Victims and Courts Bill

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 16th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her clear introduction to the Bill this afternoon. The Liberal Democrats broadly welcome the principles behind the Victims and Courts Bill: strengthening support for victims, strengthening the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner and improving the court system. The current system is not just under severe stress; it is close to collapse. There are important changes that we believe need to be made for the courts service to be fit for purpose in this current era.

Because we do have some concerns and proposals to improve the Bill, some echoing amendments to it were laid by our Liberal Democrat colleagues in the Commons. I suspect that we will be discussing in minute detail the technicalities of improving systems for victims, as we did with the Crime and Policing Bill, the Sentencing Bill—currently going through your Lordships’ House—and the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024. That Act was saved in the wash-up in the run-up to the 2024 general election, but most of it was not commenced, other than the infected blood compensation arrangements. I wondered whether this was the legislation the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, was referring to, and I apologise if I have that wrong. But it was saved, and I have a question for the Minister, which I will come to in a minute.

We do not often hear enough about what victims, survivors or complainants—however they may choose to describe themselves—face, and how long it takes to recover. That is why I am so grateful that the many victims, NGOs and charities keep their voices in front of us.

The definition of a victim in Section 1 of the Victims and Prisoners Act is someone who suffers

“harm as a direct result of … being subjected to criminal conduct, or … one or more of the circumstances mentioned”

in a subsection. The key thing for me is exactly what “harm” entails. In the Act,

“‘harm’ includes physical, mental or emotional harm and economic loss”,

and

“‘criminal conduct’ means conduct which constitutes an offence”.

That is a good definition, a helpful starting point and a reminder to us that victims will have suffered physical, mental or emotional harm or economic loss, or been the victims of criminal conduct. Neither this nor the previous Government have commenced this section of the Victims and Prisoners Act, which remains disappointing. Do the Government intend to bring in this section of that Act?

In Section 1(4)(a) of the Victims and Prisoners Act, the clinical description of harm covers a wide range of experience. For example, harm can lie dormant in victims for many years, as with children sexually abused when young. We know it can take decades before they face up to what has happened, and that period, however long it is, can be mental agony, as well as physically distressing. Adults abused as children often say that their life remains irreparably changed by the experience. For some victims, the chance to see their perpetrator in the dock, and convicted, can be cathartic; but, for too many, the mental and physical anguish of this type of severe crime on and to a person just means that that experience continues to live on long after the court hearing.

We on these Benches’ starting point is that we have long called for more support for victims and survivors of crime. This Government are saying many of the right things and tomorrow, or on Thursday, we will see the strategy for VAWG, which is much welcomed and will be a key pillar in that support.

However, over the course of the last 18 months, we have seen that many good and worthy principles have not been followed through with priority or, worse, that there has been a lack of money to deliver the change that is actually needed. So I ask the Minister, will the Government guarantee to deliver the resources in order to make the ideas and words in the Bill and in the VAWG strategy, when it comes, happen?

Above all, there must be strategic and consistent planning and funding of the victim support service, for, without that, the service will not have victims at the heart of it, and it is likely that it will remain inconsistent across the country.

We welcome the strengthening of the Victims’ Commissioner role and the restriction of parental responsibility in certain heinous cases.

The areas of the Bill that we have particular concern with include an extension to the victim contact scheme to include victims of offenders sentenced to less than 12 months for violent and sexual offences; victims of coercive or controlling behaviour, stalking or harassment; and bereaved families in cases of manslaughter or death by dangerous driving. Access to free court transcripts for victims of criminal offences is increasingly important. This is broader than the original pilot and early proposals, but we believe it would be the right thing to introduce.

Other areas of concern include the provision of support for victims of online and technology-enabled crimes and the application of the victims’ code in respect of victims of murder, manslaughter or infanticide abroad. We have laid amendments on this subject in the past. The families of those killed deserve access to the same victim support back home in the UK as those whose family members were killed in the UK.

The Liberal Democrats have long sought to get restorative justice implemented broadly across the criminal justice system. When delivered with care and willingness on both the victim’s and the offender’s side, it can make a real difference to both parties. We laid amendments in the Commons on a victim’s right to referral and a duty to report on the use of restorative justice services, and we want to continue to make progress on this.

