includes several recommendations for IBCA on speed and transparency. I reiterate that the Government still expect IBCA to contact all registered infected people to begin a claim, and to open the service for affected people, by the end of this year. The announcements I am about to make do not change that position.
On Friday, Sir Robert Francis and David Foley confirmed that they will accept the recommendations that the inquiry made to IBCA. They have committed to working with the community to develop plans for designing and implementing those recommendations. IBCA will design and introduce a process for registration. It will also update its sequencing in line with the inquiry’s recommendation, noting that that will inform the order in which it opens up to cohorts this year. IBCA will introduce a process for prioritisation, recognising that community involvement is needed in tackling any uncertainty that may be introduced.
Alongside that, I have asked for a review of IBCA’s delivery of the scheme to ensure that it progresses as quickly as possible. That will be supported by the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority and led by an independent reviewer. I expect the review to begin in August.
The inquiry has made recommendations across nine key areas to ensure that infected and affected people feel that they have overall been compensated fairly by a scheme that is designed and delivered with their input. Separate to the delivery of compensation by IBCA, the inquiry has made recommendations relating to the design and structure of the scheme. The Government will accept, and implement as soon as we can, seven of those sub-recommendations, so that IBCA can get on with paying compensation. Others will require engagement with the community before changes are made, in line with the spirit of the inquiry’s report.
When I gave evidence to the inquiry in May, I said that I would take a constructive approach and look at the issues that had been put to me. The inquiry has made eight sub-recommendations in those areas, and I am pleased to confirm to the House that I will either accept them or agree with the inquiry that the community should be consulted on next steps. I can confirm that we will remove the 1982 start date for HIV infection to ensure that anyone infected because of infected blood or infected blood products with HIV is eligible for the scheme regardless of the infection date.
We accept the inquiry’s recommendation on affected estates; in fact, I will go further than the recommendation. The inquiry recommended that if an eligible affected person has sadly died or dies between 21 May 2024 and 31 December 2029, their claim does not die with them but becomes part of the estate. I will extend that by a further two years until 31 December 2031.
The special category mechanism has been a concern for members of the community and for this House. Again, I promised the House that I would consider it, and I am pleased to say that we accept that change is needed to acknowledge the special category mechanism as part of the supplementary route severe health condition award. We will engage with the community on how best to realise those changes.
Another area that I committed to considering was the reinstatement of support payments to partners bereaved after 31 March 2025 until they have received compensation. Again, I accept that recommendation. I will ensure that those impacted will also be able to continue receiving those payments as part of their compensation package.
Unethical research is one of the most shocking aspects of this scandal. I can also confirm to the House that we will consult on revising the approach for the additional autonomy award on unethical research, including the scope and value of the award. A number of hon. Members have raised that with me.
The final area that I said I would consider was whether further supplementary routes for affected people could be introduced. The inquiry recommended that we consult to understand the feasibility of their implementation, alongside changes in the exceptional financial loss award. I agree with the inquiry that consideration should be given to those issues, and consideration rightly involves those impacted.
In addition, we are accepting further inquiry recommendations to remove the requirement for evidence of the date of diagnosis for hepatitis B or C, which we hope may allow claims for those mono-infected with hepatitis to be processed more quickly. By accepting those recommendations, we can start to implement the necessary changes as soon as possible.
There are several recommendations on areas in which changes to the scheme are needed. We intend to engage with the community on how best to achieve them. The inquiry is clear: people impacted by decisions need to be involved in them, and that is what we will seek to do before implementing the changes in the scheme. That includes acting on recommendations regarding compensation for the impacts of Interferon. We will introduce a new core route infection severity band for those who received Interferon treatment and consult on the evidence requirements and threshold for a supplementary route award for severe psychological harm. Additionally, we will work with IBCA to introduce a mechanism that individuals can use to raise concerns to aid continuous improvement of the scheme.
As I am sure honourable Members understand, to do that the Government will need to make further regulations. Our top priority is to move quickly, so to make some of the simpler changes, we will bring forward a set of regulations as soon as parliamentary time allows. Those regulations will not implement all the policy changes recommended by the inquiry. In evidence to the inquiry in May, I said that I was open to changes that do not lead to further delays. I believe that making these changes recommended by the inquiry will not delay the speed at which offers are currently being made.
