Infected Blood Compensation Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Baroness Featherstone Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Featherstone (LD)]

My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble Baroness. When one hears stories directly like that, they have an impact. I am so sorry for the noble Baroness’s loss. As ever, I have to declare my interest: one of my sister’s twin boys—my nephew, who was a haemophiliac—was infected with hepatitis C and died at the age of 35, leaving behind a 10 month-old baby daughter. I more than support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. Of course, although progress has been made, the implementation of the compensation scheme is still causing unnecessary and huge distress to too many victims and their families. Despite those of us who fight in this Chamber and raise the issues we are hearing about today about the affected and the infected, nothing fundamentally changes on those issues.

I begin by acknowledging this Minister’s personal commitment to this issue, which is appreciated. I know that much work has gone into establishing the compensation scheme, but the measure of success is not the creation of the scheme but the experience of those going through it. I want to raise three practical concerns today.

The first is the burden of evidence. Time and again, I hear from victims and bereaved families who are being asked to provide information that they have already supplied many times over many years to government departments, previous support schemes and the infected blood inquiry itself. Others are being asked for records dating back 40 or 50 years, which have long since disappeared. Surely, the starting point should be different. Where the state already holds the information or has previously accepted the facts, it should rely on its own records. After decades of fighting simply to be believed, people should not now feel that they are being asked to prove their case all over again.

My second concern is that these problems are not new. Representative organisations and affected individuals have been raising them consistently. The Government know about them; IBCA knows about them. We politicians have raised them often enough. Yet the same concerns continue to be raised over and over again, to no avail. The Government should and must expect the authority to learn quickly from claimants’ experience and to adapt its processes as problems emerge. If the same complaints continue to be heard month after month, something is plainly not working as it should.

My third point is about certainty. Many people still do not know when they are likely to be invited into the scheme, how long the process is expected to take or what stage their claim has reached. After decades of uncertainty, they deserve clear communication about what they can expect and when they can expect it.

I ask the Minister three questions. First, what further steps will the Government take to ensure that claimants are not repeatedly asked for information that the Government and other organisations already possess? Secondly, what assurances and examples can the Minister give the House that the Government are holding IBCA to account for resolving these recurring problems more quickly, and what punishment do they mete out to IBCA when it cannot answer? Thirdly, what further improvements will be made to communications with claimants, so they have a clear understanding of where they are in the process and when they can realistically expect decisions?

The hard decisions have already been taken. The inquiry established the truth. Parliament accepted the need for compensation. The money is there. The remaining task is to ensure that delivery matches the promises that have been made. That is what victims and families—those who have waited so long for justice—now deserve.

Democratic Institutions: Threats

Baroness Featherstone Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Featherstone (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire for securing this important debate. He and others have already hit the nail on the head by referring to the loss of trust. However, we speak of disinformation, foreign interference and declining trust in politics as though they form a straightforward chain of cause and effect. We assume that disinformation leads to declining trust. It does, of course, but that is not the whole story. The reason disinformation has become so potent is that trust had already ebbed away. Once trust has gone, foreign actors can exploit distrust. They can amplify and weaponise it, but can they really create it from nothing? I do not think so.

Across much of the democratic world, we have witnessed the rise of populist parties and anti-establishment movements. Many of us disagree with their solutions and some of us are alarmed by their rhetoric. Yet we must face the fact that millions of people have turned to them because they felt that the established order was no longer working for them. In some respects, perhaps the status quo did need a rocket up its backside, because too many people felt ignored, too many communities felt left behind and too many citizens came to believe that decisions affecting their lives were being taken by people who neither understood nor cared about their concerns—I am beginning to sound like Andy Burnham; I apologise. That sense of disconnection did not arrive with social media. It has been building for years.

Politicians must not imagine that we stand outside this story. Indeed, I sometimes think that we are far too quick to diagnose the public’s loss of faith and far too slow to ask what role we ourselves might have played in creating it. Over-promising and under-delivering is not a recent phenomenon: nor is the temptation to prefer the short-term headline to the long-term solution. Politics appears now to be far more about messaging than actual delivery. Trust is not restored by demanding respect; it can be restored only by demonstrating integrity.

This issue is not just around politics. Everything we used to believe in—pillars of integrity and truth—is indicted. Over recent decades, the public have watched a succession of scandals unfold. What conclusions should they have been expected to draw? Churches have moved abusive clergy rather than confronting that abuse. The Post Office has prosecuted innocent people while insisting its systems could not be wrong. The families of Hillsborough victims have had to spend years fighting for the truth. Victims of the contaminated blood scandal—I always have to declare an interest as my nephew was a victim, killed, in my view, by the state—have spent decades seeking recognition and justice. Meanwhile, institutions have defended themselves, withheld information, covered things up and resisted accountability. Only today, we are learning about the horrors of the Nottingham hospital maternity and baby unit scandal.

