Infected Blood Compensation Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd July 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Brinton]

At end insert “but that this House regrets that the draft Regulations do not address the concerns expressed by many victims about the changes made from the original proposals in Sir Brian Langstaff’s Inquiry Report and Additional Report on Compensation; further regrets the slow progress they make in addressing the cases of affected victims, while welcoming the progress in compensation for the living infected victims; expresses concerns about the arrangements for estates of deceased victims; and notes the difficulties in implementation they will pose for the Infected Blood Compensation Authority, which may lead to further delays in providing compensation.”

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

I thank the Minister for her introduction to the SI and for the recent meeting. I will ask her many questions. If she cannot answer them all, I will look forward to hearing from her in due course. I have tabled this amendment because of very serious disquiet from infected and affected victims about changes to the scheme, including some in this SI, and real worries about the new processes. I thank the individuals and infected blood organisations for contacting me and echo the points made by the Minister about the seriousness of what has happened to them and their lives and the loved ones they have lost.

Unfortunately, the changes have destroyed what remained of the trust of many of the victims and have had a deeply damaging consequence on people already victimised for decades by our NHS and Governments past. There was real hope after Sir Brian Langstaff’s full inquiry report in May 2024 and his additional report last July stating that government and IBCA needed to review their processes to get them right and follow his recommendations.

IBCA says that scheme managers attend a three-week training course. Astonishingly, there are no assessors or reviewers who have clinical experience in this specific area. Victims tell me that assessors just do not understand what had happened medically to victims, causing immense distress. Both the Haemophilia Society and the Hepatitis C Trust say that the arbitrary and indefensible inequities resulting from this lack of expertise must be addressed. For example, the consequences of using interferon as an early treatment for hepatitis C are similar to having severe chemotherapy, which has caused, on top of the infection, very long-term life-changing damage to victims. The new level 2B uplift of two years’ financial loss award just does not recognise the lasting medical legacy from interferon treatment.

Will the Government agree that those treated with interferon should receive a permanent uplift to their financial loss and care awards? Sir Brian Langstaff said clearly in his inquiry report that assessors must not ask for inappropriate evidence. IBCA assessors keep asking clinicians in haemophilia centres for the exact date of infection, but the inquiry report set out in detail how many health records were destroyed many years ago. Worse, these IBCA requests then result in long pauses to the processing of claims as well as frustration from clinicians and, frankly, despair from victims.

This burden of exact proof should be relaxed, as Sir Brian said. It is clear, over the decades of illness and treatment, roughly when people were infected. Arguments about an exact date in the decade of infection do not change the subsequent decades of ill health, loss of employment, infection of family and consequences for affected victims. Will the Government stop this practice, take Sir Brian’s common-sense approach to the burden of proof and relax exact evidence requirements for infected and affected families once it is clear roughly when people were infected? Will the Government address this and other operational problems as a priority?

Concerns continue about the unethical research awards. I am glad that the Minister mentioned this. It is not clear exactly how these awards were calculated. Please can this be explained clearly and the level reviewed, reflecting the seriousness of the treatment? To be absolutely clear, this was the NHS and the state using children as guinea pigs without their or their family’s knowledge or understanding of the risks. It is still truly shocking and not just a minor dereliction of duty.

The IBCA technical experts group’s discussions about how to handle suicide or attempted suicide are appalling. It beggars belief for officials to suggest that people might wish to commit suicide in order to secure some further compensation for their family. It demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what the families have been through, long before the scheme was created more recently. Their view—that is, the technical experts’ view—contradicts the Government’s own view that the infected blood scandal represents a system failure with

“a profound and lasting impact on the lives of thousands”.

No wonder families are distressed.

Compensation for carers is also causing real concern. Many affected people provided unpaid care for family members, including children, suffering financial disadvantage and missing work opportunities. The current scheme does not recognise this financial and personal loss, so will the Government review this injustice?

The Government say that the care award for deceased estates recognises care received by the infected person, but this award is automatically passed on only through the law of succession. Therefore, family members who may have provided full-time care for decades, but who are not in that direct line of succession—for example, a parent or a previous wife—are excluded from the estate. That is a denial of everything that family carer did and lost. How is this fair? Also, the financial loss payments for eligible dependants of the deceased infected people do not address the substantial difference in overall compensation between an infected person who survives to claim, and one who dies just before compensation is paid. The financial loss was the same; the difference is catastrophic.

Can the Minister say why the infected injury award increases according to the severity of the infection, but the tariff ends before the most serious outcome of all, the death of the infected person, and why there is no recognition of this ultimate harm? The Treasury uses its compensation “death discount” if there was any physical separation of the couple before death. One caregiving widow left the marital home because she feared her husband’s behaviour—a side-effect of his infection—with their children. The Treasury’s actions seem unforgivably hard.

These are just a few of the concerns of the infected blood community, and I hope the Government will review these issues urgently. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Davies of Devonport, for her very moving contribution about her mother’s own experience, reminding us of the consequences of stigma, hidden infections and diseases such as hepatitis not being identified, which meant that she could not be treated. I understand what it took for the noble Baroness to give that speech, but it was very powerful. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, cannot be here this afternoon, and I pay tribute to her many decades of campaigning for justice for victims of contaminated blood. My noble friend Lady Featherstone’s family’s experience was sobering for us all and a reminder of the real impact of this. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patten, for his informed contribution, which stressed the urgency of resolving the many outstanding issues, and I am grateful to the Minister for responding to that.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Bennett, both spoke movingly about the bigger picture; we must not lose sight of that. The noble Lord, Lord Doyle, reminded us of the progress that has been made. I apologise that my speech did not talk much about progress—there has been some. My concern is what is still outstanding. The noble Lord, Lord Pack, made a very important point about inflation, which I hope the Minister can look at.

I thank the Minister for her measured and caring approach, as ever. This is something on which we all want to work together, but today’s debate has demonstrated that there remain urgent issues. I end by thanking all the victims and their families. I hope they are reassured by the cross-party support for them and their concerns. I hope the Minister will be able to improve payment times and remedy some of the many injustices in the scheme at the moment. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment to the Motion.

Amendment to the Motion withdrawn.