Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response Update

Viscount Stansgate Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Lords Chamber

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

I am going to thank the noble Lord for the question; maybe I should not. He will have to bear with me, because he, like I, will have watched some of the hearings as they were happening. I will write to him with the detail about who, what, when and where.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for reassuring the House that the next tranche of documents will be provided to Parliament as soon as practicable after State Opening. In addition to the 300 documents which have already been released to the Intelligence and Security Committee, chaired by my noble friend Lord Beamish, may I ask her whether there has been any divergence of view between the Government and the Metropolitan Police as to which documents should not be released because they would prejudice the ongoing investigation?

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

I thank my noble friend. Obviously, these are all live matters, and some of those conversations I simply cannot discuss in your Lordships’ House. We have a very constructive relationship with the Metropolitan Police and want to make sure that it has everything it needs as part of its investigations if it is seeking to make any future prosecutions.

Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

Viscount Stansgate Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, I begin, as I have previously, by welcoming the progress made by the Infected Blood Compensation Authority and the Government in delivering payments. I commend the diligent work of Sir Brian Langstaff and his team, and all those who contributed to the inquiry and its additional report, which continues to shape the compensation scheme that is trying to bring some measure of justice to the victims of this terrible scandal and their families. I also pay tribute to those who have campaigned so tirelessly and bravely for so long in the face of such appalling harms inflicted by the state.

I note the Statement made in the other place and particularly the scale of the delivery now under way, with over £2 billion paid and thousands of individuals having received offers. That is an important milestone in what remains a profoundly long and painful process. Much in what has been set out will be welcomed across this House and, most importantly, by those who have lived with the consequences of this injustice. I also recognise that many of the changes now being brought forward are the result of consultation with the infected and affected community, reflecting the issues they have consistently raised throughout the process. That includes improved recognition of harms arising from infection in childhood, better provision for mental health impacts and loss of earnings where careers were curtailed, and specific new awards around unethical research, including for those who were children at Treloar’s school. These are significant and necessary developments, and I recognise the seriousness with which they are now being addressed.

This House has returned to these issues repeatedly, rightly so given the scale of the injustice and the length of time victims have waited. The question now is not whether the scheme has been improved but whether it can deliver what it promises in practice—fair, timely and trusted compensation at scale. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could address three areas in her reply.

On delivery, we have already noted that £2 billion has been paid out to 3,161 people, but given that 18,053 have registered their intent to make a compensation claim, can the Minister provide an update on the pace at which the Infected Blood Compensation Authority is expanding the number of claims it can process? Given the scale of what remains ahead, is she confident that IPCA has sufficient staffing and professionalism to address the numbers involved so that victims can receive compensation swiftly?

Secondly, on consistency and implementation, while the tariff-based approach is designed to reduce complexity, several of the new elements, particularly those relating to psychological harm, loss of earnings and exceptional loss, inevitably require judgment in application. Can the Minister set out what safeguards will be in place to ensure consistent decision-making across caseworkers, particularly where evidence is limited or assessments of opportunity or mental health harm are required?

Thirdly, on timing and certainty, the Statement indicates that further legislation will be required to implement these changes. Given the length of time since the inquiry’s additional report and the proximity of the coming parliamentary Session, can the Minister be more specific about the legislative timetable and confirm whether the necessary legislation will be included in the forthcoming King’s Speech?

This scandal represents a catastrophic failure of the state and the response to it must meet that scale. Compensation alone can never fully account for what has been lost, but it must be delivered in a way that is fair, accessible and efficient for both infected and affected individuals. Today’s Statement represents progress, but for many what matters now is not only what has been announced but what will be delivered and whether the system has the capacity, clarity and consistency to deliver it.

As we consider what must happen next, we must recognise an unavoidable truth: for many victims, compensation has come too late. Too many have passed away without receiving a penny, and their families continue to carry the weight of that injustice. Their absence should remain at the forefront of our minds as this scheme moves into its next phase.

[The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Stansgate) (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely, and I now invite her to speak.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the Government for this Statement, and the technical expert group—TEG—at IBCA for its detailed report, which sits behind the proposed changes to the scheme outlined in the Statement. There are many victims who will be reassured by most, though perhaps not all, of the changes.

It is good news to hear that over 3,000 people have now received an offer of compensation, and I note that the Statement says payments have been made to all eligible groups. Can the Minister say how many of that number are from the affected group? While accepting that the Government’s priority has been to secure compensation for infected victims first, it is still true to say that a number of the affected victims are themselves frail and elderly, or, worse, very ill. Does IBCA have a date by which the scheme will be up and running for all affected victims, and will those I have outlined be prioritised as an urgent group?

It is very good news that the Government are removing the 25% deduction applied to past care compensation, which is exactly what Sir Brian Langstaff’s inquiry recommended, but why has it taken well over a year for this decision to be made? Since the spring of 2024, one of the issues that I and others have repeatedly raised with the last Government, as well as with this one, is that the state should not claw back any past benefits, including care costs, from these families who have had to turn to benefits and care support because of a fundamental failure of the state. In so doing, they—both infected and affected—lost jobs, their careers and sometimes their homes, and, much worse, had to live on the breadline for many years. To penalise them at the compensation stage was cruel, so it is good that the deduction is stopping.

