Infected Blood Inquiry: Additional Report

19:44:00

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 claim 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 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 hon. 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 hon. 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.

19:57:00

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement and for advance sight of it. On behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, I thank Sir Brian Langstaff for his initial work on the inquiry and for all his follow-up work. This additional report, focusing on compensation, is a significant and thorough piece of work that has been done in good time. Our thanks also go to those working at the Infected Blood Compensation Authority to get the money out to those who desperately need it. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) welcomes the valuable insight that he gained from his recent visit to the team on the ground in Tyneside. Above all, we pay tribute to the victims, the families and the campaigners who have fought relentlessly and bravely on this issue. I have previously raised in the House the concerns of victims and their families about the speed and structure of the compensation scheme. They have been repeatedly frustrated by a failure to speed up payments. Although there are signs that the pace is finally starting to increase, I know that their frustrations remain, and we share them. This scandal happened over decades, under successive Governments of different parties, but we all have a responsibility to do what we can to right the wrongs of the past as quickly as possible, and the Opposition will support the Government when they are doing the right thing in doing so. I have also raised the issue of engagement and called on the Government to further solidify ongoing consultation and communication with victims and their families. It was disappointing to see that, as Sir Brian laid out in his additional report, sufficient progress has not yet been made on that. I welcome the Government’s response on that matter, but I urge them to ensure that that engagement work is carried out rapidly and urgently. Victims and their families deserve real action and, as the additional report makes clear, they have had far too many assurances but not yet enough substantial engagement. I am pleased that the Government are now taking action on some of the issues relating to atypical personal or health impacts and supplementary routes, which I raised when we discussed the infected blood compensation scheme regulations in March. I know that will bring great comfort to many of those who have been infected with the diseases mentioned. I appreciate that the Government are taking forward Sir Brian’s recommendation on a grievances mechanism, and I am certain that across this House we all hope that implementation of this recommendation and the others from the report will meet the terms of reference of Sir Brian’s inquiry and will complete the compensation and resolution process. However, the Government must ensure that this mechanism is an active one, not simply a recording device. While it is incredibly important that lessons are continuously learned from this tragedy, it is also really important that those cases that contain difficulties with regard to compensation eligibility—which we know make up a significant proportion—are addressed as a matter of urgency, and that all such cases, many of which will probably come through this new mechanism, are considered carefully, and that all information on the claim status and decisions made on it are communicated clearly and frequently to the complainant. Above all, learning those lessons must not come at the cost of delaying payments to those who simply cannot afford to wait any longer. To that end, I would appreciate the Minister’s clarity on the number of personnel whom he expects to be tasked with the grievances mechanism and the oversight structure that will be put in place over it. Will that be the advisory board being established and, if so, what specific oversight powers will the advisory board have? We support the Government in taking these measures forward, and we will do what we can as the official Opposition to help these actions be implemented, but it is incredibly important that the Government are clear to this House what measures they are putting in place to ensure that the steps announced here today are carried through and enacted efficiently and effectively. No amount of money can undo the harm that was tragically inflicted on so many, but a comprehensive and effective compensation scheme can offer a lifeline to victims and their families who have suffered far too much for far too long.

I thank the shadow Minister for his contribution and, in particular, for its tone. The cross-party way in which this has been approached has been crucial—I took that approach in opposition. I pay tribute to my predecessor as Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen), for the work he did in driving this forward. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this additional report is a very significant piece of work, and I echo his thanks to IBCA’s staff. On the speed of payments, the hon. Gentleman referred to the number of payments and of course IBCA has used the “test and learn” approach, but I want to tell the House that I have announced today a substantial number of changes to this scheme, but it has to be on the basis that that will not affect the current speed of roll-out of payments. That is why I still expect IBCA to contact all registered infected people to begin a claim before the end of the year, and indeed to open the service to affected people by the end of the year. I also agree with the hon. Gentleman about the need for an active consultation mechanism, and I entirely agree about clarity of communication. I very much hope that we can continue this cross-party spirit into the delivery phase as that is so important.

Victims, survivors and campaigners have been fighting for decades for truth and justice due to cover-ups by public servants. Last year, the Prime Minister called for a duty of candour law to prevent future cover-ups, such as the infected blood and Post Office scandals, and I could not agree more. But if we are to restore trust in the state, does the Minister agree that it is high time for a Hillsborough law to be implemented in full, as promised by the Prime Minister last September?

