Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, the report of the Infected Blood Inquiry described this tragedy as

“the worst treatment disaster in the history of the NHS”.

Noble Lords across the House and Members in the other place have spoken time and again of the unimaginable suffering endured by those affected. There can be no doubt that this scandal represents a profound and repeated failure by the state, medical professionals and national institutions.

We should never lose sight of the fact that what we call the scandal was, in truth, the infliction, collectively, of grievous harm upon thousands of people by the state. It is now our solemn duty to ensure that such mistakes are never repeated, and that justice is delivered swiftly, fairly and fully to all who were affected. In that spirit, I thank the Minister for her continued time and engagement across the House.

I pay tribute to the work of Sir Brian Langstaff, the chair of the Infected Blood Inquiry. Earlier this year, that inquiry warned that there has been

“a repetition of the mistakes of the past”,

and that people have been “harmed yet further” since the establishment of the compensation scheme. Sir Brian concluded that the number of people compensated to date is “profoundly unsatisfactory” and has called for faster and fairer delivery of redress. The campaign group Tainted Blood estimates that at least 100 people have died while waiting for compensation since the inquiry’s final report last year, and Sir Brian has warned:

“Delay creates an injustice all of its own”.


We welcome the measures announced to implement some of Sir Brian’s recommendations, such as the HIV eligibility start dates and bereaved partner support scheme payments. The Minister confirmed that, as of 21 October, 2,476 people have received an offer of compensation and over £1.35 billion has been paid. However, as the BBC has reported, as many as 140,000 bereaved parents, children and siblings of victims may also be able to claim compensation, and the Government have set aside £11.8 billion to pay compensation to victims.

There is evidently still a great deal of work to be done to ensure that the Infected Blood Compensation Authority—IBCA—can scale up quickly and make payments to affected people, who will clearly be far larger in number for IBCA to deal with.

In recent weeks, further concerns have emerged that delays in paying compensation risk undermining one of the core principles of the scheme: how it is, or rather is not, taxed. Under the present arrangements, compensation received by a victim can be passed to their children free from inheritance tax. But for the thousands who have died before receiving payment, those sums will now pass through their estates to bereaved relatives, many of whom are themselves elderly. If they, too, die before receiving the funds, their families could face handing back almost 40% of that compensation to the state in inheritance tax.

A statement from the Association of Lifetime Lawyers says

“it is an outrage that a technical flaw will allow the Government to claw back up to 40 per cent of the compensation that was specifically intended to provide some redress”.

The Government have said that they are committed to making the system as fair and compassionate as possible and will continue to engage with victims and their families. I therefore urge the Minister to assure the House that the Government are aware of this problem and that they are looking into possible solutions.

As was noted in the other place, £140 million has now been spent on this inquiry after six years, and that figure will be greater once the accounts for this year have been released. The Minister in the other place said that he thinks we are now in an “exponential phase” where the scale of payments being made through IBCA is increasing. However, the concern is that we are stuck in this test-and-learn phase of delivery.

The mechanism for scaling up payments has been too slow and the reliance on repeated rounds of inquiries and tranches of recommendations has prevented swift action and compensation being delivered. It is right that we proceed with care and consideration, but we must not lose sight of the pressing need to deliver this process swiftly. The Government must strike a balance between acting responsibly and acting quickly. My right honourable friend John Glen made the point that we now need to

“focus on the delivery of IBCA, rather than have more iterations of recommendations”.—[Official Report, Commons, 30/10/25; col. 520.]

He is absolutely right. I therefore ask the Minister to ensure that the scaling-up process proceeds with the urgency that this situation so clearly demands.

Before I conclude my remarks, I have some further questions for the Minister. First, can the Minister confirm the Government’s current timetable for making full compensation payments to victims and families yet to receive them and whether that timetable remains consistent with Sir Brian Langstaff’s call for faster and fairer redress?

Secondly, what steps are IBCA and the Government taking to identify those individuals who are potentially recipients of compensation under the scheme and who may also be sick or elderly and are, as such, deserving of prioritisation in the processing of their claims?