I sometimes wonder why we are surprised by a loss of trust that should not, in truth, surprise us at all, because the issue is not that institutions make mistakes—every institution made up of human beings will make mistakes—but what happens next. Do they tell the truth? Do they admit their errors? Apparently not. Do they place truth above their reputation? No. Do they close ranks? Yes, they do.

Nor can we ignore the role of the media in our decline and fall. For generations, newspapers and broadcasters acted as intermediaries between events and public understanding, but no longer. Many people regard the media as just another institution whose motives they question and, sadly, quite rightly. The relentless pressure of the 24-hour news cycle, the race to be first, the search for attention in an increasingly crowded marketplace and the tendency to frame issues as conflicts rather than problems to be solved have all played their part. Outrage attracts attention; nuance does not. If citizens lose confidence not only in politicians and institutions but in those whose role it is, or was, to hold them to account, where do they turn for reliable information?

Internationally, we are seeing similar contradictions. Citizens see institutions that were established to uphold human rights apparently unable to prevent atrocities, while countries with deeply troubling human rights records sit on, and sometimes even lead, bodies charged with defending those same human rights. This is a world gone mad.

Healthy scepticism is a virtue in a democracy, but scepticism can curdle into cynicism, and cynicism creates a fertile ground for conspiracy theories, disinformation and those who seek to divide us. If we wish to defend our democracy against disinformation and foreign interference then of course we must challenge falsehoods wherever they arise, expose hostile actors and protect the integrity of our democratic processes, but we also absolutely must rebuild trust—not through slogans, public relations, lines to take or demanding respect, but by ensuring that our institutions, our politics, our media, online and off, and our public life are worthy of it. For, once trust is lost, everything else becomes much harder to sustain against the malign influences that seek to destroy our democracy.

Working From Home (Home-based Working Committee Report)

Baroness Featherstone Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Featherstone (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank our excellent chair and fellow committee members for what I found to be quite a fascinating inquiry.

The extraordinary circumstances of the pandemic transformed home-based working from a relatively niche practice into a normal part of working life for millions of people. The question for our committee and the apt title for our report is: is it working? The answer is that it can work very well, but only if we pay attention to how it is managed and to who benefits from it.

One of the strongest messages I took from the evidence was that home-based working has the potential to widen opportunity. As has been said, we heard compelling evidence about the benefits for disabled people, carers and others whose participation in the labour market may previously have been limited by rigid working patterns. That was an important finding. At a time when policymakers are rightly concerned about economic inactivity and labour shortages, greater flexibility can help people remain in or return to work, and it can open doors that might otherwise remain closed.

It can also help to democratise opportunity geographically. Talent is spread across the country far more evenly than jobs have traditionally been. If used well, home-based working can allow people to access opportunities without having to move to where those opportunities are concentrated. That has the potential to benefit individuals, families and communities well beyond our major employment centres.

Having spent much of my political life concerned with equality, I have learned that the biggest barriers are often the ones nobody intended to create. That is why I found myself asking a different question throughout the inquiry, a bit like the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox. If some groups make greater use of home-based working than others, what happens to their careers over time? If women continue to carry a greater share of caring responsibilities, and therefore make greater use of flexible working arrangements, are they promoted at the same rate as those who spend more time at the workplace? Are they likely to move into leadership positions? Are they seen in the same way as men by senior managers? We do not actually know.

What surprised me about the whole inquiry was how little we actually know. Again and again during the inquiry, we came up against the same problem: a lack of robust evidence. We heard strong opinions, anecdotes and assumptions. What we do not yet have, as many have said, is enough high-quality data to understand the long-term effects of home-based working on career progression, pay and opportunity.

That matters, as others have said, because careers are not built solely through formal appraisal systems; they are built through relationships, sponsorship and informal advocacy. They are built through being known, being trusted and being remembered when opportunities arise. Many of us will recognise that some of the most important conversations in our careers happened before meetings began, after they ended, in the pub or simply because we happened to be in the room. If visibility becomes opportunity, and opportunity becomes promotion, we need to understand who benefits and who may be left behind. A policy can appear entirely fair on paper and yet produce unequal outcomes in practice.