I entirely agree on the need for a Hillsborough law, and I say to my hon. Friend that this Government are absolutely determined to get it right and to lead that culture of change that we need across public service so that people are not putting their own reputations or the reputation of institutions above public service. We are determined to lead that change.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

I thank the Minister for his statement. We, too, pay tribute to Sir Brian Langstaff and his team for their ongoing work as they continue to investigate this appalling scandal. Liberal Democrats know that the victims of the infected blood scandal deserve compensation. They and their families have been mistreated and have been waiting for decades to see justice. We welcomed the establishment of this scheme in August 2024 and the commitment shown by Governments from both sides of the House to justice for these victims. However, Sir Brian Langstaff’s additional report has been excoriating about the glacial pace of payments and the abject failure to listen to victims. One of the report’s most scathing findings stated that victims of the scandal had “not been listened to”. As Sir Brian has reported, the experts who were responsible for the design of the compensation scheme were forbidden to talk with victims and their families. After so many years of secrecy, deceit and delays, excluding victims and their families was wholly unacceptable. This report has been welcomed by many victims, including many of the 122 haemophiliac boys who attended the Lord Mayor Treloar college in Hampshire. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) has been a powerful advocate for these victims, and I thank her for her work advocating for constituents such as Gary, who welcomed the findings of this report. That is why we are urging the Government to set out clearly and in detail the timelines for delivering compensation. We are calling on the Government to engage properly with victims and their families. Does the Minister agree that it is entirely unacceptable that victims were not involved in the original design of the scheme and that they had been consistently ignored? When can victims of the scandal expect the implementation of Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendation to introduce a formal advisory body of victims for the Infected Blood Compensation Authority?

In relation to transparency on the expert group established under my predecessor, I entirely acknowledge Sir Brian Langstaff’s criticisms and points on that. The Government are now going to have to create new sets of regulations, and clearly I will have to reconstitute an expert group, but I give the House an undertaking that transparency will be at the heart of that group, including publication of its work and its minutes, because that is essential to regain trust. The hon. Lady is also absolutely right about how essential it is to put the voice of victims at the heart of what we are doing, but I would also say to the House, in relation to today, that at the autumn Budget last year the Chancellor set aside £11.8 billion of funding to the end of the Parliament to pay compensation for victims, and the policy decisions that I am announcing today are currently estimated to cost around £1 billion in further compensation payments. The total cost depends on what is agreed following consultation with the community, but the Government have said—and we will stand by this—that we will pay what it takes to fund the scheme, and we will update the forecast costs at the autumn Budget of 2025. But victims should be in no doubt of the Government’s determination to seek justice.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Following the inquiry’s report, will the Government now speed up the current timelines of 2027 and 2029 for the payment of compensation to victims?

The 2027 and 2029 dates were backstops. My determination was for payments to be made as soon as possible. I hope that what I have said to the House about offers of payment, and indeed payments starting, to affected people this year is an indication of that speeding up.

I welcome what the Paymaster General has said about removing administrative burdens to payment and accepting the recommendations, and his commitment to working with the community and doing so in a timely way. I know that he will continue to devote his considerable energies to those things. Could he also say a word more about memorials? I am thinking particularly of the young victims from Treloar. I welcome what he said about the appointment of a chair to that committee, but is there a timeline for that; obviously there are sensitive matters to deal with, but given the passage of time does he have a timeframe in mind for its completion?

The right hon. Gentleman raises the issue of Treloar’s, which is in his constituency. He speaks very powerfully. I have also spoken in recent weeks to a former Treloar’s student. Hearing about the experiences there never fails to move people. I am pleased to have appointed Clive Smith—that has already been done—and I am asking him to progress that memorialisation work, first, quickly, because the right hon. Gentleman is right about the passage of time, and secondly, in a way that brings the whole community together. Clive has set out his intention to appoint a vice-chair to represent the whole blood transfusion community. I welcome that effort to bring the community together in what will be a very emotional memorialisation.

I thank the Minister for his statement. The infected blood scandal is the worst treatment disaster in NHS history, but as the inquiry’s chair said: “This disaster was not an accident”. Institutional reputation was put above truth and ordinary people paid the price. It is far from alone—there is Horizon, nuclear test veterans, Grenfell and Hillsborough. A Hillsborough law would end the culture of cover-up, which is why victims and families, including those from the infected blood scandal, fully support it. The Prime Minister promised that one of his first acts would be to introduce that legislation, but one year on we are still waiting. Does the Minister recognise the importance of fulfilling that pledge before Labour returns to Liverpool for the party conference in September?

I absolutely understand the importance of introducing the duty of candour to which my hon. Friend refers, as I indicated in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson). Sir Brian Langstaff talked about the “pervasive” culture—the concept of people putting their own or institutional reputation above the public interest. The Government are determined to change that and to get the duty of candour right by working with the families, which I think is absolutely crucial.