Thirdly, will the Government commit to taking, as a matter of urgency, immediate steps to ensure that all infected blood compensation payments, whether made directly to victims or through estates, are entirely exempt from inheritance tax, regardless of the circumstances or timing of payment? In that vein, can the Minister confirm whether the Treasury has undertaken any assessment of the number of families likely to be affected by this tax anomaly and of the potential sums at stake if it is not corrected?

Fourthly, what action is the Minister taking with IBCA to ensure that the pace of payments, which has seen some welcome progress, continues to accelerate and is not jeopardised by changes to rules and processes? Can she confirm that IBCA has the right capability to scale up and that the staff are receiving the right training to deliver?

Fifthly and finally, can the Minister confirm when the recommendations from the proposed changes to the infected blood compensation scheme consultation will be implemented? I am aware that the consultation period ends in January, so when can we expect the practical implementation of these recommendations to be forthcoming?

The victims and their families have already been failed profoundly by the state. It is now our duty and our responsibility to make sure that there is no further injustice. Addressing the questions we have raised around delays, taxation, and the scalability of the system is imperative. I hope that the Minister can assure us that the Government are taking immediate steps to resolve these issues.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I thank all the infected and affected victims who have been in touch with me and other noble Lords in the last few weeks, not least since the consultation started and the independent review of the workings of IBCA was published. They are living the consequences of the scandal that the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, outlined at the beginning of her contribution, and the problem is that any delays or problems in the scheme retraumatise and revictimise them. Although I am grateful that the Government have been tackling some of the issues, there are still many outstanding; and while the numbers of those registering claims and receiving offers have begun to improve since we last met, there remain real concerns about the slowness of the deceased claims.

The phrase used is “to start by December 2025”, but that is a somewhat woolly timescale; it should not just be about starting. When is it expected that the claims process will be up and running at pace—a favourite phase of the Cabinet Office? Also, understanding that one has to use, test and learn in each different part of the compensation process, can the Minister say when things will be speeded up? It may be too early to ask if there is an end date in sight, but even an end year in sight for deceased claims would be very welcome.

Victims and groups have referred IBCA and the processes to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee in the House of Commons, so will both IBCA and the Cabinet Office co-operate fully with any requests for evidence that that Committee might seek?

I want to thank the Government for increasing transparency. We have over many years in your Lordships’ House been concerned about some of the secrecy about arrangements. A lot of this goes back 50 years, to when doctors were not very clear about their own arrangements and there certainly was no paperwork. But it is good that the names of the expert group and the minutes of its meetings are now published, and I hope there will continue to be more transparency about the arrangements.

I have a specific query about the arrangements for the assessment of severe mental health continuous treatment. Apparently, the Government are insisting on six months of continuous treatment as the benchmark, to justify the supplementary routes for mental health, but the NHS offers continuous treatment for only 20-week periods because there just are not enough counsellors and psychiatrists available to go round. As a result, there are inevitably gaps in treatment in order that other people can also be treated. To the victims, this feels like a barrier that none of them can get past. I wonder if the Minister could look at that problem.

There are concerns about the processing of deceased claims. I see that there is a proposal to have the first claim started. The victims continue to be very concerned about the Treasury and HMRC’s stance on inheritance tax, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, outlined. The Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners and the Association of Lifetime Lawyers have written a letter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, copied to the Paymaster-General, to point out that in their discussions with HMRC over the additional report on compensation, which Sir Brian Langstaff published earlier this year, they remain particularly concerned about this payment. The issue is that the Government have confirmed that compensation payments should be free from income tax, capital gains tax and inheritance tax, but, unfortunately, because of the way IHT operates, this principle is not being upheld consistently.

Here, there are three points. Where the infected or affected persons are alive when compensation is paid, they get a tax credit to ensure the sums are not later taxed in their estate. But where the victims or their loved ones have sadly died before receiving compensation, the payments flow through their estates without the benefits of such a credit. Their beneficiaries can therefore face IHT charges—in some cases at 40%—on compensation specifically designed to provide redress for a heinous act by many Governments over many years.