The report highlights another crucial issue: management. Successful home-based working requires much more than laptops and video calls. It requires managers who focus on outcomes rather than attendance; who set clear expectations; who stay connected with their teams; and who build trust through regular communication, support and accountability. It also requires employers to invest in the management programmes and skills needed to lead effectively in a more flexible working environment. Many witnesses seemed to say it was more ad hoc than actual practice. Good management can make flexible working a success, but poor management will undermine it.

For me, one of the most important conclusions of this inquiry is that the debate should no longer be framed as a choice between home and office because the world has moved on now. The real challenge is to ensure that flexibility expands opportunity rather than narrows it; that it supports participation without creating new barriers to progression; and that it works not just for those fortunate enough to have access to it, but as fairly as possible across our workforce.

Home-based working is going to remain a permanent feature of modern working life for the time being. Our task now is to ensure that it delivers not just flexibility and productivity, but fairness and opportunity too.

Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

Baroness Featherstone Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Featherstone (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister, because she is sincere and has done a lot to convince us that real change is happening. As ever, sadly, I have to declare an interest, as one of my sister’s twin boys was a haemophiliac who was infected with hepatitis C. He died aged 35, leaving a 10 month-old baby girl. Sadly, his mother—my sister—who campaigned for justice on the contaminated blood scandal for over 40 years died a few weeks ago so, sadly, will never see justice done.

A lot of other elderly and frail people, whom I believe the Minister raised in her response, are dying off. I want to know whether the Minister is aware that there is a great deal of concern about affected people who are not estate beneficiaries, because the Government insist that all infected claims must be processed before their affected loved ones can be considered. People are, effectively, being left to die without justice. Although the Minister raised the issue, I would like to know exactly what steps the Government are taking to prioritise estate claims of the elderly and frail beneficiaries, such as parents, ex-wives and siblings, who are not estate beneficiaries but have suffered terribly and are left waiting in prolonged anguish for the estate claim to be processed.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

May your sister’s memory always be a blessing. Your tireless activism will continue in her name—sorry, it was not meant to be me who got tearful. The noble Baroness has fought tirelessly with her sister. It is important that her name, Della Ryness-Hirsch, is on the record.

On the specifics that the noble Baroness raised, I will make sure that she receives a very detailed briefing and she can have whatever meeting she likes to discuss this in very great detail, as I have said to her. But let me be clear: the Government are prioritising those people who are reaching the end of life. All cohorts have now been opened by IBCA; that includes those affected. The noble Baroness may have specific concerns on behalf of her family, but I know that she also now carries a greater weight of fighting for the memories of all those people in this cohort and to make sure that justice is not just done but seen to be done and delivered. We will work together to make sure this happens.

Europe: Youth Mobility

Baroness Featherstone Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Featherstone (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to have heard the maiden speech by the noble Lord, Lord Moraes, which was absolutely charming. He will be a welcome addition to this House.

If we do not give young people the opportunities that we tore from them when we left the EU, then we will not only deny them all the wonderful broadening of mind and experiences that came from the EU mobility scheme; we will deskill them and reduce our own future, because if we limit young people, we limit ourselves. I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans on securing this vital debate, and I could not agree more on the harm that is being done to the creative industries, tourism and all that area, and therefore to our country, for which the creative industries are an economic driver.

If we could restore to our young people at least some of the opportunities that they had when we were members of the EU, we would give them a whole range of advantages that will remain with them all their lives. Travel not only broadens the mind but gives young people independence and confidence. When you have to navigate a new country on your own, you are forced to step up, to solve problems and become self-reliant. You have to overcome challenges in an unfamiliar environment, and that builds resilience and confidence. Living and working in another country exposes you to different cultures, enables you to understand different perspectives and makes you more open-minded and reasonable—we could sure do with more reasonableness. You learn to be adaptable when you have to work and communicate with people from diverse backgrounds. For some young people, who have limited horizons because of the circumstances of their birth, this is a route to change. Getting away from an environment that is damaging or limiting is vital to life chances.

In terms of future prospects, working abroad improves soft skills, such as communication, adaptability and problem-solving. It can give you a competitive edge in the job market when you return. It expands your network: you get to meet people from all over. and you will create all sorts of valuable personal and professional connections. These networks can open doors to future job opportunities and collaboration.

Living in another country broadens your perspective on life and your future goals. It challenges your world view and may help you reassess what you want in life. In fact, that is what happened to me: I was hitching round Europe, headed for drama school, when I suddenly realised that I did not want to go to drama school—I wanted to go to art school. I went to art school at Oxford Polytechnic, which is where I led my first political campaign. That is how I ended up, 20 years later, going into politics, leading a campaign and introducing same-sex marriage. You see? It works.

