I remind the Minister that statements should be limited to 10 minutes and that it is courteous to let the Speaker’s Office know if a statement will exceed this time. The Opposition will of course be allocated additional time. I call the shadow Minister.

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and the progress he has made in seven months, not least on the £11.8 billion he secured in the Budget; he deserves credit for that.

It is regrettable that we lost a year from Sir Brian Langstaff’s second interim report in which he gave his final recommendations on compensation, stating that the Government had no reason to delay setting up the compensation process. I know my right hon.

Friend is aware that there are still concerns about the tariff, particularly among those infected with hepatitis C and those who endured unethical testing.

Does he agree that, while we must move ahead with all haste to get people the justice they deserve, IBCA must have flexibility in its decisions when dealing with those who feel that the tariff does not recognise the suffering they have endured?

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work he does as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood. Obviously the tariffs were set on the basis of the expert group chaired by Sir Jonathan Montgomery and I compliment him on the work he did in that regard.

However, the tariffs and the scheme also recognise particular individual circumstances and cases that are more complex. That is why the supplemental route is being put in place. I would add that I saw when I visited IBCA—I understand that my hon.

Friend will be visiting shortly—the sympathetic, compassionate approach being taken with regard to evidence, given how long ago so much of this happened.

I call Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

The hon. Lady is absolutely right that this scandal goes across decades and across Governments. While compensation is obviously one of the crucial recommendations, there are a total of 12 recommendations from Sir Brian Langstaff, on which I will be updating the House in due course.

At present, IBCA will meet its target of 250 people by the end of next month. The approach it is taking is one of test and learn.

That enables IBCA to scale up more quickly to be able to do what we all want it to do, which is to get compensation as quickly as reasonably possible to those who need it. I would expect the first payments to the affected to begin before the end of this year.

Finally, on the duty of candour, which is another of Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendations, I expect to be introducing legislation to this House on that before 15 April, which, of course, is the Hillsborough anniversary.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. I want to focus on what he said about the progress being made in delivering compensation for victims and their families. I recently met a constituent of mine, Sue Sparkes, who lost her husband Les owing to infected blood in 1990.

She is concerned that it will take many, many years to make all these payments. I do not doubt my right hon.

Friend’s commitment and passion on this issue to tackle injustice and deliver the culture change that is needed, but will he assure Sue and me that every lever of government is being pulled to ensure that all payments to infected and affected individuals are made as a matter of urgency?

I can certainly give that assurance both to my hon. Friend and to his constituent, Sue. The Government will continue to push this forward as quickly as is reasonably possible.

I am conscious of the strength of feeling, and I am also conscious that victims have waited decades for justice, and that need for speed is recognised across Government.

Every Member of this House should welcome this statement, as I certainly do, as there is no greater horror imaginable than becoming chronically sick as a result of what ought to be a routine medical procedure—a blood transfusion. Will the right hon.

Gentleman, following on from the previous question, ensure that these matters are dealt with promptly? Will he reflect on what the report into these matters describes as institutional failures?

The National Audit Office looked at compensation for a range of scandals and concluded: “There is no central coordinated approach when government sets up new compensation schemes resulting in a relatively slow, ad-hoc approach.

” The report recommended that the Cabinet Office reviews its arrangements to “allow compensation schemes to begin and operate in a more timely…and effective manner”.

When the Minister returns to the House, will he reflect on that recommendation and perhaps say to the House what the Government will do in response?

The right hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point, and what is crucial, whether it is this compensation scheme or others that have been run by Government, is that we learn the lessons between the different compensation schemes and we learn best practice.

I absolutely agree with him that that is crucial with this compensation scheme, too.

I thank the Minister for his statement. Brian Heatlie, a haemophiliac, was given infected blood products in 1982 at the age of five. As a result, he died in 1996 at the age of 18.

His devoted parents, Lynda and James, from New Mills in my constituency of High Peak, have been waiting 28 years for compensation, and they are now in their 70s.

Can the Minister confirm that the new regulations will mean that it may be possible for victims who have lost loved ones in this scandal, such as Lynda and James, to receive both their own compensation and compensation for the estate of their loved ones?