The government proposal to increase the period in which the Attorney-General may receive a request to challenge an unduly lenient sentence to 28 days, and the extra 14 days if submitted in the second half of the 28-day period, in our view remains too short. We supported the Official Opposition in some of their amendments in the Commons. Critically, it is unworkable unless a victim is notified when a sentence has been given, because the window to apply to the Attorney-General is too tight. I note, with regret, that the Minister said that the ULS was not an appeal mechanism for a victim. But many victims, on the rare occasion it might be used, should have access to it. One reason for that is that, too often, victims are encouraged by the CPS and the police not to be present at the end of a trial of the perpetrator, and they often miss the sentencing. Shockingly, too many are not even told about the unduly lenient sentencing arrangements and, within a very short number of days, cannot even submit a request to the Attorney-General. I have been laying amendments and proposing changes to the ULS scheme for some years now. We will continue to do so in your Lordships’ House on the Bill.

While the court proposals are in the main sensible, we remain concerned that there are very limited proposals to tackle the courts backlog. The announcements by David Lammy MP in relation to reducing the number of cases in front a jury has not helped. This Monday, 60 courts sat empty because of a lack of judges, barristers or other experts needed for court hearings.

There is little empirical evidence, proof or pilot, that shows that reducing juries alone will ease pressure on the courts system. The real problems are the poor buildings, court closures and legal aid cuts that penalise barristers and solicitors. A long-term commitment for investment is needed, with both restored funding to legal aid and capital investment in the courts of the future.

These are some of the key issues that need to be addressed in the Bill, but they are set in the context of giving a broad welcome to most of the Bill, while wanting to strengthen it.

Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 9th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I have an amendment in this group. I repeat a declaration of interest I made at Second Reading: that I have appeared as a barrister in a number of the leading cases about limitation of the law of tort. The purpose of limitation periods is to give a claimant a fair chance to decide whether to bring a claim, but also to place some sort of time limit on claims. Limitation periods vary according to the cause of action—for example, defamation claims have to be brought within one year. Personal injury claims have always been in a special category. The normal limit is three years or, in the case of a young person, three years after attaining the age of majority. But because some personal injuries manifest themselves only some time after they have been caused, particularly those relating to disease claims, the law has responded by postponing the starting date to reflect something called the “date of knowledge”.

What constituted knowledge was difficult to encapsulate in statute and gave rise to a lot of litigation, particularly in the context of what are generally known as historic claims for child sexual abuse. But these difficulties were largely overcome by Section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980, which gave the court a complete discretion to disapply the limitation period. Although the section gave various sensible guidelines as to matters to be taken into consideration, the discretion was expressed to be entirely unfettered.

One difficulty of the law remained. In claims for deliberate acts of assault, there was a finite six-year limitation period, rather than a three-year extendable limit for claims in negligence, so some claimants did not have the advantage of Section 33. This problem was overcome by the decision of A v Hoare in 2008— I was one of the unsuccessful defendants in that case—when the House of Lords decided that, whether the claim was in negligence or in assault, there was still a discretion to disapply the limitation period.

The only question that remained was whether it would ever be too late to bring a claim in the light of Section 33. Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, a much-missed Member of your Lordships’ House, made this observation:

“If a complaint has been made and recorded, and more obviously still if the accused has been convicted of the abuse complained of, that will be one thing; if, however, a complaint comes out of the blue with no apparent support for it (other perhaps than that the alleged abuser has been accused or even convicted of similar abuse in the past), that would be quite another thing. By no means everyone who brings a late claim for damages for sexual abuse, however genuine his complaint may in fact be, can reasonably expect the court to exercise the section 33 discretion in his favour. On the contrary, a fair trial (which must surely include a fair opportunity for the defendant to investigate the allegations …) is in many cases likely to be found quite simply impossible”.


That passage was in fact referred to in the conclusions of IICSA, which decided that the three-year period should be removed, but that there should be

“express protection of the right to a fair trial, with the burden falling on defendants to show a fair trial is not possible”.

