Parliamentary activity

Answering body: Cabinet Office

The Infected Blood Inquiry has heard first hand details of the terrible suffering experienced by the victims of infected blood over many years, and the urgent need to address the financial uncertainty faced by many.

This Government commissioned Sir Robert Francis QC to produce an independent study with options for a workable and fair framework of compensation for those infected and affected by the tragedy. A copy of Sir Robert’s report is in the Library of this House.

Following Sir Robert’s detailed evidence given to the Inquiry in July, the Chair of the Infected Blood Inquiry, Sir Brian Langstaff delivered an interim report to the government. In accordance with section 26 of the Inquiries Act 2005, a copy of Sir Brian’s interim report has been laid before Parliament. In his report, Sir Brian made the following recommendations:

“(1) An interim payment should be paid, without delay, to all those infected and all bereaved partners currently registered on UK infected blood support schemes, and those who register between now and the inception of any future scheme;

(2) The amount should be no less than £100,000, as recommended by Sir Robert Francis QC.”

On 16 August, I wrote to Sir Brian to confirm that the government has accepted his recommendation in full and that we will be making an interim payment of £100,000, by the end of October, to all infected beneficiaries and bereaved partners registered with the four national support schemes. The date of effect of the recommendation is 29 July 2022, the date that Sir Brian delivered his report. Any infected person or bereaved partner registered with one of the four schemes operating in England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland on that date will be eligible to receive the payments. Sir Brian’s recommendation - which this government accepts - was careful not to exclude any eligible person who, for whatever reason, may have not registered themselves with their relevant national support scheme. Should they do so in future, before the inception of any future scheme, they will also be eligible for such a payment, subject to successful application to the scheme.

The intention is that payments will be tax-free and will not affect any financial benefits support an individual is receiving. In advance of the payments, the four support schemes will write to beneficiaries, confirming tax exemptions and benefit disregards, and provide practical details about how the payments will be made. The UK Government will provide the funding to ensure that those eligible, wherever they are living in the United Kingdom, will receive the payment.

As recognised by Sir Robert Francis and Sir Brian Langstaff, this group of victims is the immediate priority for the government because we recognise that, tragically, many of these individuals will not see the conclusion of the Inquiry.

However, I am mindful that there will be people deeply affected by this tragedy who will not benefit from these payments. Sir Robert’s detailed Compensation Framework Study makes carefully considered recommendations about the further scope of compensation, including that carers and bereaved relatives (a cohort of affected people not currently supported by financial support schemes) should be compensated. In his interim report, Sir Brian makes specific reference to bereaved parents and children but notes the complexities in determining the approach to their compensation.

To those individuals and others who are out of scope of these payments, I would like to emphasise that the interim payments the government has announced are the start of the process and not the end. Sir Robert’s study has been warmly welcomed by the Inquiry and, without prejudging the findings of the independent Inquiry, I fully expect his wider recommendations to inform the Inquiry’s final report when it is published in mid-2023. Until that time, the government will continue work in consideration of the broader recommendations in the Compensation Framework Study so that we are ready to respond promptly when the Inquiry concludes its work.

Answering body: Cabinet Office

Today the Government is publishing the study by Sir Robert Francis QC, which was commissioned by my predecessor as Paymaster General, the Rt Hon Penny Mordaunt MP.

The study makes recommendations for a framework for compensation and redress for the victims of infected blood, which can be ready to implement upon the conclusion of the Infected Blood Inquiry, should the Inquiry’s findings and recommendations require it.

Sir Robert’s study is comprehensive and detailed, and reflects the contributions of many individuals directly affected by infected blood, their recognised legal representatives, and campaign groups representing the infected and affected communities, many of whom participated in a series of meetings held by the study from July 2021 to February 2022. Sir Robert makes clear the importance of these contributions by introducing his study with a collection of moving, heartbreaking and sometimes shocking quotations from some of those who spoke to him. It is right that their views and experiences should be at the heart of his work, and I would like once again to thank all those who contributed to the study and shared their experiences with Sir Robert. I do not underestimate how difficult this must have been for many, and I am grateful for their courage.

Sir Robert will give evidence about his work to the Infected Blood Inquiry on 11th and 12th July. Before then, it is important that the Inquiry, and recognised legal representatives of its infected and affected core participants, have an opportunity to consider his work; it is most important that the government is able to reflect upon Sir Robert’s evidence to the Inquiry in considering his study.

There is a great deal of complexity to the issues that the study covers and a wide range of factors to be taken into account in considering Sir Robert’s recommendations. This analysis cannot be completed hurriedly but officials across government are focussing on this so that the government can be ready to respond quickly to the Inquiry’s recommendations, as was intended when the study was commissioned. I will update the House as this work progresses.

I would like, once again, to thank Sir Robert and his team for their work and the timely delivery of the study.

I have asked that a copy of the Study be deposited in the libraries of both Houses in Parliament.

Answering body: Cabinet Office

On 20 May 2021, the Government announced the appointment of Sir Robert Francis QC, to carry out a study to look at options for a framework for compensation for people infected and affected by infected blood, and it was agreed that the study would report back to the Government before the independent Infected Blood Inquiry reports.

I am pleased to confirm that Sir Robert delivered his report to me on 14 March. Sir Robert completed the comprehensive and detailed study in a timely fashion, and I would like to thank Sir Robert and his team for the careful and sensitive way they have worked. I would also like to thank all those who contributed to the study, sharing their experiences and views with Sir Robert. I know this must have been very difficult for many. I am grateful for their valuable contributions.

