Parliamentary activity

Answering body: Department of Health and Social Care

A group claim has been brought on behalf of approximately 500 claimants or their dependants, in relation to Factor VIII and Factor IX products. This claim is stayed pending the outcome of the Infected Blood Inquiry.

Answering body: Cabinet Office

The timing of the independent Inquiry is a matter for Sir Brian Langstaff, the Chair of the Inquiry. Sir Brian has made clear his intention to complete his work as quickly as reasonable thoroughness allows.

As the responsible Minister for the Infected Blood Inquiry, I announced on 7 June the publication of the study by Sir Robert Francis QC into a framework of compensation for people directly affected by infected blood (HCWS79). Sir Robert will give evidence about his work to the Infected Blood Inquiry on 11 and 12 July.

The government is considering Sir Robert’s recommendations and it is most important that the government is able to reflect upon Sir Robert’s evidence and the evidence of others to the Inquiry as part of that consideration.

Answering body: Department of Health and Social Care

This information is not held in the format requested. The Infected Blood Inquiry was established in July 2018. The England Infected Blood Support Scheme (EIBSS) is administered by the NHS Business Service Authority and began operation on 1 November 2017. In England, the EIBSS makes regular payments to beneficiaries, paid either monthly or quarterly, a winter fuel payment in Quarter 3 of each year and one-off lump sum and discretionary payments.

Data on the number of payments made between November 2017 and March 2018 is not held centrally. However, the following table shows the total payments made in each category between November 2017 and March 2018.

Regular payment £10,774,736

Lump sum payment £2,634,105

Discretionary £1,292,921

The following table shows number of payments and the total payments made in each category between April and July 2018.

Regular payment 9,701 payments £11,706,192

Lump sum payment 283 payments £3,247,498

Discretionary payment 2,352 payments £1,192,842

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

My Rt Hon Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and HM Paymaster General (Michael Ellis QC MP) has today made the following statement:

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

The Government has committed to providing support for those infected and affected. Ex-gratia support has been provided to those affected by this issue since 1988. No policy discussions have taken place with the statutory Inquiry, that is independent.

As the responsible Minister for the Infected Blood Inquiry, I announced earlier this week the publication of the study by Sir Robert Francis QC into a framework of compensation for people directly affected by infected blood. Sir Robert will give evidence about his work to the Infected Blood Inquiry on 11th and 12th July. The government is considering Sir Robert’s recommendations.

Answering body: Department of Health and Social Care

The information requested on payments made between 1990 and the start of the Infected Blood Inquiry in 2017 is not held centrally.

Since 2017, support for those affected has been provided through four national infected blood support schemes. In England, the England Infected Blood Support Scheme is operated by the NHS Business Services Authority. Prior to the current scheme, support was provided by five independently operated schemes. These provided a range of lump sums, regular payments and smaller one-off payments to meet the immediate needs of individuals infected with hepatitis C or HIV, those who were co-infected and their families.

Answering body: Cabinet Office

It is important that we wait for the conclusion of the independent Infected Blood Inquiry, chaired by Sir Brian Langstaff. The Government will consider Sir Brian’s findings and recommendations once the Inquiry has reported.

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

My Rt Hon Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and HM Paymaster General (Michael Ellis QC MP) has today made the following statement:

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

I refer the Hon. Member to the Written Ministerial Statement, HCWS681, made on 15 March.

Answering body: Department of Health and Social Care

There have been no specific communications. Information about the England Infected Blood Support Scheme (EIBSS), including eligibility, is available on the NHS Business Service Authority’s website. The NHS Business Services Authority also works with a range of charities which support those infected with HIV or hepatitis C to signpost potential beneficiaries to the EIBSS. The ongoing Infected Blood Inquiry may also direct potential beneficiaries to the Scheme. Medical professionals within the National Health Service have also been made aware of the EIBSS to inform patients who may be eligible.

Answering body: Cabinet Office

I refer the hon Member to the answer I gave on 24 February to PQ 125060.

Answering body: Department of Health and Social Care

The Department has waived legal professional privilege in relation to relevant historic litigation and legal advice to the start of the Inquiry in July 2017.

Answering body: Department of Health and Social Care

The Department has waived legal professional privilege in relation to relevant historic litigation and legal advice to the start of the Inquiry in July 2017.

Answering body: Department of Health and Social Care

The Department supplied those documents requested by the Inquiry where these were retained in its archives.

Answering body: Cabinet Office

Sir Robert Francis QC is conducting a study that looks at options for a framework for compensation for people infected and affected by infected blood. The study will report to the Paymaster General with its recommendations before the Infected Blood Inquiry reports. Sir Robert will deliver his study no later than 14 March 2022. The Government will give full consideration to Sir Robert's study - which is separate from the independent public inquiry.

Answering body: Cabinet Office

My Rt. Hon. Friend, the Paymaster General (Michael Ellis QC MP), has today made the following written statement.

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.

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.

Answering body: Cabinet Office

I refer the hon. Member to my written statement of 23 Sept 2021 - the consultation closed on 9 August 2021 and the Terms of Reference for the study have now been published online. I look forward to receiving Sir Robert's recommendations.

Answering body: Cabinet Office

The timetable for the Infected Blood Inquiry is a matter for Sir Brian Langstaff, the Chair of the independent statutory Inquiry. Sir Brian has said that the work of the Inquiry will be completed as quickly as reasonable thoroughness permits - recognising that those infected and affected are still suffering today.

The Inquiry is continuing to work at pace, and will hear evidence and presentations between now and December 2021. Further details on progress can be found on the Infected Blood Inquiry website - https://www.infectedbloodinquiry.org.uk/.

Answering body: Cabinet Office

The compensation framework study will provide advice on potential compensation framework design and solutions to Government. It is important that Sir Robert Francis QC, the independent reviewer, is able to complete his work as quickly as thoroughness allows.

At the outset of the Infected Blood Inquiry, the then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster decided that it was overwhelmingly in the public interest that legal representation for infected and affected core participants in the inquiry should be funded by Government, and without means testing. This funding will continue until the conclusion of the Inquiry. However, this study is quite separate from the Inquiry. Sir Robert will want to hear directly from infected and affected people and put them at the heart of the process. Legal representation will not be required in order to put forward views.

Answering body: Cabinet Office

Work is currently underway across the government on a number of infected blood issues. I will update the House shortly on progress.

The (then) Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster wrote to the Chair of the Infected Blood Inquiry on 2 July 2018, approving legal support funding for people infected, and their families. Details of how to apply for funding are on the Inquiry’s website - Statement of Approach: Legal Representation at Public Expense.

Answering body: Cabinet Office

Work is currently underway across the government on a number of infected blood issues. I will update the House shortly on progress.

The (then) Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster wrote to the Chair of the Infected Blood Inquiry on 2 July 2018, approving legal support funding for people infected, and their families. Details of how to apply for funding are on the Inquiry’s website - Statement of Approach: Legal Representation at Public Expense.