As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on HIV, AIDS and sexual health, I very much welcome the removal of the 1982 start date. Coincidentally, today is Zero HIV Stigma Day, so it is important to recognise the stigma that many people suffered as a result of contracting HIV through infected blood. I hope that one of the supplementary routes to compensation might be to those who suffered extreme stigma and discrimination, or severe psychiatric consequences from the contraction of HIV.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments about the removal of the 1982 date. I promised in my evidence to the inquiry to look at that, so I am pleased to remove it. He is absolutely right about stigma; I visited the Terrence Higgins Trust in recent weeks, and listening to the terrible stigma that people suffered is extraordinarily moving. He is right to remind us of that, and as we move forward with trying to deliver justice, we should all keep that at the forefront of our minds.

On behalf of the APPG on haemophilia and contaminated blood, I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. It is a major step forward. As he knows, the issue of engagement with the affected and infected community has been a major bone of contention since the expert group set the tariff. For over 40 years, that community have been ignored and lied to by the state, which should have been on their side. When Sir Brian Langstaff published his recent report, he said: “For decades people who suffered because of infected blood have not been listened to. Once again decisions have been made behind closed doors leading to obvious injustices.” My right hon. Friend said that he will accept most of the recommendations, but if he is going to consult, he must consult with the community. Will he guarantee that he will set up a proper mechanism that will be approved by the community, and that he will provide financial support to those organisations that are giving advice to victims who are making claims?

First, on consultation, my hon. Friend is right. I am determined that we are going to get this right. Secondly, as I indicated in my statement with regard to the organisations and recommendation 10 of Sir Brian Langstaff’s May 2024 report, DHSC is looking not only at this year again, but to the future. My work in recent weeks speaking to charities has made it clear that they want to look beyond this financial year, and I agree.

I, too, thank the Minister for his statement, in particular the fact that IBCA will design and introduce a process for registration. Sir Brian Langstaff concluded that the current approach to compensation perpetuates harm by creating different treatment for registered and unregistered victims. Can the Minister confirm whether that includes interim payments for unregistered victims, which was another recommendation in Sir Brian Langstaff’s additional report?

In relation to registration, as the hon. Gentleman will have seen, IBCA has accepted all of Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendations, including that one. With regard to the estates of those who have sadly passed away, I have just, from the Dispatch Box, extended interim payments, and I hope to be able to announce the timetable for that very soon.

The very fact that Sir Brian Langstaff reopened the scheme for the additional report bears testimony to the fact that there is something sadly wrong with the initial scheme. I am wondering whether the infected blood victims will be warmly welcoming my right hon. Friend’s statement, or whether they will be a bit apprehensive, frustrated or disappointed because the Government have said that they will accept, at this point, only seven of the nine recommendations. Only 460 victims have settled to date, but many others have sadly passed on. Can my right hon. Friend clarify what will happen to those waiting to start their claim? They are the Tuesday night lottery club—they have been waiting for months for a phone call to tell them that they will get an invitation to apply for compensation. Will new invites be put on hold while IBCA revisits the settled claims? Is it still a priority to start all living infected claims by the end of the year?

The answer is yes, absolutely. I would not have made such a substantial number of changes without assurance that it would not delay the ongoing payments. IBCA has said that there will be offers to all the living registered infected by the end of the year. That is unchanged by the changes I have made to the scheme today. The promise that we made to start the affected by the end of the year also stands. As I said a moment ago, IBCA has accepted the recommendation about registration. It has also accepted Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendation about cohort prioritisation and is looking at that. I hope that my hon. Friend, who is a powerful advocate on these matters, will see that having said at the inquiry that I would look constructively at these issues, that is precisely what I have done. On the recommendations where we are consulting, that is precisely because I want the voice of the community to be heard.

It was in 2015 that I first raised the case of my constituent, Lesley Hughes, who was infected with contaminated blood in 1970 and discovered the reason for four decades of ill health in only about 2010, so it is great that this progress has been made. Very large sums of money will be paid in compensation, so can the Minister outline what provision there will be for the recipients to receive financial advice to make sure that they are not taken advantage of by unscrupulous people—for example, people trying to tell them how to make a claim that they can make directly?

I agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman about that risk. I have been very conscious of that, which is why the Government have signed off financial support for both legal advice and financial advice. For the reason that he said, that is crucial.

The Minister has heard me talk about my constituent Brendan West, a veteran who lived unknowingly with hepatitis C for decades after being infected through a military blood transfusion. Brendan talks about how he feels lucky to be alive, but his view is that successive Governments continued to delay justice for him by design. Brendan has just received an invitation to start the process for compensation, which I welcome, but how long can he expect that process to take? He has served our country and suffered a horrific injustice in the process, and he deserves to be able to not waste a single further day in living out the next chapter of his life.