However, the bigger point stands, and I know the Minister will recognise this, as she and I often talk about the bigger picture of other schemes as well. This governmental approach is seen in other schemes, and too often the change comes after extended delays. Further, trust with the victims has been lost. Will the Government please rethink this approach in future schemes before decisions are made?

A further point on the care award is that it is not clear whether affected victims who were carers are yet recognised in their own right, or whether the entirety of the care award, including the carer’s element, will remain solely with the estate of the infected person. I wonder if the Minister can update the House.

The changes outlined in the TEG report follow on from the complications of a number of different schemes over many years in the past, using different matrices, and indeed through devolution. Many, especially the ones relating to psychological damage, are welcome. Before Christmas, the TEG published details of how to handle historic suicide in the compensation scheme. The wording of that paragraph in the report has caused real consternation and distress among victims, both the infected and the affected, especially those who have already lost loved ones who were infected to suicide.

The commentary paragraph in the TEG report outlines the complexity of suicide and recognises that it is retraumatising for a family member to have to raise it with IBCA. However, it then goes on to say:

“Even with the best explanation, we believe that linking more compensation to evidence of suicide creates a risk that the Scheme is misinterpreted, and places vulnerable people at risk if they feel pressured to harm themselves to help their families get more compensation”.


Anyone who has lost a loved one to suicide for whatever reason knows that suicide is not a rational act; it is an act of desperation. To suggest that victims might resort to it solely for financial benefit as a small part of a grant of total compensation is just staggering. It has caused real distress and a further loss of trust, again. I hope that this issue can be reviewed.

Finally, it is very good news that compensation is to be given to victims treated unethically, especially the children at Lord Mayor Treloar’s School. I want to ask the Minister two questions in relation to the unethical behaviour by doctors who used infected blood in research projects without informing the victims or, if they were still children, their parents. First, are the police looking at what evidence remains? I know the NHS has said that many documents have been destroyed, but if IBCA has enough evidence to know that they were infected—and in many cases it knows when—then surely any surviving doctor should be questioned. Secondly, will IBCA ensure that there was no other unethical treatment given to people in later decades, not just those infected through the early research projects 50 years ago?

As ever, I am aware that I have asked a number of technical questions to the Minister; if the replies are not to hand, please will she write to me with them?

Amazon Web Services

Viscount Stansgate Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for those questions. There is no evidence that this was caused by any malicious activity, and we have to be very careful that we do not speculate otherwise. AWS has publicly stated that the outage was initially caused by an issue with its configuration of the domain name system, or DNS, and some wider related complications. Departments independently determine which suppliers to use based on their use cases. Some cloud providers are strategic suppliers, but departments make decisions on adoption based on not only reliance but cost, capability and their staff’s expertise. We are working to diversify the UK’s cloud ecosystem and encourage greater participation by UK-based and European providers, as well as promoting innovation through our digital infrastructure and cybersecurity programmes. At the same time, the NCSC offers advice and guidance on how businesses and organisations can make themselves more cyber resilient, and this advice is also broadly applicable to digital resilience issues.

As I mentioned in Oral Questions last week, businesses should also take it upon themselves to ensure that they have sufficient cyber resilience systems in place by ensuring that their software and hardware are up to date and, if they can, seeking certification so that their systems are Cyber Essentials certified. Businesses should also be encouraged to have a business continuity plan so that, if anything happens, they have a plan in place.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on his Question; I submitted exactly the same Question yesterday. Is it possible that some of the sites affected in the UK, including the GOV.UK portal, were not aware that the data was held in America rather than in the UK and that, therefore, when a problem arises as it did in East-1, or whatever it is called, on the east coast of America, they were not aware that we would be in this vulnerable position?

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Viscount Stansgate Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 29th January 2025 Grand Committee

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Stansgate) (Lab)]

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord but, as Members may have noticed, there is a Division in the Chamber. The Committee stands adjourned until 5.28 pm.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Stansgate) (Lab)]

My Lords, we will resume the Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Leigh, has the floor.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I think that I had reached the conclusion of my remarks, which is that I support these amendments. I particularly support impact assessments.

Before I sit down, I just make the comment that it is somewhat strange to note that we were voting on something in the Chamber of the House relating to boxes in the Royal Albert Hall, but we are deprived of the opportunity to vote on the matter of national insurance rises for every company in the UK. That seems to me to be somewhat absurd.

Global IT Outage

Viscount Stansgate Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question and her openness and engagement with me when she was a Minister. Her passion for improving resilience was clear in how she carried out the role. This is definitely a central concern of the incoming Government, which is why we introduced the cybersecurity and resilience Bill in the King’s Speech. I look forward to discussing that further with her and other noble Lords from around the House as it progresses through the legislative process.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, as the Government continue to consider the issues arising from this serious outage, I invite my noble friend the Minister to consider seriously the reports issued by the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, of which I have been a member, which deal with issues such as ransomware, against which the software was designed to protect us. These issues will only become more important in the years ahead.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My noble friend raises similar points to other noble Lords; Members across the House are quite rightly concerned about this. As part of the process of developing and taking the cybersecurity and resilience Bill through this House and the other place, all learning from a range of reviews, including some of the public inquiries that have reported and are yet to report, will be key to improving our country’s resilience.