The Government responded to IICSA’s report and did not support getting rid of limitations. The Government acknowledged the importance of Section 33 and made this point:

“A limitation period also encourages disputes to be resolved timeously thus promoting finality and certainty. Both are key cornerstones of the legal system. As such, the Government’s opening position, ahead of consultation, is that it does not support this option”.


Nor did they support a special limit for claims arising from sexual abuse. I remind the Committee that, in 2017, in the case of Carroll v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police, the Court of Appeal emphasised the unfettered nature of the Section 33 discretion.

My question to the Government at Second Reading was essentially this: what cases do they envisage would now be allowed to proceed which would not have done under the current law? I do not expect an immediate answer, but the Government have now had plenty of time to consider their response. There was a consultation following the Government’s response that I referred to, but it was not particularly large and did not contain consistent answers.

Changing the law of limitation is best an exercise following the careful balancing of respective interests, perhaps by the Law Commission. What appears to have happened here is that the Government, notwithstanding the initial view that I referred to, have decided to come up with some sort of compromise. In doing so, I fear they have produced in Clause 82 a real dog’s dinner of a provision.

Clause 82 is headed:

“Removal of limitation period in child sexual abuse cases”,


but it does not do that. It specifically provides that sexual abuse is in a separate category from, for example, physical abuse, although this was precisely what the Government did not want when they responded to the original recommendations. It contains a rather unclear provision that, when a dispute has been settled, it will no longer be subject to these new provisions. It probably does not include discontinued claims or claims settled otherwise than by way of a formal agreement.

New Section 11ZB contains some very unclear provisions as to the circumstances in which the court can dismiss an action, while at the same time containing in new subsection (2) the provision:

“The court must dismiss the action if the defendant satisfies the court that it is not possible for a fair hearing to take place”.


The interrelationship of new subsections (2) and (3) is incoherent and will inevitably result in litigation. The lack of clarity on what is and is not sexual abuse, and what is and is not settlement, will, I fear, also give rise to litigation.

I agree with the Opposition Front Bench’s probing amendment that we should get rid of new Section 11ZB(3), but that would leave a repetition of what the law is anyway and would not deal with the points about what constitutes sexual abuse or settlement via agreement. My conclusion is that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the law as it is. This rather messy compromise will give rise to unnecessary litigation and I am unsure it will provide remedies where remedies are not already available.

Sexual abuse, particularly of children, is abhorrent, and we now know there has been far more of it than was originally perceived. It is, however, important to point out that claims are not usually made against individual perpetrators; one can understand why there would not be much sympathy for a claim being brought, however late, against such a perpetrator. The usual defendant is, for example, a school, religious organisation, local authority or even central government. They may or may not have any knowledge of what happened but, because of the expanded doctrine of vicarious liability, will be deemed in law to be responsible for what occurred. They may or may not be covered by insurance.

As Lord Brown pointed out, there will come a time when it is quite simply inappropriate, many years later, for claims to be brought before the court. However sympathetic one is to the victims of sexual abuse, the law currently caters adequately for the balance between the interests of claimants and defendants. If we include Clause 82 in the Bill, I fear we will make bad law. The clause should not stand part.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I have signed Amendment 289. This is the first opportunity I have had to speak in Committee because of family illness, and it is good to be back.

In a previous group of amendments last week, the Committee heard the concerns of a number of Peers worried that the Government’s proposals might not ensure a fair route to reporting child sexual abuse. This amendment is just as important, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, for tabling it. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, for his helpful exposition of the legal details. I come to this as a champion for victims, rather than from the legal perspective.

Despite the many concerns about those accused of child sexual abuse being able to escape from the accountability provided by the courts, the Bill, in Clause 82, lines 3 to 11, lays out a specific route for those accused who the courts “must”—a strong word; we note that it does not say “consider”—cease action against if the defendant in question claims

“there would be substantial prejudice to the defendant”

if the proceedings were to proceed. To put it bluntly, this is a gift to any defence lawyer. Much of the evidence heard by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse was scenario after scenario where senior people—clergy, politicians, police officers, magistrates and so on—were able to cover up what had happened because they were in a position of power over the victim, and, quite often, over potential witnesses too.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Brinton]

