Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

Yesterday, the infected blood inquiry published an additional report on compensation. The Government will now urgently work through its recommendations and work closely with the Infected Blood Compensation Authority to understand the delivery implications and any policy changes to the scheme. With your permission, Mr Speaker, I hope to provide a further update to the House before the summer recess. Two thousand and forty-three people have been asked to start their compensation claim and 616 offers of compensation have been made, totalling over £488 million. Last week, the Government wrote to the Public Accounts Committee and the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee outlining the steps that the Government are taking to remove administrative barriers to allow IBCA to speed up payments.

I thank the Minister for his answer and for the response to yesterday’s report. I speak today on behalf of one of my constituents, a core participant in the inquiry, who was recently invited to start their claim. They have asked specifically when those affected, such as the parents of the infected, will be invited to start their claims, given that they have been waiting for decades for justice and there are concerns that delays may mean that they do not get to see it in their lifetime.

I understand that concern. My hon. Friend is a powerful voice for her constituent, and I welcome the news that they have started their claim. I know that many across the House will be eager for their constituents, including those who are affected, to begin their claims as soon as possible. The Government expect IBCA to begin payments to those who are affected by the end of this year. As I have set out, the Government are taking steps to remove administrative barriers to allow IBCA to speed up payments. I recognise that the infected blood inquiry has also made a recommendation on the sequencing of payments, which it will be for the Infected Blood Compensation Authority to consider.

I remain concerned that Sir Brian Langstaff has never asked me, as the Minister who was responsible for the design of the scheme, to account for the process that I adopted under the advice of the civil servants that my successor, the Minister, shares. I am concerned now that there will be continued lack of clarity and certainty for those who have been waiting for too long. We appointed an expert group on the best advice of the civil servants, we ensured that there would be engagement with representatives from the 40 groups, and I met them over 18 meetings in 10 days prior to legislation coming to this House. I am gravely concerned that continued uncertainty through more report writing will not serve the best interests of this community. Does the Minister agree and what steps will he take to resolve these matters once and for all?

I pay tribute to the work of my predecessor as Paymaster General in this area. I know the practical experience with which the right hon. Gentleman speaks. When I gave evidence to the inquiry back in May, I said that I was not bringing a counsel of perfection and that I would listen to suggestions, which I would judge on the basis of not causing further undue delay to victims who have already waited for too long. That is the approach I will take as I urgently look at the recommendations. With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will hopefully update the House on that before the summer recess.

Sir Brian Langstaff was particularly critical of the engagement with the infected and affected community since the publication of his final report in May last year. In particular, he was critical of the way the expert group was set up with the explicit instruction not to engage with the community. Does my right hon. Friend accept that a lot of damage has been done since the publication of that final report, as is exposed in the report that Sir Brian Langstaff published yesterday? Will he say what he intends to do to improve relationships with the infected and the affected?

I am deeply sympathetic to the inquiry’s words on the involvement of the infected blood community. The Government are committed to providing fair compensation to victims of this scandal. The inquiry recognised this and said: “There can be no doubt that the Government has done right in ways which powerfully signal its intent.” However, I also recognise what Sir Brian said when he stated that “there is still more to be done to ensure that the detail and operation of the scheme matches up to its intent.” I will now urgently look at those recommendations with a view to action.

My constituent Graham is a victim of the infected blood scandal. His experiences and the length of time that he has had to wait for compensation have strong parallels with another constituent of mine, Steve, who was the last RAF officer to go to prison for being gay. Both constituents have suffered decades of trauma as a result. What parallels can the Minister draw when learning about those two compensation schemes, and how will we ensure that in future the administration of such schemes is smoother, swifter and a better experience for those who are impacted?

The hon. Lady speaks very movingly about her constituents, Graham and Steve, who have clearly had to wait decades—far too long—for justice. She raises a fair point about learning from compensation schemes. This is historical. For instance, we had the Windrush compensation scheme that began under the previous Government, we have Horizon ongoing, and infected blood, where the inquiry has just produced an additional report but the compensation scheme is ongoing. On infected blood, IBCA has used a test-and-learn approach, which I think is important in allowing us to move into a phase in which we can speed up payments. To the hon. Lady’s central point, it is vital, and I am conscious of this, that we look at what has worked well in previous compensation schemes and at what has worked less well, and be honest about that and learn from it.