This so-called secondary transfer problem is particularly acute where compensation first passes to a surviving spouse or civil partner and then on to children or other relatives. In such cases, significant proportions of compensation are lost to tax. Throughout the inquiry, the last Government, and indeed this Government, made it clear that past benefits would not be called back out of settlement money. Surely the same must be true for the Treasury and HMRC. It would be iniquitous for an infected person to die, their settlement passing to their widow, who dies, say, within a month, but then anything passed on to their children is severely taxed. What is different about infected blood to a general principle on IHT is that entire families are badly affected by the experience of their loved one. This is not just in medical terms; we have to remember that they were also shunned in their communities, particularly those who had AIDS, losing homes and jobs because of ill health. It would be awful to punish them through that taxation.

Will the Minister agree to a meeting with Treasury to discuss this issue? It is not a good look for Treasury to give billions with one hand and then claw back with the other. I thank the Minister for the Statement and hope she will continue to keep your Lordships’ House informed of the progress and issues in the weeks to come, including the regulations that we will look at very shortly.

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am, as ever, very grateful to the noble Baronesses for the thoughtful and productive points raised on this issue. It is very easy for Members of your Lordships’ House to get caught up in the politics of many issues, but on the issue of infected blood this has genuinely been a cross-party and cross-House approach, and I hope we will continue to adopt that theme. At the heart of everything that we are trying to do is to support the victims of one of the most heinous experiences the state has ever undertaken. We need to fix it, not only for them but also, as a Member of your Lordships’ House reminded us last time, to ensure that wider society can have faith that the state can be a force for good. I truly believe that it can.

I truly believe that, since I last updated the House in July, significant progress has been made. This demonstrates that we are committed to moving forward swiftly, and with the community at the front and centre of what we are doing. In other contexts, the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, and I have interesting discussions about the concept of test and learn. But truly, if we think about what we are trying to do, it is to compensate many thousands of people with up to £11.8 billion—although that is not a target or a goal, but the amount allocated currently. We are trying to get money out the door as quickly as possible to the people who need it. Test and learn has been an appropriate way to do that, to make sure that taxpayers’ money gets out to the people who need it as quickly as possible and at the appropriate speed.

I would like to respond to the points raised by the noble Baronesses. As ever, if I have missed something—and I and pretty sure I will have—I will write. First, both noble Baronesses raised the issue of inheritance tax, which was obviously a theme of discussions in the other place. It may be helpful to clarify exactly where we are. Anyone in direct receipt of compensation from IBCA or who is a beneficiary of an estate of a deceased infected person does not need to pay inheritance tax. Inheritance tax relief is applied, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said, to the estate of the person who received the compensation, whether they received it as an infected person or an affected person. Under HMRC regulations, the inheritance tax on that person’s estate is reduced so that the amount of compensation received is effectively free of any inheritance tax when it passes to the estate beneficiaries.

However, once the compensation has passed to the beneficiaries, it is treated the same for inheritance tax purposes as any other money or property they own; the relief does not apply again—for example, when the beneficiaries themselves die. Where compensation is paid to a person who has been affected or infected and that person then dies, the inheritance tax which would otherwise be payable in respect of their estate is relieved. It does not matter who the beneficiary of that estate is, the inheritance tax relief applies. However, once the money is received by that beneficiary, inheritance tax applies as normal. To put it as simply as possible, the relief will apply to the estate of the person who is being directly compensated, whether that person is infected, affected, living or, sadly, passed away.

Having said that, I appreciate the strength of feeling in your Lordships’ House, and having reflected on Hansard, we are listening. I will seek to arrange the meeting with Treasury officials—I am about to make myself very popular with the Treasury—to discuss this issue. We will see if my noble friend Lord Livermore is still speaking to me by the end of the day. There is also the Budget coming, so we may have to wait a little bit, but I will endeavour to answer noble Lords.

On the consultation and timing, the consultation will run for 12 weeks, to 26 January. We will publish a response to the consultation on GOV.UK within 12 weeks of its closing. Regulations to make changes to the scheme as a result of the consultation will be brought forward next year.

This is a genuine consultation, not a tick-box exercise. Many recommendations have been made by our technical experts that offer us a range of options within the tariff-based system that we will seek to apply. We should always listen to those people who are affected, but we especially need to make sure that we get this right for the infected blood community. This is truly about making sure that we get the answers needed.