293: After Clause 82, insert the following new Clause—
“Removal of limitation period for historical child sexual offences(1) The Sexual Offences Act 2003 is amended as follows.(2) In section 9 (sexual activity with a child), after subsection (3), insert—“(4) An offence is committed under this section regardless of when the offending activity was committed.”.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause ensures there is no limitation period for offences under section 9 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 293 in my name is very straightforward and necessary. Victims of child sexual abuse and other offences often do not come forward themselves at the time of the offences. Research has shown that, on average, it takes around three decades for a survivor to get the courage to come forward—and then even longer to get to court. As a result, almost all abuse claims are brought outside the statutory time limit. The problem is that, if the survivor cannot convince the court that a fair trial is possible, the claim falls and the victim can never get justice.

All the various strands of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, which were referred to earlier—including the Westminster report, the Anglican Church report, the Catholic Church report and the children in custodial sentences report—said that it was usually decades after the offences that victims reported what had happened. Frequently, this then gave other victims the confidence to come forward too, in exactly the way that happened after the BBC presenter Nicky Campbell spoke up in 2022 about the abuse at his school, the Edinburgh Academy, decades before. The abuse there involved arbitrary violence on boys under 11, including choking, throwing them down stairs and various other disgusting forms of abuse.

In September 2023 an ex-teacher, Russell Tillson, was jailed for sexually abusing boys. Beginning in the 1980s, it continued for 20 years, but allegations were first made only in 2018, nearly a further two decades after the teacher had retired. Both cases are absolutely typical of the behaviour of perpetrators and, indeed, of victims.

Earlier this year the Government said they were minded to consider removing the limitation period, but we believe that it needs to happen now and be in the Bill. The amendment seeks to remove any limitation period for historical child sex offences. It just must not be possible for a perpetrator to escape justice because the victims were too traumatised to come forward until years later. I beg to move Amendment 293.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I need not take very long, because she has explained her very straightforward amendment impeccably. After the brilliant previous group led by the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, and her team, perhaps there is no need to go into all the quite serious sexual contact included in Section 9 of the Sexual Offences Act that need not necessarily be tried in the Crown Court.

I support the amendment for two simple but important reasons. First, there is some very serious sexual activity with children that could be tried in the magistrates’ courts—there is not necessarily a problem with that. Secondly, there is the obvious reason of historic child abuse and victims coming forward sometimes only many years after the fact. Those are very good reasons to depart from the norm of the six-month time limit and, indeed, to have no time limits at all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

The noble Lord has explained it rather better than I did.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I am very grateful to everyone who has spoken. I am probably the only non-lawyer in this debate, and as it is my amendment I feel something of a duffer.

I am very grateful for the advice. I came to this amendment after reading the recommendations of IICSA, and what concerned me particularly was picking up that people who had come forward years afterwards were told that things were timed out—that might have been a decision by the CPS to say that it felt that it would not be effective going to trial. However, I very much appreciate the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, because I have experience of the issue of which court deals with issues through my interests in stalking and other domestic abuse cases, where often that is the place that things happen. All the description that has been given for “no time limits” has not been for the magistrates’ court, excepting the detail that the noble Baroness provided, which is way beyond my knowledge.

There is the difficulty that Professor Jay reported. In two cases where I was heavily involved with the victims, decisions were made initially by the CPS and the victims were told that they had timed out. That may not have been the case, but that is what they were told. In another case, when there were three pupils from the same school all giving evidence, none of them knowing each other, the first victim was told by the judge, “Yours is over 20 years ago; you can’t possibly remember what happened and therefore it’s timed out”. That is what is happening in the practice of the courts. Professor Jay’s report spoke to the experience of the victims. We have gone into extraordinary technical detail that many victims would be completely oblivious to. I would be very grateful for a letter. If there is an easy solution, it may just be that it needs to be clarified with the police and the CPS. There are a lot of unhappy victims out there. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 293 withdrawn.