I will now carefully consider Sir Robert’s findings and recommendations. It is my intention to publish the Study and the Government response, in time for the Inquiry and its core participants to consider them before Sir Robert gives evidence to the Inquiry. I will write in due course to Sir Brian Langstaff, the Chair of the Inquiry, about our plans for responding and publication.

Answering body: Cabinet Office

On 20 May my predecessor, my Right Honourable friend, the member for Portsmouth North, announced the appointment of Sir Robert Francis QC to carry out an independent study to look at options for a framework for compensation for victims of infected blood. The study will make recommendations for compensation, before the Infected Blood Inquiry reports. Terms of Reference of the study were to be finalised following consultation between Sir Robert and those infected and affected. The consultation period concluded in August, and Sir Robert wrote to my predecessor with his recommendations.

Sir Robert’s consultation received a positive response from the infected and affected community. 447 formal responses were submitted (including from many of the legal representatives of infected and affected core participants of the Inquiry), along with over 150 further representations, primarily personal accounts from the infected and affected on how this tragedy has affected their lives. These accounts were of great assistance to Sir Robert in reviewing the draft Terms of Reference. Sir Robert wishes to express his gratitude to the many individuals who contributed to the consultation, in many cases having to relive the awful experiences they have suffered over so many years, and I would like to echo his gratitude.

Sir Robert’s recommendations identify the key issues that the study should consider. They offer assurance to the infected and affected communities that the matters of most concern to them will be considered by the Study. I am therefore happy to accept Sir Robert’s recommendations in full, and I am today publishing the following Terms of Reference without amendment:

RATIONALE FOR COMPENSATION

● To consider the rationale for compensation as a matter of general principle and in relation to any particular classes of compensation, recognising that it is not for the Study to pre-empt the determination by the Infected Blood Inquiry as to what, if any, rationale is supported by the evidence it has received;

INDEPENDENT ADVICE TO GOVERNMENT

● Give independent advice to the Government regarding the design of a workable and fair framework for compensation for individuals infected and affected across the UK to achieve parity between those eligible for compensation regardless of where in the UK the relevant treatment occurred or place of residence. While the Study is to take into account differences in current practice and/or law in the devolved administrations, it is not asked to consider whether delivery of that framework should be managed centrally or individually by the devolved administrations;

SCOPE OF COMPENSATION

● To consider the scope of eligibility for such compensation (including the appropriateness or otherwise of any conditions such as ‘cut-off’ dates), and whether it should be extended beyond infected individuals and their partners, to include for example affected parents and children, the wider affected family (e.g. siblings), and significant non-family carers and others affected, either because of the impact of caring responsibilities or the effects of bereavement or some other impact; to include consideration of former and new partnerships/marriages; and whether the estate of any individual who has died should be eligible for compensation;

CATEGORIES OF INJURY AND LOSS

● To consider the injuries, loss and detriments that compensation should address, in relation to the past, present and future, including:

(a) the physical impact and consequences of infection/s (including the effect of any treatment, and potential future adverse effects);

(b) infections that cleared naturally; and the risk of any significant or long-term side effects of treatment (such as liver damage, increased risk of cancer) even if they are yet to materialise;

(c) the mental health, social and financial impacts (including access to financial services) - both actual and in terms of loss of opportunities - suffered by both the infected and affected; and

(d) other types of loss if appropriate;

TYPES OF AWARD AND METHOD OF ASSESSMENT

● To consider: (a) the extent to which any framework should offer compensation on the basis of an individualised assessment and/or fixed sums or a combination of these (including consideration of the position of an individual who was both infected, and affected by another individual’s infection);

(b) whether awards should be by way of final lump sums, periodical payments or both;

(c) whether an individual should be required to prove matters (if so what types of matters, by what means, and to what standard);

(d) whether there should be any limitation by way of time or other bar on entitlement or claim, and whether any existing time bars should be maintained;

(e) the extent to which compensation should be limited to matters currently recognised by the law (taking into account any differences in the law across the UK) on damages and evidence as recoverable for the purposes of compensation, or, if not, the basis on which broader matters should be taken into account;

MEASURES FOR COMPENSATION

● To consider the measures for compensation, looking at other national schemes (for example, the compensation tribunal established in the Republic of Ireland) to examine their merits or otherwise, and experiences, both as to form (i.e. administration/process) and the substance of compensation;

RELATIONSHIP WITH CURRENT SCHEMES

● To consider the relationship between a compensation framework and other receipts and payments by individuals, including: (a) the pre-existing financial support schemes; (b) legal claims; (c) welfare benefits and tax;

OPTIONS FOR ADMINISTERING THE SCHEME

● To consider options for administering the scheme (including but not limited to what bodies, organisations or tribunals might need to be established to facilitate such administration); what principles, aims or criteria etc might underpin the development of an appropriate scheme; and any ancillary matters which should be considered such as interim payments, publicity of the scheme, outreach to potential claimants, and support;

OTHER ISSUES

● To consider other issues that, in the course of his investigations, Sir Robert considers relevant; and

REPORTING TO GOVERNMENT BY FEBRUARY 2022

● To Submit to the Government its report and recommendations as quickly as possible and no later than the end of February 2022, to provide the Government with advice on potential options for compensation framework design.

-----

Sir Robert and his team will now begin the more detailed conversations and analysis to look into the detail of the issues raised by the infected and affected community. This will allow him to produce a set of comprehensive recommendations to the complex issues involved.

I, like my predecessor, am deeply committed to ensuring that Sir Brian Langstaff’s independent public inquiry has all the resources it needs to complete its work; in Sir Brian’s words, “as quickly as thoroughness permits”. The infected blood scandal continues to claim the lives of infected people, and those directly affected have waited too long for answers, and for justice.