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.