A further set of regulations will be needed to implement the more substantial changes, particularly those for which we are taking time to engage the community on how those updates can be realised. I therefore expect this second, more substantial set of regulations to be brought before Parliament in 2026, but—and I really emphasise this to honourable Members—we do not expect this engagement to cause delays to the roll-out of the compensation scheme as it currently stands, which is absolutely crucial, as I said to the inquiry. We are responding swiftly and constructively to Sir Brian and putting the voices and needs of the community first.
I will also provide a further update on the Government’s response to the 2024 report. I have continued to engage with the charities named by the inquiry in recommendation 10. I recognise their concerns about the allocated funding and can confirm that the Department for Health and Social Care is re-examining funding for this year and will look at options for the future.
With regard to recommendation 2 on memorialisation, I am pleased to announce that, following engagement with the community, Clive Smith has been appointed as chair of the memorial committee. I am delighted to be able to appoint a chair with his wealth of experience, and I am confident he will be able to bring the community together to make great progress on this work.
The Government have made progress in implementing the recommendations, but progress is never a foregone conclusion. Sir Brian is clear about the importance of scrutinising progress in delivering what the Government have committed to, and I agree. I am pleased to confirm that I have asked the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee to take on the role of scrutinising implementation of the inquiry’s recommendations in the May 2024 and July 2025 reports. It is for the committee to outline how it will approach that work, but I trust that it will see fit to follow the example of the inquiry through scrutiny of the design and delivery of compensation.
In addition, today I am publishing a record of inquiry recommendations and the Government response on GOV.UK, as promised in our response to the recommendation of the Grenfell Tower inquiry. Those records will be periodically updated to show implementation progress and will include all recommendations of future inquiries.
To conclude, I quote directly from Sir Brian’s report, which he ends by stating:
‘Truly involving people infected and affected in how the state recognises their losses would start to turn the page on the past’.
He is absolutely right. Our focus as we move forward must be on working together with the community, with IBCA, and indeed with each other in this House, not only to deliver justice to all those impacted, but, essentially, to restore trust in the state among people who have been let down too many times. I commend this Statement to the House”.
My Lords, I thank the Minister for this opportunity to ask questions on the additional report of the Infected Blood Inquiry. I thank Sir Brian Langstaff for his continued work to get justice for the victims. Like him, the Official Opposition want to see fair compensation provided without delay to every person who is eligible—and the key words are “without delay”. I welcome that the Infected Blood Compensation Authority—IBCA—has accepted most of the recommendations made by the inquiry and we support the Government’s decision to instigate a review of the IBCA’s delivery of the scheme. The Government are also right to accept the seven sub-recommendations and engage with the community on those recommendations that they are not yet able to accept.
The critical factor in this issue is time. We know that many victims of the infected blood scandal have sadly died before receiving compensation. Ministers and officials must work tirelessly to ensure that victims receive the compensation that they deserve as soon as possible. In the other place, Ministers were clear that their top priority is to move quickly. Can the Minister confirm that the complexity of changes that will be made to the IBCA scheme will not stand in the way of timely payments? What assessment have the Government made of the complexity of the scheme after these changes, and the impact of that complexity on the timeliness of compensation? Under the previous Government, engagement with the infected blood community led to a broad push for timely compensation and it was thought by some that keeping the scheme simple would maximise the chances of delivering compensation more quickly. Can the Minister confirm whether this has been borne out in her own and other Ministers’ engagement with the infected blood community?
The Government have committed to bringing forward regulations following their acceptance of a number of recommendations. These are to be introduced as soon as parliamentary time allows. Can the Minister please confirm that these regulations will be laid on our return in September and taken through the House by the end of the year? We and the victims have waited long enough, and they cannot be expected to wait any longer than that.
My Lords, for the second time in a fortnight, your Lordships’ House is debating a report from a judge telling the Government, in no uncertain terms, that the compensation schemes are not working properly and are an affront to the suffering that the victims have faced. The first, of course, was the Post Office Horizon scheme a fortnight ago.