You may discover new passions or career paths that you had not considered before. Dealing with different systems, languages and ways of life teaches you to think on your feet; you learn how to adapt to uncertainty, and that really stands you in good stead for the vagaries of your life ahead. Of course, it is also fun.

I am sure we all agree that those are good things. Indeed, as has been mentioned, the Government have bilateral agreements for youth exchanges with a number of countries outside the EU, so they obviously agree. But when it comes to the EU, somehow this Labour Government lose their bravery and are found wanting. It is all very well talking about a reset, but you have to be willing to enter the arena and deal.

In the other place on 15 January, my colleague, James MacCleary, the Lib Dem MP for Lewes, introduced the Youth Mobility Scheme (EU Countries) Bill to

“require the Secretary of State to enter into negotiations with countries which are members of the European Union”—

or are not—

“for the purpose of extending the Youth Mobility Scheme to applicants from”

the EU

“on a reciprocal basis”.

He pointed out the immense damage caused by the Brexit deal and the irony of young people now being able to live and work in Japan for two years but not hop across the channel to France. The Government are shouting their mantra about growth right now, but when growth comes from dealing with the EU, somehow it is dismissed, despite the UK facing acute labour shortages in several areas, including the hospitality trade. Young people visiting are just who we need for that industry.

So far, the Government’s reset with the EU is just talk. They seem to be afraid that if they get closer to the EU, that will be a threat to their electability, boosting Conservative and Reform votes, and be seen as a return to freedom of movement, which it is not. They run from that, but it is not that. We need to show the EU that we are worth allowing a closer and carefully designed youth mobility scheme. We could make sure that those taking part could come here as a clearly defined category on a tightly controlled time limit, but it would also be a signal that we have rejoined the world of reality and send out a message that we are open for business, for real.

I listened to the Chancellor’s “growth, growth, growth” mantra, but everything she said is undermined by these failures to move on the EU mobility scheme, to recognise the market that is Europe on our doorstep, and, indeed, as said by Ed Davey in PMQs yesterday, to enter a customs union, because red tape is killing growth.

Additionally, yesterday, my Lib Dem colleague in the other place, Sarah Olney, had a Westminster Hall debate titled:

“That this House has considered the potential merits of a youth mobility scheme between the EU and the UK”.


With the constant refrain from Labour now that they want a reset, she pointed out that we need to

“forge a new partnership with our European neighbours, one built on co-operation, not confrontation, and moving towards a new comprehensive agreement. A crucial step in that process is rebuilding confidence by agreeing partnerships and associations”—

whether it is Erasmus or whatever—

“to help restore prosperity and opportunities for British people”.—[Official Report, Commons, 29/1/25; col. 134WH.]

We also need to consider that President Trump is now in the White House. The Government have apparently woken up to the importance of building a closer defence and security agreement with the EU, but the EU, unsurprisingly, wants something in return and is insisting that those agreements run side by side with other arrangements, including a youth mobility scheme. The Guardian, on 25 January, reported on the MRP survey of almost 15,000 people by YouGov for the Best for Britain think tank, which showed that more people in every single constituency in England, Scotland and Wales back closer arrangements with the EU rather than more transatlantic trade with Washington.

Of course a youth mobility scheme will involve reciprocal migration obligations, but this is about an investment for the future, growth and well-being, and it will be carefully designed. I understand that the Government are scared of a political backlash, but what is the point of a 400-seat majority at the beginning phase of a Parliament, where brave governance will see people feeling better at the end of five years? Otherwise, I do not think they believe in themselves. Our world is descending into chaos and need right now, so please, Labour, use your power to stop this. The whole point of being in government is power, so please use it.

There will need to be administration and cost, but that is what investment is, and investing in our young people is the absolute best investment we can make. It is not a return to free movement. This is a scheme that would not replicate the original youth mobility scheme or—sadly, in my view—restore the full benefits that UK citizens had pre-Brexit, but it would help young people for a short period, unlike the open-ended rights they previously had. It is likely that, unlike the old system, a youth mobility scheme could or would require visas, fees and possible job restrictions, depending on our labour market. Although it would not be as flexible as the scheme we had when we had EU membership, it would be a step towards easing travel and work barriers. We could negotiate the age limits, the length of stay and the job restrictions if they are needed.

The Chancellor’s 45-minute speech was a heart-rending plea for growth, growth, growth. She admitted that we need to go further and faster in the pursuit of economic growth, and Liberal Democrats agree with her, but the route to a reset can start with this tiny, open-hearted step into a youth EU mobility scheme. One small step for young people; one giant step towards common sense, growth, security and power. The insanity of refusal and denial must stop.