Both noble Baronesses raised points about the effectiveness of IBCA. Noble Lords may be aware that on Thursday last week we published a review by Sir Tyrone Urch that we had commissioned in August, reviewing the effectiveness of IBCA to make sure that it was able to take us forward to the next stages as quickly as possible. He has made a series of recommendations, which we published only last week, and now we are looking, with IBCA, to see who is appropriate to take them forward—noble Lords will be aware that they focus on three issues: stability, resources and digital systems—to make sure that we have the opportunity to move forward.

A matter of weeks ago, I visited IBCA to make sure that I was confident in its ability to take steps forward. That option is available to all Members of your Lordships’ House, and for those who are interested I highly recommend taking a trip to Newcastle to meet IBCA. It was an extraordinary experience, on which I am sure I will reflect more during these questions.

I would like to reassure noble Lords about the ability of the staff at IBCA to move forward. IBCA now employs 329 dedicated claim managers who support people with their claims from start to finish. All claim managers are fully trained and complete a three-week training programme, which includes working with a clinical psychologist to undertake trauma-informed training to ensure that claim managers work compassionately with the community. They are extraordinary people; when I met one of them, he said: “Other than the National Lottery, I get to make someone a millionaire every day by working at IBCA”. By the time he has ensured that the payment is in their bank account, he knows the family well. If any part of this can be joyful, that part is.

On delivery, all registered infected have been contacted to claim by October; for the unregistered infected, the first claims begin in November; and affected and infected estates will begin by the end of the year. I appreciate that the noble Baroness is concerned about when we will pay, and for the overwhelming majority the answer is by the end of 2027.

I have an answer, although time is short, about the issue of severe psychological harm and the six months of support. I will write to noble Baroness, but I assure her that this is about not counselling but psychiatric treatment. A day as an in-patient qualifies you, not six months, but there is a severity, and currently part of the consultation is about how we will pay that. I will reflect on everything else that has been said.

Not only was I overwhelmed by the expertise and professionalism of the people I met when I visited IBCA earlier this year but I want to give special mention to IBCA’s three user consultants, as they are called, who are members of the infected blood community themselves. Jason Evans, Clair Walton and Susan Harris advise IBCA on how its processes and plans can be focused on the needs of those who will be applying for compensation. Given their personal experiences and how easy it would have been for them to walk away, the fact that they are helping us to fix it is extraordinary, and I put on record my huge admiration for them. I will reflect on any points that I have missed and write to the noble Baronesses.

Infected Blood Inquiry: Additional Report

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Thursday 24th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

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.

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.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

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.

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.

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

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.

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.

Health and Social Care Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2022

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Monday 5th September 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)]

It will not be quite so short and uncontroversial next week—I suspect the Minister will have a few more hours on his feet than today—but on this one he is absolutely right. It is something we support.

It reminds us that there is of course an Assembly, which passed these changes some time ago. It also reminds us that this is an attempt to ensure that the health service in Northern Ireland is more efficient than it was. From a very good point of view, it shows the rest of the United Kingdom that health and social services go together. This operates well in Northern Ireland—it always has—and I am not quite sure why we do not take a leaf from the Northern Ireland book. It is something we admire.

What we cannot admire is the fact that there are no Ministers in Northern Ireland running the show, so far as health is concerned. We all know that there is a serious problem with waiting lists in Northern Ireland at both primary and secondary healthcare levels. There are huge difficulties in staffing, finance and so on. The problem is that there is no political authority in Northern Ireland to deal with these huge issues.

In a day we will have a new Prime Minister, and we might have a new Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I hope that we do not have a new Minister for Northern Ireland in the Lords and that the Minister retains his position, because he knows a huge amount about the issues and the place, but there has to be even greater impetus. I know we have the protocol Bill and the legacy Bill coming up—these are all difficult issues to address—but, at the end of the day, unless we have a functioning Government in Northern Ireland only one other thing can happen. Ultimately, it will have to be direct rule. It would be a complete disaster if that had to happen, but you cannot leave civil servants running the show in Northern Ireland any longer, particularly with regard to health, so there is an impetus for the new Government and new Prime Minister, and possibly new Secretary of State, to resolve the impasse in Northern Ireland. We all know why it is there—I will not go into any of that—but I am sure that all Members in this Committee, particularly those from Northern Ireland, understand the significance and importance of having a Minister of Health who can operate as other Ministers can in a liberal parliamentary democracy.