From the Liberal Democrat Benches, I echo the thanks of the Conservative Benches to Sir Brian Langstaff for continuing to speak truth to power and for holding the Government to account. Today, the Government are responding to Sir Brian’s additional report, following his urgent session, in which he took moving evidence from the infected and affected victims and organisations. His report is blunt. He also said that he reserves the right to reconvene the inquiry at a further date, to further assess whether this Government have not just taken on board but changed the delivery process to ensure that all victims are treated fairly, speedily and with humanity. I am not aware of another judge having done that recently.
Ministers seem not to understand that every challenge—having to prove things again and again during the compensation process—revictimises those who have suffered already over many years. That should not be necessary. As usual, Ministers say the right words, but, as I said in the debate on the Post Office Horizon Statement, that is like the old bank adage on a rejected cheque: words and figures do not agree. Can the Minister say when the victims and Parliament will hear the results of the consultations and the consequent decisions by the Government on Sir Brian’s recommendations that they are not accepting in full today?
Sir Wyn Williams made an important point in the new Horizon report, which I and others have said repeatedly in Parliament: when will we have a truly independent body to manage inquiries and compensation schemes? IBCA is not truly independent; it is staffed by people who have come from various government departments, many of whom were involved in the process on the other side of the table, when victims were told repeatedly that there was nothing to be done and nothing to be seen.
My Lords, I am grateful, as ever, for the contributions of the noble Baronesses, Lady Finn and Lady Brinton. Their responses were, as they have always been in previous debates in this House, measured, reasonable, productive and challenging where we need to be challenged. I truly believe that this debate and the debates that we have had thus far on this issue show your Lordships’ House at its best.
Sir Brian’s further report set out a constructive way forward for the Government and IBCA to take, with one key message coming through loud and clear: the Government must build back trust with the community by truly involving them in how we move forward. In his report, Sir Brian says that
“there may yet be a prospect that some trust can be restored, though it will require more than goodwill, more than warm words, and more than statements of intent to secure it”.
I know that those words resonate with this House; they should be the model of how the Government drive this work forward. I hope that the Statement shows that we are planning to do just that by taking the actions we can now and engaging the community on how we can best achieve other changes to make a scheme that works for all of them.
I turn to specific points and questions raised by the noble Baronesses. If I am unable to cover them all, I will obviously reflect on Hansard and respond to anything in writing over the summer. I have a series of bits of paper and messages coming through, because there is one specific point from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that I do not know the answer to; I expect it imminently.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finn, discussed memorialisation. The Minister for the Cabinet Office has appointed Clive Smith as chair of the infected blood memorial committee. The Government are confident that he will progress the memorialisation work quickly, while bringing the community together. Given his history, we are very pleased that he has accepted this role. He has set out his intention to appoint a vice-chair to represent the whole blood transfusion community, and that post will be appointed in due course.
Many noble Lords already know, but I have to declare an interest, sadly, because one of my sister’s twin boys, who was a haemophiliac, contracted hepatitis C and died aged 35, leaving a 10 month-old daughter.
I welcome the changes made consequent on Sir Brian’s report, particularly that the estate of the affected will now receive compensation even if the affected person dies. But I am concerned that the Government have not changed the date that the affected can register, because so many people had children who were affected and 40 to 50 years on, those parents are in their 80s and many of them have died already. Being able to register now would not only give peace of mind to the affected individual but would give the Government a better idea of the size of that cohort. Therefore, my question to the Minister is: what will happen if an affected person dies between now and their ability to register? Will their estate still receive the compensation, or will they never receive justice because they could not register?
The impact on the noble Baroness’s family reminds us every time we hear of it that there is a real human cost. It is very easy for all of us to consider this just to be news and outside of your Lordships’ House. This scandal was in your Lordships’ House, it was in this building, and the noble Baroness’s family paid the price for it.
The noble Baroness makes a really interesting point about the affected being able to register sooner rather than later. Obviously, IBCA has its programme in place, but I will speak to IBCA to see what schemes could be put in place.
With regard to the impact on affected estates of people passing away, there was a change also announced this week. The Government acknowledge the inquiry statement that delays in delivering payments to the affected community have left some individuals at a disadvantage. Therefore, the estate will be eligible to claim compensation where the eligible affected person passes away from 21 May 2024 to 31 March 2031. We have extended the end date so that the estate will still be able to claim—we have gone further than the recommendation of the inquiry.