“Hillsborough Law”

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Thursday 24th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

As I think I said in answer to an earlier question, the Government have been quite clear that, under the duty of candour, public officials will be bound by that duty, with criminal and professional consequences—the noble Lord is shaking his head. What I also said is that we think there needs to be a wider cultural change and there need to be other programmes put in place to achieve this. If I can provide more detail, I will happily write to the noble Lord, but I think that we are being very genuine and explicit in the ambition that we have set forth, that a duty of candour will be at the core of all public officials’ roles.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, we will shortly be hearing a Statement, yet again, on the infected blood compensation scheme. Last week, we heard about the continuing problems with the Post Office Horizon scheme. Both scandals were made much worse over decades because of the lack of candour by officials. In opposition, Labour—including the Minister, many of whose amendments on the duty of candour I signed—said that it would introduce that duty to prevent scandals such as these in the future. But the press are reporting that the delay is caused by officials watering down the details, including the level at which officials are bound by the duty of candour. Can the Minister confirm that there is no truth in this?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I think that is, if I may say so, a similar question to that from my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti. I have heard that the ongoing discussions are in fact reasonably positive, and we are very hopeful of reaching an agreement in the coming weeks and months. It is certainly not the intention to water down recommendations; however, it is our intention to come up with a workable Bill that forms part of a wider work programme. As I think I said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, we have also put in place this website where people can monitor how the Government are making progress on other recommendations on other scandals, such as the infected blood scandal and the Grenfell scandal.

Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Regulations 2024

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Monday 21st October 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Brinton]

At end insert “but that this House, while welcoming the progress made to compensate eligible infected persons, regrets that close family members and carers affected by the infected blood scandal are not included in the Regulations, as recommended by the Inquiry”.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I start by saying that I shall not call a vote on my regret amendment. It is important to avoid any delay to the infected blood victims receiving either interims or full compensation settlements—it would be wrong. However, I have a number of questions relating to this instrument and to the one that the Government say that they will lay next year. It is good to see the Minister in his place, as well as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, on the other Benches, because it was we three who debated this in detail during the passage of the Victims and Prisoners Bill.

I understand that these are complex matters, but at the root of them is the vital and delicate issue of trust with the victims of this scandal. Would the Minister meet me, as well as writing to me with some of the detailed answers to my questions that I have today, which I appreciate that I have not been able to give him advance sight of? I also thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, and the Minister for responding to its concerns. In its second report of this Session, it points out that the Explanatory Memorandum is

“overly complex and technical, while lacking basic information”.

At paragraph 44, it points out that there is “no clarity” about how many infected persons will have been paid by the end of this year.

The September Statement from the Paymaster-General talked about a “user group” testing out the new scheme. Can the Minister confirm that this user group, or the group that he described a couple of minutes ago—the “test and learn” group—comprises only 20 people? Will those 20 people be paid by the end of this year and how many others of the eligible infected persons will receive their settlements by the end of this year? Is there now a likely time when those infected persons already in the system will have received payment?

The main reason I move this regret amendment is that the regulation in front of us today does not deal with the group of victims called the “affected”. As the Minister said, these are the wives, partners, parents, children and siblings of infected victims. The Victims and Prisoners Act, passed on the last day of Parliament before the general election, sets out in Section 49 the definition of the two groups of people entitled to compensation under the scheme. The outgoing Government were absolutely clear that they wanted the regulations for the compensation scheme within three months of passing the Bill, which is why this regulation, 872, was laid on 24 August, in the depths of recess, and brought into effect immediately under the emergency processes. I am very grateful to the Paymaster-General for telephoning me on 22 August to explain that the Government were keeping to the arrangements made by the previous Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I thank both the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for their very thoughtful discussion of the regulations. I recognise they have both had long experience of these issues. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said, the three of us were involved in the passing of the Victims and Prisoners Act, which was a precursor to these regulations.

In response to the very last question of the noble Earl, the Government are aiming for a second set of regulations to be in place—regarding affected people—by 31 March 2025. It is our intention that people who are affected can start receiving payments in 2025. That was in my original speech and that is the Government’s commitment.

I will make a general point before I start trying to answer some of the individual questions. It is in the best interests of everybody that the House continues to work collaboratively on this issue—both for infected and affected people. All sides of the House acknowledge the British state has failed the victims, and these regulations are a step on the road to addressing the infected victims.

Of course I will agree to meet the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, if he so wishes. I will write with detailed answers if I fail to answer any of the questions—no doubt I will fail to answer some.

