Infected Blood Inquiry: Additional Report

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff Excerpts

Thursday 24th July 2025 Lords Chamber

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

The impact on the noble Baroness’s family reminds us every time we hear of it that there is a real human cost. It is very easy for all of us to consider this just to be news and outside of your Lordships’ House. This scandal was in your Lordships’ House, it was in this building, and the noble Baroness’s family paid the price for it.

The noble Baroness makes a really interesting point about the affected being able to register sooner rather than later. Obviously, IBCA has its programme in place, but I will speak to IBCA to see what schemes could be put in place.

With regard to the impact on affected estates of people passing away, there was a change also announced this week. The Government acknowledge the inquiry statement that delays in delivering payments to the affected community have left some individuals at a disadvantage. Therefore, the estate will be eligible to claim compensation where the eligible affected person passes away from 21 May 2024 to 31 March 2031. We have extended the end date so that the estate will still be able to claim—we have gone further than the recommendation of the inquiry.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for taking a personal interest in this appalling, sad history, which has gone on for so long, and for recognising that there is a need to really speed things up. The slower it is, the worse the agony. Wrong has happened and recognising that is crucial.

I am also glad to see that several of the further inquiry recommendations have been adopted. I want to ask about one part of the Statement. It says that the recommendations will “remove the requirement for evidence of the date of diagnosis for hepatitis B or C”—and thank goodness that that has gone. But it then says that this will allow “claims for those mono-infected with hepatitis” to be rapidly processed. As the Minister knows, there is another virus, hepatitis D, which can coexist with hepatitis B; it was not known about for many years, but it causes a much worse prognosis in hepatitis than if there is only hepatitis B overall. Can she clarify that “mono-infected” does not mean that anyone infected will be excluded because somewhere someone has said, “Oh, they’ve only got one virus rather than two”, and clarify that this does not have any crossover with HIV?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent]

I thank the noble Baroness for the questions. She is absolutely right: how we speed this up is vitally important. We cannot slow it down. It has to be about speeding it up so the—I hate the term “compensation payments” because it is appalling—the payments are out of the door as quickly as possible and people can use the money to enhance their lives or however they want to spend it. With regards to the specifics, the noble Baroness and I have discussed hepatitis D. As she will be aware, this is something that is still developing in terms of our knowledge base, and that will have a long-term impact. We do not know what that is yet, but I look forward to discussing this in more detail with her in the future. As regards “mono-infected”, it is my understanding, but I will have to clarify, that people who consider themselves to be mono-infected now would qualify under this, and if subsequent illnesses are then brought forward, that should not have an impact. But I will confirm in writing to the noble Baroness and place it in the Library for all Members of your Lordships’ House, because it is too important for me to speculate about.