My Lords, I thank the Minister for taking a personal interest in this appalling, sad history, which has gone on for so long, and for recognising that there is a need to really speed things up. The slower it is, the worse the agony. Wrong has happened and recognising that is crucial.
I am also glad to see that several of the further inquiry recommendations have been adopted. I want to ask about one part of the Statement. It says that the recommendations will “remove the requirement for evidence of the date of diagnosis for hepatitis B or C”—and thank goodness that that has gone. But it then says that this will allow “claims for those mono-infected with hepatitis” to be rapidly processed. As the Minister knows, there is another virus, hepatitis D, which can coexist with hepatitis B; it was not known about for many years, but it causes a much worse prognosis in hepatitis than if there is only hepatitis B overall. Can she clarify that “mono-infected” does not mean that anyone infected will be excluded because somewhere someone has said, “Oh, they’ve only got one virus rather than two”, and clarify that this does not have any crossover with HIV?
I thank the noble Baroness for the questions. She is absolutely right: how we speed this up is vitally important. We cannot slow it down. It has to be about speeding it up so the—I hate the term “compensation payments” because it is appalling—the payments are out of the door as quickly as possible and people can use the money to enhance their lives or however they want to spend it. With regards to the specifics, the noble Baroness and I have discussed hepatitis D. As she will be aware, this is something that is still developing in terms of our knowledge base, and that will have a long-term impact. We do not know what that is yet, but I look forward to discussing this in more detail with her in the future. As regards “mono-infected”, it is my understanding, but I will have to clarify, that people who consider themselves to be mono-infected now would qualify under this, and if subsequent illnesses are then brought forward, that should not have an impact. But I will confirm in writing to the noble Baroness and place it in the Library for all Members of your Lordships’ House, because it is too important for me to speculate about.
My Lords, I declare an interest, I suppose, as a former Secretary of State for Health and a witness before Sir Brian’s inquiry. May I associate myself with what the noble Baroness on my Front Bench said, but also with what the Minister said? I also associate myself with the names of those whom she paid tribute to. I think those in this House will probably accept that she should add her own name to that list.
It is hard to imagine anything more important than this horror and this scandal. But can the noble Baroness make it clear to her colleagues in government, if ever there is talk of resource limitation or other priorities, that she and we in this Parliament hold in our hands a vital aspect of the restoration of the allegiance to the rule of law in this country? People in this country have been let down by institutions which they fundamentally trusted. Good and great men like Sir Brian have stepped up to repair some of that damage. There will be difficulties—there always are in carrying things through—but no matters are more important to this Government and this Parliament than that, in the responses to these great inquiries, justice is seen to be done and, therefore, some restoration of our institutional trust in this country is rebuilt. I know that the Minister understands this, but does she agree with my analysis?
The noble Lord raises an incredibly important point. We live at a time when people do not want to trust our institutions and we have given people far too many reasons not to trust us. There is responsibility on every single one of us, both the Government and the Opposition, but also everyone who seeks to hold public office, to rebuild trust in every one of our institutions. I cannot imagine how it must be for the victims, especially for the families who had young children and who would immediately have trusted their doctors and their teachers, to have ended up in this place. Every touchstone of our society let them down, and it took us far too long as a country to accept what had happened to them. We have a duty to the people who were touched by this horrendous scandal to fix what was broken.
But the noble Lord is absolutely right that we also have a responsibility to wider society to demonstrate that the state is, can be and must be a force for good, that the state exists for a reason, that the establishment is not a bad word but a good word, and it can and should help communities up and down the country. So the noble Lord is absolutely right that the Government have committed to spend whatever it takes to fulfil our commitments in terms of compensation. We say many times in this building that we must learn from mistakes made, but we have to do more than learn; we have to act, and I hope that we will do so going forward.
My Lords, I do not doubt the sincerity of the Government in wanting to put right this situation as quickly as possible. In the Autumn Budget, £11.8 billion was set aside for that purpose, but as we have heard, the amounts that have so far been paid have been pitiful. Can the noble Baroness give the House any indication of how quickly the Government want to see that money go out? Unless there is real urgency, more and more people will continue to die without adequate compensation.