I am sure that our belief, right across the House, is the same: let us restore the institutions, have Ministers and have an Assembly that is running, as in Scotland and Wales. Let us resolve those problems by proper, deep negotiation.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I will intervene from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench on this one. I could see the alarm in the Minister’s eyes that a Westminster health and care spokesperson might try to intervene on an order to do with Northern Ireland health and care. I assure him that it is as technical as his contribution at the beginning. We have no problem at all with the statutory instrument in front of us today.

I want to make one point, which I hope the Minister will take back. The noble Lord, Lord Murphy, may be aware that the Health and Care Act is the first real attempt by a Government in this country to combine health and social care, so Westminster, on behalf of England, is finally getting its act together and combining the two—which, whatever opposition we had to elements of it, we certainly welcomed. In March, during its passage through your Lordships’ House, a number of amendments were ruled out of order because they referred to some of the UK-wide legislation that the Minister referred to in his opening. We were told that an agreement had been struck by the Government with all three devolved nations, which had already taken their legislation through, and therefore that amendments we wished to lay could not be laid.

They were very minor and technical, so I will not go into them here. However, if we are going to talk about the importance of devolved responsibilities and try to mend some of the complex technical issues around legislation that crosses into UK-wide legislation, those working on Bills, certainly in your Lordships’ House, need to know at a much earlier stage where those discussions need to be had. It would have helped the transition of the Health and Care Bill, which was enacted on 28 April—some two months after the Act we are discussing was enacted—because there were things we would have liked to change and would have raised much earlier, had we been aware that there were issues.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I support this very technical order. Like the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, I make a plea yet again for negotiation between all parties and both Governments to get the institutions up and working to look at the areas where there are problems or impediments, including in the protocol, and any other issues.

The most important thing that the people of Northern Ireland require is a functional Government who are delivering for all of us on health and social care, the economy, infrastructure and job creation. In relation to this, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Murphy. There are chronic waiting lists in Northern Ireland for specific disciplines. There are also waiting lists to get on to waiting lists, which can cause such consternation for individuals who are ill. That has been the situation for quite some time.

I do not disagree with the assimilation of the Health and Social Care Board into the Department of Health and the five health trusts. As a former MP I had experience of dealing with the Health and Social Care Board and the health trusts. I could never fully understand or appreciate the difference in their workload, because the health and social care board commissioned the services and acted as the prescriber of what services were required. Notwithstanding that, that is a job better done by the Department of Health.

In relation to that, maybe the Minister would have talked to the current caretaker Minister, Minister Swann, who served as Health Minister for the last nearly three years, about what savings are projected from the assimilation of the Health and Social Care Board into the department and trusts. Will those savings be ploughed back into the delivery arm of the trusts so that people can access services in the medical and clinical areas to which they are entitled?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Caine (Con)]

As I said to the noble Baroness, I am perfectly happy to do so. I appreciate that no MLA is able to stand up in the Assembly and ask those questions at the moment, so I am happy to look into the matter and come back to her.

I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, to her place. She correctly identified my look of alarm at the fact that a Westminster health spokeswoman had come into a debate on Northern Ireland matters. She will be aware that I played no role whatever in the passing of the health and social care Act, so I must confess to a certain degree of ignorance of some of the matters she raised. Again, I am happy to look into them for her.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I was making a generic point for Ministers to take away that, where these things emerge, I suspect it would be useful if there were some wider discussions, at least with the Front-Benchers involved with the relevant Bills. It is somewhat frustrating three-quarters of the way through a Bill to suddenly be told that amendments cannot happen, but I am absolutely not asking the noble Lord to deal with that on its own. We respect devolved authority and think it is really important, but we all have to learn how to work together. In this Bill, for once, it was the Westminster side that was left out until after other things had happened.