I say to my hon. Friend, who has raised her constituent’s case before, that IBCA is operationally independent, but I stand ready to give any support that is required to speed up claims, which I think is crucial. There is absolutely no deliberate delay from the Government in terms of the money being paid. Some £11.8 billion was allocated in the autumn Budget, and I have just announced a series of measures worth around £1 billion. That is the commitment of this Government to securing justice, and I will continue to do all I can to speed up payments.

As far as I can see, some of the Paymaster General’s announcements and his acceptance of some of the recommendations and sub-recommendations will cause devolved administrative bodies to have to stay open for a longer period. I believe they were initially scheduled to close on 1 February 2026, but they will now have to stay open for longer than that. I seek his reassurance that he will ensure that all the costs will be met by the Treasury and that there will be no divergence between the support given to those infected or affected anywhere across the United Kingdom, as there was previously due to the work started by the inquiry.

The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly reasonable point. I spoke on Thursday to the Health Ministers of all three of the devolved Administrations, including Minister Nesbitt in the Northern Ireland Executive. The hon. Gentleman is right that the schemes for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will stay open for a further year. That has been done to make sure that we can keep up the pace of payments at IBCA, but I give him the reassurance, which I gave to the Health Ministers, that that will be funded by the UK Government. We are not asking the devolved Administrations to bear the cost of that.

The Minister knows that I have raised the case of my affected constituent Ronan, whose mother Jane died from hepatitis C after a blood transfusion she was recommended following an ectopic pregnancy. I welcome the announcement on the affected estates, but when will the affected, particularly parents and partners, be invited to start their claims? Many have been waiting decades for justice and are concerned that they will not see it in their lifetime.

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. In the first instance, as I have said, payments to the affected will start by the end of the year; that remains the case. There has been concern about the affected estates, and I hope that my hon. Friend will have seen that I not only accepted the recommendation, but extended it by a further two years to try to give that reassurance.

I thank the Minister—and the Government, because ultimately he is doing this on their behalf—very much for his statement; no one can doubt his commitment, and we thank him very much for that. It is always good to hear that movement has been made on compensation, to make it as fast as possible. Will the Minister reconsider the rejection of the recommendation by Sir Robert Francis of an enhanced award for people with extrahepatic disorders resulting in long-term severe disability, including people currently included in the special category mechanism and its equivalents in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? Also, he referred to substantial regulations being made in 2026; can they come forward in 2025?

On the first point, as I have just said, we have acknowledged Sir Brian Langstaff’s criticisms on the special category mechanism. That is why I am taking action on that and announcing that today. In relation to the very specific condition that the hon. Gentleman talked about—I think he is referring back to Sir Robert Francis’s previous report—I am certainly happy to write to him on that particular detail. The first set of regulations that I have spoken about will be brought forward before the end of the year.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. One of my constituents, who is now in her 80s, cared for her husband, who was a victim of unethical research in Edinburgh. Her son now fears that she will die before receiving recognition or redress for what she endured. Does my right hon. Friend recognise that there is a real fear that carers of infected people will die waiting for their compensation? If so, what steps will the Government take to ensure that carers reaching the end of their lives can be prioritised for compensation?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is why I have changed the scheme in respect of affected estates. Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendation was for those who sadly pass away between May 2024 and 2029, and I have extended that by two years to 2031 for precisely the reason that she raises.

I thank the Minister for his statement, which is the right response to a very thorough report that yet again details the significant size of the scandal we are trying to undo. He mentioned the level of increased payments that these measures will lead to, and I think he mentioned a figure of £1 billion. Will additional resources be given to deliver the recommendations, in addition to extra payments?

I just give my hon. Friend the reassurance that the Government have said that they will pay what it takes to fund the scheme. We will then update the forecast costs at the autumn Budget this year.

I thank the Paymaster General for his statement. I think the hearts of all of us across the House go out to the victims of this terrible scandal and their families. As somebody who saw a family member die of AIDS, I know how incredibly difficult that must have been for many of them. Does the Minister agree that the common thread in the infected blood scandal, the Post Office scandal, Hillsborough and the pelvic mesh scandal—the one that comes across my desk the most—is that victims were not listened to? He mentioned the need to consult on the recommendations. How will he go about that consultation? Can he assure me that it will be thorough?

My hon. Friend speaks very powerfully about his own personal experience. He is entirely right about a consistent failure on behalf of the state over many decades on many scandals that have been debated in this House and on which we have listened to victims. Getting the consultation right and ensuring that we hear the voices of victims and the community is crucial to the Government.