I would like it all out of the door today but, candidly, it will take longer than that. The noble Baroness is absolutely right: we pledged £11.8 billion in the Autumn Budget, and this week we announced another further £1 billion of costings. At the next Autumn Budget, we will confirm, after consultation with the community, how much the wider changes will cost; we assume it will be £1 billion, but that number is subject to ongoing consultation. We will expedite this as quickly as possible. With those in the infected community who are already subject to payment schemes, that is more straightforward. There is a wider challenge about the affected community, because obviously we do not know how many of them there are, and we always have to make sure that we are balancing protecting public funds while supporting those people who have been touched by this.
The only challenge from the noble Baroness on which I would slightly push back is that, in fact, £1.2 billion has already been distributed in interim payments, which is a significant amount of money, and £411 million—a much smaller sum—has been paid out so far to those people who have come forward to IBCA, as part of £602 million that has currently gone forward in offers. So, although the final settlements are a smaller figure, £1.2 billion been allocated.
My Lords, quite rightly, the focus today is on the compensation scheme, but, as briefly discussed in his initial report, Sir Brian made a number of other recommendations. I will just say that I really welcome the dashboard. It is a brilliant thing, and I congratulate the Government on doing it. People will now be able to look at that, but can the Minister also assure us—and, more importantly, reassure the campaigners and those affected and infected—that all those other recommendations will be followed up and addressed in a timely manner? That is key to rebuilding trust, which has just been mentioned, but also because there is a slight worry that those other recommendations might get left behind and a little lost along the way.
The noble Baroness makes an important point. Although it is vitally important that we focus on the victims and doing as much as we can to support them, more fundamental learnings also came through, so we are working our way through those and will continue to do so. The dashboard is incredibly important. One of the suggestions is that we should have a dashboard that covers every public inquiry; obviously, every public inquiry has different recommendations and different options, so at the moment this is the option going forward for us. It will be updated again in October; we have committed to quarterly updates, so that the people touched by this know exactly where we are and where we stand. I hope that that alone, if nothing else, will drive an ongoing commitment to deliver the rest of the recommendations.
My Lords, I had not intended to speak and shamefully, I guess, I have not been involved in any of this area—we are all busy and get involved in many things. But listening to this debate, I think it shows the House in a rather good light. Listening to the Front Benches—our own Front Bench on the Conservative side, the Liberal Democrats and other colleagues—and to my noble friend Lord Waldegrave, I just wanted to say to the Minister, whom I know well, that I think that those victims, the families of victims, the others and the campaigners should feel a crumb of comfort—perhaps more than a crumb—from listening to a Minister who clearly has taken this to heart. I suppose all of us hope that she will be able to make fast progress to continue to give comfort to those who need it.
The noble Lord is very kind, but he does know me well and he knows quite how determined I can be. I will do everything I can to make sure that my Government deliver on these recommendations. I think that may be my last question and, if it is, I wish everybody a very happy Recess and some rest.
The Government have also accepted the recommendation on a grievance mechanism. It is important that lessons are learned and we support the Government’s acceptance of this recommendation. Can the Minister confirm how Ministers will ensure that the grievance mechanism is properly staffed, and how its performance will be monitored? Finally, how will Ministers ensure that the grievance mechanism process does not lead to any delays in compensation for victims?
The additional report also contained criticisms of the IBCA, which raised concerns about its ability to maintain trust. Reports that the IBCA proposed a gagging clause during the process of agreeing the arrangements for lawyers to support individuals with the assessment of their compensation are worrying. The report also found that the numbers who have received compensation to date are profoundly unsatisfactory. We need to see urgent improvements.
I do not want to conclude my remarks without specifically raising the experience of the victims of unethical research practices, especially those who were pupils at Lord Mayor Treloar school. The additional report recommends that the IBCA should be authorised to make payments where it is satisfied that an individual was a victim of unethical research practices and that these decisions be based on the wider definition of research. The report also recommends that the Minister consider whether the compensation should be increased. We are pleased that the Government have listened and committed to consult. Can the Minister confirm when this consultation will be concluded and that the consultation will not result in any delay in compensation for victims? Questions have also been raised on the timeline of memorials for the young victims from Treloar. These are heartbreaking cases, so when can we expect work on memorials to be concluded?