I think I speak for the whole House in sending our sympathies to Lynda and James for the indescribable sense of loss and the experience that they have been through over so many years. The answer to my hon. Friend’s question is yes.

These consolidated regulations are for the estates of infected people, but also for the affected, too. But I know, and the whole House would agree, that no amount of money can make up for that awful experience.

I thank the Minister most sincerely for his statement. Nobody in the House is not reassured by what he has said. He also referred to the regional Administrations and how this will affect them, and he has had those discussions with them. There are reports today that only 0.

2% of eligible family members have been contacted about the scheme, and there are concerns that the scheme does not have the capacity to cope with the numbers of potential applicants.

Can the Minister outline how he will ensure that there is capacity for all those families to have a sense of recognition and to be definite about a form of restitution?

First, in terms of numbers, as I indicated, IBCA is operating a test and learn approach that then allows it to scale up. It will scale up its capacity alongside that, to ensure that it has the capacity it requires to process the claims. As I indicated, I visited IBCA last month.

I can already see that scaling up starting to take place, and the hon. Member can certainly give assurance to his constituents that the Government will continue to do all we can to ensure the swift delivery of compensation.

I thank my right hon. Friend for today’s update. My West Dunbartonshire constituent, Fiona, was infected with hepatitis B following blood transfusions in 1954 and 1985.

Fiona is apparently not entitled to any form of support or compensation payment because of missing medical records and because of receiving a transfusion both before and after the 1972 cut-off relating to screening for hepatitis B.

Will the Minister agree to meet my constituent and me to discuss this matter and ensure that she and others affected in similar circumstances—apparently a small number—can receive compensation and justice under this Labour Government?

Generally, with regard to evidence, the Infected Blood Compensation Authority has said that when an individual is invited to make their claim, it will aim to gather some of the information, including medical records and information about an applicant’s condition and severity, from organisations that already have it.

That should mean that those claiming will be asked for the least amount of information possible. I know that IBCA is currently considering what guidance can be provided for people ahead of making a claim. On the specific case of my hon.

Friend’s constituent, Fiona, if he sends me the details, I am more than happy to look into it.

May I thank the Minister for the thoroughness and thoughtfulness with which he has made his statement? I think he would agree that there are still issues around speed, quantum, flexibility and care. Am I right in thinking that IBCA does not have any flexibility about the amount of damages paid?

If so, can he give a rough indication of what sort of compensation is paid when someone has lost their life as a result of being poisoned by the NHS? Is it the case that people have to make an individual settlement and agreement on what they will accept?

If so, is there any professional support that someone, who might be quite ill, can get before signing on the dotted line and possibly signing away their rights to more compensation than they might otherwise receive?

On the right hon. Gentleman’s point about tariffs, they have been set out and published. There are then assessments to be made about severity within the tariff bands. There is also, as I have indicated, the supplementary route for more complex cases.

I cannot give him a single figure across these cases as they obviously vary, but the House will gradually see the overall amount being published by IBCA. On the right hon.

Gentleman’s second point, a victim making an application to the IBCA will be given a particular claim manager—I met the first claim managers only in recent weeks—to speak to and guide them through the process, which is crucial.

I know that the culture imbued by Sir Robert Francis is an enabling one about helping victims, particularly with evidence. I have also signed off both legal support and financial support, because it is about receiving what are, in many cases, life-changing sums of money.

May I first thank my right hon. Friend for the update? Despite his sterling efforts—I really mean that—the process has taken far too long. Victims are dying at the rate of two per week, never having seen the compensation they deserve.

Victims are very much unaware of, and desperate to understand, what and how much compensation they might even be due under the process. Can the Minister say how many of the 5,000 infected victims will be invited to apply to the scheme during 2025?

Has he considered, or is there potential to consider, allowing victims to take support scheme payments as a lump sum without any reductions?

I am grateful to the Paymaster General for the update; indeed, I am grateful that he has given several updates to the House. My North East Fife constituent was infected a number of years ago and involved in the campaign for a long time.

He has shared concerns about the evidential standard expected of claimants, particularly in relation to medical records.