Fire Safety: Lakanal House Fire

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Tuesday 27th June 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, it is not true to say that safety standards are set by the industry. They are set by the Government in consultation with the industry and the public sector. We take advice from many sources and we will do so again through the public inquiry that is now being set up. It is important that we do not prejudge this and that the public inquiry acts in a judicial way. It will be judge-led and will look at all the evidence before we come up with conclusions. That is the purpose of the inquiry.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, the coroner in the Lakanal House case actually cited some of the wider issues with the maintenance and refurbishment of buildings as well as their outer envelopes. I am slightly bemused that the Minister has said both today and yesterday that work has not yet started on the revision of part B regulations, because on 3 March 2015 the then Minister for Housing, Stephen Williams, announced that not only would the review start but that it would report back to Parliament in 2016-17 with a revised document. Can the Minister explain why this was stopped after the 2015 election and what interim steps will be taken before the result of the inquiry to make sure that we do not have to wait a long time before urgent changes can be made to these regulations?

International Women's Day

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Thursday 3rd March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton]

My Lords, I rise to speak for the first time in some trepidation and in awe of the excellence of the debate and the many unwritten conventions by which this House regulates itself. The welcome I have received from noble Lords and from the attendants, doorkeepers, officers and staff of this House has been generous and supportive, and I thank those who helped my family on the day of my introduction. I particularly want to thank everyone involved in the briefing and induction process for new Peers. It makes this new girl feel that any ignorance is hers alone.

I have a particular interest in education through my time as a Cambridgeshire county councillor with the education portfolio, then as the skills champion and deputy chair at the East of England Development Agency, and my 20 years working in higher education, including as senior bursar of Lucy Cavendish College under the presidency of my noble friend Lady Perry, who was referred to by my noble friend Lady Trumpington.

This debate honours the centenary of International Women's Day, and I start by marking the contribution of my cousin, the late Lady Stocks of Kensington and Chelsea. I remember from the early 1960s this doughty—and, to be frank, to an 8 year-old, scary—lady whose debates at Sunday lunch were always impressive. At an early age, she showed me that women could do anything they set their mind to. Unusually for a primary school girl, I understood the importance of Cross-Benchers and the role of Life Peers.

I was later shocked to discover—children often fail to understand that their elders were once young—that this eminent Peer of the realm had started her own career as a rebel. One hundred years ago she was a suffragette marching to Parliament to demand that women should be given the vote. She dedicated her life to the education of women and she showed me, in the words of John Stuart Mill, that women must,

“stir up the zeal of women themselves”.

I suspect that she also helped to create the rebel in me, occasionally to the amusement of my much-loved late father, Tim Brinton, formerly of another place.

Globally, women still bear a disproportionate burden of the world’s poverty. A UNIFEM report last year said:

“Statistics indicate that women are more likely than men to be poor and at risk of hunger because of the systematic discrimination they face in education, health care, employment and … control of assets”.

I would like to focus on a smaller group of women. Those with disability are known to be further stigmatised and experience even greater poverty, less education and worse health than their non-disabled peers. I will give just one example. In rural Tanzania, as many as one in 10 pregnant women develop obstetric fistula after an extended labour. Tragically, 90 per cent of these women lose their babies and are then confined to home with the debilitating results—uncontrolled leaks and resulting health and hygiene problems. Women find themselves outcasts in their own community. Obstetric fistula can be treated by a simple, free hospital operation and rehabilitation in Tanzania, but it was difficult for the health professionals to identify women who needed help because they were invisible. Without treatment, the women became disabled and unable to take any part in their society, all for the want of transport to hospital.

As a result of lateral thinking and using modern technology, Comprehensive Community Based Rehabilitation Tanzania, an NGO that works with CBM UK, the disability charity of which I am a trustee, developed a scheme called M-PESA with the phone company Vodacom. Regional representatives locate women with obstetric fistula and alert the NGO, which transfers money via a text message on a mobile phone to pay for a woman’s bus fare to the hospital. This really is a case of “for the want of a nail the kingdom was lost”, or, to turn it positive for this project in Tanzania, “for the want of a bus fare, a woman’s life is returned to her, and her family”. Projects such this, funded either by private or public funding, lie at the heart of the best in world development, and I am encouraged that maternal health is one of the key objectives of this week’s DfID review. However, I hope that the guidance is not drawn so tightly that low-cost projects like this, which are truly life changing, are excluded in future because a bus fare might not count as maternal health.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, for instigating this debate, and I look forward to many more. I am humbled that I am able to play a small part as a servant of this House and look forward to contributing in future.