It is essential that victims of the infected blood scandal receive fair compensation as soon as possible. We will continue to call for that, and press Ministers and their officials to address the criticisms and issues urgently to make progress so that we can achieve a better outcome for the victims.
However, this applies not just to this scheme or the Post Office Horizon one. As we heard earlier, it also includes Hillsborough, Windrush, the Manchester bombings, the nuclear test veterans, the medical scandals that cannot even get to first base—such as those around vaginal mesh implants and sodium valproate, which means that babies are still being born with deformities—and many others. I ask this Minister: will she and all the other Ministers managing these compensation schemes, including the so-called arm’s-length ones, get together to consider Sir Wyn’s recommendations?
I have a series of questions about the Government’s response. However, I will start by thanking the Government for the recommendations that they have already accepted: the HIV start date; the effective treatment award for those with hepatitis B or C; and, especially, the 31 March cut-off date for bereaved partners receiving support until their affected claim can be started—they are all vital. The Government have also recognised that the estates of deceased affected victims should now be able to pass on their compensation as those of infected victims can.
In the comments to Sir Brian’s report, the Paymaster-General says very clearly that the timescales are not changing. Sir Brian made it plain that it was unacceptable that the affected victims would not even start to be approached until the end of this year. Can the Minister therefore explain why this timescale is clearly not being speeded up? It makes a mockery of “working at pace”. How long will it take for IBCA to design and introduce a process for registration, as opposed to victims waiting for a call, as they might do for the lottery?
Newspapers have reported that, this time last year, IBCA consisted of just a couple of staff and computers. What is the headcount now, and what plans are there to ramp up the number of staff to speed up the processes?
The review of IPCA is expected to begin in August. When will Ministers report back to Parliament on its results? I do mean Parliament and not just the Public Accounts Committee. The Government have agreed to look again at some of the recommendations, such as the calculations of past care and financial loss—where the current process downgrades the commitment of home carers, many of whom have had to give up work for decades to look after their loved one—and the compensation scheme for victims of unethical research. The experience of the latter is among the most horrific of any scandal that this country has seen in the past 50 years.
Forgive the cynicism, but “looking again” gives no assurance that the severe wrongs done to the affected and infected victims will be remedied. Can the Minister say how long “looking again” will take?
To conclude, the Liberal Democrats are pleased that there is progress in the Statement and the report. However, Sir Brian, the many infected and affected victims, and Parliament will be watching to see whether this Government deliver—and swiftly—on their moral obligations to the victims of the infected blood scandal.
I turn to the mechanisms for concern about the scheme. In line with the inquiry’s recommendations, we seek to introduce a mechanism that individuals may use to raise concerns and to aid the continuous improvement of the scheme, working with IBCA to do so. We will respond shortly.
I will answer the questions as they were taken. It is the end of term, and I want to make sure that I get this right, so I ask the House to bear with me.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finn, said that we will continue to work tirelessly. I think that everybody across your Lordships’ House accepts that we need the Government to work at pace to deliver for members of the community. I hate the phrase “at pace”, but if it has ever been required, it is for these people at this point.
On the complexity of changes, I reassure all noble Lords that any changes will not stand in the way of timely payments. We seek to move as quickly as possible. IBCA will continue to make payments, as it does under the current scheme. No one will have to apply for additional enhancements on top of that, but IBCA will then give additional funds if they are found to be necessary. No one will have to reapply based on the schemes that we bring forward.
Both noble Baronesses asked me about timing. We will bring forward the new statutory instruments as quickly as possible. Those for phase 3 will be completed by the end of the year; I hope that they will pass through your Lordships’ House before Christmas, subject to the usual debates. Additional statutory instruments will then be brought forward next year, after appropriate consultations have been made with the community to make sure that we are getting this right for them.
I was asked for an assessment of how we have adopted this scheme that was established under the last Government. The last Government and this Government have had to consider a bespoke versus a tariff scheme. We have adopted a tariff-based scheme to make sure that people receive payments as quickly as possible. That was always going to have some associated challenges, as the victims of this horrendous scandal may not have felt that they were going to get fully recognised within each tariff. But it was the most effective way to get money and compensation as quickly as possible to those people who deserve it.