As the noble Earl quite rightly said as he introduced his comments, these regulations are fulfilling one element of Sir Brian Langstaff’s report. A lot of the questions have been about the second element: the affected people. As he rightly said, 69 of the 74 recommendations were accepted.

On the bulk of the speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, which was about the affected people, the timetable available to develop these regulations was necessarily limited. The regulations prioritise people who are infected as a result of the infected blood scandal. Where people have sadly died, the recommendations make provisions for claims under their estate. This ensures the Infected Blood Compensation Authority can start delivering the compensation scheme for the infected, as per its statutory function.

The Government’s decision to split, and therefore sequence, infected and affected regulations was taken with the reassurance that it would allow orderly implementation of the legal framework without impacting or delaying the delivery timetable for payments to infected and affected victims. Subject to parliamentary approval, the Government are aiming for the second set of regulations to be in place by 31 March next year, as I mentioned, with an expectation of beginning payments by the end of the year.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, also asked about the eligibility of affected siblings and children. The scheme’s definition of siblings is based on the recommendations made in Sir Robert Francis’s compensation framework study. The definition recognises the likely heightened impacts on a sibling living with an infected person during childhood. This is not to dismiss or deny the suffering of those who were adults when their siblings were infected. Individuals who were adults when their sibling was infected may be eligible for compensation through the scheme as a carer. Siblings will be eligible where under the age of 18 they lived in the same household as an infected person for the period of at least two years after the onset of the infection. Similarly, the scheme’s definition of children of the infected person is based on the recommendations made in Sir Robert Francis’s compensation framework study. The scheme recognises the likely heightened impact on a child who was under 18 while living with a parent who was infected.

I hope that provides some clarity to the noble Baroness. However, I will also acknowledge the examples she gave of the terrible effects on affected people and the terrible experiences, some of which she spoke about. It is absolutely not right to suggest that affected people are somehow second-class citizens. That is not right; it is just a practical decision which the Government have made to try and progress these matters as soon as possible. These regulations are for the infected group, but I have set out as clearly as I can what the Government’s intentions are for the affected group.

The noble Earl, Lord Howe, spoke about the complexity of regulations and the Explanatory Memorandum. Work is under way on a second set of regulations. We will take on board the committee’s helpful feedback when drafting the Explanatory Memorandum for those regulations. We recognise the point made by the SLSC on the complexity of these regulations, but it is absolutely the Government’s intention to carefully consider the committee’s report and findings.

The noble Earl asked about the two channels of funding: the core route and the IBCS route. This is an additional level of complexity, but it was recommended by Sir Robert Francis because it was the wish of the infected group that the existing method of funding should continue. Because we accepted that recommendation, that inevitably adds to the complexity.

The noble Earl also asked about psychological illness, and in particular whether recommendations were accepted by the report. I am afraid I do not know the answer to that, but I will write to the noble Earl and the noble Baroness about it.

The noble Earl also raised Treloar’s school and unethical experimental research on certain young children. It is absolutely not the intention that this particular scandal should lead to any delay in the rollout of infected or affected compensation, but we recognise the particular, scandalous nature of what happened to those victims.

In conclusion, we regard the timetable as realistic. In opposition, we worked constructively with the then Government, and we have continued working as practically as possible to try to move the timetable forward. All of us across this House must continue to work collaboratively. These regulations ensure that we can finally deliver compensation to those who fought so hard; they deserve nothing less. I beg to move.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I thank both the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the Minister for their contributions to this debate. We are all broadly on the same page. I do not think there is a difference on the principles of moving ahead, and certainly absolutely no intention on my part to try to slow down or block the approval of the regulations today.

I will not go through the arguments we have all made, but the key thing the Minister did not cover was the issue of communication, which seems to me to be the most important thing moving forward. If there is confusion and distress on the one hand, and complexity and a large number of recommendations being modified on the other, it is absolutely understandable that the affected and the infected may have concerns about what is going on. I really hope that when we meet, the Minister will talk to us about what he plans to do.

I pay personal tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for the way he worked with the communities over the years. That baton has clearly been handed over to the other side of the House. We need to rebuild trust; there are a lot of very distressed people out there at the moment. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment withdrawn.