Indeed, his lawyers have told me that they have concerns that case managers are not correctly interpreting the initial date of infection because medical records are not available to substantiate that.

They also have concerns that the Australia antigen has not been properly understood as an indicator of HBV. Is the Paymaster General aware of those concerns? Can he comment on them?

The hon. Lady is entirely right to raise the issue of evidence. There is the specific issue that she referred to, but there is also a far more general problem about incidents often being from a long time ago. We also know that in some cases there was deliberate destruction of records.

The level of evidence is therefore clearly a significant issue.

As I have indicated, when I visited the IBCA, I heard from claim managers about the approach they are taking and the culture that is being imbued—an enabling culture—and about how the IBCA will aim to gather some of the information to assist victims, which I think will be a vital part of the process.

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and his commitment to this issue. Will he say a little more about how he is working with colleagues in Scotland to drive forward the final compensation scheme? I share the concerns already expressed by hon.

Members across the House about the need for speed in ensuring that victims receive the compensation that they so rightly deserve.

I assure my hon. Friend that I work closely with the devolved Administrations on the issue of compensation. There is a broader point as well: events that took place in the 1970s, 1980s and beyond occurred in the pre-devolution age.

Over the next few months, as we look to implement the rest of Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendations, partnership work with the devolved Administrations will become even more important.

I thank the Paymaster General for an advance copy of his statement. I recognise his sincerity, and the hard work that he and his colleagues are putting into progressing this vital compensation scheme.

I also understand the need for him and his colleagues to take small initial steps to test their systems and processes, but as others have said, legal representatives fear that many will die while they wait, and justice delayed is justice denied.

Does he really think that is good enough, given the numbers involved? Will he consider strengthening the authority’s teams who are processing these claims, so that the pace can be rapidly accelerated, and so that they can meet the forthcoming key performance indicators to which he referred?

Finally, the last time we spoke about the scheme in the Chamber, he undertook to look at the role of voluntary organisations that provide vital support to claimants, and to consider putting funding for them on a statutory basis. Will he comment on that as well, please?

On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, he mentioned me and my colleagues, but of course IBCA is an arm’s length body—it is operationally independent—so it takes operationally independent decisions on how best to pay out the money to as many people as possible, as quickly as possible.

As I said, it has decided to adopt a test-and-learn approach to make that possible. One of Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendations is that we look at support for voluntary organisations. That will be covered in an update that I will give to the House in due course on all 12 recommendations.

However, I give the hon. Gentleman the general assurance that I am, and will continue to be, restless for progress. On his point about IBCA scaling up and having more staff and claims managers, that is precisely what it is doing at the moment.

I thank the Minister for his statement and update. In Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages, I have a constituent, Janet, who is in her 80s. She tragically lost her first and second husband to infected blood, and she is due to receive compensation as their next of kin.

She would like to ensure that she can pass the payments on to their children, who, as the Minister rightly said, are victims, too. However, she has been advised that if that happened, it would constitute a secondary transfer and be subject to inheritance tax.

We are talking about people who lost their father and stepfather to this issue. Will he meet me to explore whether a solution can be found in these cases?

First, I should say for clarity that all IBCA payments made to those in the UK will be exempt from income tax, capital gains tax and inheritance tax.

Anyone who is in direct receipt of compensation from IBCA, or is a beneficiary of an estate to which compensation was paid on behalf of the deceased, does not need to pay income tax, capital gains tax or inheritance tax on the amount that they receive. I am aware of the concern that my hon.

Friend is talking about; that is a slightly different situation. If she writes to me with the details of the case, I will be more than happy to look into it.

As on the last occasion, I express my sympathies to the hon. Lady for the loss of her family friend back in the 1990s. Of course, I am always looking to share best practice, as I said a moment ago to the right hon.

Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), who is no longer in his place. That is vital. I can also give the hon. Lady the undertaking that I will continue to update this House, as I hope right hon. and hon. Members have seen me do over the past seven months.

There will also be a debate on the regulations. I will have to give an update on the 12 recommendations from Sir Brian Langstaff by the May deadline, but IBCA will also provide regular updates via our newsletter, and I refer her to those as well.