With the special category mechanism and the other additional changes we have announced this week, we are trying to make sure that the tariff scheme is as a broad as possible to provide support, but it is not a halfway house and there are initial tariffs to reflect changes.
I will have to write the noble Baronesses about the grievance mechanism, staffing and monitoring. I will come back to them.
When it comes to victims of unethical practices, everyone who has been touched by this horrendous, heartbreaking scandal will have their own stories of heartbreak and the things that touched their heart most. I think I speak for every Member of your Lordships’ House when I say that when we have talked about Treloar’s and the children and their heartbreak, you cannot help but cry knowing what has happened to them.
Victims of unethical practices have to be appropriately compensated—I say compensated, but you cannot compensate for what happened to anybody affected by this scandal. There is not enough money in the world to make up for what has happened, but we need to make sure that appropriate schemes are in place so that what has happened to them is truly recognised.
On consultation not leading to delays, we are very clear: we need to consult. The report was clear that people had
“been heard but had not been listened to”.
We need to make sure that people feel they have been heard and listened to, and therefore there is a balance here. While we move forward with the existing scheme, we need to make sure that for changes to the scheme there is genuine consultation and people feel listened to. It will not lead to delays, but we are going to make sure that the consultation is done properly.
There are two different levels of review being undertaken. The first is of IBCA, which will start in August. Without doubt, we will be discussing the findings of that review in your Lordships’ House. We have also asked the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee in the other place to analyse this to make sure that we are doing the appropriate work. That review starts in August. The Minister for the Cabinet Office is currently reflecting on the best way to initiate a true consultation exercise with members of the community. We hope to formally start that process in October, making sure we get it right so that people feel that we are moving forward appropriately.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, asked me about a statutory compensation body. I responded to this issue when we were discussing Horizon recently, but more broadly in terms of how we respond to public inquiries. We have brought forward the dashboard, and we are bringing forward additional changes so that we have a list of recommendations made by public inquiries to make sure that we are implementing them. The noble Baroness raises a really important point which is under active discussion at the moment, and I hope that at some point we will be able to discuss it in more detail.
In terms of timescales not changing, I want to reassure your Lordships’ House that this is about backstops, not targets. IBCA has started increasing the number of people in the infected community whom it is contacting. While there are deadlines, there are backstops we hope to bring forward as quickly as possible, while making sure that we get it right. The infected community is to be expedited on the terms that have been laid out. Obviously, the affected community has slightly different issues because it is a much wider group of people. We will move forward quickly.
I had hoped that I would get the noble Baroness an answer about how many people are actually at IBCA, but we do not have the headcount to hand, so I will write to her. That is what I was waiting for.
In terms of the long look ahead, we are clear that there is a huge job of work to do, and I want to do it with all Members of your Lordships’ House. I am determined that we continue to work collaboratively to progress this work and continue in the spirit that has characterised our debates on this issue. Now is not the time for this Government to be defensive. This is about all of us working together to ensure that the next steps we take work for everybody, to get us to a point where, as Sir Brian says,
“the detail of the scheme matches up to its intent”.
To be clear, these are not small changes we are proposing. The decisions we have announced are currently estimated to cost a further £1 billion of public money in further compensation payments. It will take time to achieve them, particularly with those that we wish to put to consultation in the community. However, the inquiry’s further report was clear that the actions we take next must show that we have
“not only heard, but listened”
to the community. Involving the community in the decisions that matter to them is the only way forward.
Before we move on to Back-Bench questions, I reiterate my thanks to the noble Baronesses on the Front Bench and to colleagues who are about to speak. Their tireless work has ensured that we have got to this place. While we are all sad that our friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, is unable to be with us today, she, the noble Baronesses, Lady Featherstone, Lady Finlay and Lady Brinton, my noble friend Lady Thornton and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, have been tenacious and determined. It is their collective work on behalf of the people who had no voice and no platform that has allowed us to deliver for those touched by this appalling scandal. I for one am grateful for all their efforts.